Monday, June 23, 2008

If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Switched their Super Delegate totals, Hillary Clinton would be the Presumptive Nominee!

Besides the "Great 12 State Fiasco" in which Hillary Clinton wins 11 of 12 States and picks up 555 delegates while Barack Obama LOSES those same 11 of 12 states and picks ups 550 delegates, there is the Caucus Theft Caper in which Barack Obama doubles the amount of delegates Hillary Clinton gets even though polling shows in many of those caucus contests the two were a lot closer together in popularity, which now brings us to "The Charge of the Super Delegate Brigade".

Even with all the manipulation done to help Barack Obama eeke out a delegate victory over Hillary Clinton, did you know that if the Super Delegate numbers were simply switched, Hillary getting Barack's total, and Barack getting Hillary's total, Hillary Clinton would actually be the presumptive nominee.

So the reason this was not allowed to happen was because of the caucus contests, that clearly did nothing to accurately and fairly reflect the will of the voters in those states.

All I ask is that all caucus contests be revoted using a primary style of voting, and that these primaries be funded by the american military reducing their fuel consumption by 10% for just a couple of days. That's all it would take to pay for the revote.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Newsweek, or is it NewsTweak, joins the George Soros, Kool Aid Drinking Party.

MSNBC tab on Newsweek's website. It's just one big incestuous news family spawned by George Soros. George Soros, Huffington Post,, MSNBC, Newseek, Daily Kos, Media Matters, all there to push forward the agenda of George Soros.

Jonathan Alter was on television with Keith Olbermann trashing and attacking John McCain, and his memory for defending Hillary Clinton from the Media Attacks she actually did suffer.
Just one week earlier, the magazine Alter works for, Newsweek, ran an offensive piece that claimed there is no way to cheat in national elections. The irony of the article was that it NEVER mentioned the caucus state votes, and it NEVER mentioned the concept of Fair Reflection.
The conclusionary quote to the Newsweek article is wrought with obfuscation. "It is very, very hard to swing entire elections through large-scale polling-place fraud, in part because to do so one needs to organize great numbers of voters willing to commit felonies by registering as Mickey Mouse. And then voting in mouse ears. If we could just put the myth of vote fraud to rest, we would go a long way toward restoring "voter confidence."
Um, what about caucus fraud in which only thousands have to be involved? what about the overall will of over 35 million being circumvented by a mere million caucus voters?

It's just part of the same old, same old, MSNBC, Newsweek, George Soros, Huffington Post, not there to post the real news, just the news that fits their own agenda.

To top it off, Newsweek has now run a poll that shows Barack Obama 15 points ahead whereas all over polls show Barack Obama ahead by 4-8 points. Is this the best we can expect from one of our "top" magazines?

Complete alignment with one political party over the other while holding onto the claim that these organizations are "news groups" is fraud, but actually dictating WHICH CANDIDATE is "elected" within a major political party just might be treason.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

How David Axelrod Corrupted Barack Obama.

One of the bulls eye moments in this years campaign was John McCain mentioning that Barack Obama had only been to Iraq once, whereas every other major presidential candidate had been there at least three times or more. From the moment this point was made a couple of months ago, it was pretty evident that Barack Obama would need to go visit the troops at least one more time this year.

I also think it's fair to say that if the "Barack in Iraq" topic hadn't been brought up by McCain, Barack might not not have made it a priority, unless there was some strategic advantage to be gained by going to Iraq.

Yesterday on MSNBC, the "Barack in Iraq" situation was discussed with David Axelrod on MSNBC. Mr. Axelrod looked right into the camera and without so much as a finger wag nor a flinch, said that Barack going to Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO with John McCain bringing up the topic.
It saddened me to see the absolutely unflinching, completely sociopathic look on Mr. Axelrod's face as he attempted to look into the camera and try and be believeable as he downplayed McCain's role in Barack going to Iraq.

Rather than for once, just once, giving McCain a minor bit of credit for a shot across the bow that actually made a slight dent in the Barack Obama facade, and THEN downplaying it as not being that big of a deal, Axelrod was in full denial mode as he stated that Barack Obama had planned all along to go to Iraq.

It reminded me of the Pee Wee Herman movie when he goes over the handlebars of his own bicycle and makes a spectacular summersault and crash, and then looks up at a group of kids and says, "I meant to do that".

It saddened me because as I watched Axelrod lose all credibility right in front of my eyes, I realized that it is his sociopathic mindset that has contaminated whatever purity Barack Obama may have still had before his campaign began.

Deny everything, never admit any weakness, just power through on down the road. You know, the way the Bush administration does it.

Change, what change?

Saturday, June 14, 2008

What do Hillary Clinton People Want?

I can't speak for others. I know what I want however. I want FAIR REFLECTION in the caucus states. The delegates that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton receive from the caucus states should actually mirror their popularity in the caucus contests. I actually don't mind if the delegate count slightly favors the candidate that "worked harder" in those states, but I don't want to see delegate counts that are so far off the probable popular vote, (fair reflection) it becomes laughable, which is what we have now.

If it take conducting actual primaries in the caucus states to gain FAIR REFLECTION, than I am for that. I would estimate the cost to do this at about 90% less than what our Military spends in one day on FUEL. If our military reduced their fuel usage by 10% for just one day, the government could easily pay for the caucus contest elections to be redone as primaries.

I also want an admission from Barack Obama that taking his name off of the Michigan Ballot at the last possible moment (in October, 2007), was done in collusion with John Edwards and Bob Richardson so they would gain a tactical advantage in Iowa over Hillary Clinton. If you want proof that ageism and sexism were at play, and racism was not, there is no way that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson would have ever combined forces against Barack Obama in Iowa, but the three younger men did combine forces against a female.

Because of this collusion in Iowa, Barack Obama should not expect delegates in any noticeable amount from Michigan. Carl Levin has already stated that Michigan had a legitimate, desperate reason for moving up their primary. Michigan was not the only state to move up their primary date, making their "punishment" questionable. North Carolina was awarded 28 delegates for NOT moving up their primary date. Was Michigan offered anything for not moving up their primary date?

The reason given for punishing Florida and Michigan states was that next time will be worse if there is no punishment this time. I can design a system that levels the playing field AND gives states a method for moving up their date if a state feels in desperate need of being heard. So the solution is not punishment now, but one which FIRST offers a more logical, representative method for all states to follow.

I find it fascinating that the party that wants more education and less jails opts for a punishment first mode when it comes time to solve their own internal problems. I call that, hypocrisy.

Near the end of the campaign, not all uncommitted delegates and super delegates were voting for whom they wanted. Instead they were voting for whom they were being told by the media was the presumptive, presumptive winner. This is a form of voter fraud. The first vote by a delegate or superdelegate should be for whom they are supporting, not whom they are being told is already the presumptive presumptive nominee.

There are some super delegates and uncommitted delegates who simply did not vote for Hillary Clinton because they thought she could not win. This creates a false delegate count. The is time later, if one chooses, to vote for whom is going to win rather than whom one is supporting. Forcing delegates into voting for who was winning rather than who they wanted to win prior to Denver was voter manipulation.

I also want an admission from MSNBC, Huffington Post, and George Soros that they influenced peddled the media to make sure Barack Obama won. Without all of this happening, there can be no real democratic winner, and no real harmony among democrats.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Tim Russert Passes.

Please leave a Tim Russert remembrance if you have one.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

What Hillary Clinton Supporters are Fighting For.

I believe that George Soros, Huffington Post, MSNBC, and a few others spearheaded a move to secure the democratic nomination for Barack Obama. If this is true, AND they cheated to do it, then it is essential that this result be overturned, otherwise the affect it will have on future presidential races could be catastrophic.

If Barack Obama was assisted in winning the democratic nomination by George Soros, Huffington Post, Move On, and MSNBC, then in the future, viable democratic candidates might feel compelled to get the blessing of the above group or not even make an attempt to run for the presidency. Donors may not even bother donating money to a campaign if the candidate does not have the approval of those mentioned above since they will have all the power.

If MSNBC is successful in changing the way they report news and gain viewers in the process, and also get to select who the presumptive democratic candidate is before the public even casts a single vote, they will never change back to being a news station that reports the news, rather than manipulates it.

The higher ups who support Fox television news, upon seeing how that they lost the presidential race to a democratic candidate who was financially propped up and helped by so many forces, may begin interfere in the republic nominating process to a greater degree. Rather than waiting until the public elects the Republican nominee, Fox News and their higher ups may choose to take the mystery out of this step and in essence help pre-select the presumptive Republican nominee in the same manner that George Soros, MSNBC, Huffington Post and Move On have done with Barack Obama.

The fight to see "truth in voting" win out, also known as Fair Reflection, not only affects this election, but will have far reaching consequences in future presidential elections as well. A lot is at stake in seeing the real truth come out of the fraudulent caucus voting that helped the democratic presumptive nominee, Barack Obama gain an ill gotten advantage over Hillary Clinton.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Fair Reflection Protest Movement.

Please click on the link below to learn about the Fair Reflection Protest Movement.
Fair Reflection Protest Movement

Saturday, June 7, 2008

MSNBC and Huffington Post Lay it on Thick as Hillary Clinton is Forced to Suspend her Campaign.

The false platitudes pour in from both Huffington Post and MSNBC over Hillary Clinton's forced suspension speech. Forcing a suspension speech from Hillary Clinton so early after the end of democratic nomination race, when Hillary Clinton had had as many popular votes if not more than the presumptive nominee (Barack Obama), is unprecedented in the history of the United States.

Fox News seems to support the presumptive Republican candidate, but did Fox News actually demand that John McCain be the nominee? Doubtful.

It appears that Fox did not have anywhere near as much of a hand in selecting the actual Republican candidate as MSNBC and Huffington Post have had in pushing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

In the past, billionaire tycoons may have backed one political party over another, but this year a billionaire has actually controlled the american news media and internet news into favoring a specific candidate (Barack Obama) over the more popular candidate (Hillary Clinton), when both were with the same political party. This apparently takes the practice of "billionaire butting in" to a whole new, corrupt level.

From my point of view, disassembling the democratic party and reassembling it with higher ups that don't take their walking orders from George Soros and Arianna Huffington is the best way to save the democratic party in the long run. While Barack Obama talks a good game about change, if he is successful in his run for the presidency he will actually set back the democratic party a decade or more as future candidates will have to be approved by George Soros and Arianna Huffington.

At the end of the day, Barack Obama won because of the constant media attack against Hillary Clinton. The media attack was pinioned on the result of the fraudulent over votes in the caucus state contests. MSNBC and all news media refused to address the lack of Fair Reflection in the Great Plains Caucus contests. Barack Obama won by wildly inaccurate amounts in the caucus state votes, and all the media will say about this is that Barack Obama had better ground forces in those states.

Nobody dares to bring up the concept of "Fair Reflection", except for the coolest head on the block, Harold Ickes.

Friday, June 6, 2008

South Dakota Punctures Obama's Hold on the Northern Great Plain States and Raises New Questions about Barack's Caucus States Wins.

One of the two areas that Barack Obama dominated in was the Great Northern Plain States and some of the surrounding states as well. However this dominance was achieved through caucus contests and not primary contests.

Just prior to the final week of voting for the democratic nominee, surrounding the State of South Dakota were 9 Obama caucus contest wins, all done via caucus voting. The result of many of those caucus contests were highly lopsided caucus victories that resulted in a suspiciously high allocation of delegates to Barack Obama.Montana and South Dakota were the only states in the Great Northern Plains to hold primaries, and they did so on the final day of elections for the democratic nomination. Barack Obama had aleady won 9 straight caucuses in the great Northern Plain States that surround South Dakota. However in the only Two Great Plain State primaries that were held instead of caucuses, Hillary Clinton won in South Dakota, and Barack Obama won in Montana. Apparently Hillary won the democratic vote in Montana but Barack picked up the Republican vote!

The combined popular primary vote total of Montana and South Dakota were almost evenly split between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with Barack barely having more total votes between the two states. In no way did the popular vote total come anywhere near the margin of victory that Barack Obama achieved in all of the surrounding Great Plain States caucus contests.

This once again reinforces the reality that Barack Obama received a discordant amount of delegates from caucus state contests than Hillary Clinton. In the primary state elections, where voters get all day to vote and vote in the privacy of a voting booth, Hillary Clinton does significantly better than in the caucus state contests which severly limit voter participation.

Speaking of racism, isn't Montana known as a gun loving state? How does the Obama camp spin that Barack won in a state that probably has similar beliefs to those in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, including loving their guns, yet voting for Obama? lol, actually he may not won if not for the Republican cross over vote.

When Obama loses in gun loving states, the spin of racism is used, when Barack Obama wins in gun loving states, the state is called "enlightened".

New Blog from Alessandro Machi, WALL STREET CHANGE, is now Online.

Wall Street Change
While the George Soros / Arianna Huffington led Media Attack against Hillary Clinton appears to be succeeding, I think it important to not lose sight of issues that affect every american on a daily level.

Wall Street fascinates me.

I understand that Wall Street represents a link to the global business community, but is the Wall Street Status quo acceptable to americans who are seeing their local economy suffer as a result?

When Wall Street Stock rises because a fortune 500 company reduces american labor force, even when that labor force was not actually losing the company money, it becomes clear that Wall Street's agenda is different from that which is decent for the american citizen. I'd like Wall Street Change to be a place where we build simple ideas into simple solutions that maybe one day get incorporated by Wall Street.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Can Hillary Clinton Delegates be For Hillary Clinton while campaigning for Barack Obama?

Can Hillary Clinton Delegates be for Hillary Clinton while campaigning for Barack Obama? Apparently the democratic party is confused over this issue. It appears that to be a card carrying member of the Barack Obama presidential campaign club, a Hillary Clinton delegate must disavow any allegiance to Hillary Clinton.

When delegates change their vote simply to be on the "winning team", are they acting ethically? Every delegate voter who changes their vote, or decides who to vote for based on who was winning the delegate race is acting unethically in my opinion. The delegates that voted based on who was going to win have violated a very basic tenet of their responsibility to both the public, themselves, and the democratic party that I used to be familar with.

Media manipulation has never been more transparent than in this years race. The new norm, as imposed by the media, is that all delegates are supposed to side with whomever is leading the democratic race, or they are not following the will of the voters.

This is a nonsensical message and it appears to me to be a cloak for some other possibly illegal behavior that is being covered up by the democratic higher ups and the news media.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

MSNBC Caucus Cheating Cover Up? Dan Abrams and Andrea Mitchell Claim Congress is Mad at Hillary Clinton for not Quitting Race, Congressman Disagrees.

A comical exchange occurred on the Dan Abrams show when Dan Abrams tried to put forth the premise that Congress was highly incensed Hillary had not yet dropped out of the 2008 democratic race. When Dan Abrams tried to get the congressman he was interviewing to agree with this premise, the congressman looked into the camera and said "no, not at all, Congress is not mad at Hillary Clinton, not in the least, you guys are the ones who seem anxious to have Hillary quit".

Dan Abrams, caught in a very embarrassing moment known as the big MSNBC Hillary Must Quit spinzone, sputtered, stuttered, and then tried to convince the congressman that he was wrong in his belief that Congress was not unhappy with Hillary for not quitting.

Having no luck changing the congressman's mind, Dan Abrams compounds the embarrassing situation by asking Andrea Mitchell, who was on a live phone feed, to corroborate Abrams assertion that it was others, and not MSNBC, that wanted Hillary Clinton to quit the democratic 2008 race.

Andrea then stuttered and sputtered her own reply to Abrams. It was a not ready for prime time moment that needs to be exposed because something much, much bigger is being hidden.

It is my opinion that something is being covered up and somebody very high up believes that it is essential that Hillary Clinton quit as soon as possible to help cover up the illegal activity.

My theory is that somebody wants Hillary Clinton to quickly quit so her own voter base can't pay off her debt. By rushing Hillary Clinton to quit, it forces Hillary Clinton to have her plus 20 million dollar debt paid off by the democratic national party and Barack Obama. This maneuver practically forces Hillary Clinton to keep quiet should she later on discover the illegal secret collusion activity involving the Iowa Caucus and other caucuses that followed.

I see no compelling reason to rush Hillary Clinton to quit so quickly. Those who have orchestrated the Iowa Caucus imbroglio may want to move things forward as fast as posible and in the process hope that it makes everyone forget about CaucusGate, before CaucusGate is ever brought into the light.

John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Barack Obama colluded in Iowa to stop Hillary Clinton, and they succeeded beyond all expectations. Not only did Hillary Clinton overspend by 10-15 million dollars in Iowa, it appears Edwards, Richardson, and Obama were able to orchestrate the caucus precinct votes so that Edwards would barely beat Hillary Clinton and plummet Hillary Clinton all the way to third place.

What two individuals then came out at two critical times to support Barack Obama? How about Bill Richardson and John Edwards. These three democratic candidates, or people directly reporting to them, may be guilty of criminal actions against the United States of America. Caucus fraud by secretly colluding in the Iowa Caucus, and then repeating that secret collusion in several more caucuses that followed, can not be taken lightly.

I have researched the caucus results and they point to cheating as the numbers are so far out the normal range of what the vote should have been, it appears they were illegally manipulated. At the end of the day, the actual delegates for each candidate should reflect to some degree their support within a state, failure to do so puts the democratic party at risk of fraud.

MSNBC Fans the Flames of Hate, Obamabots Scream out insults at Hillary Clinton.

You can read for yourself how MSNBC is probably endangering the life of Hillary Clinton with their inflammatory, non-stop harrassing of Hillary Clinton. Enraged Obamabots, possibly fueled by the constant MSNBC content clamoring for Hillary to quit, pose as Hillary Clinton supporters to get as close to her as possible before revealing their barely contained hate and anger. These are not my democrats, are they yours?
Hillary Clinton accosted by Confused, Lunatic Obamabots
Andrea Mitchell this morning continues to fuel anger against Hillary Clinton with continued prodding of "Friends of Hillary" as to why Hillary won't quit yet.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Keith Olbermann LIES about Hillary Clinton's Future Plans as Hillary Wins in South Dakota.

Monday, June 2, 2008, the day before the Tuesday elections in South Dakota and Montana, Keith Olbermann reported ad nauseum, and as fact, that Hillary Clinton would be resigning from the democratic race immediately after the polls closed in Montana and South Dakota.
How many lies have been spread about Hillary Clinton and how many lies have been told about this years campaign with the expressed intent of driving Hillary Clinton supporters away from the voting booth, telling them that their votes were meaningless.

Back at you, Keith, except I'm telling the truth about you, too bad you can't do the same when talking about Hillary Clinton and her future plans.

Super Delegate and Delegate Controversy; Why are Delegates Voting for who they Think will Win Rather than who they Want to Win?

Super Delegate and Delegate Controversy; Why are Delegates Voting for who they "Think will Win" rather than who they think will make a better president? I have never heard of such a thing.

It is spineless to vote for who the media keeps saying will win rather than who the delegates want to win and I won't support a party that actually promotes this type of philosophy.

Keith Olbermann's Inappropriate Remarks about Hillary Clinton

Coming soon, Keith Olbermann's Inappropriate remarks about Hillary Clinton, so brazenly inappropriate and arrogant. Keith Olbermann is the ultimate snark.

Monday, June 2, 2008

To the Barack Obama Ground Crew, Tell Your Caucus Cheating Story NOW While it Still Has Value.

When the stories begin coming out on how Barack Obama operatives cheated in the caucus state voting process, only the first few who confess will make money and become famous for it. Once the Barack Obama cheating in the Caucus State votes makes the press and you weren't one of the first to tell your story, your story's value will plummet.

There are Obama caucus delegates who can't wait to get to Denver and tell their tale of how they cheated in the caucus states, but it may be too late by then.

Perhaps the idea of kicking back a beer and getting a lap dance from a mile high strip club girl or guy may be on your itinerary, but that is still months off. Once just a few Barack Obama people come forward with their story of cheating in the caucus states, not only will your story be useless, but you will be scorned because you weren't one of the first to confess. You'll have a great story that you really won't be able to tell and have people believe you.

At least Scott McClellan got a book deal, what are you going to get for being a cheater who waited to confuse until it was too late?
Surely once the nomination process is over you will be the LAST ONE anyone from the Barack Obama camp will want to help as you are a reminder of the cheating it took to win the nomination.

What a way to start your political career.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Harold Ickes "Fair Reflection" comment misrepresented by the American Media.

I have had to rerun this article after noticing the american media is trying to camouflauge and change the context under which the phrase "Fair Reflection" was used when Harold Ickes questioned Robert Wexler about its meaning.

I am stunned at the level of deception our own american media is stooping to in an effort to change a pivotal moment in the Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Florida Michigan delegate battle.

Robert Wexler makes a very controversial statement...."What we are saying is that up to the number of 19, which is the maximum amount allowable under the Ausman Petition and under your rules. WE THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN WILL SUPPORT THAT EFFORT, AND WE DO SO, WE DO SO, IN AN EFFORT OF UNITY."

"Why Mr. Ickes, is it a significant concession?"

"Because in the State of Ohio and the State of Pennsylvania, TOGETHER, Senator Clinton WON A TOTAL OF 19 DELEGATES!!!"

"and here we are today offering a resolution that brings Florida voters TOGETHER, that actually amounts to both the victories of Ohio and Pennsylvania! Let us UNIFY, LET US MOVE ON!" -Robert Wexler

(The pro Obama supporters cheer this rampantly arrogant and completely misguided, idiotic reasoning. It is this "reasoning" which also permeates the elitist Obama brainchild to an alarming degree)."
Commentary by Alessandro Machi about the above statement of Robert Wexler.

Besides Ohio and Pennsylvania, Mr. Wexler could have added Texas, Nevada, and Indiana to his infamous 19 Delegate list. All five states were Hillary Clinton Wins, and all five actually netted Hillary Clinton ONLY 18 delegates!

Do you see the narcissism and arrogance, the "mine, mine, mine" style of politicking the Obama camp runs? The Barack Obama camp is actually bragging that the 19 Florida delegates they want to bestow on Hillary Clinton is an incredibly generous offer. The Barack Obama 19 Florida delegate offer is one more than the sum total of delegates that Hillary Clinton picked up in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, PLUS Texas, Nevada, and Indiana, ALL HILLARY CLINTON VICTORY STATES!

lol, isn't it possible, just possible, that winning a decisive plurality when millions upon millions of voters vote, (also known as "Fair Reflection") is more significant and bankable than the cheating the Obama camp did in the caucus states to pick up a couuple of hundred questionable delegates?

"Fair Reflection" is a concept that is completely oblivious to the Barack Obama camp and clearly was not used as a bellweather to limit the amount of cheating that the Barack Obama side was involved in during their caucus campaigning.

A wise leader knows to limit the amount of cheating to just below what will be noticed. lol, Clearly Barack Obama is not a wise leader.

Ickes is stunned into Silence by the bravado of the intellectually bankrupt opposition.

Robert Wexler listens as Harold Ickes asks, "I gather that you agree with the concept of fair reflection?"

Mr. Wexler looks confused, but smugly confident nonetheless since he doesn't fear that which he cannot comprehend. The pro Obama side cheers on Mr. Wexler as if to say "You may not know what "Fair Reflection means", but we don't either so it must not matter".

In a signature moment that defines the Obama campaign motto of "If we don't understand you, then you don't make sense", Mr. Wexler mockingly and cockily presumes that not only does he not know what fair reflection is, it just doesn't matter to him nor the Obama side.

Mr. Ickes, realizing that he is up against pure bravado backed by youthful inexperience, does not attempt to educate the defiantly uneducatable. This is what the real democratic party is up against. Youthful arrogance that can't comprehend it was Bill Clinton's administration that laid the foundation for their own parents being able to save money during the 90's so they could go to college. Apparently that college education has been used to hate Hillary Clinton, and to cheat in the caucus state voting. wow.

Hillary Clinton is also up against a sordid duo of Billionaire George Soros and secret love interest Arianna Huffington and the politics of hating those who stay married, competently raise a child, and show their love and respect for each other through their mutual teamwork as husband and wife. The democratic party is being done in by ilicit lovers who have fricasseed a successful, intelligent, married woman. double wow. Website has Florida Michigan Analysis with Picture Essay, see Link Below

Florida Michigan Imbroglio, Why the Obamamites Can't Win, with Picture Essay.