For everyone who wonders why Hillary refuses to quit, this may be the
answer. If she and her camp can prove these allegations, it may be
curtains for Barack Obama. By staying in the race, she has up until
the convention to find the truth. Let's hope she can. I don't want
this man for my President.
Is Obama Stealing the Nomination?
According to this blog, and several other sources all over the caucus
states (people who were actually there and experienced it firsthand),
Obama sup****ters are being told to intimidate Clinton sup****ters and
keep them from the polls at any cost. He has allegedly been bussing in
m***** of people to the caucuses who were not even from that state to
vote, and bussing them from precinct to precinct to vote over and
over. He may be stealing the election.
This is what someone who came out of the corrupt Chicago political
machine would, and probably is, doing. Please read everything here,
and if you live in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or any of the other
states yet to hold their primaries, and were thinking of voting for
Obama, please think long and hard. Is this who we want running our
country, someone who would stoop to these tactics?
These allegations are being investigated, and I only hope that the
truth can be uncovered before it is too late. No wonder Hillary is not
leaving the campaign. She knows this is about to break, and when it
does, down, down, down goes Obama.
Obama has cheated his way through the caucuses? Perhaps.
I wanted to post here a 'bulletin' from a 'friend' at my 'myspace':
"I'm compiling a series of news re****ts that back this up.
Isn't it strange that in most of the caucuses, where Hillary Clinton
was leading in the polls up until election day by healthy margins,
she's beaten by Barack Obama by 5-10 points? Interesting, isn't it?
The media, whom have fallen in love with the half-term Senator from
Illinois, chalk this up to a superior ground game. However, I find it
interesting that there are several discrepancies that indicate that
Obama has cheated his way through the caucus system.
Caucuses tend toward Obama, but primaries tend toward Hillary, Has
anyone wondered why this is? How could one "impartial" system favor
one candidate over the other, and vice-versa?
I believe I have the answer to that question.
It started in Scranton, with a friend of a friend of mine, Roger.
Roger worked the Scranton office for the Obama campaign. During the
parade on Saint Patrick's Day Weekend, he wanted a clean, friendly
approach to the people of Northeast Pennsylvania. Instead, some folks,
whom only identified themselves as "working for the Obama campaign"
swooped in, usurped him, and took over, instructing sup****ters to "get
in the face" of Clinton sup****ters, to "intimidate, insult, and keep
them from the polls at all costs.
The actions of Obama sup****ters in Scranton were re****ted on by the
local Tom Corbett radio show.
Roger found this interesting, and started asking questions from the
higher ups from the Obama campaign. His claims were dismissed, and
those that came in, despite carrying official recognition, were denied
ever having been there in the first place.
I spoke to someone this weekend -- let's just say, he's extremely
knowledgeable about this presidential race -- that found it funny
that, in the state of Wisconsin for example, Hillary gets more votes
than all of the Republicans on the opposing ticket combined, but is
still beat by Barack Obama.
He found it funny that, when the numbers are crunched, Obama gets more
caucus votes than there are registered Democrats in the state.
He found it funny that it was re****ted that similar or identical names
were provided on registration rolls in eight Obama-won states, over,
and over, and over again, and always in separate precincts.
He found it interesting that Obama got his usual "surge" of roughly
800 voters in each caucus he has won.
Re****ts of money missing from the Obama campaign, the same amount
before each primary, are attributed to "bus trips". That, I agree
with.
However, there is an answer, and as I said, I'm 50% done with
compiling the necessary information needed to go to the press with it:
Barack Obama has been ****pping people in to each primary: Not to
campaign, not to surrogate, not to organize campaign offices, not to
phone bank, and not to canvass.
But to vote.
The same people have been voting in each caucus in each state. Busses.
20 of them. With roughly, 40 people each.
What's 40 x 20?
800.
The same thing was tried in Scranton, with voters from (most likely
Philadelphia) other areas trying to register to vote in Northeast
Pennsylvania. They're voting more than once, and quite literally,
cheating Democrats out of their choice for the primary contest.
Don't get me wrong here, I know how this probably sounds: I'm always
the one to call conspiracy theorists for what they are: nut jobs. I'm
the practical one. I never, in my wildest dreams, thought that this
could occur today.
Pennsylvania has very strict voting registration laws, and for this
very reason, which is why Obama has generally ignored the state, so he
can chalk this up to "oh, the Hillary victory was expected." But in
states with very lax voting laws -- the very states he's won so far --
he's succeeded in wide margins where Clinton led only hours before.
Folks, the math just doesn't add up.
I'll finish my re****t, and I'll submit it to local and state press.
The empirical evidence is there, and I'm positive there are those that
will come to me and say how crazy all of this is. I only ask them to
examine the election results I've seen so far, voter registration
amounts, and then to add the numbers themselves.
Math is absolute. When you crunch numbers, you get what you get.
Obama's numbers simply don't add up."
_____________________________
Randy...Rcalypso
******************************
It Started in Iowa...
where there are re****ts of a large group of black people, re****ted in
a group, who came in at the last minute and voted in the caucuses in
some precincts close to the Illinois border. In one instance, there
were more black people at the caucus than there were black people
residing in that district. The locals presumed that these people were
bussed in from Illinois.
http://politizine.blogspot.com/2008/01/rumor-vote-fraud-at-iowa-caucu...
And in an update, the same writer says that even Edwards caucus
workers said that in every precinct, workers were overwhelmed by a
rush of last minute "new voters"
Update: Vote fraud at Iowa caucuses
This is an update to the previous entry I put together in the wake of
the Iowa Caucuses about a week ago: ["Rumor: Vote fraud at Iowa
Caucus?"].
Earlier this week, I was able to put together more information
concerning possible vote fraud by the Obama campaign in at least one
eastern Iowa county which borders Illinois. In this county, Scott
County, a campaign worker from the Clinton campaign believes that
voters from Illinois may have been brought in to boost Obama's
numbers.
This county organizer, who happens to be a former journalist who
worked for a Top 10 market daily for a number of years before deciding
to get involved in political campaigns, was working in the rural areas
of Scott County. This area was considered "non-viable" by the Clinton
campaign meaning that it was not viable to a win or lose scenario due
to the low voter turnout. They did, however, spend resources in the
area. This campaign worker spent weeks and weeks working in the area,
getting to know a lot of people in the region.
On caucus night at one of the precincts, two tables were set up at the
door: One for registered Democrats and a second table for new,
unregistered same-day voters.
According to the poll worker, about 100 voters were expected by
officials to show up. In 2004, only 80 voters showed up. So, the guess
was a good one. In the end, 284 voters showed up.
Of those 284, more than 100 voters were new voters. Many of these
voters came into the caucus at the very last minute, creating a line
towards the front of the room. Officials quickly ushered everyone into
the caucus before the assigned deadline time to close the doors and
begin caucusing. According to the official, residence requirements for
the new voters were not verified by officials. The voters were asked
to sign in on a list and they did, many with illegible handwriting.
Many of the new voters were also African-American in an area that is
very, very Caucasian.
After the doors closed, the caucus began. Early votes for Kucinich,
Dodd, and uncommitted ****fted around a bit. However, the final vote
breakdown looked like this:
Obama 137
Clinton 55
Edwards 47
Biden 44
After the voting stopped, when everyone reached 15 percent that could,
the Clinton campaign worker asked a precinct captain for a copy of all
the new voter registrations so they could be checked against resident
lists the Clinton campaign had to verify residency.
The request was rejected.
Apparently, the process for checking these registrations is that the
forms are sent to party officials on the county level and then sent to
the auditor.
Other precinct captains working for both the Clinton and Edwards
campaigns re****ted similar problems at the polls: A late influx of new
voters, cra****ng the verification process, and maybe skewing the vote
for an Obama win.
Read the entire article here...a real eye opener:
http://politizine.blogspot.com/2008/01/update-more-on-iowa-vote-fraud...
*************************************
FROM NEVADA:
Listen to this podcast and hear the truth. Either Obama is in to this
union so deep, he has to go along with their tactics, or he's this
corrupt, or he doesn't know what's going on in his own campaign.
Culinary Union Intimidating Members to Vote for Obama updated
Re****ted from Las Vegas, Nevada
There's nothing dainty about Las Vegas but things are getting rough.
Intimidation. Pledges demanded. People to vote for Obama or stay away
from the ...
read more »
|
