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.net 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 Forum.net (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 Forum.net, 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.