Friday, October 14, 2016

Fraudulent or Invalid Voter Registrations Enough to Tip an Election, Easily

Sara Sosa who died in 2009 cast ballots in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Care to guess for which party she's was registered with?

This week, liberals have been repeating their frequent claim that voter fraud doesn't exist. A recent Salon article argues that “voter fraud just isn't a problem in Pennsylvania,” despite evidence to the contrary. Another article argues that voter fraud is entirely in the imagination of those who use voter ID laws to deny minorities the right to vote.
Yet as the election approaches, more and more cases of voter fraud are beginning to surface. In Colorado, multiple instances were found of dead people attempting to vote. Stunningly, “a woman named Sara Sosa who died in 2009 cast ballots in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.” In Virginia, it was found that nearly 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.
In Texas, authorities are investigating criminals who are using the technique of “vote harvesting” to illegally procure votes for their candidates. “Harvesting” is the practice of illegally obtaining the signatures of valid voters in order to vote in their name without their consent for the candidate(s) the criminal supports.
These are just some instances of voter fraud we know about. It would be silly to assume cases that have been discovered are the only cases of fraud. Indeed according to a Pew Research report from February 2012, one in eight voter registrations are “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.” Since there are 146 million Americans registered to vote, this translates to a stunning 18 million invalid voter registrations on the books. Further, “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.” Numbers of this scale obviously provide ripe opportunity for fraud.
Yet in spite of all this, a report by the Brennan Center at New York Univeristy claims voter fraud is a myth. 

The MSM Keep Plugging Away

Fishnet Friday

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Obama Wants To Make Sure Robots Are Not Racist

Just when you thought the Obama Administration couldn't get anymore ridiculous, the morons start jumping from the trees.  Obama would like to make anyone working on Artificial Intelligence to undergo racial sensitivity training. I know it must come as another shock that a liberal has a forced indoctrination social engineering agenda.

In the final months of the Obama regime, the ineffective president has entered hardcore legacy-building mode. He wasted seven and a half years being terrible at his job, but now that the end of his reign of terror is approaching, he doesn’t want to be remembered for messing up the world and the US. With ObamaCare tanking and the country coming apart at the seams, Obama needs something positive to be associated with. His bold move comes in the form of stopping racism…in robots.
The Office of the President has released a massive report titled: PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. It’s in all-caps because like an Internet troll, Obama thinks yelling makes his idiotic point more valid.
This incredibly boring report gets mildly interesting about a million pages in with the “Fairness, Safety, and Governance” section. Here we learn that AI is inherently racist:
"As AI technologies gain broader deployment, technical experts and policy analysts have raised concerns about unintended consequences. The use of AI to make consequential decisions about people, often replacing decisions made by human actors and institutions, leads to concerns about how to ensure justice, fairness, and accountability…"
Here’s the only example given to prove AI is racist, and it’s not even an example of AI:
"A commonly cited example at the workshops is the use of apparently biased “risk prediction” tools by some judges in criminal sentencing and bail hearings as well as by some prison officials in assignment and parole decisions, as detailed in an extensively researched ProPublica article. The article presented evidence suggesting that a commercial risk scoring tool used by some judges generates racially biased risk scores."
This is as dumb as it gets. Algorithms and data collection are as unbiased as things can get. Essentially he wants AI to be programmed to ignore trends and statistics that are related to people of color. That’s not artificial intelligence, that’s artificial ignorance.
Thank You MJA for the Linkage 

 Deeply Flawed, Historically Inaccurate and Epic Fail

The hype surrounding the pre-release of Nate Parker and his film The Birth of a Nation was said to be of epic proportion, that of Alex Haley's Roots. And like Haley's film series, who after his death his papers from the University of Tennessee revealed was not his family story at all, but just 95% fiction, it seems Nate Parker has taken the same deceptive route. The Birth of a Nation claims to tell the true story of Nat Turner, leader of the bloodiest slave rebellion in United States history. But it too is exaggerated, sensationalized and historically inaccurate. And like most Afro-Centric World History taught in Universities, this film is a fraud.

 Leslie M. Alexander:
"A firestorm of controversy has swirled around Nate Parker and his film The Birth of a Nation in the two months since several media outlets revealed that Parker and his co-author, Jean McGianni Celestin, stood trial for raping a young white woman in 1999........." 
"Across the country, social media lit up as people debated Parker’s guilt, questioned whether to boycott the film, and expressed outrage about violence against women. As the storm raged, however, one critical issue went ignored. No one questioned the fundamental value or truth of the film." 
"Contrary to his promises of “historical fidelity,” Parker created a deeply flawed, historically inaccurate movie that exploits and distorts Nat Turner’s story and the history of slavery in America. Nearly everything in the movie–ranging from Turner’s relationship with his family, to his life as a slave, and even the story telling of the rebellion itself–is mostly fabrication. Certainly the film contains sprinklings of historical fact, but the bulk of Parker’s story about the rebellion is fictitious: Nat Turner did not murder his owner, nor did he kill a slave patroller. Turner’s rebellion was not betrayed by a young boy, or by anyone else involved in the revolt. To the contrary, the rebels fought until the bitter end. The shootout depicted in Jerusalem, Virginia, never happened, because the rebels were stopped by the militia before they ever reached Jerusalem. The list of inaccuracies, distortions, and fabrications goes on and on."
"A crucial turning point in the movie occurs when Turner’s wife, Cherry, is brutally gang raped by a group of slave patrollers–an attack the film portrays as the spark that ultimately drove Turner to launch his rebellion. But there is not one shred of historical evidence to suggest that Cherry was ever raped by slave patrollers, nor is there any evidence to indicate that an attack on his wife inspired Turner to rebel. By all accounts, Turner took up arms against slavery because he believed slavery was morally wrong and violated the law of God........"
"I will let others speculate on the reasons why Parker and Celestin decided to fabricate a story line about rape–specifically gang rape–to spin a false tale about the motivation for Nat Turner’s rebellion. I will simply say that their story is not only untrue but it also perpetuates destructive lies about black women. Enslaved women fought for their dignity and freedom, and they exercised agency over their lives, in spite of unimaginable horrors"
"Despite Parker’s bluster about Nat Turner’s heroism and his claims to historical accuracy, he failed to provide a truthful rendering of Nat Turner’s life, his rebellion, or the experience of black people during slavery. 
As a result, Parker and Jean Celestin pimped black suffering for financial gain and proved that they have no respect for black history.  

Dr. Leslie M. Alexander is a professor in the Dept of African American Studies at Ohio State Univ. 

Your Typical Clinton Supporter......

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton

The Observer: 
According to an email from Marissa Astor, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook’s assistant, to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, the campaign knew Trump was going to run, and pushed his legitimacy as a candidate. WikiLeaks’ release shows that it was seen as in Clinton’s best interest to run against Trump in the general election. The memo, sent to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) also reveals the DNC and Clinton campaign were strategizing on behalf of their candidate at the very beginning of the primaries. “We think our goals mirror those of the DNC,” stated the memo, attached to the email under the title “muddying the waters.”
The memo named Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson as wanted candidates. “We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,” the memo noted.
Clinton was widely presumed to be the Democratic presidential nominee long before the primaries began. This assumption was held by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party leadership. Expecting Clinton to be the nominee, theDNC and Clinton campaign developed strategies for the general election.
In June, hacker Guccifer 2.0 released an opposition research dossier on Trump, dated December 19, 2015. Coincidentally, no other opposition research dossiers were released by Guccifer 2.0 from the DNC hacks.
It was in the best interest of Clinton, and therefore the Democratic Party, that Trump was the Republican presidential nominee. Polls indicated Sen. Rubio, Gov. Kasich, or almost any other establishment Republican would likely beat Clinton in a general election. Even Cruz, who is reviled by most Republicans, would still maintain the ability to rally the Republican Party—especially its wealthy donors—around his candidacy. Clinton and Democrats expected the FBI investigation into her private email server would serve as a major obstacle to Clinton’s candidacy, and the public’s familiarity with her scandals and flip-flopping political record put her at a disadvantage against a newcomer. Donald Trump solved these problems.
All the Clinton campaign had to do was push the mainstream media in the general direction of covering and attacking Trump as though he was the star of the Republican presidential primaries. As the presumed Democratic nominee, whomever she decided to dignify by responding to—whether the comments were directed at her or not—would be presumed to be the spokesperson, or nominee, of the Republican Party.
Clinton, Trump trade insults as rhetoric heats up between front-runners,” read the headline from a CNN article in September 2015. “Hillary Clinton Seizes On Donald Trump’s Remarks to Galvanize Women,” read a New York Times headline from December. Several media outlets criticized the mainstream media obsession withTrump, but despite a few concerns that the media was propping up his legitimacy as a candidate with their constant news coverage, it continued unabatedly.
The mainstream media was more than willing to do the Clinton campaign and DNC’s work for them by creating a narrative that the 2016 presidential elections was about Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.
Jeb Bush, the initial Republican frontrunner, assumed what should have been Trump’s role as the Republican Primary novelty sideshow. Sen. Bernie Sanders was blacked out of media coverage, and during the rare instances when he was discussed in mainstream media reporting, it was always under the pretenses that his candidacy was a pipe dream. 
The media gave Clinton what she wanted; impunity for the corruption, lies, and deceitfulness rampant in her political record, and an opponent who divided his own political party while driving fear and anxiety into her own to the point where enough Democrats and voters would gladly vote for her just to avoid Trump becoming president.

A Valiant Mike Loses His Battle

A Sad Day Beneath The Stately Oaks

Monday, October 10, 2016

The Nightmare the Liberal Media Sees When They Close Their Eyes at Night

Debating the Debaters 
"Last night was a vivid, real-time illustration of how the media think of the American people: 'We're really interested in how you think! So, please, come in, sit down and . . . let the professionals ask the questions.'
 Man of the people Anderson Cooper, son of Gloria Vanderbilt, and Martha Raddatz, who had President Obama as a guest at her wedding, must have panicked when ordinary Americans invited to what was billed as a Town Hall debate in St. Louis didn't ask the questions they were supposed to ask. ...
 So it went as the night wore on: For long periods of time the invited voters had as much influence on events as wallpaper. The moderators went after the candidates, mostly but not exclusively aiming their questions at Trump, repeatedly interrupting him and telling him his time was up. ...
 Voters can be forgiven if they're wondering why journalists keep mistaking themselves for the star of every show, even one that was designed to give the people a voice." - Kyle Smith, New York Post

A Good Monday Morning