16 Different Social Security Numbers
Private investigator Neil Sankey, using Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and other public records, found around 25 Social Security numbers connected with Barack Obama’s name.
However, it may not be as many as 25, since Sankey also searched using closely related names such as: “Barak Obama,” “Batock Obama,” “Barok Obama,” and “Barrack Obama.” There may very well be some Kenyans living in America with the same last name and a similar first name. In any case, I will exclude these records for the purpose of this research and focus only on names spelled exactly like his name.
Moreover, we can verify many of the Social Security numbers as valid since they’re connected to addresses at which we know Obama resided. Needless to say, there are also a slew of address and social security numbers connected to addresses in states that Obama has no known connection to.
In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one beginning with 042, and one starting 364.
In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with 999, which are not valid SSNs.
There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number beginning with 485.
In Massachusetts — where Obama attended Harvard Law School — we find three addresses, all using the 042 Social Security number. After Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2005, he moved into an apartment at 300 Massachusetts Ave NW; the Social Security number attached to that address is the 042 one.
Yet, three years later, Obama used a different Social Security number for an address listed as: 713 Hart Senate Office Building. This was the address of his United States Senate office. This Social Security number began with 282 and was verified by the government in 2008.
This mystery grows even stranger as other addresses and Social Security numbers for Barack Obama appear in a dozen other states not known to be connected to him. Again, I am excluding those records names not spelled exactly like his name.
Tennessee, one address with a Social Security number beginning with 427
Colorado, one address, with a Social Security number beginning with 456.
Utah, two addresses, with two Social Security numbers beginning with 901 and 799.
Missouri has one address and one Social Security number beginning with 999.
Florida has two addresses listed for his him, three if you count one listed as “Barry Obama.” One is connected to a Social Security number beginning with 762.
In Georgia there are three addresses listed for him, all with different Social Security numbers: 579, 420, and 423.
In Texas there are four different addresses listed for him, one is connected to Social Security number 675.
There are two addresses listed for Barack Obama in Oregon and one address listed for him in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
All told, there are 49 addresses and 16 different Social Security numbers listed for a person whose name is spelled “Barack Obama.” In some cases, the middle initial “H” is listed. If you were to expand the search to include closely related names such as: “Barac,” “Barak,” and “Barrack” Obama, you would find more than a dozen additional addresses and Social Security numbers.
Finally, the one Social Security number Obama most frequently used, the one beginning with 042, is a number issued in Connecticut sometime during 1976-1977, yet there is no record of Obama ever living or working in Connecticut. Indeed, during this time period Obama would have been 15-16 years old and living in Hawaii at the time.
Extracted from an article by Steve Baldwin. Read the whole thing here . . .
Susan Daniels, a second investigator filed an affidavit, with true and correct copies below, in the Barnett v. Obama case. Susan Daniels is a private investigator, licensed by the State of Ohio.
In her affidavit, Daniels states that she has located Barack Obama’s Social Security Number. She states it was issued between 1977 and 1979 in the State of Connecticut. She states that it is the only Social Security Number Barack Obama ever used.
The number assigned to Barack Obama “appears to be associated with someone born in the year 1890.”
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/SocialSecurity.htm
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
OBA-HUSSEIN POLICY - KILL AMERICA'S ENERGY RESOURCES TO KILL OUR NATION
Having choked off our ability to produce oil both onshore and offshore, Oba-Hussein is now shutting down our use of coal - even CLEAN coal technology. Final strangle hold on our throats to bring America down - not just to its knees but all the way down to flat on the ground.
Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu has launched the next phase of the White House’s publicly stated agenda to bankrupt the coal industry via EPA regulations after announcing the prospect of “massive” coal plant closures even as Texas and other states suffer rolling blackouts as a result of maxed-out power plants that cannot cope with demand.
The Obama administration’s strict enforcement of draconian EPA regulations has led to new clean-burning coal-fired plants being mothballed and other existing ones being shut down, which has in turn led to Texas and other states becoming energy-dependent, leading to shortages and blackouts exacerbated by freezing temperatures.
Despite White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer’s brazen lie in claiming that the blackouts are solely a result of “mechanical failures,” the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the agency that oversees the state’s power, confirmed this morning that the threat of blackouts was ongoing as a result of a “maxed out grid”.
This “maxed out grid” is a consequence of federally enforced EPA restrictions that have led to the delay, mothballing and closing down of coal-fired plants. In Texas, approval for the much-needed Las Brisas Energy Center has been delayed for 3 years as a result of EPA meddling in Texas’ energy policy.
A federal court ruling last month gave the EPA permission to proceed with greenhouse gas regulation in Texas, temporarily superseding Texas’ non-compliance with the new regulations which came into force on January 2. The White House’s claim that EPA regulations are not currently affecting Texas is a complete fabrication.
Now White House Energy Secretary Steven Chu has made it clear that “massive” amounts of coal-fired plants in the United States will be closed down over the next five to eight years.
Read More-http://is.gd/wRi3pu
Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu has launched the next phase of the White House’s publicly stated agenda to bankrupt the coal industry via EPA regulations after announcing the prospect of “massive” coal plant closures even as Texas and other states suffer rolling blackouts as a result of maxed-out power plants that cannot cope with demand.
The Obama administration’s strict enforcement of draconian EPA regulations has led to new clean-burning coal-fired plants being mothballed and other existing ones being shut down, which has in turn led to Texas and other states becoming energy-dependent, leading to shortages and blackouts exacerbated by freezing temperatures.
Despite White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer’s brazen lie in claiming that the blackouts are solely a result of “mechanical failures,” the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the agency that oversees the state’s power, confirmed this morning that the threat of blackouts was ongoing as a result of a “maxed out grid”.
This “maxed out grid” is a consequence of federally enforced EPA restrictions that have led to the delay, mothballing and closing down of coal-fired plants. In Texas, approval for the much-needed Las Brisas Energy Center has been delayed for 3 years as a result of EPA meddling in Texas’ energy policy.
A federal court ruling last month gave the EPA permission to proceed with greenhouse gas regulation in Texas, temporarily superseding Texas’ non-compliance with the new regulations which came into force on January 2. The White House’s claim that EPA regulations are not currently affecting Texas is a complete fabrication.
Now White House Energy Secretary Steven Chu has made it clear that “massive” amounts of coal-fired plants in the United States will be closed down over the next five to eight years.
Read More-http://is.gd/wRi3pu
Sunday, February 6, 2011
NEW UNIVERSAL FLU VACCINE
Flu breakthrough promises a vaccine to kill all strains ... jab targets ... every type
By Alok Jha
A team at Oxford University has had success testing a vaccine that can neuter any strain of flu virus. Photograph: Science Photo Library
The treatment ... targets a different part of the flu virus to traditional vaccines, meaning it does not need to be expensively reformulated every year to match the most prevalent virus that is circulating the world.
Developed by a team led by Dr Sarah Gilbert at Oxford's Jenner Institute, the vaccine targets proteins inside the flu virus that are common across all strains, instead of those that sit on the virus's external coat, which are liable to mutate.
If used widely a universal flu vaccine could prevent pandemics... and end the need for a seasonal flu jab.
The process of developing a seasonal vaccine takes at least four months and if the flu strain is highly pathogenic – as in 1918 when millions of people died – the delay means more people get sick and die before the vaccine is ready.
While traditional vaccines prompt the body to create antibodies, Gilbert's vaccine boosts the number of the body's T-cells, another key part of the immune system. These can identify and destroy body cells that have been infected by a virus.
Though a small study, it was significant in that it was the first vaccine of its type to be tested on people.
It is believed that the vaccine could provide better protection against flu for older people. The Jenner Institute scientists are already testing it on people over 50, a group that does not respond so well to traditional vaccines.
By Alok Jha
The treatment ... targets a different part of the flu virus to traditional vaccines, meaning it does not need to be expensively reformulated every year to match the most prevalent virus that is circulating the world.
Developed by a team led by Dr Sarah Gilbert at Oxford's Jenner Institute, the vaccine targets proteins inside the flu virus that are common across all strains, instead of those that sit on the virus's external coat, which are liable to mutate.
If used widely a universal flu vaccine could prevent pandemics... and end the need for a seasonal flu jab.
The process of developing a seasonal vaccine takes at least four months and if the flu strain is highly pathogenic – as in 1918 when millions of people died – the delay means more people get sick and die before the vaccine is ready.
While traditional vaccines prompt the body to create antibodies, Gilbert's vaccine boosts the number of the body's T-cells, another key part of the immune system. These can identify and destroy body cells that have been infected by a virus.
Though a small study, it was significant in that it was the first vaccine of its type to be tested on people.
It is believed that the vaccine could provide better protection against flu for older people. The Jenner Institute scientists are already testing it on people over 50, a group that does not respond so well to traditional vaccines.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
OBAMA'S "C" WORD "CHANGE" IS REALLY "C for CANCER"
YOU HAD CONFIDENCE IN OBAMA AND HIS CHANGE- As time goes on you may wish to revise your belief.
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
I overcame my incredulity in Nov. of 2007 when I saw what Obama brought to Nairobi, Kenya in support of the Somali Muslim Brotherhood through the Orange Party and his cousin Rial Odinga , whose campaign Obama ran and supported.
The result was 15,000 genocidal deaths; and so the pattern of Obama liberal fascist “into the steets” continues in Cairo, in the cause of a false democratic movement.Its all about the subjugation of our weaker US allies by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Obama’s goals are strategic.
And to think that Obama has the power to order the US Marines into the middle of his fiascos. I shudder.
These links describe Obama’s role perfectly in the liberal fascist movement centered in Chicago and now resident in Washington.Obama may indeed be stupid, but not in the way you might think. I think he is stupid for traducing the entire Western Alliance.It is only a matter of time before Obama turns this same method on his political opponents here at home. Will you be strong enough to stay the course
of liberty?
ex-CIA Agent Reveals: “Muslim Brotherhood” has infiltrated Obama Administration ( excellent video summary):
http://notalemming.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/ex-cia-agent-reveals-muslim-brotherhood-has-infiltrated-obama-administration/
*********************************************
Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
They fear that the development and building of People’s (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
- Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199
When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasn’t hard then to see in Alinsky’s programs at home, elements of the people’s revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same “in your face” tactics being employed by Hitler’s Brownshirts.
What Alinsky’s critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people’s organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.
While most modern Americans remember well Hitler’s Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results. In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of its millions of callous murders.
This post-WWII propaganda coup undeniably set the stage for the early Alinsky critics’ most feared eventuality, that the massive organizations could be shrewdly adopted by a fascist demagogue, someone who could “seize leadership and control” and turn them into a “Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
But perhaps the most cunning propaganda feat in history has been undertaken for the past 8 years. As Jonah Goldberg expertly expounds in his book, Liberal Fascism, American left-wing ideologues have managed to dissociate themselves from all the horrors of fascism with a “brilliant rhetorical maneuver.” They’ve done it by “claiming that their opponents are the fascists.”
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’ And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”
In what may eventually prove to be a devious rhetorical feat of monstrous proportions, while the left has been indulging and fostering the “Bush Is Hitler” meme, they may have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House.
There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.
Obama, the Closer
As I put forth last year in “Obama, the Closer”, Barack Obama, did not start his movement; Alinsky did.
Nor did Obama amass the organizations that propelled him. As detailed by Heidi J. Swarts, in her book, Organizing Urban America, the movement begun by Saul Alinsky in the 1930s has morphed into thousands of secular and faith-based leftist political organizations. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has perhaps the highest public profile, is most reputed for radicalism, and is the organization with which Barack Obama was first aligned. But ACORN is the mere tip of a veritable iceberg of Alinsky-styled community organizations that sweep across the entire United States and make up the backbone of faith-based progressive movements as well.
These euphemistically called “community” organizations have next to nothing to do with improving the communities and everything to do with politics, primarily strong-arming government money to advance their political aims.
Prior to Reagan’s election, these groups worked independently for the most part, each seeking to effect local change towards leftist ends.
But with Reagan’s victory, ACORN founding member Wade Rathke sent out a memo (published by Swarts; Organizing Urban America; p. 29) that would reverberate all the way to Barack Obama’s moment. ACORN had been behaving as a sort of “Lone Ranger of the Left” for too long, wrote Rathke. Ronald Reagan had formed a coalition among the middle-class that threatened to bring greater prosperity without left-wing Statists calling the shots. Rathke put out the call to the ACORN troops to stop antagonizing those who would be allies, especially unions and church organizations, once shunned by ACORN as too placid for the real fight for power. For the next 25 years, the community organization network built, proliferated and formed a solid, nation-wide base of political strength, purely according to Alinsky’s original vision, and all just waiting for the right candidate to tap into it and lead it.
When folks from all corners of America proclaimed, seemingly with one voice, Barack is the “One we’ve been waiting for,” they were speaking out of the vast Alinsky-originated network.
Neither did Barack Obama invent the political “ideology of change,” nor design its carefully crafted propaganda. While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans. That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.
Barack Obama is merely the movement’s closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter.
Alinsky’s Ideology of Change: The Third Way
Goldberg fastidiously notes the comparison between Alinsky’s “in your face” rules for radicals, studied and perfected by Barack Obama, and shows them to have profoundly fascist roots:
“...there’s no disputing that vast swaths of his (Alinsky’s) writings are indistinguishable from the fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s...His worldview is distinctly fascistic.
Life is defined by war, contests of power, the imposition of will.
Moreover, Alinsky shares with the fascists and pragmatists of yore a bedrock hostility to dogma. All he believes in are the desired ends of the movement, which he regards as the source of life’s meaning...But what comes through most is his unbridled love of power. Power is a good in its own right for Alinsky. Ours ‘is a world not of angels but of angles,’ he proclaims in Rules for Radicals, ‘where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”
Saul Alinsky was the man who transformed politics in America into all-out war mode. Alinsky’s tenth rule of the ethics of means: “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” All’s fair in love and war, and politics, to Alinsky, was war.
“A People’s (community) Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service’s ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people. It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.”
Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133
Alinsky includes an entire section in Rules for Radicals on “The Ideology of Change.” The watchword of the Obama campaign was “change.” Just as Hitler mobilized the masses with a calculatingly undefined demand for “change,” so did Alinsky disciple, Barack Obama.
“Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!,” Hitler’s own campaign slogan, morphed into “Unite for Change,” and the Obama transition team’s change.gov. Even the idea of a vast “movement” was borrowed from Hitler. As Goldberg states, Hitler used the phrase, “the Movement,” more than 200 times in Mein Kampf.
The word ‘movement’ itself is instructive. Movement, unlike progress, doesn’t imply a fixed destination. Rather, it takes it as a given that any change is better.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 176)
Perhaps the most intoxicating allure to the fascist demagogue and his movement for undefined change is its misleadingly conciliatory flavor. Barack Obama continually, throughout his campaign and even now, portrays himself as the Third Way between the cantankerous factions that have polarized America for the past 80 years, since liberal fascism took root as the Progressive Movement.
Obama claimed that Bush was too much the ideologue, that his policies were driven by the Christian right, involved “false choices” between all-out war on the one hand and diplomacy on the other, between the welfare state and cold-hearted, do-nothing conservatism, between absolute sovereignty and cowardly submission to the global community, between doing all and doing nothing. And if any of this gibberish were a true reflection of our political disagreements, Obama would be somewhat correct. But as any sentient person knows, this radical presentation of Obama’s is absolutely false. That gets lost, though, in the leader’s conciliatory tone.
What must not get lost, however, is the very real fact that this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA. As Alinsky described his own “Ideology of Change,” the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is one’s end intention to do something good.
As Hitler, before Alinsky, proclaimed, “Our program is to govern,” not delve into theory and dogma. This is in itself very appealing, especially to an electorate sick of the contentiousness of the past decade. This undefined “ideology of change” for the sake of change, for some action that will break through the roadblocks of polarization, has tremendous allure.
But Goldberg bursts that bubble:
The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices -‘I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they - like communist and heretical Christian movements — assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 130)
Of course, thinking people — when they are indeed thinking — know this is an utterly false promise. Life will never be made perfect because all human beings are imperfect.
Unity, the Diabolical Lure
What of this longed-for unity then? Barack Obama proclaimed he was leading a movement of people “united for change.” What is the appeal of unity?
The modern liberal fascist seeks that state between mother and child which exists early on before the child seeks his own independence, before mother must set herself at odds with him. It is the perfectly secure state of childhood where all is lovely and peaceful and nurturing, but cannot continue indefinitely if the child is to be prepared to face a world of difficulty and hard choices. Nevertheless, the yearning continues. It is this primordial yearning which sets itself in the crosshairs of the fascist demagogue.
But in adult life, this type of unity is anything but desirable, anything but virtuous. As Goldberg states, however, “elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.”
The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many. But as Goldberg also reminds us, “unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink.”
Rampaging mobs are unified. The Mafia is unified. Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments. Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.
Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality. For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises - of class, nation, or race - and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 172)
Just as the healthy relationship between parent and developing child demands friction, so does the healthy relationship between truly liberal citizens. Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.
Fascism: The Two Birds with One Stone Approach
I think of Obama’s liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone. It is a deviously appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.
And, indeed this was the precise goal of Adolph Hitler. Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the “common good,” and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the people’s dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).
[Note: Hitler’s Holocaust was based on the Progressive Eugenics principles set forth by Social Darwinist scientists and social engineers of the 1920s, widely accepted both in Europe and in the United States. Religion was not at the core of the Holocaust; race was. However, Hitler’s other chief aim was to destroy the Judeo/Christian religions, which he believed had ruined the Germanic race’s world predominance.]
Of course, as the German people were duped into giving Hitler totalitarian powers to work his magic “change,” he took off the kid gloves and accelerated the program.
In the end, however slow the process, however seemingly benign the growth of the state may seem, liberal fascism has the same result of all tyrannies before it: hell on earth for most and a self-indulgent feast for the Statists in power.
As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember. Remember.
When Barack Obama promises “collective redemption” through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon.
We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for one’s soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.
As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
Be not fooled, America. The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil. It’s a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn’t change a thing.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com .
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
I overcame my incredulity in Nov. of 2007 when I saw what Obama brought to Nairobi, Kenya in support of the Somali Muslim Brotherhood through the Orange Party and his cousin Rial Odinga , whose campaign Obama ran and supported.
The result was 15,000 genocidal deaths; and so the pattern of Obama liberal fascist “into the steets” continues in Cairo, in the cause of a false democratic movement.Its all about the subjugation of our weaker US allies by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Obama’s goals are strategic.
And to think that Obama has the power to order the US Marines into the middle of his fiascos. I shudder.
These links describe Obama’s role perfectly in the liberal fascist movement centered in Chicago and now resident in Washington.Obama may indeed be stupid, but not in the way you might think. I think he is stupid for traducing the entire Western Alliance.It is only a matter of time before Obama turns this same method on his political opponents here at home. Will you be strong enough to stay the course
of liberty?
ex-CIA Agent Reveals: “Muslim Brotherhood” has infiltrated Obama Administration ( excellent video summary):
http://notalemming.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/ex-cia-agent-reveals-muslim-brotherhood-has-infiltrated-obama-administration/
*********************************************
Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
They fear that the development and building of People’s (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
- Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199
When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasn’t hard then to see in Alinsky’s programs at home, elements of the people’s revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same “in your face” tactics being employed by Hitler’s Brownshirts.
What Alinsky’s critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people’s organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.
While most modern Americans remember well Hitler’s Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results. In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of its millions of callous murders.
This post-WWII propaganda coup undeniably set the stage for the early Alinsky critics’ most feared eventuality, that the massive organizations could be shrewdly adopted by a fascist demagogue, someone who could “seize leadership and control” and turn them into a “Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
But perhaps the most cunning propaganda feat in history has been undertaken for the past 8 years. As Jonah Goldberg expertly expounds in his book, Liberal Fascism, American left-wing ideologues have managed to dissociate themselves from all the horrors of fascism with a “brilliant rhetorical maneuver.” They’ve done it by “claiming that their opponents are the fascists.”
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’ And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”
In what may eventually prove to be a devious rhetorical feat of monstrous proportions, while the left has been indulging and fostering the “Bush Is Hitler” meme, they may have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House.
There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.
Obama, the Closer
As I put forth last year in “Obama, the Closer”, Barack Obama, did not start his movement; Alinsky did.
Nor did Obama amass the organizations that propelled him. As detailed by Heidi J. Swarts, in her book, Organizing Urban America, the movement begun by Saul Alinsky in the 1930s has morphed into thousands of secular and faith-based leftist political organizations. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has perhaps the highest public profile, is most reputed for radicalism, and is the organization with which Barack Obama was first aligned. But ACORN is the mere tip of a veritable iceberg of Alinsky-styled community organizations that sweep across the entire United States and make up the backbone of faith-based progressive movements as well.
These euphemistically called “community” organizations have next to nothing to do with improving the communities and everything to do with politics, primarily strong-arming government money to advance their political aims.
Prior to Reagan’s election, these groups worked independently for the most part, each seeking to effect local change towards leftist ends.
But with Reagan’s victory, ACORN founding member Wade Rathke sent out a memo (published by Swarts; Organizing Urban America; p. 29) that would reverberate all the way to Barack Obama’s moment. ACORN had been behaving as a sort of “Lone Ranger of the Left” for too long, wrote Rathke. Ronald Reagan had formed a coalition among the middle-class that threatened to bring greater prosperity without left-wing Statists calling the shots. Rathke put out the call to the ACORN troops to stop antagonizing those who would be allies, especially unions and church organizations, once shunned by ACORN as too placid for the real fight for power. For the next 25 years, the community organization network built, proliferated and formed a solid, nation-wide base of political strength, purely according to Alinsky’s original vision, and all just waiting for the right candidate to tap into it and lead it.
When folks from all corners of America proclaimed, seemingly with one voice, Barack is the “One we’ve been waiting for,” they were speaking out of the vast Alinsky-originated network.
Neither did Barack Obama invent the political “ideology of change,” nor design its carefully crafted propaganda. While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans. That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.
Barack Obama is merely the movement’s closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter.
Alinsky’s Ideology of Change: The Third Way
Goldberg fastidiously notes the comparison between Alinsky’s “in your face” rules for radicals, studied and perfected by Barack Obama, and shows them to have profoundly fascist roots:
“...there’s no disputing that vast swaths of his (Alinsky’s) writings are indistinguishable from the fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s...His worldview is distinctly fascistic.
Life is defined by war, contests of power, the imposition of will.
Moreover, Alinsky shares with the fascists and pragmatists of yore a bedrock hostility to dogma. All he believes in are the desired ends of the movement, which he regards as the source of life’s meaning...But what comes through most is his unbridled love of power. Power is a good in its own right for Alinsky. Ours ‘is a world not of angels but of angles,’ he proclaims in Rules for Radicals, ‘where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”
Saul Alinsky was the man who transformed politics in America into all-out war mode. Alinsky’s tenth rule of the ethics of means: “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” All’s fair in love and war, and politics, to Alinsky, was war.
“A People’s (community) Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service’s ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people. It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.”
Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133
Alinsky includes an entire section in Rules for Radicals on “The Ideology of Change.” The watchword of the Obama campaign was “change.” Just as Hitler mobilized the masses with a calculatingly undefined demand for “change,” so did Alinsky disciple, Barack Obama.
“Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!,” Hitler’s own campaign slogan, morphed into “Unite for Change,” and the Obama transition team’s change.gov. Even the idea of a vast “movement” was borrowed from Hitler. As Goldberg states, Hitler used the phrase, “the Movement,” more than 200 times in Mein Kampf.
The word ‘movement’ itself is instructive. Movement, unlike progress, doesn’t imply a fixed destination. Rather, it takes it as a given that any change is better.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 176)
Perhaps the most intoxicating allure to the fascist demagogue and his movement for undefined change is its misleadingly conciliatory flavor. Barack Obama continually, throughout his campaign and even now, portrays himself as the Third Way between the cantankerous factions that have polarized America for the past 80 years, since liberal fascism took root as the Progressive Movement.
Obama claimed that Bush was too much the ideologue, that his policies were driven by the Christian right, involved “false choices” between all-out war on the one hand and diplomacy on the other, between the welfare state and cold-hearted, do-nothing conservatism, between absolute sovereignty and cowardly submission to the global community, between doing all and doing nothing. And if any of this gibberish were a true reflection of our political disagreements, Obama would be somewhat correct. But as any sentient person knows, this radical presentation of Obama’s is absolutely false. That gets lost, though, in the leader’s conciliatory tone.
What must not get lost, however, is the very real fact that this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA. As Alinsky described his own “Ideology of Change,” the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is one’s end intention to do something good.
As Hitler, before Alinsky, proclaimed, “Our program is to govern,” not delve into theory and dogma. This is in itself very appealing, especially to an electorate sick of the contentiousness of the past decade. This undefined “ideology of change” for the sake of change, for some action that will break through the roadblocks of polarization, has tremendous allure.
But Goldberg bursts that bubble:
The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices -‘I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they - like communist and heretical Christian movements — assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 130)
Of course, thinking people — when they are indeed thinking — know this is an utterly false promise. Life will never be made perfect because all human beings are imperfect.
Unity, the Diabolical Lure
What of this longed-for unity then? Barack Obama proclaimed he was leading a movement of people “united for change.” What is the appeal of unity?
The modern liberal fascist seeks that state between mother and child which exists early on before the child seeks his own independence, before mother must set herself at odds with him. It is the perfectly secure state of childhood where all is lovely and peaceful and nurturing, but cannot continue indefinitely if the child is to be prepared to face a world of difficulty and hard choices. Nevertheless, the yearning continues. It is this primordial yearning which sets itself in the crosshairs of the fascist demagogue.
But in adult life, this type of unity is anything but desirable, anything but virtuous. As Goldberg states, however, “elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.”
The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many. But as Goldberg also reminds us, “unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink.”
Rampaging mobs are unified. The Mafia is unified. Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments. Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.
Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality. For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises - of class, nation, or race - and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 172)
Just as the healthy relationship between parent and developing child demands friction, so does the healthy relationship between truly liberal citizens. Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.
Fascism: The Two Birds with One Stone Approach
I think of Obama’s liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone. It is a deviously appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.
And, indeed this was the precise goal of Adolph Hitler. Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the “common good,” and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the people’s dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).
[Note: Hitler’s Holocaust was based on the Progressive Eugenics principles set forth by Social Darwinist scientists and social engineers of the 1920s, widely accepted both in Europe and in the United States. Religion was not at the core of the Holocaust; race was. However, Hitler’s other chief aim was to destroy the Judeo/Christian religions, which he believed had ruined the Germanic race’s world predominance.]
Of course, as the German people were duped into giving Hitler totalitarian powers to work his magic “change,” he took off the kid gloves and accelerated the program.
In the end, however slow the process, however seemingly benign the growth of the state may seem, liberal fascism has the same result of all tyrannies before it: hell on earth for most and a self-indulgent feast for the Statists in power.
As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember. Remember.
When Barack Obama promises “collective redemption” through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon.
We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for one’s soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.
As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
Be not fooled, America. The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil. It’s a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn’t change a thing.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com .
Saturday, January 29, 2011
NO EARMARKS = POWER GRAB!
Ban on “Earmarks” Called “Power Grab”
A Semi-News/Semi-Satire from AzConservative ^ | 29 Jan 2011 | John Semmens
President Barack Obama’s pledge to veto legislation containing so-called “earmarks” has so rankled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) that he has vowed “to fight to my last breath against this power grab.”
“The President isn’t the only one who gets to say who will be on the receiving end of government spending,” Reid said. “All of us who must face the voters need campaign donations if we’re to be reelected. Channeling federal dollars to the businesses and interest groups who fill our campaign coffers is the payback that’s expected from these donors.
Without it their incentive to give will dry up.”
Reid said he wasn’t entirely unsympathetic to “the President’s desire to focus the gratitude of potential donors on his own bid for reelection in 2012. I mean, raising a billion dollar campaign fund is a huge task. But trying to hog it all for himself overlooks the fact that he needs Congress’ support to govern.
He’s not going to get that support from a body comprised of legislators who are forced to run on their merits alone.”
“Without the quid pro quo of earmarks we’ll likely end up with a Congress controlled by Tea Party fanatics,” Reid warned. “Which, I would think is about the last thing we all want to have happen.”
Alan note: Speak for yourself Harry! Many wouldn't mind at all.
A Semi-News/Semi-Satire from AzConservative ^ | 29 Jan 2011 | John Semmens
President Barack Obama’s pledge to veto legislation containing so-called “earmarks” has so rankled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) that he has vowed “to fight to my last breath against this power grab.”
“The President isn’t the only one who gets to say who will be on the receiving end of government spending,” Reid said. “All of us who must face the voters need campaign donations if we’re to be reelected. Channeling federal dollars to the businesses and interest groups who fill our campaign coffers is the payback that’s expected from these donors.
Without it their incentive to give will dry up.”
Reid said he wasn’t entirely unsympathetic to “the President’s desire to focus the gratitude of potential donors on his own bid for reelection in 2012. I mean, raising a billion dollar campaign fund is a huge task. But trying to hog it all for himself overlooks the fact that he needs Congress’ support to govern.
He’s not going to get that support from a body comprised of legislators who are forced to run on their merits alone.”
“Without the quid pro quo of earmarks we’ll likely end up with a Congress controlled by Tea Party fanatics,” Reid warned. “Which, I would think is about the last thing we all want to have happen.”
Alan note: Speak for yourself Harry! Many wouldn't mind at all.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
OBAMA 5-YEAR SPENDING FREEZE IS DEFICIT PRESERVATION!
Fox News ^ | January 26, 2011
President Obama's pledge to freeze some federal spending for five years was met with yawns Wednesday from a slew of fiscally minded Republicans who say that if the president is serious about tackling the national debt, he'll have to do a lot better than that.
Congressional Republicans want to see deep cuts in the budget, as demonstrated by a GOP proposal last week to slash $2.5 trillion over the next decade and a proposal Tuesday from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut $500 billion in one year.
Their calls to dismantle entire agencies and departments might not get much bipartisan support. But by comparison, the president's call to freeze domestic spending for five years, yielding a projected savings of $400 billion over a decade, looked too tame to many lawmakers.
"We're continuing to spend at a deficit level, so if we do that for the next five years, we'll continue to add to our debt," Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., told Fox News. "The reality of his speech last night is very difficult to imagine."
President Obama's pledge to freeze some federal spending for five years was met with yawns Wednesday from a slew of fiscally minded Republicans who say that if the president is serious about tackling the national debt, he'll have to do a lot better than that.
Congressional Republicans want to see deep cuts in the budget, as demonstrated by a GOP proposal last week to slash $2.5 trillion over the next decade and a proposal Tuesday from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut $500 billion in one year.
Their calls to dismantle entire agencies and departments might not get much bipartisan support. But by comparison, the president's call to freeze domestic spending for five years, yielding a projected savings of $400 billion over a decade, looked too tame to many lawmakers.
"We're continuing to spend at a deficit level, so if we do that for the next five years, we'll continue to add to our debt," Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., told Fox News. "The reality of his speech last night is very difficult to imagine."
Friday, January 14, 2011
DRIVE SAFELY AND OBEY THE RULES
Having noticed a huge increase in the police presence in the streets and lots of traffic stops - including of pedestrians, it i interesting to note the cost of fines.
California needs money, so pay close attention to the rules of the road!
HUGE California Traffic Tickets Fines
California State
Effective 01/06/2011
Please be extremely careful in your driving and car registration/ insurance matters. State of California is broke and they are trying hard to squeeze all of us hard to collect money.
Effective immediately, if you do not stop at the red light, be ready to pay $436 in fines or if you pass a school bus with flashing red signals, you will be charged $616. The state of California is going for blood, so be extra careful in driving, You cannot afford messing with them. I have been hearing that Highway Patrols are under pressure to issue a lot more tickets than last year with at least 30% increase in fines over 2009, so beware of radar guns, highway and traffic cameras installed everywhere and the tougher enforcement of parking rules.
Just for your info, the next time you park in the handicapped zone, even for a minute, you will be looking at almost $ 1000 in parking tickets , so it'd better be worth it.
California needs money, so pay close attention to the rules of the road!
Traffic Ticket Fines (Effective 01/06/2011)
VC 12814.6 $214 Failure to obey license provisions.
VC 14600(A) $214 Failure to notify DMV of address change within 10 days
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
VC 16028(A) $796 Failure to provide evidence of financial responsibility (insurance)
Note: This fine may be reduced with proof of insurance on or after the violation date.
VC 21453(A) $436 Failure to stop at a red signal.
VC 22349 $214 Unsafe speed, 1 to 15 miles over the limit.
VC 22350 $328 Unsafe speed, 16 to 25 miles over the limit.
VC 22450 $214 Failure to stop at a stop sign.
VC 22454(A) $616 Passing a school bus with flashing red signals.
VC 23123(A) $148 Driving while using a wireless phone not hands free, first offense .
I know someone who got this and it ending up being $274
VC 23123(B) $256 Driving while using a wireless phone not hands free, each subsequent offense.
VC 23123.5 $148 Driving while using a wireless device to send, read or write text.
VC 23124 $148 Minor driving while using a wireless phone.
VC 22500 $976 Parking in a bus loading area.
VC 22507(A) $976 Violation of disabled parking provisions, first offense.
VC 22507(B) $1876 Violation of disabled parking provisions, second offense.
VC 26708 $178 Unlawful material on vehicle windows.
VC 27150 $178 Adequate muffler required.
VC 27315 $148 Mandatory use of seat belts.
VC 27360 $436 Mandatory use of passenger child restraints.
Note: This fine may be reduced by completing a court authorized child seat diversion program .
VC 27400 $178 Headsets or Earplugs covering both ears.
VC 27803 $178 Violation of motorcycle safety helmet requirements.
VC 34506 $616 Commercial Driver - Log book violation.
VC 4000 $256 No evidence of current registration.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
VC 4159 $178 Notify DMV of change of address within 10 days.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
VC 5200 $178 Proper display of license plates.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
.
VC 9400 $178 Commercial weight fees due.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction
Look out for the money grabbers in Sacramento but don‘t always blame the cops. They don’t set the fines or collect them BUT they can use "selective/biased" judgment - not usually in your favor - in writing the tickets! There are a few bad apples among the otherwise dedicated forces and the most prominent "hardliners" are the motorcycle ones. Their total reason for being is traffic, so there is no offset in their duty mindsets and what denotes doing their job well.
One very common habit is to write up speed ticket swith a speed of more than 15 miles over the posted limit - for instance claiming the radar gun showed a speed of 51 repeat 51 miles in a 35 mile zone to hike the fine amount.
VC 22349 $214 Unsafe speed, 1 to 15 miles over the limit.
VC 22350 $328 Unsafe speed, 16 to 25 miles over the limit.
They have no obligation to show you any proof of the speed registered on their radar or similar instrument at the stop so it is what they say it is. If urged to meet a "quota" or a minimum number of stops during their shift by their city or superiors, they often behave as we fallible humans do.
A survey of speeding traffic tickets issued across California would probably amaze the researcher as to how high this "over 15" percentage proves to be! And the huge difference in revenue this engenders. (With less work for the pressured officers, who after all are human beings not saints).
California needs money, so pay close attention to the rules of the road!
HUGE California Traffic Tickets Fines
California State
Effective 01/06/2011
Please be extremely careful in your driving and car registration/ insurance matters. State of California is broke and they are trying hard to squeeze all of us hard to collect money.
Effective immediately, if you do not stop at the red light, be ready to pay $436 in fines or if you pass a school bus with flashing red signals, you will be charged $616. The state of California is going for blood, so be extra careful in driving, You cannot afford messing with them. I have been hearing that Highway Patrols are under pressure to issue a lot more tickets than last year with at least 30% increase in fines over 2009, so beware of radar guns, highway and traffic cameras installed everywhere and the tougher enforcement of parking rules.
Just for your info, the next time you park in the handicapped zone, even for a minute, you will be looking at almost $ 1000 in parking tickets , so it'd better be worth it.
California needs money, so pay close attention to the rules of the road!
Traffic Ticket Fines (Effective 01/06/2011)
VC 12814.6 $214 Failure to obey license provisions.
VC 14600(A) $214 Failure to notify DMV of address change within 10 days
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
VC 16028(A) $796 Failure to provide evidence of financial responsibility (insurance)
Note: This fine may be reduced with proof of insurance on or after the violation date.
VC 21453(A) $436 Failure to stop at a red signal.
VC 22349 $214 Unsafe speed, 1 to 15 miles over the limit.
VC 22350 $328 Unsafe speed, 16 to 25 miles over the limit.
VC 22450 $214 Failure to stop at a stop sign.
VC 22454(A) $616 Passing a school bus with flashing red signals.
VC 23123(A) $148 Driving while using a wireless phone not hands free, first offense .
I know someone who got this and it ending up being $274
VC 23123(B) $256 Driving while using a wireless phone not hands free, each subsequent offense.
VC 23123.5 $148 Driving while using a wireless device to send, read or write text.
VC 23124 $148 Minor driving while using a wireless phone.
VC 22500 $976 Parking in a bus loading area.
VC 22507(A) $976 Violation of disabled parking provisions, first offense.
VC 22507(B) $1876 Violation of disabled parking provisions, second offense.
VC 26708 $178 Unlawful material on vehicle windows.
VC 27150 $178 Adequate muffler required.
VC 27315 $148 Mandatory use of seat belts.
VC 27360 $436 Mandatory use of passenger child restraints.
Note: This fine may be reduced by completing a court authorized child seat diversion program .
VC 27400 $178 Headsets or Earplugs covering both ears.
VC 27803 $178 Violation of motorcycle safety helmet requirements.
VC 34506 $616 Commercial Driver - Log book violation.
VC 4000 $256 No evidence of current registration.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
VC 4159 $178 Notify DMV of change of address within 10 days.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
VC 5200 $178 Proper display of license plates.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
.
VC 9400 $178 Commercial weight fees due.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction
Look out for the money grabbers in Sacramento but don‘t always blame the cops. They don’t set the fines or collect them BUT they can use "selective/biased" judgment - not usually in your favor - in writing the tickets! There are a few bad apples among the otherwise dedicated forces and the most prominent "hardliners" are the motorcycle ones. Their total reason for being is traffic, so there is no offset in their duty mindsets and what denotes doing their job well.
One very common habit is to write up speed ticket swith a speed of more than 15 miles over the posted limit - for instance claiming the radar gun showed a speed of 51 repeat 51 miles in a 35 mile zone to hike the fine amount.
VC 22349 $214 Unsafe speed, 1 to 15 miles over the limit.
VC 22350 $328 Unsafe speed, 16 to 25 miles over the limit.
They have no obligation to show you any proof of the speed registered on their radar or similar instrument at the stop so it is what they say it is. If urged to meet a "quota" or a minimum number of stops during their shift by their city or superiors, they often behave as we fallible humans do.
A survey of speeding traffic tickets issued across California would probably amaze the researcher as to how high this "over 15" percentage proves to be! And the huge difference in revenue this engenders. (With less work for the pressured officers, who after all are human beings not saints).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
