And who came up with the word "presumptive" anyways? Another media tool designed to force Hillary Clinton to quit before the convention.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
•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.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Cracking the Hillary Code (from 2006) George Soros backed Huffington Post reveals plot to take out Hillary Clinton back in 2006.
This is why Hillary Clinton is Behind; Arianna Huffington, George Soros Connection Exposed in their own Trading Places Movie Sequel.
Billionaire Boob & Sidekick HuffPuppy (aka George Soros & Arianna Huffington) are about to Demolish the Democratic Party & Hillary Clinton.
Arianna Huffington and Secret Billionaire Boyfriend George Soros Attack the Institution of Marital Relationships by Attacking Hillary Clinton.
George Soros buys the nomination, by Ed Hamler.
I came to the same conclusions about Soros KNOWING NOTHING about what Mr. Hamler had written. We've both come to the same conclusion using different research methods.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Here is a quote from the Minnesota Daily Newspaper,
Sen. Barack Obama took each state that held a caucus Tuesday by an exceptionally wide margin, save American Samoa. In states that held primaries, the margins of victory were more even-keeled, perhaps representing a more realistic method of vote counting.
Clear, concise, exactly what I have been saying on this blog for months. Why are these fraudulent caucus results not being challenged? Minnesota had a two to one margin of victory for Barack Obama, NOBODY believes that if the democratic party held a primary in Minnesota instead of a caucus that Barack Obama would have won by a 2-1 margin. As I recall, Hillary Clinton was actually winning by 7 points in Minnesota just one week before the 2008 caucus was held.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
I happened upon this comment. It kind of rings true as Barack Obama had a huge lead over Hillary Clinton based on the mail in vote.
And for all those people who only see evil--
Here's a comment from the news-Record from March 9, 2008:
"We had been receiving, for the last couple of weeks or so, about 1,500 to 2,200 voter registration applications daily," said Johnnie Mclean, deputy director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
In 2004, her office received only a few hundred a day, she said.
"This is, by far, the largest we've seen," Mclean said.
One reason for the state's uptick are prefilled voter registration applications from a Washington-based voting advocacy group that were mailed to thousands of private mailboxes in North Carolina. Recipients can verify their information and mail the cards to the state elections office."
Get it??? They've been sending packets to North Carolina for months now? The Deputy Director of the Board of Elections is HAPPY that so many new people are registering.
wasa1 | 04.30.08 - 6:09 pm | #
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
I think a lawsuit prior to the Denver coronation could play a significant role in the 2008 democratic nomination process.
My research leads me to believe that no judge would actually favor overturning the current democratic result no matter what evidence was presented.
However, if I had the resources, I would file a lawsuit to try and get a ruling in which a judge declares whether or not "fair reflection" was followed in this years democratic race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I believe a judge might rule that Fair Reflection WAS NOT in force in the 2008 democratic process.
Think of it as an asterisk in front a sports record.
Asterisks in front of a sports record designates that something about that record needs to be explained whenever the record is quoted.
I believe that Barack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages all being from caucus states is a statistical abberation that is so far out of alignment that it cannot be called "fair reflection" of the voters in those states. Hillary Clinton was actually leading or tied in MOST of the caucus contests that went to Barack Obama by a 2-1 margin.
When a candidate wins approximately 15 caucuses and 18 primaries, and their top 11 caucus wins are also the top 11 in winning percentage, something is mathematically out of joint. The top 10 highest percentage wins for Barack Obama should have been a blend, at most, 7 caucus wins and 3 primary wins, but any more than 7 caucus wins and something suspicious was in play, and the results are tainted.
As further evidence, we know that three states that held both primaries and caucuses show OVER A 30% SWING IN HILLARY CLINTON'S FAVOR from the caucus result to the primary result. As a fourth example, we have Texas. Hillary Clinton won the state's popular vote by 4%, but lost the ensuing caucus vote by a 2-1 margin.
If a judge could be presented enough convincing evidence that fair reflection did not happen in many of the caucus state contests, a ruling stating that the democrats did not live up to fair reflection in the 2008 election would be ethically devastating to the Barack Obama camp.
Many other specific situations could also be brought up that thoroughly show virtually all of the critical rulings favoring Barack Obama throughout the 2008 election campaign, another sign that fair reflection did not happen.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
MSNBC, Huffington Post, David Axlerod Timeline to Destroy the Clintons early in the 2008 Presidential Race.
Why did 3 superdelegates leave John Edwards and join Barack Obama before Edwards had quit the race? Why did Edwards quit the race just days before all the caucus elections were to be held? Edwards voters were 40% in favor of Clinton and 25% in favor of Obama when Edwards quit the race, yet it was evident that Barack Obama got the big bump in the caucus state contests held soon after Edwards had quit.
It appears that Richardson, Edwards and Obama colluded by all taking their names off the ballot in Michigan right at the October 2007 filing deadline. It is possible they may have shared their groups of supporters precinct by precinct in the early caucus races to optimize each candidates overall position. If Richardson, Edwards and Hillary had colluded against Barack, the charge of racism would have been rightfully leveled. But when it is three males against a more mature female opponent, no one mentions ageism and sexism.
In Nevada, the culinary Union, even though it was comprised of at least 40% hispanic, somehow picked Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, (I'd really like to know how that backroom deal went down) then poured it on by creating outrageous rules for voting elegibility along the Vegas Strip. Only Hotel employees could vote in the vegas strip caucuses, and their delegate totals were significantly higher than any other caucus precincts in the entire state.
When the Nevada teachers union filed a legitimate lawsuit that the Vegas Strip Caucuses would have too much influence as compared to all the other caucuses in the state, the Clintons were attacked as being racist and anti-Latino!
Not to be outdone, Bill Clinton was then accused of racism in South Carolina! I think it is possible that David Axlerod was involved in these early racism charges against the Clintons.
Here is where it really gets weird. Dan Abrams of MSNBC began clamoring that the superdelegates should not dictate the outcome of the race. Interesting side note, Dan Abrams uses the name "Beat the Press" in his daily television show and even claims to be the first one to have used the name. This is comedy and lying all rolled into one as it was Arianna Huffington circa 1997 that pitched a show called "Beat the Press" for television syndication, but it was never picked up. We all know how closely intertwined Arianna Huffington is with MSNBC.
Is it possible that Abrams and Huffington worked out a deal that allowed Abrams to use Arianna Huffington's concept "Beat the Press" (Dan Abrams has proudly claimed he was the first to use the phrase "Beat the Press"), if Abrams would agree to intimidate the superdelegates with his daily diatribe against the superdelegates deciding the outcome of the race? Dan Abrams went on and on for days over the "Super delegates cannot decide the race" theme.
While Abrams was putting forth the "superdelegates cannot control the nomination process" theme, The Great Plains caucus contests were falling in shockingly unrepresentative fashion for Barack Obama. John Edwards had just quit the race prior to these February Great Plains Caucuses and Edwards' top rural advisor, Dave "Mudcat" Saunders had stated on MSNBC: "I will do everything in my power so he doesn't endorse Hillary Clinton."
Hmmm, a John Edwards rural advisor who hates Hillary Clinton is suddenly available just in time for the Great Plains States Caucuses, which results in incredibly unrealistic numbers for Barack Obama and ends up being the difference maker in the 2008 democratic race.
After the Caucus Contests victories in February Barack Obama managed to achieve the suspicious feat of 51% of the vote (not counting Florida and Michigan) yet 57% of the delegates.Nobody at MSNBC seemed to think it was biased news reporting to try and diminish the superdelegates role in the election while simultaneously ignoring Barack Obama's significantly higher percentage of delegates 57% versus his popular vote total 51%.
Backed by Dan Abrams MSNBC show demanding that the super delegates not decide the race, Donna Brazile decided to become the decider and began to threaten that if the superdelegates decided the race there would basically be rioting in the streets. The evidence is shockingly there that from the beginning the fix was in to eliminate Hillary Clinton from the race, all thanks to Billionaire George Soros and his unhealthy influence on several media sources in the 2008 democratic race.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Click on Image to enlarge.
Click on image to enlarge.
Click on Image to Enlarge.
When Al Gore tried to get votes recounted in Florida in 2000, the Republicans accused him of trying to change the voting rules to benefit him. In actuality, because of a one week voter recount time limit, what Al Gore did was try and address voting discrepancies without creating massive chaos an entire state recount would cause. I find it shocking that a Florida recount would not automatically trigger additional time to recount the votes. Apparently the United States supreme court was comfortable with a florida recount system that sticks to a schedule even if that schedule precludes a legitimate statewide recount from being possible. (gasp).
Because of this, Al Gore was trapped into asking for pieces of the Florida revote pie, and that is when the Republicans hit him with the accusation that Gore wanted to change the rules until Gore won. In Nevada, a similar thing happened. The Vegas Strip culinary workers were able to set up close to a dozen voting locations along the vegas strip. The problem with this was the caucus voting was ONLY available to the hotel workers and no one else who lived or worked in the area. Additionally, speaking out in public for Hillary Clinton in this type of situation could make an employee feel like their job was in danger for going against their bosses. The percentage of selected delegates from these specific caucus locations was going to favor the culinary union over any one else that voted elsewhere in the Nevada Caucus.
The Barack Obama camp received the endorsement of the Las Vegas culinary union (and you gotta wonder what sleazy tactics went on to get it since Hillary Clinton is supported by Hispanics and the culinary union has a very large contingent of Hispanics). There were also reports of intimidation among the Hispanic union members by the higher ups to vote for Barack Obama.
When individual members of the teachers union brought up the various inequities that would give the culinary union an unfair delegate advantage over all other voting counties in the state of Nevada, they were immediately attacked on all fronts and charges of racism ensued. Bill Clinton appeared in a newsclip eloquently defending the lawsuit and the lack of fairness in allowing Vegas Strip voting to count for more than any other group in the state. Some people have posted this clip on youtube and tried to imply that Bill Clinton was somehow being arrogant or upset. Actually Bill Clinton was basically 100% correct in his comments.
Then came the "Florida Manuever" by the Barack Obama camp. When the Nevada lawsuit was filed, the Barrack Obama people and their bot friends accused the Clinton's of filing a lawsuit to change the rules only because they did not get the union's endorsement. This is the kind of accusation that damages a reputation and is something usually reserved for the opposite political party, as the Republicans did to Al Gore back in 2000. In this instance it is the Barack Obama camp doing "the Florida Manuever" to a fellow democrat, Hillary Clinton.
While there are instances in which both sides hammered each other over various political stances, the Nevada situation was different because the lawsuit was bringing up the issue of "Fair Reflection" and the Barack Obama camp had no stomach to make sure the Nevada Caucus fairly reflected the vote of the state. What was the Clintons reward for supporting the conceopt of "Fair Reflection" in Nevada?
You can google Nevada Caucus Lawsuit and you will find a preponderance of articles that take Barack Obama's position and unfairly paint the Clinton's as being elitists and against fairness. Some articles even claim the Clintons arer racist against Hispanics!
It appears to me that the DNC only believed in Fair Reflection when it benefited Barack Obama, and the DNC did not support Fair Reflection when it benefited Hillary Clinton.
Check out these links. 13 page Lawsuit document (Item 33 on page 6 gets to the heart of the matter
Pathetic Attempt to by Ben Smith to accuse the Clintons of "disenfranchising" the culinary workers union.
How can it be a dubious lawsuit to ask that the percentage of delegates selected from the Vegas Strip be porptionately equal to the rest of the state???
The craziest part of all, and bears repeating, the Vegas strip caucuses were only open to the employees of the hotel holding the caucus. No LOCAL RESIDENTS WERE ALLOWED IN, AND, could you imagine saying in public that you supported Hillary Clinton in the middle of a culinary union vote in which the union higher ups had already supported Barack Obama?
Who would stand up in front of their bosses and upper management and speak on Hillary Clinton's behalf? The fear of losing one's job, whether valid or not, is more than enough to quell Hillary Clinton Supporters from standing up at a culinary caucus meeting and speaking on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Even if the likelihood of losing one's job not really there, the perception of punishment CAN EASILY BE THERE.
While the Clintons were then accused of being anti-hispanic in Las Vegas, Bill Clinton was also being accused of being racist in South Carolina. Bill Clinton, racist? It is such a laughable concept, yet the racism card was played over and over by the George Soros influenced media early on and often.