AMERICA'S FUTURE... WHERE DO WE GO NOW… HOW TO WIN THE BATTLE… AND WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING

Let us begin with where Election 2012 took us and where the global elite would like to guide us in 2016

Marion Algier – AskMarion

Dr. Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian, political analyst, author & editor (including: New World Order: The Rise of Techno-Feudalism and The Road To Socialism and The New World Order), who has testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, lays out the following scenario:

With President Obama’s re-election, over the next 4 years he will face a national and global economy that will be even worse than today. Why? It will be part of the Power Elite’s plan to coerce us and the rest of the world into accepting a world currency by 2018. The currency probably will be called "The Phoenix" (remember the Phoenix symbol being used at the 2012 Summer Olympics and in the Harry Potter movies, coincidence?), because it symbolically will be rising from the economic ashes of a failing world economic system. It will be the new global currency of a socialist world economic system that will be managed by the PE’s planned World Socialist Government which will emerge as the "World-State" from a conference in Basra, Iraq as foretold by Fabian Socialist H. G. Wells in his book The New World Order (1939).  (With it will also ultimately come a one world religion if they have their way… wonder why there is a war on Christmas?  On Israel?)

#  #  #

Who, you might ask, will accept the new world currency for the U.S. in 2018? Just as only a Nixon rather than a Kennedy could establish relations with Communist China about 40 years ago, this time only a Bush could get Republicans to accept the loss of American national sovereignty that will come from adopting a single world currency…

# # #

How will this happen you wonder? Well, remember that Romney lost the Hispanic vote by about 50% in 2012? For his running mate, Jeb Bush could pick Hispanic U.S. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida. That should bring in the votes of Hispanics originating from the Caribbean area. Or Bush could pick a Hispanic member of Congress from a highly populated state like California or New York, especially a Hispanic female to attract women voters in general. Also, Jeb Bush is married to a Mexican-born American philanthropist, which should bring in Hispanic votes nationally as well.

# # #

And what about Hillary? Because the PE wants Jeb Bush to be elected president in 2016, they set Hillary up in Benghazi in a Catch-22 situation to tarnish her reputation for 2016. If Hillary had spoken out that it was the White House and not her State Department which was to blame for the Benghazi disaster, that might have cost President Obama re-election, and Hillary would have been held responsible for the defeat. She therefore grit her teeth and took some of the blame for what happened in Libya, and that will prove to be her downfall in 2016.

Read the full article by Dr. Dennis Laurence Cuddy here:  THE ELECTION OF 2012… And the Future first and then continue on below…

AMERICA'S FUTURE... HOW TO WIN THE BATTLE

By Paul McGuire - November 26, 2012 - NewsWithViews.com

Most people are fighting ideological and spiritual wars on the battlefield of the past. In their debates, rhetoric and logic, they attempt to win the heart and souls of mankind, by bringing up figures from the past or the present. The result is that this error in multi-dimensional military strategy always produces defeat and captivity!

A recent case in point would be the Republican Party’s strategy involving Mitt Romney. This political battle or campaign was targeted towards an America of the past, which is an America that does not exist anymore. The point is not how or why, this America disappeared. The point is how the so-called most intelligent marketing, advertising and campaign strategists spent hundreds of millions of dollars waging a war on the wrong battlefield, using the wrong weapons and could not figure out until late election night, why they lost.

In the famous nursery “Humpty Dumpty,” The first recorded versions of the rhyme date from the early nineteenth century and the tune from 1870 in James William Elliott's National Nursery Rhymes and Nursery Songs.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

Many of those who would seek to change America and the world have become the proverbial “Humpty Dumpty’s.” They are fighting the wrong war on the wrong battlefield. The future of America will be won by those who know how to win the battlefields of the future! For various reason and many of them planned and engineered, the collective consciousness and demographics over America have radically changed. It should have been obvious look at the RNC Convention, composed of an overwhelming majority of white people in a particular age group, that they had lost the battle before they began.

The first recorded versions of the rhyme date from the early nineteenth century and the tune from 1870 in James William Elliott's National Nursery Rhymes and Nursery Songs.

Whatever you think of Obama and his strategists, they understood this “change” and even made it their campaign slogan. Obama was personally fighting with the weapons of the present and the future. Obama was busy connecting with his followers through Twitter, Facebook and other social media. Obama was publicly in the company of the social icons of the present and the future. People like alleged-Scientologist Will Smith and his wife, Jada. Again, like him or not, L. Ron Hubbard represents a science fiction religion of a future set in 3,000 A.D. Will Smith stars in future oriented sci-fi films like, “I Am Legend” and I Robot?”

In contrast, Mitt Romney and conservatives act like elderly people who don’t know how to use the Internet. An aging actor from the past, Clint Eastwood, reincarnates “Dirty Harry," but a large percentage of voters don’t know who “Dirty Harry,” is. The late communications theorist, Marshall McLuhan, coined the phrase, “the medium is the message.” What he was saying is that content is secondary to images and feelings in the global village of mass media.

George Soros hired some very savvy, people who know how to wage war on future battlefields by directing neuropsychology and scientifically manipulating the masses. Garret LoPorto is a depth psychologist, who understands how to mobilize unconscious urges and specializes into turning brands or movements into cults. Another Soros sponsored group, Adbusters uses the Delphi Technique to engineer a pre-determined consensus. This is a re-adaption of the Hegelian Dialectic, which creates two opposing forces in order to create a pre-determined synthesis. This is why the international bankers have financed both sides in World War I, World War II, the Viet Nam War and other conflicts.

The goal is to win the future of America through transformation. For decades, psychology has been mined for better methods to manipulate the masses. Today, the methods are more sophisticated, more brazen, and more effective. The protest organizers are manufacturing dissent within society, while creating consensus within the movement.

The documentary that will be released named, ‘Thrive – What on Earth will it take?’ to expose the elite power structures and lay out a plan that would trigger a revolution that would liberate mankind. In this new technology of marketing triggers are implanted to create radical social change and revolution. For example, the Arab Spring and other Islamic revolutions throughout the Middle East are produced by triggers. Ultimately, this means the World Socialist Government planned by the Fabian Socialists and placing the American Constitution under the control of the U.N. Constitution.

Although, there are many people who believe in the Constitution and Judeo Christian principles who understand this battlefield of the future, the vast majority do not and that is why we are losing America! The only way to positively impact America, preserve our freedoms and religious liberties is to understand the dynamics of multi-dimensional warfare and the battlefields of the future. At the upper echelons of the military around the world, there is the understanding of predictive programming, where trained specialists can enter another dimension and see into the future.

In addition, throughout the Old Testament, you read the stories of powerful kings who relied on supernatural information about the future from the true prophets of God. Wars and battles were won based on receiving accurate intelligence about the future. In addition, a detailed and accurate study of what is called Bible prophecy is not meant to amuse, but to equip a spiritual army with spiritual weapons.

All talk of preserving freedoms, reclaiming America and the Constitution is meaningless until you understand how the battlefield of the future is to be fought and won. This knowledge does not come from mere intellectual study and logical analysis. Since the battlefield takes place on another dimension, outside of time and space, the knowledge and spiritual weapons can only be accessed through non-traditional methods. Quantum physics, String Theory, predictive programming and other sciences begin to approach a true understanding of the battlefield. But, complete understanding of the battlefield of the future can only come about through a supernatural revelation in the inner man that transcends time and space. This revelatory knowledge comes supernaturally from beyond this present dimension. That dimension is called such names as the invisible realm, spiritual realm or parallel universe.

The transference of this revelation moves from one dimension into another with a force that is translated in Latin as dunamis, which is where we get our word dynamite or explosion. The Biblical verse, “As long as they sought the Lord, they continued to prosper,” can only be understood out of the context of what is perceived as religion or organized religion. It is a spiritual dynamic that is similar to the words in Acts, “Clothed with power from on high.” The idea is that there is an infinite spiritual energy that is explosive in nature, like dynamite and categorized as dunamis.

When this dynamite-like force of infinite energy explodes in the human mind, it explosively lights up the neurological pathways, fires orders to the DNA cells via enzymes and the DNA cells command the human biosystem of brain, body and mind to actualize and reach their optimal potential. The consequence is a radical downloading of supernatural information through words, pictures and dreams, often taking one into the future. As a by-product, the biophoton’s light-up, that person generates a supernatural glow. Multidimensional information has been passed from one dimension to another in a burst of energy. At that moment, mere human consciousness is transported into multidimensional areas of awareness and the battlefield of the future.

When that information is transported, a group or individual is supernaturally equipped to effectively win on the battlefields of the future. This revelation enables one to transcend the knowledge, tools and training of those who have mastered the rudimentary weapons of war, used in the battlefield of the future.

At the present moment, there is an enormous amount of fear regarding the outcome of events happening all around us. That fear in the dimension of physics, generates an energy field, that produces a crippling death. All the rational and statistical date seem to confirm, that the battle is lost. But, that data is an illusion! That illusion can only be overpowered by the overwhelming force of the revelation of truth and the power that comes with it!

In summary, winning the battlefields of the future is not only possible, but certain when the revelation and power that come from another dimension, enters people and re-creates them. The future is not fixed and the battlefield of the future will be won by those who choose victory!  

Must See: Bill Whittle Post-Election Speech – UPDATE: LONGER VERSION AT DIFFERENT VENUE ADDED

Video:  Bill Whittle – Where Do We Go Now?

If Bill Whittle doesn’t run himself, he should be the campaign manager/speech writer for the next CONSERVATIVE president.

In the end there really is only one question… will we stand-up and fight for freedom and our country… or will we be led down the path like sheep… ‘sheeple’ as Pravda has predicted?!? 

The next president will either be a true conservative (man or woman) or it will a NWO puppet as laid out by Dr. Dennis Laurence Cuddy above and the choice belongs to “We” the American People”!  Even if 2016 is the year for the first female President of the United States, the dynamics could be the same.  Conservative verses NWO candidate if we, conservatives, patriots, and independents stop letting the left and the media they control tell us who is and who isn’t electable and can or can’t win.

If we would have had the guts to stand up there might even have been the opportunity to save this election: It’s Official: Obama Voter Fraud Reason for “Re-election”.  So why didn’t we?  Why aren’t we?  Why the GOP Will Not Challenge Vote Fraud… Can This Be?  If this agreement by the GOP is the reason, shame on us.  If not then why are we shooting for a massive anti-Obama Inauguration Day rally?  That should be our fallback from which or organize if we fail in over-turning this election.

Why aren’t we getting these votes recounted and investigations into voter fraud everywhere, a whole new election or staging sit ins between now and Dec 16^th, while the vote can be contested?!? Not sure if it would work, but I’ve heard suggested if enough of the electors for the electoral college withheld their votes that it could throw the election to the House? Not really sure about that… but somebody must know.  And you can bet that the Founding Fathers of this country would not have just sat by and let this stolen election stand!  How about state ballot challenges?  There is resistance and people are getting angry, but are they angry enough?  Please get involved today~

It only takes 2 to 3% of the population to start a new movement, or to stop one.  Why do you think that Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leadership and their minions in the left wing media hated the tea party and the candidates who they identified with so much?  Why it was their goal to destroy people like Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Allen West, Ron Paul and media people (mainstream and alternative) who supported the goals of the tea party or even just tried to report the actual news fairly… without bias?  Why? Fear!!

Kissinger said in 2008: There Will Be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever is Elected President.  The awakening of concerned American patriots and grassroots groups like the tea party is what has delayed the global elites’ plan. The continued work and growth of those movements is what can stop it.

There is a Massive Anti-Obama Rally @ “Obama’s” Inauguration Day!!!  -  We Have A Dream: 500,000+ Anti-Obama Activists Arrive In Washington D.C. During Obama’s Inauguration Ceremony …  We need to stop the inauguration not compete with it!  The Rally should be out fall back plan, not our goal!

So where do we go from here? Grassroots movements, patriot involvement, courage, prayer and new candidates and support teams in the GOP and if not in a new third party that is in tune to the problems, issues and solutions to save America. Our first fight needs to be to reverse this stolen election. The fallback is to organize.

Technorati Tags: saving America,America's future,Never Give Up,Hillary Clinton,Jeb Bush,Sarah Palin,Marco Rubio,voter fraud,global elite,Bill Whittle,tea party,the Phoenix,Election 2016,2016 Election,world currency,Economic World Order,economics,The Choice,The Plan,grassroots movements

Allen West Wins Congressional Race: Report

The Right Perspective:

Allen West

Florida congressman Allen West has won his re-election bid by a narrow enough margin to prompt a full recount, according to sources within the Republican’s ranks.

“Boots on the ground update from the Allen West election count via Gary Angelo Galiano: ‘We win by 195,’” Congresman West supporter Gary Angelo Galiano posted on his Facebook account early Saturday morning.

The margin of victory is within legal guidelines to prompt an automatic recount of all the votes in Florida’s 18th Congressional District, something Congressman West has pushed for since Democrat Party challenger Patrick Murphy was declared the winner early Wednesday morning.

The news follows earlier reports that Congressman West was ahead by 300 votes in predominately-Democrat Palm Beach County on Thursday afternoon.

Citing several discrepancies within the voting process, lawyers representing Congressman West have pushed for a recount on two fronts. On Friday, Circuit Court judge David F. Crow dismissed a motion to impound ballots and voting machines in Palm Beach County, declaring the Tea Party favorite “fell woefully short” in his request. A second motion in St. Lucie County is still pending, reports local television news outlet WPTV.

St. Luce County

The West campaign alleged a “recount” of votes in St. Lucie County saw the congressman move from a 2,400 vote lead to lagging behind his Democrat challenger by 2,000 ballots.

Other shenanigans have surfaced in the past several days since the election was held, reports the Washington Times. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a volunteer lawyer for the West campaign, told the paper his people were not allowed to witness the vote count at the Riveria Beach vote tabulation center after many ballots were damaged and had to be re-created. Physical barriers were set up to block observers, and after one elderly man complained, he was escorted out of the building by a sheriff’s deputy.

Team West volunteer Ellen Snyder said supervisors “screamed at her twice” for asking questions, and threatened to remove her from the building.

Questions surrounding how an estimated 8,000 military absentee ballots were being counted have also been raised.

If the early Saturday morning report is true, a full and final recount of all votes will be conducted in Tallahassee. It is expected to take at least two weeks.

UPDATE (11.10, 13:00): Both the Huffington Post and WPTV are reporting Murphy beat West by 0.7-percent, which is over the 0.5-percent margin that causes an automatic recount.

This vote recount tally sheet shows West beating Murphy by less than 200 votes.

West supporters, who were on hand last night during the ballot count, remain steadfast that their candidate has won but a recount will be made.

UPDATE (11.10, 17:00): Gary Angelo Galiano, who made the original claim that Congressman West won, has updated his report:

Gary Angelo Galiano (3rd right) and other Allen West backers at Friday night’s vote count in Palm Beach County.

“Allen West won in Palm Beach County by 185 votes,” Galiano wrote. “He won bigger in Martin County.

“The final vote count in Port St. Lucie is being held up with legal filings and we may not know anything more until Wednesday.”

Related:

Allen West, Mitt Romney and the Massive Voter Fraud Machine

SHAM RECOUNT SUNDAY: Allen West vs. Patrick Murphy for Congress, FL; Updated

Massive Voter Fraud and I am ANGRY (please share)

Barack Obama Voter Fraud 2012

White House website deluged with secession petitions from 20 states

Dennis Miller Reacts To Romney Losing Election, America Under Obama

Technorati Tags: Florida,Allen West,victory,demand recounts,recounts,voter fraud,Election 2012,2012,Election,demand honest elections,fighting back

The Reality of 2012 Voter Turnout: The White Voter

Battleground Watch:

The largest divergence among conservative and liberal polling critics this election is the debate over who will actually show up at the voting booth this November. Differences between the amounts of Democrats versus Republicans included in the poll are frequent. But embedded in each of these assumptions are questions on the racial make-up and how that varies from election to election. Democrats consistently talk about the “coalition of the ascendant” where the fastest growing segments of the population are minorities. As such they make up an ever-increasing segment of the voting population but also vote overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats. With a shrinking white population and a growing minority population Democrats argue demography as destiny and count on political majorities for the coming generation. That may be true if everything in life moves in a straight line (it doesn’t) but is that true today?

This is the bone of contention between the competing Presidential campaigns and critics of today’s polls. Democrats want to argue the steep increase in minority percentage of the voting electorate from 2008 election was a fundamental shift in the electorate whereas Republicans want to argue the steep increases were a one-off bounce. Both agree on the general direction of the trend. Neither agree how severe that trend will be in 2012. This disagreement is the basis for Democrat over-confidence and lopsided polling today in an election where the two candidates are most likely within 1-2% of one another.

What’s missing in all this analysis is who did not show up in the 2008 election: White voters. Looking back at those results, every voter turnout rate by race (relative to eligible population) was up versus 2004 except the white vote according to Pew Research (April 30, 2009). Blacks were up +4.9%, Hispanics were up +2.7%, Asians were up +2.4%. But the percentage of White voters who showed up at the polls relative to who was eligible dropped -1.1% (Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, May 2010). This has nothing to do with minorities making up more or less of the electorate. This is simply saying from 2004 to 2008 White voter registration (which actually dropped 104k) and actual turnout of White voters (which increased 500k) did not keep up with voting age White population increases.

Within this drop of White voter turnout, over 3x as many men as women comprised those voters staying home in the election. This happened for any number of reasons ranging from a disinterested national party to a disorganized Presidential campaign to a demoralized voting block–all are true. But the bottom line is one of the advantages Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008 was that a meaningful percentage of white voters simply stayed home in 2008. Side note: for anyone who wants to pin the depressed turnout on racism, wouldn’t the opposite have occurred in 2008 if racism really were a motivating factor in the white turnout?

Where this trips up the Obama campaign.

In 2008 Democrats achieved incredible levels of voter registration and turnout of this “coalition of the ascendent” such that Blacks, Hispanics and Asians made up 24% of the voting electorate — all historic highs. Bolstering the appearance of Democrat advantage are countless media stories reporting on Mitt Romney’s struggle appealing to minority groups. Little attention is paid to Barack Obama’s (and Democrat candidates before him) difficulty appealing to White voters who made up 74% of the electorate. Such historic minority levels for the composition of the electorate are predicated on a demoralized and ineligible (meaning unregistered) white population much like in 2008, as demonstrated above.

If John McCain achieved a white voter turnout rate equal to George Bush in 2004, that would have meant 1.7 million more White votes. While all of these votes would not have gone to McCain (nor were they all in battleground states), a super-majority of these voters likely would have voted Republican considering the make-up of the missing voter (white male — Obama’s worst demographic) and the motivated nature of the Obama voter in 2008 (i.e. if they were Obama supporters, only a scant few percent would have stayed home). Those missing votes would have been more than enough to flip the results in any of North Carolina (14k), Indiana (28.5k,), Nevada (121k), Iowa (146k), Colorado (195k), Virginia (234k), Florida (237k) or Ohio (260k) where Obama’s victory margin (in parentheses) is based on a 43% vote share of a decreased turnout.

Today Barack Obama receives approximately 40% of the White vote in polls but often dips below this level especially when polls fail to massively over-sample Democrats. The President is also facing an increasingly enthusiastic bloc of White voters motivated to vote against him (this shows up in every survey) based on his poor record in office. Additionally, Republicans have aggressively targeted the above mentioned states with voter registration efforts reversing or seriously muting the registration advantage Obama enjoyed in 2008. Net gains for Republicans voter registrations in Nevada (53k), Iowa (140k), Colorado (91k) and Florida (240k) all speak to a very different and Republican electorate in those states. On top of registration, voter contacts from the Romney campaign surpassed 26 million eligible voters across the battleground states to date. This is as much as 10-15x as much as the McCain 2008 campaign. This does not dismiss the aggressive and active Obama re-election effort but it simply points out that compared to 2008 he is no longer battling an unarmed opponent.

All of this is to say when David Axelrod or similar Obama campaign talking heads argue aggressively for polls with a racial composition at meaningfully greater minority levels than the 2008 historic turnout, there is another side of that coin and it works heavily against the turnout models of both the Obama campaign and of the vast majority of polls being published today.

Want things to change? Help educate people and help get out the conservative, independent, evangelical and white vote!! Many are not registered.

Related:

Romney Double Digit Lead? 

‘Unskewed’ polls show nearly 8-point Romney lead

Race beginning to look a lot like 1980? What might Ronald Reagan’s victory path mean?

Calling All Concerned Americans to Stand-Up

Does Obama expect to lose? – Secret retirement plans

A Must Watch Before Voting…

Must Reads Before Election 2012

Technorati Tags: whites,polls,white voters,voter registration,voter turnout,voter fraud,Election 2012,2012 Election,Mitt Romney in 2012,Romney-Ryan,conservatives,independents undecideds,evangelicals,Christians,educate yourself,get involved,Caucasians

LIST OF 80 COMMUNISTS IN CONGRESS

LIST OF 80 COMMUNISTS IN CONGRESS

Check your State… Please help spread the word and Vote them OUT! Time to clean house in November 2012!

Here is a list of socialists in the US House from the Progressive Caucus which is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America and is the largest socialist organization in the United States and principle U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. All are Democrats.

Notable Past Member:
Barack Hussein Obama

Co-Chairs:
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs:
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Hon. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Senate Members:
Hon. Roland Burris (IL)
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
Hon. Tom Udall (NM)
House Members:
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Judy Chu (CA-32)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04

Hon. Jim Moran (VA-08)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Jared Polis (CO-02)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)

Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Alcee Hastings (FL-23)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)

Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-39)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)

Critical Time for Ideological Debate

Hiding Behind Names

Voter Fraud - Hacking Democracy

HBO Documentary: Hacking Democracy - Full Length Documentary

Video:  Hacking Democracy

Watch and save the documentary above. Share it with your friends. Vote fraud is epidemic in the United States
Articles

BLACK BOX VOTING, THE GO -TO RESOURCE FOR CURRENT ELECTION FRAUD.

A House Without Doors - Vote Fraud in America

Tags:

• POLITICS/ELECTIONS/CORRUPTION
• VOTE FRAUD

Rather: Realistically, could the fix be put on a national election?

Strauss: Get me a job with the company that writes the software for this program. [Strauss was referring to the most common computer program in use.] Then I'd have access to one third of the votes. Is that enough to fix a general election?

In an earlier clip during this CBS interview, Strauss had dropped this bombshell: "When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards. It's not a door without locks, it's a house without doors."

Voter Fraud for the Completer Idiot

A Doonesbury cartoon on a recent Sunday contained a distillation of a current talking point among progressives: "Question: What fraud? Voter fraud is close to non-existent!"

Progressives think that if they make the above claim as though it were an indisputable fact, it will become a fact. All they have to do is repeat the claim over and over again until it sticks. To wit:

An editorialist for The New York Times asserts: "There is almost no voting fraud in America."

At the Center for American Progress, Eric Alterman writes: "Members of the mainstream media often give too much credence to empty claims of 'voter fraud.'"

At the Brennan Center for Justice, we read: "Allegations of widespread fraud by malevolent voters are easy to make, but often prove to be inflated or inaccurate."

In The Nation, left-wing firebrand Katrina Vanden Heuvel alleges: "Voter fraud -- the impersonation of a voter by another person -- is extremely rare in the United States."

An uncouth gal for Daily Kos writes: "Some [Republicans] acknowledge that voter fraud is essentially non-existent." (Who are these Republicans?)

At Mother Jones, we read: "While Republicans have argued such rules are necessary to combat 'voter fraud,' examples of the kind of in-person voter fraud that might be curbed by such requirements are miniscule."

At Slate we read: "Large-scale, coordinated vote stealing doesn't happen."

A lady at Think Progress writes: "Like conservative state legislatures across the country, Maine Republicans have been pushing a Voter ID law, ostensibly to prevent non-existent voter fraud." (Italics added.)

A blogger at Media Matters writes: "Instances of actual voter fraud are very rare."

(There may be a subliminal message in there somewhere.)

The above claims are as absurd as a big-city mayor claiming that last night, no cases of wife-beating occurred in his fair city because, well, no one reported any to the police.

Question: how is a poll worker manning a voting station supposed to know that a voter checking in to vote is about to commit voter fraud -- if that voter is registered?

If the voter's name is on the signature roster, the poll worker must assume that the registrar has thoroughly vetted him and that he is properly registered. What's a poll worker supposed to do if a "suspicious-looking" voter shows his ID (if even required in the state) and is on the list? The poll worker hasn't the means to challenge a voter's registration, nor the time. Besides, that's not his job. To perform his job, the poll worker must depend on the voter registration system.

One way in which voter fraud (illegal voting) is made possible is by the registration of people who aren't eligible to vote. Such registrations are due to fraud (or to error) committed by registrants and even by registrars. But the most important factor contributing to corrupted voter registries is the voter registration system itself.

Voter registration in America is backward and not worthy of a great nation. And despite the fact that registration involves very little information, registrars do not verify the most important requirement for voting in America -- citizenship. The Brennan Center reports:

At least 10 states ... introduced legislation that would require proof of citizenship to register or vote. ... Previously, the only state to attempt to require proof of citizenship was Arizona. That law has been enjoined by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has recently heard that appeal en banc.

So the nation's most progressive circuit court will decide whether Arizonans must share their birthright with foreigners. Immigration Reform Law Institute concludes:

IRLI believes the final outcome of this case will likely define the extent to which states are allowed to prevent non-citizens from being added to their voter rolls. A final decision could affect other states that have enacted laws which require proof of eligibility to vote at registration. Those states have determined that preventing unauthorized voting is in their respective state's interest.

Question: if the final outcome of this case does go in Arizona's favor, will the state's method for verifying the citizenship of voter registrants be sufficient? That is, will Arizona voter registries contain citizens only?

Given the mechanisms of our election systems, voter fraud can be impossible to detect. And if it can't be detected, it can't be quantified. Hence: no voter fraud.

Part of the controversy over "voter fraud," which progressives downplay as voter impersonation, is the term itself. Folks concerned about the integrity of our elections should start using the more inclusive term "election fraud," which includes voter fraud, registration fraud, and other types of fraud, such as fraud committed by election officials.

Republicans don't know precisely how much voter fraud actually occurs -- but then, neither does anyone else. However, voter fraud occurs more frequently than progressives would have us believe, as was ably demonstrated by Hans A. von Spakovsky in an August National Review article:

The claim that there is no voter fraud in the U.S. is patently ridiculous, given our rich and unfortunate history of it. As the U.S. Supreme Court said when it upheld Indiana's photo-ID law in 2008, "Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists." The liberal groups that fought Indiana's law didn't have much luck with liberal justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 6-3 decision. Before being named to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens practiced law in Chicago, a hotbed of electoral malfeasance.

Requiring photo IDs to vote is better than nothing and may help at the margins, but it isn't going to stop voter fraud. Would poll workers have photos of all registrants on hand to match against the photos presented by voters? (A better solution lies elsewhere.)

The left-wing quotes above don't even rise to the level of speculation; they're part of a deliberate concerted effort to deceive -- a propaganda campaign. Alleging that voter fraud doesn't exist is a straw man designed to divert attention away from other more pressing election problems. Alleging that an undetectable fraud doesn't exist draws attention away from the frauds that can be detected, but aren't. Alleging that voter fraud doesn't exist whitewashes America's voter registration mess.

Progressives allege that new voter ID requirements are meant to suppress turnout, especially of "the wrong kind of people," as the Doonesbury cartoon puts it. But the progressives' resistance to even the most basic safeguards is an attempt to keep elections open to theft. Progressives don't care about the integrity of elections; they just want to win, by whatever means necessary.

America is fast approaching what some think is the most important election in our lives, an election that will determine what kind of nation we are going to be. And yet we come to this critical decision with election systems that can be gamed.

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City – Posted at American Thinker

Stealing Election 2012

Soros Eyes Secretaries

Stealing Election 2012

Americans take the integrity of our elections for granted.  Every citizen has an equal right to vote, and every vote cast is counted.  Rubbish.

The voter rolls of this country are stuffed with illegal aliens, felons and dead people, who not only vote, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. 

Citizens in uniform serving overseas, who might vote Republican, are routinely denied the right to vote when ballots are mailed "too late" to be returned in time to count.  When a Republican wins a close race, uncounted ballots are "found" in the backseat of a Democrat poll worker's car.

American elections are getting more corrupt every election year.

I heard Debbie Wasserperson-Schultz still whining the other day about the 2000 presidential election in Florida.  You know, the one President Gore won, but Bush stole—even though every time the New York Times and other Democrat lapdog media counted and recounted those Florida ballots, Bush still won. 

The Democrats don't care about the facts of Florida 2000.  They need the Gore-win myth to cover their own deliberate corruption of the election process.

Jimmy Carter shows up in every other country's election as a "fairness" monitor.  He ought to stay home and monitor the tide of corrupt elections about to crest  in 2012, when the Democrats plan to steal an Obama reelection win fair and square.

The plan goes something like this.

1)  Sign up illegal aliens to vote.

I walked door-to-door in 2010 canvassing for Republican congressional candidate Van Tran in the Anaheim, Calif.,-area district now represented by Democrat Loretta Sanchez.  Our team ran across people who were listed as registered voters in rolls obtained from the county registrar who openly admitted they were illegal and stated they could not vote and had never voted.

How did the illegals get on the voter roll?  The federal Motor Voter Law requires local welfare offices, social service agencies and motor vehicle departments to offer voter registration forms to everyone who comes in, no questions asked.  ACORN-like groups have long practiced signing up new "voters" at places where illegals congregate. 

In California, the voter registration card requires a check in the box stating you are a citizen of the U.S.  The box is always checked and nobody ever questions it. 

Does the illegal alien actually vote?  Apparently not.  Another box on the registration form requests a permanent mail-in ballot be sent to the "voter." The mailing address is different from the "voter's" residence address, meaning that the the illegal alien "voter" never receives a ballot and never votes.  The mail-in ballots are sent to another location and someone else votes and mails back the ballot for the new "voter."

Random checks of these mailing addresses show the same addresses over and over.  This is election fraud on an organized level.  It's going on now in every state. 

Any attempt to stop this corruption would cause Obama to go to court to defend the right of illegals to register to vote.

The Obama administration is infamously suing Arizona for daring to enforce federal immigration laws that Obama will not enforce.  One such Arizona law requires people registering to vote to provide proof of citizenship.  The case of Gonzalez v. State of Arizona challenges the validity of that law.

Last week, the Obama Justice Department filed a late amicus brief in the Gonzalez case urging the court to find that Arizona may not require information to validate claims of citizenship made on a voter registration form.

2)  Sign up felons to vote.

Following the 2000 showdown in Florida, the Democrats started a nationwide campaign to register felons to vote.  A 2004 editorial in the New York Times, for example, criticized Florida for purging 47,000 felons from the voting rolls while admitting that Florida law barred felons from voting.  The editorial castigated 35 states that likewise had some level of restriction on voting by felons.

Time magazine, The Washington Post, the ACLU and Human Rights Watch all chimed in on the unfairness of barring the felon vote.  The demand for "reform" became universal when polling showed that felons would overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

By 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to bar felons from voting for life.  All other states have "reformed" their voting laws to allow the felon Democrat vote to be counted in 2012.

3)  Keep the voting dead on the rolls.

Dead Democrat voters are a tradition in Chicago.  Today the tradition is metastasizing to the rest of the country.

In 2011, for example, the state of Ohio reported that 18,500 dead people were still listed as voters.  Local registrars were requested to purge the rolls of dead people as required by Ohio law and apparently not consistently done. 

A report from Houston, Tex., tells of 4,462 dead voters still on the rolls there, many still voting.  Relatives of these dead voters expressed shock that their deceased loved ones were still so involved in politics.

Obama is an activist in this campaign to protect illegal, felon and dead Democrat voters.
A lesser-known provision of the federal Motor Voter law requires all states to make sure no ineligible persons (illegals, felons or dead people) get on the voter rolls.  In November 2009, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez (an Obama political appointee) told a stunned gathering of the Justice Department's Voting Section that her office would no longer enforce that section of the law.

Fernandez's exact quote was, "We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law.  It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it."
All over the country, legislation to require voters to present identification at the polling booth is opposed by Obama's Justice Department. 

Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has claimed that requiring people to present I.D. would deter voting, just as Jim Crow laws in the South used to do.

For the younger reading audience, Jim Crow laws (poll tax, literacy test to vote) were passed by Democrats to stop black American citizens from voting. Stopping ineligible voters protects the rights of all citizens.

Living, law abiding citizens just have to wonder, when they present an I.D. to conduct just about any kind of business in their daily lives, why the integrity of the vote shouldn't be protected by requiring voter I.D. at the polls.

Of course if that were required, Obama might not be reelected.

---

Roger Hedgecock is a nationally-syndicated talk show host with Radio America. Article Posted at Human Events

 

It is up to each and every patriotic American who wants to make sure this country and freedom survives to make sure this does not happen!!  How?  Get involved!  Volunteer!  Demand Recounts!  And Don’t settle for another Al Franken situation, where we all know he lost!  And start calling for re-calls and impeachments now… Don’t wait until the 2012 Election to get involved!

Related:

• A Governor for President
• Joelle Fishman:  Top Communist Speaks on 2012 Elections
• A Film About the Real Sarah Palin

Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud

Monday, October 27, 2008 10:45 AM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: “I told you so.”

Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.

Obama’s surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama’s victory in Iowa and in 12 other caucus states was no miracle. “It was fraud,” she told Newsmax.

Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.

“After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,” she said.

In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. “The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud,” Long said.

In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.

In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party because of the massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign’s actions “amount to criminal violations” and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.

In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn’t vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.

Obama’s win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention.

Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Clinton would be the Democrats’ nominee running against John McCain.

Citing a detailed report on the voting results and delegate accounts by accountant Piniel Cronin, “there were only four pledged delegates between Hillary and Obama once you discount caucus fraud,” Long said.

Long has compiled many of these eyewitness reports from the 14 caucus states in a 98-page, single-spaced report and in an interactive Web site: www.caucusanalysis.org.

ACORN involvement

The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,000 for “voter turnout” work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on “staging, sound and light” and “advance work.”

State and federal law enforcement in 11 states are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud against the Obama campaign. ACORN workers repeatedly registered voters in the name of “Mickey Mouse,” and registered the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys twice: once in Nevada, and again in Minnesota.

A group that has worked with ACORN in the past registered a dead goldfish under the name “Princess Nudelman” in Illinois. When reporters informed Beth Nudelman, a Democrat, that her former pet was a registered voter, she said, “This person is a dead fish."

ACORN was known for its “intimidation tactics,” said independent scholar Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., who has researched Obama’s long-standing ties to the group.

Fully 30 percent of 1.3 million new voters ACORN claims to have registered this year are believed to be illegitimate.

Long shared with Newsmax some of the emails and sworn affidavits she received from Hillary supporters who witnessed first-hand the thuggish tactics employed by Obama campaign operatives in Iowa and elsewhere.

Jeff, a precinct captain for Clinton from Davenport, Iowa, thought his caucus was in the bag for his candidate, until just minutes before the voting actually began.

“From 6-6:30 p.m., it appeared as I had expected. Young, old males, females, Hispanics, whites, gay and lesbian friends arriving. Very heavily for Ms. Clinton, a fair amount for Edwards and some stragglers for Obama,” he said.

That makeup corresponded to what he had witnessed from many precinct walks he had made through local neighborhoods.

“My mind began to feel victory for my lady,’ he said. “THEN: at 6:50 p.m., over 75 people of African-American descent came walking in, passed the tables and sat in the Obama section. I knew one of them from my canvassing. I knew another one who did not live in this precinct. And aside from four or five families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct. And one of those black couples were in my Hillary section,” he said.

Thanks to the last-minute influx of unknown Obama supporters, Obama won twice the number of delegates from the precinct as Hillary Clinton.

After it was over, “a very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back” to Illinois, Jeff said.

Obama’s flagrant busing of out-of-state caucus participants from Illinois was so obvious that even Joe Biden — today his running mate, then his rival — pointed it out at the time.

At a campaign stop before the Jan. 3 caucus at the JJ Diner in Des Moines, Biden “said what we were all thinking when he got on stage and said, ‘Hello Iowa!’ and then turned to Barack’s crowd and shouted, ‘and Hello Chicago!’” another precinct captain for Hillary told Long.

Thanks to Illinois campaign workers bused across the border into Iowa, all the precincts in eastern Iowa went for Obama, guaranteeing his win in the caucuses, Long said.

Obama supporters were also bused into northeast Iowa from Omaha, Nebraska, where Obama campaign workers were seen handing out “i-pods and free stuff: T-shirts, clothes, shoes, and free meals” to students and people in homeless shelters,” according to eyewitness reports Long collected.

In Iowa City, red and white chartered buses with Illinois license plates arrived from Illinois packed with boisterous African-American high school students, who came to caucus for Obama in Iowa after being recruited by Obama campaign workers.

2,000 complaints in Texas

In a change in the Democratic National Committee rules for this year’s election season, four states had caucuses and primaries: Washington, Nebraska, Idaho, and Texas. “But Texas is the only one that counted both the caucus result and the primary result,” Long told Newsmax. “The others didn’t count the primary at all, calling it a ‘beauty contest.’”

Because caucuses are more informal, and can last hours, they tend to favor candidates with a strong ground operation or whose supporters use strong-arm tactics to intimidate their rivals.

“There is inherent voter disenfranchisement in the caucuses,” Long said. “Women are less likely to go to caucuses than men, because they don’t like the public nature of the caucus. The elderly are less likely to go to a caucus. People who work shifts can’t go if they work the night shift. And parents with young children can’t go out for four hours on a week night. All these people are traditionally Clinton supporters,” she said.

But Obama’s victories in the caucuses weren’t the result of better organization, Long insists. “It was fraud.”

In state after state, Hillary was leading Obama in the polls right up until the last minute, when Obama won a landslide victory in the caucuses.

The discrepancies between the polls and the caucus results were stunning, Long told Newsmax. The most flagrant example was Minnesota. A Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute poll just one week before the Feb. 5 caucus gave Hillary a 7-point lead over Obama, 40-33.

But when the Minnesota caucus results were counted, Obama won by a landslide, with 66.39 percent to just 32.23 percent for Hillary, giving him 48 delegates, compared with 24 for Clinton.

“No poll is that far off,” Long told Newsmax.

Similar disparities occurred in 13 of 14 caucus states.

In Colorado and Idaho, Obama had a 2-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the polls, but won by more than 2-1 in the caucuses, sweeping most delegates.

In Kansas, Hillary had a slight edge over Obama in the polls, but Obama won 74 percent of the votes in the caucus and most of the delegates. In nearly every state, he bested the pre-caucus polls by anywhere from 12 percent to more than 30 percent.

This year’s primary rules for the Democrats favored the caucus states over the primary states.

“Caucus states made up only 1.1 million (3 percent) of all Democratic votes, but selected 626 (15 percent) of the delegates,” says Gigi Gaston, a filmmaker who has made a documentary on the caucus fraud.

In Texas alone, she says, there were more than 2,000 complaints from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supporters of Obama’s strong-arm tactics.

One Hillary supporter, who appears in Gaston’s new film, “We Will Not Be Silenced,” says she received death threats from Obama supporters after they saw her address in an online video she made to document fraud during the Texas caucus. “People called me a whore and a skank,” she said.

John Siegel, El Paso Area Captain for Hillary, said, “Some people saw outright cheating. Other people just saw strong-arm tactics. I saw fraud.”

Another woman, who was not identified in the film, described the sign-in process. “You’re supposed to sign your names on these sheets. The sheets are supposed to be controlled, and passed out — this is kind of how you maintain order. None of that was done. The sheets were just flying all over the place. You could put in your own names. You could add your own sheets or anything. It was just filled with fraud.”

Other witnesses described how Obama supporters went through the crowds at the caucus telling Hillary supporters they could go home because their votes had been counted, when in fact no vote count had yet taken place.

“I couldn’t believe this was happening,” one woman said in the film. “I thought this only happened in Third World countries.”

On election day in Texas, Clinton campaign lawyer Lyn Utrecht issued a news release that the national media widely ignored.

“The campaign legal hot line has been flooded with calls containing specific accusations of irregularities and voter intimidation against the Obama campaign,” she wrote. “This activity is undemocratic, probably illegal, and reflects a wanton disregard for the caucus process.”

She identified 18 separate precincts where Obama operatives had removed voting packets before the Clinton voters could arrive, despite a written warning from the state party not to remove them.

The hot line also received numerous calls during the day that “the Obama campaign has taken over caucus sites and locked the doors, excluding Clinton campaign supporters from participating in the caucus,” she wrote.

“There are numerous instances of Obama supporters filing out precinct convention sign-in sheets during the day and submitting them as completed vote totals at caucus. This is expressly against the rules,” she added.

But no one seemed to care.

Despite Clinton’s three-and-a-half point win in the Texas primary — 50.87 percent to 47.39 percent —Obama beat her in the caucus the same day by 56 to 43.7 percent, giving him a 38-to-29 advantage in delegates.

Linda Hayes investigated the results at the precinct level in three state Senate districts. Under the rules of the Texas Democratic Party, participants in the caucuses had to reside in the precinct where they were caucusing, and had to have voted in the Democratic primary that same day.

When she began to see the results coming in from the precincts that were wildly at variance with the primary results, “I could see that something was wrong,” Hayes said.

Hayes says she found numerous anomalies as she went through the precinct sign-in sheets.

“Many, many, many Obama people either came to the wrong precinct, they did not sign in properly, they did not show ID, or they did not vote that day.” And yet, their votes were counted.

In a letter to Rep. Lois Capps, a Clinton supporter calling himself “Pacific John,” described the fraud he had witnessed during the caucuses.

“On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see,” he wrote.

“We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time, like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 am.”

The story of how Obama stole the Democratic Party caucuses — and consequently, the Democratic Party nomination — is important not just because it prefigures potential voter fraud in the Nov. 4 presidential election, which is under way.

It’s important because it fits a pattern that Chicago journalists and a few national and international commentators have noticed in all of the elections Obama has won in his career.

NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher described Obama’s first election victory, for the Illinois state Senate, in a recent commentary that appeared in the London Telegraph.

“Mr. Obama won a seat in the state Senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified,” Fletcher wrote.

Obama’s election to the U.S. Senate “was even more curious,” conservative columnist Tony Blankley wrote in The Washington Times.

Citing an account that appeared in The Times of London, Blankley described how Obama managed to squeeze out his main Democratic rival, Blair Hull, after divorce papers revealed allegations that Hull had allegedly made a death threat to his former wife.

Then in the general election, “lightning struck again,” Blankley wrote, when his Republican opponent, wealthy businessman Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw in extremis after his divorce papers revealed details of his sexual life with his former wife.

Just weeks before the election, the Illinois Republican party called on Alan Keyes of Maryland to challenge Obama in the general election. Obama won a landslide victory.

“Mr. Obama’s elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means,” Blankley wrote, while “the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.”

Hillary Clinton supporters, belatedly, now agree.

© 2008 Newsmax

McCain and Obama Within Two Points in Latest Zogby Poll

The latest Zogby poll had John McCain trailing Obama by two points. Just two points!

Despite the full-court press to destroy McCain and Sarah Palin, Katie Couric’s antics against her, a daily onslaught of media spin and registration and voter fraud encourage by ACORN and other Obama advocacy organizations  . . . McCain is still within striking distance.

updated 3:51 p.m. PT, Wed., Oct. 8, 2008

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Officials in Missouri, a hard-fought jewel in the presidential race, are sifting through possibly hundreds of questionable or duplicate voter-registration forms submitted by an advocacy group that has been accused of election fraud in other states.

Charlene Davis, co-director of the election board in Jackson County, where Kansas City is, said the fraudulent registration forms came from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. She said they were bogging down work Wednesday, the final day Missourians could register to vote.

"I don't even know the entire scope of it because registrations are coming in so heavy," Davis said. "We have identified about 100 duplicates, and probably 280 addresses that don't exist, people who have driver's license numbers that won't verify or Social Security numbers that won't verify. Some have no address at all."