Sunday, December 14, 2008

What Tom Roeser Said in Oct. of 2005 about the Chicago Power Struggle between Daley and African American Politicians such as Barack Obama.

I'm not saying I agree with his words, But the date on this article, if true, and I assume it is, was written over 3 years ago. Click on Image to see it larger.
Click on Image to see it larger.

Here is the link to the actual page, Tom Roeser Article You have to scan down the page a bit to find it.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Whew, that was close, Chicago politician Rod Blagovejich's corruptness has nothing to do with our favorite son, snark snark, nor the 2008 campaign.

Kings used to be called "your highness". Perhaps we can now call our own politicians "Your Corruptness" when they behave in the manner that Illinois governor Rod Blagovejich has allegedly behaved. Blagovejich apparently tried to sell Barack Obama's congressional seat to the highest bidder, even trying to drive the price up by saying he would take the position himself if he didn't get a high enough offer.

It might be safe to presume that Mr. Blagovejich has engaged in other activities before this one that are equally questionable. Was Mr. Blagojevich completely insulated from Barack Obama's campaign for the 2008 democratic nomination? Will Mr. Blagovejich ask for leniency if he spills the beans in other ways? Wow.

Will a mysterious call come into Mr. Blagojevich that if he spills the beans, his family will be endangered? If Mr. Blagovejich is in custody of the FBI, does that mean he cannot yet be threatened by any outside sources specifically so he does talk? Might Mr. Blagojevich be willing to share other tales of corrupt behavior if he is shown some leniency over the initial charge?

All of that money that Barack Obama raised, and none of it went to the Illinois Governor??? If Barack Obama's camp was approached by the governor, and they rebuffed ALL overtures, then that might be a test that Barack Obama actually has integrity and will make a good president. However, if the FBI attempts to protect the president elect by pretending there can be no connection even if some exist, they weaken the country and our constitution.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Conspiracy Theory, Why Hillary Clinton works best as Secretary of State for Barack Obama, but not necessarily for Hillary Clinton.

What if over the next three years the Republicans come to appreciate Hillary Clinton in Congress, A LOT. What if over the next three years, Hillary Clinton, as a congress person, is able to co-mingle both Democratic and Republican interests to balance out bills that otherwise would have an entirely democratic point of view?

What if Hillary Clinton's new found popularity is able to withstand MSNBC's inevitable attacks against her by full on support by Fox Television, Republicans, and Hillary Clinton supporters?

Is Barack Obama just trying to avoid a possible resurgence by Hillary Clinton three years from now in which Hillary Clinton Supporters and the Republicans join forces in the next presidential campaign? Since Republicans appear to have barely enough of a coalition to perhaps stop a democratic legislative steam rollering in congress for the next two years, and since both Clintons are very capable with dealing with both sides of the political landscape, could Barack Obama simply be preventing a strange coalition from forming over the next three years?

I'm not convinced that the top top layers of the Barack Obama regime are actually talented and ethical enough to win on a level playing field, a move like offering Hillary Clinton the secretary of state position could just be a way to keep their main competition out of the way.


Can Bill Clinton serve in place of Hillary Clinton in congress while Hillary serves as Secretary of State? Then if Hillary Clinton doesn't work out as secretary of state, Bill could step aside and Hillary could be voted in?

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Howard Dean's 50 State Approach, Lauded as Genius, or was it Money Laundering at it's worst?

Howard Dean's 50 state approach is being lauded as a key to sweeping Democratic wins. The 50 state strategy also enabled the Barack Obama camp to money launder over 200 million dollars in undocumented campaign contributions.

The dilution of over 200 million dollars in undocumented campaign contributions in 20 or 25 additional red states that democrats may normally not spend in helped reduce the obscene ratios of money that the democrats did spend elsewhere.

The media has intentionally, or unintentionally, spun the tale that the democrats adopted a brilliant 50 state strategy this year, when it is just as reasonable to presume that Barack Obama actually had limited appeal, and no matter how much more Barack Obama spent in standard democratic states, his popularity would not rise any higher.

The exact same thing happened when Barack Obama competed against Hillary Clinton in the primary states. No matter how much money Barack Obama outspent Hillary Clinton, he could not get over the 45% threshold in several key swing states.

In the general election, the democrats were forced to spend their ill gotten funds somewhere, and it made sense to dilute it in places they would normally not spend the money to keep the spending ratios lower in states where they were already oversaturated with political ads.

Yes, Barack Obama used an obscene amount of money. a sizeable portion from unknown sources, to win by an average amount, that is the real story of this year's election.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

To Congratulate Barack Obama Supporters is to Patronize them. I am Embarrassed for my Country Tonight for Condoning Cheating in this years Election.

I feel we have insulted all African Americans by enabling the first African American president to win by first cheating in the caucus contests during the democratic nomination race, and then compounding this error by allowing Barack Obama to spend 3 times what his presidental competition spent, and doing it with well over 200 million dollars in undocumented money.

To congratulate Barack Obama supporters is to patronize them, I am embarrassed for my country tonight.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Does Family Matter? I still can't understand how Barack Obama seemed to ignore his own family roots.

I wanted to get a sense of how Barack Obama balanced keeping in contact with his mother, and his extended family, with his political career. John McCain's mother is actually on the campaign trail with him. At the very least, I wanted to know how Barack Obama treated his mother during the final year of her life. Did he ignore her and instead go write a book in Bali, about his father?

Did Barack Obama spend that time in Illinois, schoomzing with Foundations and getting on their boards?

For what purpose? Why be on the board of a foundation if it means you do that instead of help your dying mother? For those of you who think this is private, I would agree it WAS PRIVATE, until Barack Obama made a campaign commercial about how his mother died battling the insurance companies. and then mentioned it in the second debate. Did Barack Obama profit from his mother's misery while not even being there for her?

Shame on the media for not letting us know the truth. Once a politician chooses to profit from personal family details, those details should be investigated. This is just one more way the media has been a joke this year. Meanwhile, John McCain's mom has been an active participant in this year's presidential race even as an hour doesn't go by in which John McCain's health is not questioned. Ask Keith Olbermann if Hillary Clinton should get out of the race for staying in it just in case...

So it's ok to bring it up about John McCain, but not Barack Obama?

Apparently there are impoverished extended family members of Barack Obama hovering about in the United States as well. It looks to me like Barack Obama has chosen his career over his extended family, even as we see the Clinton family and the McCain family work as a team during the election process.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Sunday, October 26, 2008

How Barack Obama Defeated Hillary Clinton via the Caucus Contests, Did ACORN help Barack Obama in the Caucus Contests?

Just click on the image above to see it enlarged. This list is missing a couple of the final contests, none of which would crack the top 11 Barack Obama caucus contest percentage wins.

Suffice it to say that Barack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages were all from caucus contests, none were from his primary wins. That is a statistical anomaly that cannot be easily explained away unless wants to acknowledge that the caucuses were unfair to the elderly and the head of household from voting.

John Kerry delighted in stating that Barack Obama had won in a dominating fashion over Hillary Clinton even though Hillary Clinton won more primary delegates than Barack Obama did, even when Florida and Michigan are not counted.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Barack Obama's fake Donations, Do they allow George Soros a method for donating over and over?

Via the Hillary Clinton forum is a story link about how one can give invalid address information to the Barack Obama camp and still have the donation go through as approved. If this is true, and it appears to be, then why can't George Soros just donate as much money as he wants every month, using all the fake addresses and names as a cover? Apparently the answer is, anyone can use as many different ID's as they want, and in theory easily donate more than the 2,300 dollar limit.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Muzzling Keith Olbermann, Somebody had to do it, Is Hillary Clinton (and yours truly) responsible?

Basically, my point was MSNBC has been committing ongoing political news fraud by reporting their own opinion, as fact. Twelve days later and suddenly Keith Olbermann has a big old CAMPAIGN COMMENT in the lower left (figures) hand corner of the screen.

FINALLY! This is a MAJOR, MAJOR DEAL. Superimposing the word opinion, or commentary, on the television screen mutes the impact of the words being spoken. People generally assume Newscasters are always dealing with facts. It is imperative that the viewer be reminded when the newscaster is speaking an opinion and not a fact. This is a major big deal and one that MSNBC will never cop to. MSNBC, BUSTED.

If you continue to see OBVIOUS OPINION, OR CONJECTURE, being reported as fact or inevitability by MSNBC, REPORT THEM TO THE FCC. LINK TO FCC TO REPORT CABLE NEWS ABUSE.

Just follow the directions. Lets be better than others and not waste the FCC's time the way ACORN wastes government resources. ACORN claims it is harmless to tie up government time and resources on ACORN generated voter fraud, so lets just stick with valid complaints, and that is quite easy to do when it comes to MSNBC.

An example of an FCC violation would be MSNBC reporting that it is becoming impossible for John McCain to win in a state. Just 2 minutes ago MSNBC said that Barack Obama was "gonna win" in a certain state. Sorry guys, that is OPINION, and unless there is a caption within the image being broadcast that states the comment IS OPINION, or COMMENTARY, MSNBC is quite possibly committing FRAUD. (Do you see how I added "quite possibly" to my statement. I did that because I may be right, or the FCC may disagree, but it is a VALID CONCERN that needs to be brought up.)

For additional specific examples of possible FCC abuses by MSNBC, click on this link that goes to my Fair Reflection blog and the article, Is MSNBC Opinion Generated News, News you can Trust?

If you want to see the original complaint topic that was started on Hillary Clinton, Click on the image below to make it bigger, or click on the link below the image to go directly to the topic, then scroll up to the beginning of the topic.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

ACORN to be Barack Obama's Waterloo? It certainly helps explain how Barack Obama won so easily in the Caucus Contests Against Hillary Clinton.

Yes, math can be used to verify caucus fraud by Barack Obama's side. Barack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages against Hillary Clinton were ALL from caucus contests.

Primary Contests allow the voter a 12 hour time span to vote, the voter votes in the privacy of a voting booth, and there are a lot more voting places than caucues. Most voters travel much shorter distances to vote in a primary, and this is also the way it is done when people vote in November for our president.

Caucus votes are usually (but not always) started around 7PM. People first declare their vote publicly, then have to discuss their vote, then they vote again, many times using notebook paper to cast their "ballot". Caucus locations are much, much further spread out than when there are primaries. Caucuses can take from 2-4 hours to complete, all that time just to cast a vote.

Barack Obama won approximately 15 caucus state contests and 16-18 primaries, yet his top 11 highest winning percentages were ALL from his caucus victories, NONE were from his primaries. The odds of Barack Obama having his top 11 winning percentages all coming from caucus contests and none from his primary wins is well over 10,000 to one. It's just virtually impossible, unless some type of manipulation occurred, for Barack Obama to have his 11 highest winning percentages all coming from his caucus contest wins and none coming from his primary wins.

Caucus Contests use 88% less total voters to determine the same amount of delegates as states that hold primary contests. 88% less total voters in the caucus contests makes it a lot easier to manipulate results by having people show up who aren't even from that district.

Many caucus contests were held at night in early February in the great plains states which have very tough winters, once again favoring the youth attending and the elderly not attending. Other problems with caucus voting include older people not traveling at night in the winter whereas the younger kids embraced these events as a social gathering.

Even when ID was checked and people were from that voting district, it was very easy to double and triple vote since many times there were no official ballots, just notebook paper to vote on!

Many voters in the caucus contests that would favor Hillary Clinton were simply not able to travel within the very limited time frame and far far distances one would have to travel to vote in a caucus contest.

There are several examples where Hillary Clinton was leading or at the very least tied with Barack Obama in caucus state contest polling done just before the day of the vote, yet Barack Obama would still win the Caucus Contests by a 2-1 margin! Minnesota had Hillary Clinton leading by 7 points margin yet she lost the delgate count by a 2-1 margin!

Four states that held both primaries and caucuses each showed Hillary Clinton gaining massively on Barack in the primary vote as compared to the caucus vote. Nebraska, Washington State and Idaho all showed huge shifts towards Hillary Clinton when they held their primary vote after having a caucus vote. In Texas, Hillary Clinton actually won the primary vote and once again, lost the caucus vote by a 2-1 margin.

As additional proof, Hillary Clinton actually won more delegates than Barack Obama did from all the non caucus contests, also known as primary contests. Even when Florida and Michigan are not counted Hillary Clinton still won more delegates than Barack Obama did in all of the remaining primary contests!

Hillary Clinton won more delegates than Barack Obama did when over 30 million people voted (again not even counting Michigan and Florida, states that Hillary Clinton was easily ahead of Barack Obama).

Only approximately 1.1 million people combined voted in all of the caucus contests, and that is where Barack Obama got his delegate margin of victory. Yes, the will of over 30 million democratic voters was overruled by the will of 1.1 million voters in caucus contests that do not follow the voting rules that are in place when we vote for a president in November.

Barack Obama's entire lead in the 2008 democratic nomination race came from the caucus contests. Barack's years as "community activist" where he recruited people to register anything that moved came in handy. Billionaire George Soros (who was recently spoofed on a Saturday Night live CSPAN segment) helped fund Barack Obama in a variety of ways. There was most likely massive mail in voting that Barack Obama benefited from. North Carolina is one state where Barack Obama had a hundred thousand vote mail in lead over Hillary Clinton even before the official day to vote had arrived.

That was the same day when Indiana mysteriously had late votes coming in and Hillary Clinton's 6-8 point lead turned into only a one point victory.

Yes, Barack Obama most probably did cheat, and his handlers absolutely make sure he is never asked any questions about his questionable wins in the caucus contests. What is saddest of all is that Barack Obama and his followers are the worst violators of the concept of "fair reflection". Robert Wexler of Florida did not even know what Fair Reflection meant during the Florida meeting to determine how to not count their votes.

Fair Reflection is a key component of what the democratic party is supposed to believe in, yet Barack Obama threw it under the bus this year because it was the only way he could win.

For additional suspicious activities by Pelosi and Clyburn that felled Hillary Clinton and could be related to ACORN, Clinton delegates bought by Pelosi and Clyburn

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Saturday Night Live Still Image of George Soros lookalike, Read the SNL caption over the Image, Wow!

If you look to the right margin you will see a whole section devoted to George Soros article links. These articles were written several months ago by me. If I was right about George Soros back then, and several months ahead of Saturday Night Live, maybe I'm right about the Barack Obama caucus cheating as well...

Do you really want to vote for a candidate who gets other politicians disqualified over "legal technalities", but then actually still cheats in the undervoting caucus contests to win? I'm a lifelong democrat and I WON'T be voting for Barack Obama.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Why I Can't take Barack Obama seriously when He Talks about the Economy.

Barack Obama believes that the more the U.S. economy stumbles, the better his chances are to defeat John McCain. I beg to differ. The more the economy flails and fails and crumbles, the more the CLINTON'S, past and present. should have a chance to fix the economy, from the White House.

Oh, wait, that ship sailed when Barack Obama and the heads of the D.N.C. spat on the Bill Clinton record and the incredible potential Hillary Clinton would have brought to the table. That ship also sailed when the concept of fair reflection in the caucus contests was ignored, when Florida and Michigan were literally discounted, and when the results of the primaries in which Hillary Clinton won more pledged delegates than Barack Obama even when Florida and Michigan are excluded, were ignored as well.

So when I see Barack Obama try to own the economy issue, all I can think of is, It's the Clintons, stupid, past, present, and future, they own the economy issue, not Barack Obama.

Give it up Barack, just hand the nomination over to Hillary Clinton and ride gunshot for the next 8 years as VP, and then run for president. You could do more healing in one day now, than all the bandaging that lay ahead no matter what the outcome is if you remain the democratic presidential nominee.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Don't Forget, Don't Surrender Your Vote, the 2008 Caucus Contests Corrupted the concept of Fair Reflection in the Democratic Party.

It is possible that the democratic higher ups were trying to create a level playing field for the 2008 democratic race. It is also possible that the D.N.C. did not realize that the age difference between Barack Obama supporters and the Hillary Clinton supporters would rear its ugly head in the caucus contests.

Once the inaccurate results started flowing in from the caucus contests, no effort was made by the D.N.C. or the media to acknowledge that fair reflection DID NOT happen in the caucus contests. The lack of Fair Reflection in the Caucus contests was ultimately the PIVOTAL reason Barack Obama won the nomination.

The spin being put out by the media was that Hillary Clinton did not put up a fight in the caucus contests. Hmm, let me get this straight, lets have a competition between the under 35 crowd with the over 45 crowd. The competitors on one side will use modern day technological devices that run the full gamut from IPods and Black Berrys to text messaging, along with raging hormones that will make the caucus the ultimate in social flirting. Let's pit this young group against older people that have already studied and researched their decision, basing it on 30 years of political history and knowledge, and who just want a full day to pick the time when they can go into voting booth and vote in private.

The democratic caucus contests destroyed Fair Reflection in 2008. The abomination of fair reflection in the caucus contests needs to be used as a political billy club to dethrone Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama AND HIS TEAM from the democratic party.

When the wildly inaccurate caucus results came in, the media began hyping Barack Obama's "winning streak". No accompanying announcement that well under a million voters spread throughout 6 caucus states had helped create a Barack Obama "winning streak" of 10 or 11 victories. The media focused completely on the winning streak and ignored the tens of millions of PRIMARY VOTERS who had already demonstrated the race was too close to call.

Nor did any of the media or the D.N.C. mention that polls taken just before the caucus contests were revealing that Hillary Clinton was either tied, or leading Barack Obama by as much as 7 points in MANY of the caucus contests that Hillary Clinton would lose by a 2-1 margin.

However, both the media and the D.N.C. were quick to remind us all that all the candidates had agreed that Florida and Michigan DID NOT COUNT. Funny how that works, wildly inaccurate caucus results DO COUNT, but Florida and Michigan DO NOT COUNT. The contests that favored Barack Obama counted, the ones that favored Hillary Clinton, did not.

Right on the heels of the caucus contest debacle, the media stepped in and stepped on the 2008 democratic race and began calling for Hillary Clinton to resign. The Barack Obama caucus contest victory turds were being polished over and over by the media and Barack Obama's team so that they would look like a pearl on Barack Obama's neck, and an albatross around Hillary Clinton's.

The damage was done, and what was once a 100 super delegate lead for Hillary Clinton was also stomped on by the media. Dan Abrams of MSNBC, and Donna Brazille demanded that the super delegates should not change the will of the pledged delegates, but which pledged delegates? Should the pledged delegates from the caucus contests that clearly destroyed the tenet of Fair Reflection matter more than the super delegates whose job it was to ensure a logical and responsible outcome to a close race? The answer from the media and the D.N.C. was a resounding yes, and that was the moment the D.N.C. lost me.
The idea that cheating, double voting, notebook paper ballots were supposed to matter more than carefully screened super delegates was a slap in the face to the entire democratic process.

Of course, once those super delegates switched to Barack Obama (and many were PAID $10.000 dollars TWICE to do so), suddenly the Barack Obama side had no problems with super delegates and how they voted.

Did anyone stop to consider that Hillary Clinton WON the pledged delegate race from ALL the primaries, even when Florida and Michigan were not counted! The media did not question why it was acceptable for more and more super delegates to flock to Barack Obama even as Barack Obama was losing the popular vote and the pledge delegate vote results over the final 10 weeks of the campaign! In fact, the media and the D.N.C. elite DEMANDED these super delegates flock to Barack Obama.

Even though Howard Dean actually stated that whichever candidate did better over the final 10 weeks would be the nominee, once again we saw how little words mattered from the D.N.C. whenever those words would favor Hillary Clinton.

So now we have entered a new phase, one in which many, and I mean many liberal pundits sound dumber and denser to me then at anytime that I can ever recall. Every spineless knee jerk attack against Sarah Palin just reminds me that these liberal "pundits" have a minimal conscience at best.

Michael Moore asks to have his name kept out of the Republican convention, yet it was Mr. Moore who butted into the middle of the 2008 democratic race with some rather idiotic and misinformed comments that made me wonder if someone had offered Michael Moore an "incentive" to stick his nose where it did not belong, the middle of a very close democratic race.

The list of liberal pundits who were bought off or simply could not shut up and be neutral while the people voted is shockingly long.

Even after the Denver convention, a new wave of dumb liberal talk has emerged with Alan Colmes perhaps having made the daffiest of all comments when Mr. Colmes basically stated that Sarah Palin caused her own down syndrome baby. But then when Colmes quickly took the column off of the internet, he blamed it on the "disgusting comments" that republicans were making in response to his idiotic column. Pinhead liberal pundits and politicians that were not man enough to admit they were bought is how I will remember the 2008 democratic race.

As a lifelong democrat, I never thought I would have to borrow clothing from my Republican brothers and sisters, until now. If I take the Republican label off in the future, it will only be because those that ran the D.N.C. amok in 2008 by blindly supporting Barack Obama, have been swept up and away by the force and sheer volume of their own hot air, perhaps also know as the real cause of global warming.

I found this link AFTER I had written my column above, see the unity of protest among totally different writers, one on the west coast, the other on the east coast.

Friday, August 29, 2008

The Denver Convention "Secret Vote" taken before the Denver Convention Vote, just what was the Score?

Did any reporter have the gumption to ask the D.N.C. what the vote totals were for Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when they were initially done behind closed doors at the Denver hotels? I'm curious, aren't you?

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Democrats, too Afraid of Conflict, come up with NAMBY PAMBY vote totals for the Democratic Convention delegate counts.

This is all just silliness.

The script that has yet to be written is a simple one. Will Hillary Clinton supporters accept a "victory" from a man who could not dent Hillary Clinton's popularity in the swing states and instead concentrated on the caucus states, and in the process bypassed the democratic credo of "Fair Reflection" for all democratic voters?

Time will tell.

Lets not make this a racial issue in November, but an issue of one candidate going for the most voters mano a mano, the way Hillary Clinton did it, versus gaining a lead in the caucus states where 88% less voters picked each delegate, the way Barack Obama did it.

I know which method I value, and respect, more.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Meet Hillary Clinton Delegates who were Bribed by Nancy Pelosi to Switch to Barack Obama, even when their district voted for Hillary Clinton. ACORN?

Barack Obama Bribed Delegates? Someone who wants Barack Obama to win appears to have bribed delegates.

The Video above can be viewed below with text from each video image written underneath each photo. Does this wash of money have any connection to ACORN?

Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer's Ameripac similarly gave money to the same members of Congress.
The National Leadership PAC (Rep. Charles Rangel) the NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION PAC, and Obama's HOPE FUND PAC donated an average of $10,000 to these same representatives. These representatives got a lot of pressure to endorse Obama no matter which way their district or state voted. The voices of their constituents were irrelevant.
Support The Denver Group's efforts ENSURE a GENUINE (NOT pre-determined nor symbolic) roll call vote with Hillary Clinton's name in nomination in Denver. Please donate today:
FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY BEFORE IT'S BOUGHT OUT. GeekLove @ Come A Long Way www.ComeALongWay.WordPress.Com

Follow the Money
Pelosi gave money to the campaigns of 38 superdelegate members of Congress, 28 of these endorsed Obama (3 to 1). These Obama endorsers received more money ($250,000 vs $80,000). Money talks and members of Congress were fully aware that Pelosi supported Obama.
16 of these 28 superdelegates endorsed Obama even though their state and district voted for Hillary Clinton.
Pelosi's contributions to the campaigns of state representatives followed a similar pattern: 63% of the state representatives to whom Pelosi gave money, endorsed Obama in a state won by Clinton.
John Adler Received $2,500 from Pelosi. Clinton won NJ and his district. Alder Endorsed Obama.
Jason Altmire Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won PA and his district. Altmire Endorsed Obama.
Andre Carson received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won INDIANA and his district. Carson Endorsed Obama.
Joe Donnelly Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won Indiana and his district. Donnelly Endorsed Obama.
Baron Hill Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won Indiana and his district. Hill Endorsed Obama.
Ron Klein Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won Florida and his district. Klein Endorsed Obama.
Nick Lampson Received $7,500 from Pelosi. Clinton won Texas and his district. Lampson Endorsed Obama.
Tim Mahoney Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won Florida and his District. Mahoney Endorsed Obama.
Jerry McNerney Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won CA and his district. McNerney Endorsed Obama.
Harry Mitchell Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won AZ and his district. Mitchell Endorsed Obama.
Patrick Murphy Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won PA and his district. Murphy Endorsed Obama.
Joe Sestack Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won PA and his district. Sestack Endorsed Obama.
Carol Shea Porter Recieved $10,000 from Pelosi.
Clinton won NH and her district. Porter Endorsed Obama.
Zack Space Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won OH and his district. Space Endorsed Obama.
Niki Tsongas Received $10,000 from Pelosi. Clinton won MA and her district. Tsongas Endorsed Obama.
South Carolina Congressman James Clburn's BRIDGE PAC gave money to all but 2 of the same members of Congress.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

A Recap of 2008 Democratic Caucus Cheating and Irregularities that ALWAYS FAVORED Barack Obama.

•Iowa Caucus, A lot of little things that added up to big time unethical behavior. Barack Obama creates a postcard back in October of 2007 for Iowa voters that misrepresents his voting record in the Iraq vote. Because Barack Obama did not show up for the vote, he describes himself as being against the war from the beginning!

John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Barack Obama share their voters precinct by precinct to maximize their impact. If Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards had combined forces, charges of racism would have rightfully been claimed.

But in this instance, there are no charges of either sexism or ageism, as the three younger men collude to defeat the (slightly) older female. Edwards is able to barely defeat Hillary Clinton for second place as a direct result of this collusion.

•Michigan, Barack Obama also took his name off of the Michigan ballot in October of 2007 on the last day it was legal to do so so that he could brag to Iowans that he supported their going first and that Michigan should be punished for trying to move their primary date forward.

Not only does Barack Obama berate Michangers to get a bump in Iowa, Barack ends up getting only five less delegates in Michigan than Hillary Clinton, even though Hillary was leading by 15%-20%. Barack Obama took his name off of the ballot, that was a gamble he made, he should take responsiblity and acknowledge it was a purely political move to gain an edge in Iowa. But that would require Barack Obama having integrity and honesty.

•Illinois, In what may have been the absolute height of arrogance, graft, and egocentric action, Illinois MOVES UP THEIR PRIMARY DATE BY SEVEN WEEKS to the beginning of February, 2008. The combination of blockading the Michigan Vote total along with Illinois moving up their primary date causes a gargantuan shift in delegate totals that has been completely manipulated by democratic officials.

•Florida, The democratic legislators acquiesce to a Republican majority congress to move the Florida primary date into January after the Republicans dangle a paper ballot initiative that would make any future voting controversies easier to investigate. Floridians were ensuring that future presidential votes would be more easily verifiable and for that they are sanctioned.

The democratic party punishes both Hillary Clinton and the voters of Florida by halving the delegate vote. Florida was to Hillary what Illinois was to Barack Obama. Barack Obama got his Illinois, Hillary Clinton did not get her Florida.

•Nevada Caucus, In a bizarre Twist, the Clinton Campaign is accused of racism towards Hispanics. The Nevada Teachers Union challenges the method used by the Vegas Culinary Union for caucusing. The Vegas Culinary Union will hold 11 caucuses along the strip that will only be available to hotel employees, who will be forced to vote in front of their bosses who back Barack Obama.

The Nevada Teachers union lawsuit claims these caucuses will have more influence than any other caucus in the state. Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote in the state but only gets 11 delegates to Barack Obama's 14, pretty much proving that the Nevada Teachers union was right.

•South Carolina, not a primary, however when Bill Clinton compares Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson in South Carolina, racism charges are AGAIN leveled against the Clintons. A ridiculous notion when one considers that it was an AA contingent from New York that encouraged Hillary Clinton to run for the Presidency.

If it was not in good taste to compare Jesse Jackson to Barack Obama, that is one thing, but it certainly was not meant in a racist manner in the least. The media plays up the racist angle to the hilt.

John Edwards mysteriously quits the race just days before February Super Tuesday. John Edwards top rural advisor, states on MSNBC, "I will do everything in my power so he (John Edwards) does not endorse Hillary Clinton." Could this help explain the immediate spike in Barack Obama's numbers, and the clearly innaccurate results in the caucus state votes that occur over the next 10 days? Just look at what happens in the Caucuses that are held in February...

•Minnesota Caucus, Hillary Clinton was leading by 7 points about one week before the caucus but then loses the caucus vote by a TWO to ONE margin. A poll by Jacob's center and Minnesota Public Radio, released five days before Super Tuesday, showed Clinton leading Obama 40%-33%, within the poll's margin of error. The caucus result was 68% Barack Obama, 32% for Hillary Clinton, a stunning reversal and clearly one wrought with some type of voter fraud.

•Colorado Caucus, Just as was the case in Minnesota, Hillary Clinton was leading by a slim margin just prior to the Colorado Caucus, then loses by 34 points.

•Washington State Caucus. A Survey SA poll of Washington released Friday, the day before the caucus, showed Obama at 50%, Clinton at 45%. Obama won the caucus, 68%-31%. A non-binding primary vote held 10 days later reveals Barack Obama winning 51-46%. Amazing how the poll and the primary vote turn out virtually identical, but once again the Caucus vote reveals a ludicrously large more than 2-1 showing for Barack Obama.

•Nebraska Caucus, Hillary Clinton loses the caucus by 35 points, but then loses a follow up Nebraska primary by only 2 points. The graph of the Nebraska Primary Results are put up on MSNBC several times on election night, the MSNBC commentators IGNORE the results and focus ALL of their attention on the other contest from that night.

At one point, one of the MSNBC hosts demands the Nebraska graphic be taken down without any comment being made about the remarkable gain Hillary Clinton has made in the Nebraska primary as compared to the prior Nebraska Caucus.
•Idaho Caucus, A 79%-19% Barack Obama caucus victory shrinks to a 56%-37% primary victory. In essence, Hillary Clinton has increased her vote by 200% while Barack Obama's total is reduced by 30%, a 230% swing in vote totals between the candidates from the caucus to the primary vote.

•Texas Two Step. Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote but once again, Barack Obama actually gains 99 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 94 delegates. Some caucus votes mysteriously disappear, people are told not to bother showing up to regional caucus meetings as super delegates get diverted to Barack Obama. Caucus locations are shifted 45 miles or farther, preventing many from attending. Amazingly, once again, Hillary Clinton wins the primary vote but loses the Texas caucus vote by a 2-1 margin.

•Virgin Islands Caucus revealed a 90% to 10% margin of Victory for Barack Obama. That is a pretty laughable margin of victory and speaks to the insatiable greed of the Barack Obama camp. Although only 3 delegates are at stake, Barack Obama gets all three. Clearly a 2-1 delegate split is a fairer alternative, but this won't happen from the campaign that advocates change.

Margin of Victory Challenges should be allowed on Caucus contests that exceed a 60%-40% margin. If a candidate loses a caucus by a bigger margin than 60%-40%, they should be allowed to challenge the results via a primary vote if they desire.

•Guam Caucus, Allegations are made that the vote is stopped even as the final precinct results are still being counted, a precinct that is heavily pro Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama "wins" the Guam primary by a total of seven votes!

•North Carolina was not a caucus, however North Carolina was given 28 extra delegates for NOT moving their primary date forward. Was such an offer made to Michigan? North Carolina mail in registration voting shows a huge increase as compared to four years earlier. Barack Obama has a 100,000 lead in North Carolina before the first vote is cast on the day of the primary. Three counties that heavily favored Barack Obama may have had their votes counted twice. Apparently a correction to the vote total was never made even though North Carolina had another three weeks to make the final correction.

What MSNBC called a mandate victory in North Carolina might only have been a 5%-7% margin of victory among voters who actually walked up to the polls and voted that day. Allegations that many of the registrations were postmarked from Washington D.C. are neither confirmed or denied.

When mail in votes are allowed prior to the day of walk up voting, Barack Obama seems to pick up huge advance leads.

Finally, there is the 555 controversy. Hillary Clinton wins 11 out of 12 states and gains 555 delegates, Barack Obama LOSES those same 11 out of 12 states, and gains 550 delegates! Hillary Clinton only gains 5 more delegates than Barack Obama even though she has an 11-1 record and Barack Obama has a 1-11 record in the 12 states pictured up above.

When you add this all up, it easily equals a 400 shift in delegates, meaning Hillary Clinton should have 200 more delegates than what she currently has, and Barack Obama should have 200 less delegates than what he currently has. Hillary Clinton should be the presumptive nominee for the democratic party, not Barack Obama.
And who came up with the word "presumptive" anyways? Another media tool designed to force Hillary Clinton to quit before the convention.