Feeds:
Posts
Comments

VoterIP-banner

SOURCE

 

 

APRIL 2, 2014–Raleigh–Up to 765 voters have voted in both NC and at least one other state according to a report titled, “Presentation to Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee,” briefed to the committee today at the Legislative Office Building.

“This confirms our deepest concerns,” said Jay DeLancy, Executive Director of the Voter Integrity Project of NC. “We always knew that if the State Board of Elections cared to investigate such matters, they would find ample evidence of voter fraud.”

according to the briefing, the 756 voters included the following supporting evidence: Exact match of first and last name, date of birth and last four of their Social Security Number.

“The big bombshell today is that you have documented voter fraud,” said Representative Tim Moore (R) Cleveland County. “This is proof positive that voter fraud has occurred. It is just as much voter suppression if votes are being cast fraudulently and illegally as it is when votes are not being cast. I’m afraid what you’ve found, Mrs. Strach, is the tip of the iceberg.”

Another 37,750 voters “with FIRST AND LAST NAME AND DOB match that are registered in NC and another state and voted in both 2012 general election[s],” the report said.

The information was obtained by the State Board of Elections in response to Legislative prodding (HB 589) that required the BOE to start cooperating with other states who are part of the so-called “Kansas Consortium,” created by Kansas Secretary of State Chris Kobach.

“Twenty-eight states are involved in this process,” according to Kim Strach, SBOE Executive Director, “but Florida dropped out of the process at the last minute.”

The Voter Integrity Project has already received confirmation that the NC Board of Election agreed to make criminal referrals for five voters whom VIP-NC reported to the Board in early 2013. Thus far, none of them have been prosecuted by any applicable District Attorneys.

“These numbers are shocking,” said Senator Tom Goolsby (R-New Hanover) “and we haven’t even made criminal referrals from the fraud uncovered during the 2012 election and another election is right around the corner.”

Goolsby challenged the local District Attorneys to begin enforcement of these laws to the fullest extent.

“For years now, we’ve heard that a lack of prosecution somehow proves there is no voter fraud,” said DeLancy, “but the outstanding work of North Carolina’s Board of Elections and the state Legislature has finally put the truth to that lie.”

DeLancy had harsh words for extreme left-wing organizations who lash out against advocates of voter ID.

“Progressives use that circular reasoning in order to prevent any real discussion of election reform,” he said. “Instead, they want to brand anybody advocating for reform as a racist or as a hater of the homeless.”

The NAACP and the League of Women Voters have filed suit against North Carolina to prevent safeguards like voter ID and an end to same-day registration (and voting) during Early Voting.

“It’s a simple problem,” said Committee co-Chair, Senator Bob Rucho (R-Meck), ”if you don’t look for it, you won’t find it,”

###

[Note the hearing is still ongoing as this report is being filed. We will post the committee report as soon as it is made available.]

     

     

UPDATE: April 8, 2014

http://voterintegrityproject.com/double-voting/

“To date, only 28 states participate in the Cross-Check Program, accounting for about 40% of the voting population! The numbers for fraud and suspected fraud would be dramatically higher if all 50 states were to participate!”

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Second Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Fourteen.


This post is an editorial by Jodi Riddleberger.

BrannonJodiNewsRecordEditorial

http://www.news-record.com/opinion/columns/article_339157f6-aaf3-11e3-8cb2-0017a43b2370.html

The untold side of the Brannon case -  Jodi Riddleberger | Posted March 16, 2014

 By Jodi Riddleberger

 In the game of politics, perception is reality. Truth is an afterthought. And much of the mainstream media are more than happy to spin, omit and deceive in order to propagate their progressive political agenda.

 Take, for example, the recent attention Republican Senate hopeful Dr. Greg Brannon received as he had his day in court. If you only read what some of the larger news organizations published about the civil case, you might have thought Brannon enjoyed kicking puppies in his spare time. There’s more to this story, though, and it might be news to you, although it’s not news to those who’ve turned to alternative information sources in their pursuit of truth. Reliable blog posts and Internet talk radio shows have proven they give a broader perspective on the happenings of Brannon’s civil case.

 Pete Kaliner, a North Carolina radio talk show host, spent an hour with Robert Rice , the CEO of the tech company that the lawsuit centered around. There were 15 investors who lost money when the start-up went belly-up — including Brannon himself and the civil case’s two plaintiffs, Sam Lampuri and Larry Piazza. In the interview, Rice painted Piazza as quite the bully and said that Piazza promised to “ruin” Brannon’s run for the Senate. Of the 15, Lampuri and Piazza were the only two investors who decided to pursue a civil case.

 Brannon had been nothing more than a sort of “cheerleader” for the tech firm and had shared information with prospective investors. It’s reported that Brannon and Piazza had been long-time friends, so when the deal fell through, Brannon felt terrible. In fact, Brannon offered to reimburse Piazza, by cashing in his own 401K. Did Piazza take the offer? No, he did not. For some reason, Piazza refused the offer, but then decided to take the matter to court.

Source to the link the provided above:  http://www.wwnc.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/brannon-codefendant-ruling-defies-logic-12094947/

 In the aforementioned interview, Rice said Brannon was the least involved in the company — he simply shared information and was a proponent of the new product. Yet Brannon was the only one found liable in court (for misleading the plaintiffs), even though there were two other defendants. How is that possible?

 Promising to “ruin” someone, demanding a dispute be settled in court and specifically targeting Brannon would suggest that there is indeed a story behind the story.

 In his Daily Haymaker article (http://dailyhaymaker.com/?p=7230), Brandt Clifton questions whether the jury’s liable decision was a consequence of confusion. “Brannon’s fate may have been sealed thanks to the manner in which the judge answered some jury questions … The judge refused the jury’s request to review the transcript of defendant John Cummings’ testimony. … The jurors also came back with another cryptic question: “Does not testifying mean omission?” The judge and the lawyers for both parties appeared taken aback. Did they mean “admission”? Was the jury suggesting that not testifying was equivalent to admitting that you are guilty? The judge responded by reading the dictionary definition of “omission.” … The jurors returned a short time later with a verdict form that showed them first voting to find Brannon not liable. That was crossed out, and replaced with a finding of liability.”

Brannon hasn’t been very vocal about the case since the verdict was read. But, he has said, “I completely disagree with this verdict and feel that I was treated unfairly by the court. I will defend my integrity and will be appealing this decision.” This is a process that could last up to a year.

It would appear that Brannon didn’t take the stand in his own defense because his legal team was certain such a frivolous civil case would be easy to win — that the plaintiffs case was a bit of a joke. It’s no laughing matter at this point, though. Brannon has been a forerunner in the Republican primary for months, garnering major supporters and endorsements along the way.

It’s nice to think that the facts will eventually prevail. For the moment, however, the full story is known only by those who seek it fervently.

Greensboro resident Jodi Riddleberger, a founder of Conservatives for Guilford County, is a News & Record Town Square community columnist.

Jodi Riddleberger

Jodi Riddleberger

~~~~

Comment from the Company CEO Robert Rice on this editorial.

Robert Rice – “Hi Suzanne. My testimony in court and in deposition was under oath and I stand by it all.

It is important to note that the Jury found in my favor, *unanimously*. There was no misleading of the investors whatsoever, particularly the two plaintiffs. One of the odd things is that the plaintiffs agreed that they were told the exact same thing, consistently, from myself, Dr. Brannon, Kirkbride, and Cummings. Cummings was never sued, Kirkbride was dismissed early on, and only Dr. Brannon and I made it to court. If we all said the same thing, and the Jury found that I made no misrepresentations of any kind, how is it possible that Dr. Brannon was found liable?

 The fact that the jury found Dr. Brannon liable was a shock to everyone, but there were a number of odd things about the whole jury trial, particularly in regards to the jury instructions, some of their questions to the judge, and a ton of other evidence that we were not allowed to present in court.

 Its easy to call something a conspiracy theory if it doesn’t fit with your world view, but if you do your research and get the court records and transcripts, you can see for yourself that there is indeed more to the story here, and that the mainstream press didn’t cover things completely fairly and certainly did make Dr. Brannon look very poorly.

 I’ve known him since 1995, and he is one of the most honest, hard-working, intelligence, and genuine people I know. Try showing up at an event where he is speaking and see him firsthand.”

~~~~

And then there is THIS little unrelated tidbit:

 

“By conducting an FEC search for political campaign contributions, we see that a Bryan Collins in Raleigh who listed his occupation as Public Defender contributed the sum of $500 to the Hagan Senate Committee in 2008.

I’m no lawyer, and I can’t possibly pretend to understand all the technicalities of impartiality.  That said, does anyone think it smells a little funny that a Judge known to support one candidate for office would be allowed to try a case involving that candidate’s potential future opposition?”

   

Bryan Collins is the JUDGE who resided over the Civil Trial.


And NOW there has been a FORMAL Complaint filed against Judge Bryan Collins.

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Eighteenth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Fourteen.


Have you ever heard of the country named Belarus? Well, people there may know more about you than you thought.

Notice the close proximity to the Ukraine. Hummm..... What else is happening in the Ukraine now? Click for a larger image.

Notice the close proximity to the Ukraine. Hummm….. What else is happening in the Ukraine now? Click for a larger image.

“Typically, but not always, the bits being sent from your computer, tablet or phone will flow from where you are to where they need to be via the most direct route available.

But what if they didn’t? What if someone slipped in between you and the various servers you’re connecting with and diverted your traffic elsewhere, funneling it through a choke point of their choosing, so they could capture, copy and analyze it? Your data takes some extra — and imperceptible — milliseconds to get where it’s going and ultimately everything you’re doing online works just fine. But your traffic has been hijacked by parties unknown and you’re none the wiser that it has happened.

In network security circles, this is what’s known as a Man-In-The-Middle attack. And for years it has been understood to be possible in theory, but never seen in practice. That changed earlier this year when someone — it’s unclear who — diverted Internet traffic from some 150 cities around the world through networks in Belarus and Iceland.”

        

Source of the above quote

http://allthingsd.com/20131120/how-somebody-forced-the-worlds-internet-traffic-through-belarus-and-iceland/#

Example of hijacked data routes. Click for a larger image.

Example of hijacked data routes. Click for a larger image.

Misc. Other links.

http://freebeacon.com/the-belarusian-connection/
http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/
http://www.hacksurfer.com/surfboard/how-somebody-forced-the-worlds-internet-traffic-through-belarus-and-iceland
http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2308392/internet-traffic-hijacked-and-routed-through-belarus-and-iceland-renesys

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/us-intel-warns-belarus-hand-obamacare/?page=all

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twelfth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fourteen. 


This blog is ONLY one citizen’s take on the events concerning the 2014 NC Senate Race.

Our economy is in a depression the likes of what HISTORY remembers after the Market Crash of 1929. The democrats have lied and lied and pushed those lies on the American People for over 100 years now. Currently we have just as much SCUM in the Leadership of the republican party as well. But fear not…. For behold, with the advancement of technology, bloggers like myself and other CITIZEN JOURNALISTS, the TRUTH is getting out to the people.

WralHeaqdline

Today, I want to focus on our so called Media — TV, Newspapers, 24 hour a day cable news channels and High Speed internet connections.  Primarily our Broadcast & Print Media are directly at fault for ‘Dereliction of Duty’ —- The ‘PRESS’ is protected in our BILL OF RIGHTS (the 1st Amendment) and with that protection comes GREAT RESPONSIBILITY & DUTY! Both of which the Main Stream Media (MSM) has FAILED at miserably.

Over the last few weeks the NC US Senate race is heating up and there is huge backing of a particular candidate that stands in the way of the Establishment GOP and the Liberal democrats. He’s been dubbed a “TEA PARTY” favorite by the MSM. The MSM, which for over 4 years now,  has TRIED to paint the TEA PARTY as RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, and slandered to no end.  Their attacks contine —

Enter WRAL TV-5 out of Raleigh, NC.  They have been in the democrats back pocket for decades now. Along with a majority of the local papers like the Durham Herald Sun, The News & Observer, Charlotte Observer and WTVD from Durham and countless others.

On Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2014 — Less than 90 days before the NC Primary Election — One of the MAJOR republican front runners is dragged thru the MSM with headlines such as:

“Jury finds GOP Senate candidate misled investors”

Now, this may look BAD to most ‘Low Info Voters’ but I want you to stay with me here for little while longer. I’m going to show you FACTS that WRAL and the MSM won’t point out to you:

First, let’s look at the Actual Complaint filed in Court.

The Full PDF File can be found HERE. It’s 14 pages long.

Here’s a couple of excerpts FROM the Civil Complaint

Note that Piazza started his investment with Neogence on Feb 5,2010 and then made additional investments as things progressed —

Complaint01

Here are only 3 more additional ‘ScreenGrab’ portions of the complaint.  Click on any of the images to view a larger version and I urge each of you READ, in it’s entirety, the FULL 14 page complaint. 

How can a JURY, with the information provided in the complaint, find Dr. Brannon, and Dr. Brannon ALONE, GUILTY of Mis-Informing Investors? If the jury thinks the investors were mislead, then one would think that Kirkbride, Cummings and Rice would ALSO be guilty.

Complaint02  Complaint03Complaint04

Notice also in the complaint, that it states several other “Angel Investors” —- Where are these Other Investors? Why aren’t they too seeking damages “IF”  the investors were really mislead?

SilenceDogood2010′s Conclusion:  Something stinks here. Maybe the jury was somehow tainted or paid off to find Brannon, and Brannon alone, as the guilty party. Strictly because he is seen  as a threat to the democrats  and the GOP establishment. I think TIME will tell.


Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Nineteenth Day of February in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Fourteen.


USConstitution

The following is a copy and paste (spelling and other errors are not corrected) from a memo dated February 15, 1913. It is from the US Department of State  Solicitor.  Please read it THOROUGHLY.  You’ll notice that the 16th Amendment didn’t even come CLOSE to being properly Ratified by THREE FOURTHS of the States.

It is noted, within the memo, that many Governors DID NOT SIGN the returned ‘Certified Copies’ and that MOST of the states had made changes to their returned documents.

Also, to be noted, this memo ‘STATES’ that because the 15th amendment had some errors, that it is NOW ACCEPTABLE to overlook errors in the documents —- Here’s an excerpt from the memo:

“In the certified copies of the resolutions passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the proposed 16th amendment, it appears that only four of these resolutions (those submitted by Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico) have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly the 16th amendment as proposed by Congress. The other thirty-three resolutions all contain errors either of punctuation, capitalization, or wording.


The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, or both, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording.”

— End of Excerpt —

 

This is NOT how an Amendment to our Constitution is Ratified.

 Source         http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/ratif/memo_130215.htm

Senate Joint Resolution 20. July 15, 1909. Click to enlarge the image.

Senate Joint Resolution 20. July 15, 1909. Click to enlarge the image.

~~~~~~~ Full Text of the February 15, 1913 Memo ~~~~~~~

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

MEMORANDUM

February 15, 1913.

Ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The Secretary has referred to the Solicitor’s Office for determination the question whether the notices of ratifications by the several states of the proposed 16th amendment to the Constitution are in proper form, and if they are found to be in proper form, it is requested that this office prepare the necessary announcement to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 205 of the Revised Statutes. The 61st Congress of the United States, at the first session thereof, passed the following resolution which was deposited in the Department of State July 31, 1909:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein) , That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified try the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:

‘Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.’”

On July 27, 1909, the following concurrent resolution was passed by Congress:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President of the United States be requested to transmit forthwith to the executives of the several States of the United States copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State legislatures to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed July twelfth, nineteen hundred and nine, respecting the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes, to the end that the said States may proceed to act upon the said article of amendment: and that be request the executive of each state that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification.”

On July 26, 1909, being the day before the above resolution was passed, the Secretary of State sent to the Governors of the several States certified copies of the joint resolution of Congress proposing the 16th amendment to the Constitution with the following letter of transmission:

“I have the honor to enclose a certified copy of a Resolution of Congress, entitled ‘Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,’ with the request that you cause the same to be submitted to the Legislature of your State for ouch action as may be had, and that a certified copy of such action be communicated to the Secretary of State, as required by Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States. (See overleaf.) [Note: Reference here is to R. S. Sec. 205 which is quoted infra.]

“An acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication is requested.”

Section 205 of the Revised Statutes provides:

“Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.”

The Department has received information from forty-two states with reference to the action taken by the legislatures of those states on the resolution of Congress proposing the 16th amendment to the Constitution. It appears from this information that four states (Connecticut,

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Utah) have rejected the amendment. The remaining thirty-eight states have taken action purporting to ratify the amendment, the State of Arkansas being one of these states. Although the Governor of Arkansas had previously notified the Department that the legislature of that state had refused to ratify the amendment, information was subsequently received indicating that the legislature had reconsidered this action and Toted to ratify the proposed amendment.

In all cases in which the legislatures appear to have acted favorably upon the proposed amendment, either the Governor or some other state official has transmitted to the Department a certified copy of the resolution passed by the particular legislature, except in the case of Minnesota, in which case the secretary of the Governor merely informed the Department that the state legislature had ratified the proposed amendment and that the Governor had approved the ratification.

The following list shows the order in which the amendment was ratified by the legislatures of the various states, the date given being the date upon which the resolution was passed by the legislature, or if this information does not appear on the certified copy of the resolution on file in the Department, the date indicated is that upon which the resolution of the state legislature was approved by the Governor:

Alabama August 17, 1909. “Approved”. Doesn’t appear whether Governor signed.
Kentucky February 8 or 9, 1910 Date passed by legislature. Not signed by Governor; Legislature acted on resolution of Congress before it was transmitted to it by Governor.
South Carolina February 19, 1910. Date passed by legislature. Signed by Governor.
Illinois March 1, 1910. Date passed by legislature. Not signed by Governor.
Mississippi March 7, 1910. Date passed by legislature. Signed by Governor.
Oklahoma March 14, 1910. Date signed by Governor.
Maryland April 8, 1910. “Approved”. Not signed by Governor.
Georgia August 3, 1910. “Approved”. Doesn’t appear whether Governor signed.
Texas August 17, 1910. Date signed by Governor.
Ohio January 19, 1911. “Adopted”. Doesn’t appear whether signed by Governor, – likely not.
Idaho January 20, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Not signed by Governor.
Oregon January 23, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Not signed by Governor.
Washington January 26, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Not signed by Governor. Governor signed.
California January 31, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Doesn’t appear.
Montana January 31, 1911. Date signed by Governor.
Indiana February 6, 1911. Date signed by Governor.
Nevada February 8, 1911. “Approved”. Doesn’t appear whether signed by Governor.
North Carolina February 11, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Not signed by Governor.
Nebraska February 11, 1911. Date signed by Governor.
Kansas February 18, 1911 Date passed by legislature. Signed by Governor.
Colorado February 20, 1911. Date signed by Governor.
North Dakota February 21, 1911. Date signed by Governor.
Michigan February 23, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Not signed by the Governor but it is attested by the Governor.
Iowa February 27, 1911. Date signed by Governor.
Missouri March 16, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Doesn’t appear whether signed by Governor.
Maine March 31, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Signed by Governor.
Tennessee April 7, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Signed by Governor.
Arkansas April 22, 1911. Date passed by legislature. Governor vetoed June 1, 1912. March 28, 1911, Governor informed Secretary of State legislature had failed to pass resolution. So first rejected and subsequently ratified.
Wisconsin May 26, 1911. Date received by Secretary of State of Wisconsin. Not signed by Governor.
New York July 12, 1911, Date passed by legislature. Not signed by Governor.
South Dakota February 3, 1912. Date filed by State Secretary of State. Not signed by Governor. No date of adoption given.
Arizona April 9, 1912. Not clear whether date passed by legislature or signed by Governor.
Minnesota June 11, 1912. Date passed by legislature. Signed by Governor. Secretary of Governor merely informs Department and no resolution of legislature enclosed.
Louisiana July 1, 1912. Date passed by legislature. Signed by Governor.
Delaware February 3, 1913. Date passsd by legislature . Not signed by Governor.
Wyoming February 3, 1913. Doesn’t appear whether date passed by legislature or signed by Governor . Signed by Governor.
New Jersey February 5, 1913. Date signed by Governor.
New Mexico February 5, 1913. Date signed by Governor.

Ratification by Arkansas. Power of the Governor_to veto.

It will be observed from the above record that the Governor of the State of Arkansas vetoed the resolution passed by the legislature of that State. It is submitted, however, that this does not in any way invalidate the action of the legislature or nullify the effect of the resolution, as it is believed that the approval of the Governor is not necessary and that he has not the power of veto in such cases. (See Solicitor’s memorandum on this subject dated April 20, 1911.)

Power of a State to Ratify after having once Rejected the Proposed Amendment.

It will also be observed that Arkansas ratified the proposed 16th Amendment after having previously rejected it. It would appear that the Legislature of a State may act adversely any number of times and it still has the right to act favorably and the ratification is as valid as if it had never acted adversely on the question. New Jersey ratified the 13th Amendment after having rejected it. In the case of the 14th Amendment, four States acted similarly (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia).

In all these cases the states which had taken action ratifying the various amendments before the Secretary’s announcement was made were included by the Secretary of State in the list of states ratifying.

In the case of the 14th Amendment, all the states mentioned above except Virginia, which state ratified the amendment after the Secretary’s announcement was made, were included in the declaration of the Secretary of State. (See Solicitor’s memorandum on the subject of Kentucky’s ratification of the 16th Amendment, dated March 21, 1912.)

Kentucky‘s Ratification.

It is to be noted that the Kentucky legislature passed a resolution ratifying the proposed 16th Amendment, before a copy of the resolution of Congress was transmitted to that body by the Governor and that when the Governor received the certified copy of the Joint Resolution of Congress from the Secretary of State and transmitted it to the legislature, the latter refused to act on it. Inasmuch as there is no statute or other law or Congressional action which might properly be regarded as preventing the legislature’s acting upon the Resolution of Congress proposing an amendment to the Constitution until a copy of the Resolution has been sent by the Secretary of State to the Governor and until the latter officer has transmitted the same to the legislature, it is believed that the legislature of Kentucky has validly ratified the proposed 16th Amendment. (See Solicitor’s memorandum on the subject of Kentucky’s ratification of the 16th Amendment, dated March 21, 1912.)

Errors in Resolutions of State Legislatures in quoting the Proposed 16th Amendment.

In the certified copies of the resolutions passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the proposed 16th amendment, it appears that only four of these resolutions (those submitted by Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico) have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly the 16th amendment as proposed by Congress. The other thirty-three resolutions all contain errors either of punctuation, capitalization, or wording. Minnesota, it it to be remembered, did not transmit to the Department a copy of the resolution passed by the legislature of that state.

The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, or both, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording. The following is a list of the states indicating the errors made:

Alabama Error of punctuation.
Kentucky Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
South Carolina Error of capitalization.
Illinois Error of capitalization; “renumeration” instead of “enumeration”.
Mississippi “The” omitted before “Congress”; errors of punctuation end capitalization; “of” instaad of “or” before “enumeration”.
Oklahoma Error of capitalization; “from” used instead of “without regard to” before “any”.
Maryland Error of punctuation.
Georgia “Levy” used instead of “lay”; errors of punctuation; “sources” instead of “source”; “income” instead of “incomes”.
Texas Error of punctuation.
Ohio Error of capitalization.
Idaho Error of capitalization; “of” instead of “or” before “enumeration”.
Oregon Error of capitalization.
Washington Errors of capitalization and punctuation; “income” instead of “incomes”.
California “The” omitted before “Congress”; “any” before “census”, and “or” before “enumeration” omitted; errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Montana Errors of capitalization.
Indiana Error of capitalization.
Nevada Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
North Carolina Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Nebraska Error of capitalization.
Kansas Error of capitalization.
Colorado Error of punctuation.
North Dakota No errors.
Michigan Error of capitalization.
Iowa Error of capitalization.
Missouri Error of capitalization; “levy” instead of “lay”.
Maine Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Tennessee No errors.
Arkansas The” before “Congress” omitted; “the” before “power” inserted; errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Wisconsin Errors of capitalization.
Dew York Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
South Dakota “The” before “Congress” omitted; errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Arizona No errors.
Minnesota Resolution of the State Legislature not filed with the Department.
Louisiana Error of punctuation.
Delaware “Article XVI” omitted; errors of punctuation.
Wyoming Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
New Jersey Error of capitalization.
New Mexico No errors.

A careful examination of the resolutions of the various states on file in the Department, ratifying the 15th amendment to the Constitution, shows that there are many errors of punctuation and capitalization and some, although no substantial errors of wording, in quoting the article proposed by Congress as shown in the following list:

“Article XV.

“Sect ion 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

“Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

New Jersey Capital letters omitted.
Minnesota Several errors of capitalization and punctuation.
Georgia The word “or” is written in after the word “race” but marked out with pencil.
Ohio Errors of punctuation.
Kansas Errors of capitalization. Section 2. Wording entirely wrong as follows: “The Congress, by appropriate legislation may enforce the provisions of this article.” Kansas ratified as above, February 1869, but in January, 1870, appears to have ratified again, copying the amendment correctly.
Rhode Island The word “rights” is used instead of the word “right”, and there are errors of capitalization. These errors appear in one copy filed in the Department, but there is a second copy which is entirely correct.
Mississippi Errors of punctuation.
Missouri Errors of capitalization.
Vermont Errors of capitalization.
Florida Errors of capitalization and punctuation.
Connecticut Errors of punctuation, commas omitted.
Indiana The word “the” is inserted, before the word “citizens”.
New York The word “the” is inserted before the word “citizens”.
Pennsylvania Errors of punctuation, commas omitted.
South Carolina Errors of punctuation, commas omitted.
Wisconsin Capital letters omitted and the word “the” inserted.
Michigan Errors of capitalization and punctuation.
Illinois Errors of punctuation, commas omitted.
Louisiana The word “by” is omitted before the word “any”, in the original, but is inserted in pencil. Errors of capitalization.
West Virginia Errors of capitalization.
Nevada Errors of capitalization.
North Carolina Error of punctuation; comma inserted after the word “state”.

In the resolutions of the state legislatures on file in the Department, ratifying the 14th amendment to the Constitution, there are many errors of punctuation, capitalization, and wording, some of the errors in wording being substantial errors, as will appear from the following list:

“Article XIV.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

“Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

“Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

“Section 4. The validity of the public doit of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or nay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be hold illegal and void.

“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Connecticut Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “and” for “any” after “pay”, Section 4.
New Hampshire Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “the for “a” after “of and before “State”, Section 2; “of” inserted between “but” and “all”, Section 4.
Tennessee Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
New Jersey Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Oregon Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Vermont Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “that” for “the”, Section 5.
New York Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “or” for “and” between “executive” and “Judicial”, Section 2; “or” for “and” between “President” and “Vice President”, Section 3.
Ohio Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “or” for “and” between “President” and “Vice President”, Section 3.
Illinois Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
West Virginia Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “for” for “of” between “elector” and “President”, Section 3 “rebellion or” inserted between “in” and “insurrection”; “or bounties” omitted after “pensions”, Section 4.
Kansas Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Maine Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Nevada Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “being” inserted between “and” and “citizens”, Section 2; “or” instead of “and” between “obligations” and “claims”, Section 4. “The” omitted before “Congress”, Section 5.
Missouri Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Indiana Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “or” for “nor” between “States” and “any”, Section 4; “claims” for “claim” between “any” and “for”, Section 4.
Minnesota Errors of punctuation and capitalization.
Rhode Island Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “or” for “and” between “executive” and “Judicial”, Section 2; “to” for “or” between “assume” and “pay”, Section 4.
Wisconsin Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “numbers” for “number” between “jurisdiction” and “count ing”. Section 2; “whenever” for “when” between “but” and “the”, Section 2; “the choice of” omitted between “for” and “electors”, Section 2; “of” for “for” between “electors” and “President”, Section 2; “of the United States” omitted between “Vice President” and “Representative”, Section 2; “or for United States” inserted before “Representatives”, Section 2; “the” omitted before “Executive”, Section 2; “or” for “and” between “Executive” and “Judicial”, Section 2; “of a state” omitted after “judicial officers”, Section 2; “to” for “in” between “reduced” and “the”, Section 2. Section 2 is erroneously quoted: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective number counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever the right to vote at any election for electors of President and Vice President, or for United States Representatives in Congress, Executive or Judicial Officers or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state being twenty one years of age and citizens of the United States or in any way abridged except for participation in rebellion or other crimes the basis of representation therein shall be reduced to the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.” “or” for “and” between “President” and “Vice-President”, Section 3; “or as an officer of the United States” omitted between “Congress” and “or”, Section 3; “vote of two thirds” changed to “a two thirds vote”; “the” inserted between “for” and “payment”; “the” inserted after “suppressing”, Section 4; “that” for “the”, Section 5.
Pennsylvania Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “laws” for “law” where the word. first appears in Section 1; “law” for “laws”, last word, Section 1; “or” for “nor” between “States” and “any” where the word first appears in Section 4.
Michigan Errors in punctuation; “or” for “and” between “President” and “Vice President”, Section 3.
Massachusetts Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “the members of” omitted before “the Legislature”, Section 2; “therein” omitted between “representation” and “shall”, Section 2; “such” for “male” before
“citizens” where the latter word last appears in Section 2; “or” for “and” between “President” and “Vice President”, Section 3.
Nebraska Errors of punctuation and capitalization; “any” inserted before “electors”, Section 2; “or” for “and” between “President” and “Vice President”, Section 3.
Iowa Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “abridge” for “abridged” after “way”, Section 2.
Arkansas Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “or” for “and” between “President” and “Vice President”, Section 3; “or under any State” omitted after “United States”, Section 3. In a second copy of the resolution, the proposed amendment is copied correctly so far as the wording is concerned, but there are errors of punctuation and capitalization. In Section 2 there is a period after “numbers” and “counting” is commenced with a capital letter.
Florida Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “First” is substituted for “Article 1″; “Second” for “Article 2″; “Third” for “Article 3″; “Fourth” for “Article 4″; “Fifth” for “Article 5″; “of” omitted before “the State” in first sentence, Section 1; “or” for “and” between “President” and “Vice President”, Section 3; “and” for “or” between “aid” and “comfort”, Section 3.
North Carolina Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “the” omitted before “Executive”, Section 2; “and” for “or” between “aid” and “comfort”, Section 3.
Louisiana Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “be as” for “bear” after “shall”, Section 2.
South Carolina Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “the members of” omitted before “the Legislature”, Section 2; “therein” omitted after “representation”, Section 2; “such” for “male” before “citizens” where the latter word last appears in Section 2; “or” for “and” between “President” and “Vice President”, Section 3; “the” inserted before “payment”, Section 4.
Alabama Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “Legislatures” for “Legislature”, Section 2.
Georgia Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “Section 1st” for “Section 1″; “Section 2d” for “Section 2″; Section 3d” for “Section 3″; “Section 4th” for “Section 4″; “Section 5th” for “Section 5″; “the” inserted before “citizens” whore the latter word last appears in Section 1, but crossed out by pencil; “rendered” for “reduced”, Section 2,
but crossed through with pencil and “reduced” inserted in pencil; “and” for “or” between “Bid” and “comfort”. Section 3. In a second copy of the resolution on file in the Department “the” is not inserted before “citizens” as above indicated; there is no error in the word “reduced” in this second copy, Section 2, nor in the word “or” between “aid” and “comfort”. In a third copy of the resolution filed in the Department, the sections are correctly indicated.
Virginia Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “and” for “or” between “aid” and ”comfort”, Section 3; “and” for “or” between “insurrection” end “rebellion”, Section 4; “or” for “and” between “obligations” and “claims”, Section 4.
Mississippi Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “way” omitted before “abridged” but inserted in blue pencil, Section 2; “crimes” for “crime”, Section 2; “for” instead of “of” after “elector”, Section 3, but inserted in blue pencil; “to” instead of “shall” before “have engaged”, Section 3, but inserted in blue pencil; “held” omitted before “illegal”, Section 4, but inserted in blue pencil.
Texas Errors in punctuation and capitalization; “or under any State” omitted, Section 3.

At the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, there wore thirty-seven states in the Union, therefore twenty-eight were necessary to make up the required three-fourths necessary to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. The first thirty states above mentioned were all included in the declaration of the Secretary of State announcing the adoption of the 14th amendment. The three latter states were not included in that declaration. It will be observed that there were many substantial errors of wording in the resolutions of the state legislatures upon which the Secretary of State acted in issuing his declaration announcing the adoption and the ratification by the states of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. As, by announcing the ratification of the 14th amendment the Executive Branch of the Government ruled that these errors were immaterial to the adoption of the amendment, and further as this amendment has been repeatedly before the courts, and has been by them enforced, it is clear that the procedure in ratifying that amendment constitutes on this point a precedent which may be properly followed in proclaiming the adoption of the present amendment, -that is to say, that the Secretary of State may disregard the errors contained in the certified copies of the resolutions of legislatures acting affirmatively on the proposed amendment.

It should, moreover, be observed that it seems clearly to have been the intention of the legislature in each and every case to accept and ratify the 16th amendment as proposed by Congress. Again, the incorporation of the terms of the proposed amendment in the ratifying resolution seems in every case merely to have been by way of recitation. In no case has any legislature signified in any way its deliberate intention to change the wording of the proposed amendment. The errors appear in most cases to have been merely typographical and incident to an attempt to make an accurate quotation.

Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapproval the proposed amendment. It, therefore, seems a necessary presumption, in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, that a legislature did not intend to do something that it had not the power to do, but rather that it intended to do something that it had the power to do, namely, where its action has been affirmative, to ratify the amendment proposed by Congress. Moreover, it could not be presumed that by a mere change of wording probably inadvertent, the legislature had intended to reject the amendment as proposed by Congress where all parts of the resolution other than those merely reciting the proposed amendment had set forth an affirmative action by the legislature. For these reasons it is believed that the Secretary of State should in the present instance include in his declaration announcing the adoption of the 16th amendment to the Constitution the States referred to notwithstanding it appears that errors exist in the certified copies of Resolutions passed by the Legislatures of those States ratifying such amendment.

The Department has not received a copy of the Resolution passed by the State of Minnesota, but the Secretary of the Governor of that State has officially notified the Department that the Legislature of the State has ratified the proposed 16th amendment. It is believed that this meets fully the requirement with reference to the receipt of “official notice” contained in Section 205 Revised Statutes, and that Minnesota should be numbered with the States ratifying the aforesaid amendment.

It it recommended, therefore, that the Secretary issue his declaration announcing the adoption of the 16th amendment to the Constitution.

PDR/JBB/JHP.

— End of Full Text of Memo —

 
Other Links:

http://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/irs-16th-amendment-was-never-legally-ratified/

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Fourteenth Day of February in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Fourteen.


Can you read this License Plate?  How about from 20 feet away?

Can you read this License Plate? How about from 20 feet away?

     

Update: 2/8/14 — Since this was posted, I’ve learned that the “ORIGINAL COST” for these “GREEN Hybrid Light Transit Vehicles” (LTV) was $50,000 MORE per vehicle than if it came with a standard Internal Combustion Gasoline Engine.

So in 2011, we spent $500,000 (Half a Million) MORE to get the Hybrid Option on 10 Mini-Buses. Approximately 3 years later, we’re having to pay to UNDO this half a million very poor decision.

I’m reminded of the Grail Knight from the Indiana Jones Movie:

GrailKnight

 

~~~ End of Update ~~~

This post is a “Copy and Paste” from various sources.  I’m sure the sources will be ‘SCRUBBED’ since they shine a BAD light on the ‘Liberal Ideology’. Also to be noted is the FACT that MAJORITY of the time you see these buses on the roads, there are only 4-6 people riding them. We could provide Full Sized Ford Econoline Vans, with extended roofs, to haul 4-6 people for a FRACTION of the cost of these behemoth buses!

hybrid_bus

http://www.wral.com/durham-pulling-hybrid-engines-from-some-buses/13363336/

Local News – Durham pulling hybrid engines from some buses

Posted 6:26 p.m. Feb. 5, 2014 – Durham Access light-transit vehicle

Durham, N.C. — Durham officials have found it’s not easy being green.

The city decided this week to convert 10 of its hybrid vehicles – light transit vehicles, or LTVs, that transport people with disabilities – back to gas-fueled engines because of maintenance problems. City buses will continue to have hybrid engines.

The LTVs were added to Durham’s fleet in 2011. The hybrid vehicles cost $112,000 each, compared with $65,000 for buses without hybrid engines, but officials figured they would save on fuel costs.

“It all comes from our desire to have the most fuel-efficient fleet that we can,” said Tobin Freid, Durham’s sustainability manager, who helped secure federal funds to buy the hybrids.

The savings never panned out, however, as repairs started piling up.

“After about six months, we started having issues with them,” city maintenance manager Scott Mozingo said. “Then, we had issues with parts.”

In 2012, the company that outfitted the hybrid vehicles went bankrupt, so Durham could no longer get the parts they needed to make repairs.

“We started parking vehicles as they were breaking down because we didn’t have parts for them,” Mozingo said.

LTV routes started feeling the pinch as the fleet became smaller, so the city’s Transportation Department decided to make another switch.

“We need to have these 10 vehicles back on the road, and the fastest way to do that is through this conversion,” said Harmon Crutchfield, assistant director of transit and parking services.

Durham plans to spend $78,000 to convert the hybrid LTVs back to gas engines. Each vehicle will take about a week to be converted.

Freid said the move is disappointing but not discouraging.

“We tried a new technology, and sometimes when you try new things, they don’t work out,” she said.

ScreenGrab taken from the WRAL Story Above.

ScreenGrab taken from the WRAL Story Above.


More on Durham’s Hybrid Buses.

Pay close attention on this video starting at around the 3:00 mark. Notice each of the $600K buses have only about 6-8 RIDERS MAX!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO1sL0rG2ZQ


~~~~~

From the DurhamNC dot Gov page: “The total cost for the five hybrid buses is $2,995,765, which includes an 80 percent contribution from the Federal Transit Administration and a 20 percent non-federal share from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Duke University.”

That’s $599,153 per bus!!!

http://durhamnc.gov/Pages/NNDetails.aspx?detailId=105

~~~~~

From  Aug. 10, 2010

“Good morning!” city of Durham Mayor William V. “Bill” Bell announced at Durham Station on Monday. “Great things are happening in Durham, right?”

The audience cheered, and after brief remarks from officials, including Congressman David Price (D-NC), city staff pulled a blue tarp off a waiting bus, unveiling the new Bull City Connector, the fare-free  service linking city destinations, including Duke, Durham’s historic and revitalized downtown, Ninth Street and Golden Belt.”

http://parking.duke.edu/news/items/2010_08_12bullcityadvance.php

~~~~~

From The Chronicle Feb 15, 2010 (Duke Univ. Student Paper)

“They’re mean, green, more fuel-efficient machines.

The Durham Area Transit Authority debuted 20 diesel-electric hybrid buses last December. The buses—which feature advanced wheelchair accessibility, audio instructions for the visually impaired and a funky color scheme voted on by city residents—have been deployed on various DATA routes, and are estimated to be 20 to 45 percent more fuel-efficient than regular diesel buses, according to a December 2009 City of Durham news release.

“All of the feedback that we’ve received from passengers as well as our operators has been positive,” said DATA Public Affairs Specialist Ieshia Robertson. “The city has made a decision that any buses we order in the future will be hybrid buses.”

Initial projections indicate that the buses—which cost $10.7 million—are expected to return the investment through savings on fuel and maintenance costs within eight to 10 years, Robertson added.”

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2010/02/15/data-hybrid-buses-expected-cut-cost-fuel

~~~~

http://www.bullcityrising.com/2009/12/new-data-hybrid-buses-arrive-bring-funky-new-paint-scheme-to-boot.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_Area_Transit_Authority

 

http://www.wncn.com/story/20896246/durham-debuts-hybrid-bus

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Sixth Day of February in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Fourteen.


Christopher C. Langdell

Christopher C. Langdell

With the recent news of several “Disturbing Legal Rulings” I decided to delve into some history of the legal profession. What I found is the makings of a Stephen King novel that would make you have nightmares.

Progressive Law: The Root Cause of the Problem

In only the last 140 years or so, we have gone from the “Rule of Law” to a bunch of Brainwashed, or indoctrinated, idiots. And it can be traced back to basically ONE MAN —- Christopher Columbus Langdell.

                       

 Scales-of-Justice-01

Creation of the Juris Doctor

In the mid-19th century there was much concern about the quality of legal education in the United States. Christopher Columbus Langdell, who served as dean of Harvard Law School from 1870 to 1895, dedicated his life to reforming legal education in the United States. The historian Robert Stevens wrote that “it was Langdell’s goal to turn the legal profession into a university educated one—and not at the undergraduate level, but through a three-year post baccalaureate degree.” This graduate level study would allow the intensive legal training that Langdell had developed, known as the case method (a method of studying landmark cases) and the Socratic method (a method of examining students on the reasoning of the court in the cases studied).

 

A little more on C.C. Langdell

In the early 1870s Langdell’s case method classes were met with the open hostility, if not of the other instructors, certainly of the bulk of the students. His first lectures were followed by impromptu indignation meetings—“What do we care whether [this student] agrees with the case, or what [that student] thinks of the dissenting opinion? What we want to know is: What is the Law?”

Langdell’s abomination gradually gained acceptance. Charles W. Eliot (President of Harvard) remained supportive, and the leading opponents on the faculty left Harvard Law School or retired. The stronger students continued to be won over to the unusual teaching. During his studies at HLS, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis observed in 1877:

“Some of our professors are trying to inculcate in us a great distrust of textbooks, and to prove to us the truth of the maxim “It is better to go up to the sources than to follow the rivulets downhill.” When one sees how loosely most textbooks are written and how many startling propositions are unsupported by the authorities cited to sustain them, the temptation to become a convert…is very great.” ~ Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Otto A. Wehle (12 March 1876).

    

Lawyers today are taught to look at ‘Case Files’ and use what is known as ‘Precedence’. This is WRONG! Just because some JUDGE, or a JURY, made a decision in 1877, on a similar case… Does NOT mean it is the final word on the rule of law — Even a Supreme Court Ruling.  These folks are human and humans DO make mistakes from time to time. Laws MUST be read verbatim, word for word, and acted upon by what they SAY —- Not how some liberal or conservative ‘Interprets’ them.

The absolute “Law of the Land” is called the Constitution. All laws, or here in NC, General Statutes, MUST fall within the guidelines of the US & North Carolina Constitutions. If they do not, then they are not a law at all. We have TONS of these already on the books and they must be purged.

        

We must demand that our Elected Judges be retaught the RULE of LAW. PERIOD! We the people must take back our courts to ensure ONLY the Rule of Law is considered in all cases. And they must STRICTLY adhere to their “Oath of Office” which states they must UPHOLD the Constitution!

    

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twentieth Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Fourteen.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers