It may not seem like news to discover voter fraud contributed to Obama’s election win.
Playing with ballot signatures is nothing new to Obama. CNN once did a surprisingly honest report on Obama’s Dirty Politics (Part 1 and Part 2), in which Obama challenged the signatures of his competition, thus knocking everyone off the ballot to guaranteed Obama would be the only choice Illinois voters would have as a senator. No follow-up reporting has been done on Obama’s role in voter fraud by the mainstream media until now. Fox News reported that Obama used voter fraud to provide enough signatures to be on the Indiana ballot. The signatures are obviously forged. Which begs the question: Are there other states where Obama applied illegal means to qualify?
FoxNews reports the following:
“The trial is underway for a former Democratic official and a Board of Elections worker who are accused of being part of a plot that has raised questions over whether President Obama’s campaign — when he was a candidate in 2008 — submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the presidential primary ballot.
The trial is underway for a former Democratic official and a Board of Elections worker who are accused of being part of a plot that has raised questions over whether President Obama’s campaign — when he was a candidate in 2008 — submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the presidential primary ballot.”
Read more here.
GOP poll inspectors illegally removed from voting locations.
More than 100 percent of registered voters turning out to vote.
Computers reverting to a default Obama vote, regardless of whom the voter selects.
Absentee ballots counted while neutral observers are blocked from supervising.
Military ballots not delivered on time to active-duty servicemen and women around the world.
Illegal campaign contributions, deceased and illegal-alien voters, “lost ballots” and intimidation at the polls.
It’s enough to make voters ask: Does America still have free, fair and accurate elections?
After witnessing a flood of reports detailing incidents of likely vote fraud and abuse this election, WND has launched a petition urging Congress to open an independent and comprehensive investigation.
Read more here.
A forensic profiler whose previous cases have included the Natalie Holloway disappearance and the O.J. Simpson double murder says Barack Obama is confessing to stealing the 2012 president election.
“Obama appears to unconsciously confess on multiple occasions that in his secret fury he stole the 2012 presidential election – continuing his attacks on our nation,” Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., told WND in an assessment of Obama.
“But really that is no different whatsoever than in 2008 becoming an illegal president who violated the Constitution. This knowledge comes from one undeniable fact: we have discovered a new unconscious mind that continually quick-reads situations and communicates about it – as Obama reveals.”
Hodges, who wrote “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” previously deciphered the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note from the Boulder, Colo., murder case.
He uses a unique psycholinguistic technique he calls “ThoughtPrint Decoding” to “read between the lines” of people’s statements – called “the cutting-edge of forensic science” by expert investigators. He’s not exactly new to the field, already having identified killers by studying ransom notes, emails, letters and police interviews to spot secret confessions. He decoded O.J.’s “suicide note” to confirm Simpson had committed a double murder. He deciphered the JonBenet ransom note from Boulder, Colo., to identify the child’s killer. He decrypted letters from BTK to predict that he was about to kill again – the only profiler to do so. He studied statements by Joran van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe to tie them to the slaying of Holloway. He showed how Casey Anthony secretly confessed to killing her daughter in 200 letters written to a jail mate. He even decoded Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky comments.
Read more here.
I am incredibly steamed this Thanksgiving Holiday over what the Democrats are doing to my country.
Everybody by now knows – or should know – how readily Democrats conduct election fraud, and how determined they are to defend it. James O’Keefe and others have taken videos of paid Democratic operatives encouraging citizens to vote twice. O’Keefe was even able to claim Attorney General Eric Holder’s own ballot at a district polling place by claiming to be him, and then to vote in his place. Democrats have promoted Motor Voter laws and same day registration, and month-long election days to help them mobilize the votes of people who are so unconnected to the political process and so uninterested in the country’s future, and perhaps so incompetent to understand what voting entails that they require keepers to see that they get to the polls and then vote the “right” way. In the election that put Al Franken in the Senate by a few hundred votes, more than a thousand felons voted illegally because of the loose laws that govern the polling booth – laws the Democrats want to make even looser. It is in fact the number one civil rights issue of the NAACP this year to give felons the right to vote. So we know that Democrats have little respect for the election process, and we should assume will attempt to pursue their victories by any means necessary.
But even knowing this, I was not prepared for a conversation I had at Thanksgiving dinner today with my brother-in-law, Henry, who has lived most of his life in a home for the mentally disabled, and though now in his forties has the intelligence level of a six-year-old.
“Obama saved me,” he said to me out of the blue.
“What do you mean?”
“I voted for him for president and now he’s saving me.”
I was taken aback by these words, since Henry had no idea who Obama was, or what a president might be, and would be unable to fill out a registration form let alone get to the polling place by himself. So I asked him how he knew that and how he had registered and cast his vote. In halting, impeded speech he told me that the people who take care of him at the home filled out “the papers” to register him to vote, told him how Obama cared for him, even taught him the Obama chants, and then took him to the polling place to vote. They did the same for all of the mentally disabled patients in their care, approximately sixty in all.
Read more here.
Voting machines suspiciously defaulting to Barack Obama? Buses loaded with strangers appearing at polling stations? Even ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports?
In short, suspicions of vote fraud?
That’s too bad, because a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.
The case is the Democratic National Committee vs. the Republican National Committee, originally from 1982.
Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims.
The judge, Dickinson Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, later retired but decided he would continue to control the case. The decision requires the RNC – but not the DNC – to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose.”
The rest of the agreement essentially requires the RNC to follow applicable state and federal election laws.
Read more here.
Up to 10 percent of the ballots cast at a polling station in Pennsylvania reverted to a default, which gave Barack Obama a vote no matter who the voter had selected, according to a poll watcher who was a witness to the proceedings.
The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama got a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio where Obama got 99 percent of the vote, a feat not even achieved by third-world dictators, according to Market Daily News.
With evidence mounting that the vote tabulation did not reflect the true choices of voters, talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh echoed the Daily News, saying Monday: “Third-world, tin-horn dictators don’t get [these percentages]. I mean, the last guy that got this percentage of the vote was Saddam Hussein, and the people that didn’t vote for him got shot. This just doesn’t happen. Even Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] doesn’t get 100 percent or 99 percent of the vote.”
It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”
He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.
Read more here.
Mitt Romney’s demographic troubles have, by this point, been well-rehearsed by practically every pundit across the political spectrum. However, even in his most troubled demographic (black voters, where Romney was trounced 94-6), the GOP nominee could probably comfort himself that at least – contrary to some polls – he didn’t get 0 percent.
But what if there are parts of the country where Romney not only got zero percent of the vote (a possibility in the case of vote totals so small that rounding renders them null), but actually got literally zero votes? For the nominee of a major party, that would be truly extraordinary – so extraordinary, in fact, that it would strain credulity.
And seeing as this highly unlikely turn of events happened not in one or two precincts, but in over 59 in Philadelphia, and 9 in Cleveland, that credulity can be safely said to be completely strained, if not broken. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
It’s one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.
These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.
“We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic,” said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. “It’s kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia.”
Read more here.
Contrary to popular opinion, I am not a “conspiracy theorist.”
I live in the real world – always have. I’ve been a journalist who goes where the facts lead him all my life – unlike most of my colleagues whose “facts” are predetermined by their ideology.
I understand Barack Obama and Bill Ayers because I was one of them early in my life. I even met Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda in the old days. I admired them. If Obama had been old enough during the 1960s and 1970s, I probably would have run into him, too.
If anyone has a balanced approach to the realities of political life in America, it’s me. I’ve looked at life from both sides. I know the arguments of the other side and can still spout them before most of today’s practitioners of so-called “progressive” thought can.
I also know that the reigning ethos of this movement represented so ably today by Obama is this: “By any means necessary …” It was first articulated by Jean Paul Sartre in his play, “Dirty Hands.” But it became popularized as a slogan of the revolutionary left by Malcolm X.
What it means, in short, is that the ends justify the means. It means violence is fine in achieving a worthwhile objective. It means lying, stealing, cheating and all those other bourgeoisie “sins” are appropriate means of furthering the cause.
Is there any doubt in your mind today that this is now the reigning ethos of the Democratic Party and its various tentacles and allies?
There is no doubt in my mind.
And that’s why stealing the vote is not only an acceptable practice by these people, it is a moral imperative in their twisted worldview.
Am I suggesting that the recent presidential election was stolen through voter fraud and manipulation?
Without a doubt.
Read more here.