Posts Tagged ‘signatures’

Mainstream Media Propagandists Refuse To Do Their Jobs; Up To A College Kid To Expose Democrat 2008 Election Cheating In Indiana

October 19, 2011

Just another example that the mainstream media consists of a bunch of depraved and dishonest propagandists who are as much in the tank for the Democrat Party as Joseph Goebbels and his Ministry of Propaganda was in the tank for Adolf Hitler:

College Student Credited With Uncovering Possible Election Fraud in Indiana’s 2008 Primary
By Eric Shawn
Published October 18, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Shocking election fraud allegations have stained a state’s 2008 presidential primary – and it took a college student to uncover them.

This fraud was obvious, far-reaching and appeared to be systemic,” 22-year-old Ryan Nees told Fox News, referring to evidence he uncovered while researching electoral petitions from the 2008 Democratic Party primary in Indiana.

Nees’ investigation centered on the petitions that put then-senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot. As many as 150 of the names and signatures, it is alleged, were faked. So many, in fact, that the numbers raise questions about whether Obama’s campaign had enough legitimate signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.

What seems to have happened is that a variety of people in northern Indiana knew that this fraud occurred, and actively participated and perpetuated the fraud, and did so on behalf of two presidential campaigns,” according to Nees.

Prosecutors are now investigating. The scandal has already led to the sudden resignation Monday night of Butch Morgan, chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party. He denied any wrongdoing, saying he looks “forward to an investigation that will exonerate me.”

Nees, a junior at Yale University, served as an intern in the Obama White House last year and supports the president’s re-election. But as an intern at the non-partisan political newsletter Howey Politics Indiana, he delved into the Byzantine and complicated world of petition signatures and found reams of signatures that he says appeared to be written in the same handwriting, some apparently copied from previous petitions.

The names were subsequently submitted to Indiana election authorities as the signatures of legitimate voters. Nees and Brian Howey, the newsletter’s publisher, then teamed up with the South Bend Tribune to break the story.

St. Joseph County Prosecuting Attorney Michael Dvorak announced Tuesday that the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Indiana will not be investigating these allegations. So Dvorak is doing so and has requested the assistance of the Indiana State Police.

In a statement, Dvorak said the U.S. attorney “does not investigate allegations of fraud in the submission of petitions by political parties for the placement of the names of candidates on the ballot for federal primary elections. They do, however, investigate fraud in voter registration, the actual voting process and in the tabulation of ballots.”

The state Republican Party Chairman Eric Holcomb had called for a federal investigation.

“We don’t know the extent of the crime. We don’t know how many people. We don’t know if it was organized. Those were some of my questions. How deep does it go? Does it go to one county? Does it go to one district? Does it go to one state? Does it go to 49 other states?”

Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker also supports an investigation. He released a statement that said, in part, “We continue to fully support the investigation into this isolated incident in St. Joseph County. We want to know who committed this act, and we want that person held accountable.”

Nees thinks the candidates did not have knowledge of the alleged forgeries, but he says such things can easily happen.

“This appears to have been the actions of the northern Indiana political machine that operated within the Indiana Democratic Party, not within the campaigns of either President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton,” he said.

“What’s important to me is that this sort of thing not occur in the future. This happened with impunity because no one thought that they would ever get caught, and in fact it was likely that no one would ever catch them because no structural safeguard existed to ensure that this wouldn’t occur.”

Howey, the publisher of the political newsletter, told Fox News he also plans to examine the petitions that put Sen. John McCain’s name on the Republican ballot. “It makes sense to look at the whole thing,” he said.

As Nees sat on a bench on the leafy downtown green in New Haven, Conn., with the imposing ivy and Gothic architecture of Yale behind him, he reflected on what he had found back home in his home state.

“Election fraud is particularly troublesome, because it undermines the integrity of our voting process and basically of our democracy. Maintaining the integrity of elections in the United States is an important thing.”

Democrats are dishonest.  And the most dishonest Democrat of all has become our president.

As to the final paragraph of the story, just let me quote Obama:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

A month after making that statement, Barack Obama did the very thing that he himself had just said would be un-American, undemocratic and unconstitutional to do.

The wicked, lying weasel who now occupies our White House is not above even the lowest dirtball tactic.  He was a political slimeball from his first campaign.  At his core he is a Chicago thug.  And even the liberal New York Times ripped Obama on his loathsome personal character.

And frankly nothing this wicked scion of “God damn America” does will surprise me.

Advertisements

Only Democrat Politicians, Activist Judges, And (Of Course) Beelzebub Support Gay Marriage

November 4, 2009

A snippet from The New York Times pretty much says it all:

Supporters of the [gay] marriage law, which the Legislature approved in May, have far more money and ground troops than opponents, who have been led by the Roman Catholic Church. Yet most polls show the two sides neck and neck, suggesting that gay couples here, as in California last year, could lose the right to marry just six months after they gained it.

Although Maine’s population is a tiny fraction of California’s and the battle here has been comparatively low profile, it comes at a crucial point in the same-sex marriage movement. Still reeling from last year’s defeat in California, gay-rights advocates say a defeat here could further a perception that only judges and politicians embrace same-sex marriage.

If Maine’s law is upheld, however, it would be the movement’s first victory at the ballot box; voters in about 30 states have banned same-sex marriage.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont allow gay couples to marry, but courts and legislatures, not voters, made it possible.

“It’s a defining moment,” said Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, which is leading the repeal effort. “What happens here in Maine is going to have a mushrooming effect on the issue at large.”

The people have now spoken thirty-one times.  And thirty-one times out of thirty-one times, the people have rejected gay marriage.

I think the gay activists have it right: only Democrat politicians and activist judges support gay marriage (I added the part about Beelzebub in my title, assuming that gay marriage advocates simply overlooked their biggest supporter).

These are people who care about democracy about as much as I care about liberalism: they actively despise it.

Gay activists used the most vile sort of intimidation tactics following their Prop 8 defeat in California.  They did the same thing in Washington state, targeting people who exercised their rights as citizens for boycotts, threats, and worse.

And, yeah, they have been trying to pick up the same fascist tactic in Maine.  And here’s what’s going on:

In addition to the fierce battle over the referendum itself, there has been another bitter fight: One over whether the names of the more than 120,000 people who signed a petition to get the referendum on the ballot should be made public.

On one side of the debate is Larry Stickney, the campaign manager of Protect Marriage Washington and one of the main people who got the referendum, known as Referendum 71, on the ballot. Stickney opposes releasing the names, arguing that doing so opens signatories up to intimidation and harassment.

In an interview, Stickney said he has been hit with “numerous death threats,” threatening phone calls in the middle of the night, and “obscene, vile emails” for being the public face of his cause.

“We’ve feared for our children’s lives,” he said.

Stickney characterized the people who signed the petition are “a bunch of little old ladies and nice people who go to church,” and said that “obviously we want to protect them from this kind of thing.”

He added that efforts to release the names amounted to a modern-day version of voter intimidation.

If I may wax philosophical for a moment.  The gay community practices a form of philosophical irrationalism, because they have abandoned the objective moral absolutes which have provided every other culture in history some semblance of moral order.  The eclipse of such moral absolutes has created an exclusive emphasis upon experience and subjectivity.

The problem of such moral irrationalism is that there are no longer any criteria for judgment.  If there are no transcendent absolutes by which one can evaluate experiences or beliefs, then ANY experience or belief can be invested with such transcendent meaning.  There is no basis for saying one idea is true and another false.  There is no basis for insisting that a particular moral principle – for example, that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, or, for that matter, that one ought not to murder Jews – is universally binding.

No culture has ever embraced homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals argue that their quest to impose gay marriage upon a society that clearly does not want it is a humanitarian quest for “civil rights,” and therefore good.  But when the wellsprings of irrationalism are released, human beings have a marked tendency to lurch to authoritarianism, violence, and self-destruction.  Just as homosexuals are proving yet again as they target law-abiding citizens for persecution.  The religious confessional doctrine of original sin accounts for the way that laudable ideals and noble-sounding goals can quickly turn vicious.

President Obama recently signed “hate crimes” legislation protecting gays in a bill that was ostensibly supposed to provide funding for our troops.  [This amounts to another proof that Democrat politicians are determined to impose their will upon the people, rather than allow their people to impose their will upon the politicians].

But the despicable reality is that if people need to be protected against hate crimes, it is the people who need to be protected FROM gays.

Democrats Caught Cheating, Undermining Democracy, In New Jersey Race

November 2, 2009

The two Josephs of socialism – Joseph Stalin and Joseph Goebbels –  would be so proud of their closest ideological counterparts today:

Democrats admit paying for pro-Daggett call; Obama records robocall for Corzine

By Matt Friedman, PolitickerNJ.com Reporter

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.

A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon.

Cryan, who told PolitickerNJ.com yesterday afternoon that the Democratic State Committee had “absolutely” nothing to do with the call, could not immediately be reached for comment.

The call angered Republicans and further fueled conspiracy theories that Daggett is in cahoots with the Corzine camp.  A disclaimer at the end says it was paid for by Victory ’09, “a project of the NJDSC” (Democratic State Committee), and gave the committee’s Trenton address.

Daggett, for his part, disavowed the call.

“Voters hate robocalls. This is just another instance of the dishonest ways Democrats and Republicans use to win campaigns and to fool voters,” he said in a statement this afternoon. “It is little wonder more and more voters are rejecting these kind of desperate dirty tricks and turning to my campaign for a positive message about how to make New Jersey more affordable and competitive.’’

Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be a Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story.

“Yesterday, Jon Corzine’s party boss Joe Cryan said that ‘No, zero, nada, no,’ when asked if he had anything to do with the robocalls,” said Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for the Republican State Committee.  “Today, it’s clear that Cryan is an outright liar.  Corzine’s party boss knows what we know – Jon Corzine’s record is so dreadful that they feel a need to try to trick voters into a second term.”

In other robocall news, the Democratic State Committee is calling voters with a recording of President Obama imploring residents to “get out and vote on Tuesday, and vote for my friend and your governor, Jon Corzine.”

The Star-Ledger has audio of the call on the website.

The funny thing is that the DemocRAT Party gets caught blatantly undermining the democratic process and the spirit of free and fair elections, and the “independent” candidate manages to blame Republicans.

Somehow, Daggett goes from actually blaming Republicans for making the call to then blaming Republicans right along with Democrats when it was publicly revealed that Democrats had been behind the calls all along.  That’s integrity for you.

Methinks thou also dost protest about robocalls too much, Mr. Daggett.  If robocalls don’t work, then why did the President of the United States just record one to benefit Jon Corzine?

I think Daggett voters need to be contemplative: do they vote for Corzine of the Party of Liars and Cheaters?  Do they vote for Daggett and his “ringer movement” of false demagoguery?  Or do they vote for Chris Christie?  The Democrats perpetuated a fraud to support their ringer Daggett in order to undermine the Republican vote, and Daggett starts demagoguing Republicans over whose behind the call?  We’re becoming a banana republic under Obama even faster than I thought we would.

Too bad Christie isn’t still prosecuting these felonious scumbags.

If New Jersey residents really want “change,” electing a conservative would be more change than they’ve ever had.

Meanwhile, the Democrat fraud machine is moving ahead at full speed.  As one example, Democrats are doing everything possible to allow for fraud in the absentee ballot system.

If New Jerseyans are actually stupid enough and amoral enough to re-elect Jon Corzine as their Governor, I hope he literally taxes the p*ss out of them – and then taxes them on the volume of urine he taxed out of them.

A Closer Look At Obama, Candidate of ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’

June 6, 2008

We have seen something unparalleled in modern politics.

No, I’m not talking about the first black nominee of a major American political party.  I’m talking about the effort to whitewash every negative aspect to the past of a nominee of a major political party.

Interestingly, this story came out during the early days of the primary season when Hillarly Clinton was the presumed nominee, and Barack Obama was a nobody.  We haven’t heard a peep about it since the Obama campaign gained ground, which is the precise opposite of what we would expect to see if journalism was politically impartial and objective.

The story begins with Alice Palmer and the the 13th District Illinois State Senate.  Alice Palmer had battled as a community organizer in some of the poorest areas of that district – such as Englewood – for decades while Obama was getting a sun tan in Hawaii and living in Indonesia.  As a state senator, Palmer had faithfully served her district as a good progressive through the early 90s, giving up her safe seat to run for Congress at the request of the party establishment.  She gave Obama his start in politics.

In her previous Democratic primary race for the 13th District, Alice Palmer had defeated her opponent, Charlie Calvin, 83% to 17%, or 29,115 votes to 5,987.  She ran unopposed in the 1992 general election, and received 69,989 votes.

After losing her bid for Congress, Alice Palmer returned to take back her seat in the 13th District.  She had to mount a hasty signature campaign (she only had 18 days) in order to get her name on the ballot.

So what did Barack Obama do, facing the prospect of running against a beloved, long-standing fighter and activist who was actually the sitting incumbant, who had won the previous election with 83% of the vote, and who would have slaughtered the unknown Barack Obama in a primary election?

He put his Harvard Law degree to the most cynical use imaginable, mounting legal challenges to every signature Palmer collected.

Barack Obama, who as a community organizer had registered thousands of underprivileged voters, proceeded to turn around and organize an effort to nullify the signatures of many of these same voters on such technicalities as printing a name rather than writing in cursive.

As a CNN story titled “Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign” details, “As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.”

David Jackson and Ray Long, writing for the Chicago Tribune, begin their article, “Making of a Candidate: Obama knows his way around a ballot.  Some say his ability to play political hardball goes back to his first campaign” this way:

The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

“Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”

In a recent interview, Obama granted that “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents’ signature sheets. “To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up,” Obama recalled.

You Democrats are so mad at the will of the people getting overcome in Florida in 2000?  Well, it’s time for you to demonstrate the totality of your selective outrage yet again, because your glorious candidate of hope and change used crushing tactics to neutralize the clear will of the people.

The Chicago Tribune article addresses Obama’s own reservations about the tactic that he would come to fully embrace:

At the time, though, Obama seemed less at ease with the decision, according to aides. They said the first-time candidate initially expressed reservations about using challenges to eliminate all his fellow Democrats.

“He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?” said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his “guru of petitions.”

In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama’s Democratic rivals at the candidate’s behest.

While Obama didn’t attend the hearings, “he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing,” Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.

Obama defended his use of ballot maneuvers, arguing, “If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people’s business.”

So Obama won by elimimating candidates Marc Ewell and Gha-is Askia in addition to Alice Parker.  Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board’s decision, but Obama’s personal friend and fellow Harvard Law graduate Thomas Johnson intervened on Obama’s behalf and prevailed when Ewell’s case was dismissed days later.

Askia said, he was dismayed Obama would use such tactics.  “It wasn’t honorable,” he said. “I wouldn’t have done it.”  He said the Obama team challenged every single one of his petitions on “technicalities.”  If names were printed instead of signed in cursive writing, they were declared invalid. If signatures were good but the person gathering the signatures wasn’t properly registered, those petitions also were thrown out.  Askia came up 69 signatures short of the required number to be on the ballot.

So don’t you dare say anything nasty about George W. Bush and Florida, you liberal hypocrites.

And please stop whining about “the Right-wing political attack machine,” while you’re at it.

Please try to remember that the phrase, “The politics of personal destruction,” was coined to describe the vicious personal attacks the Clintons used over and over again to personally as well as politically destroy their opponents.

Democrats have more than enough blood on their hands that you would think they would feel more than a little bit self-conscious to point out the tactics of their opposition, but, no.  It’s a little like combining the conscience of a rattlesnake with the brazennous of a street hooker.

“He came from Chicago politics,” Jay Stewart [of Chicago’s Better Government Association] said. “Politics ain’t beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you’re pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that’s what was necessary at the time, that’s what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not.”

Perhaps not“?

Let’s include the opinion of someone who demonstrates a little more honesty, veteran Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass:

Kass, the Chicago Tribune columnist, said the national media are naive when it comes to Chicago politics, which is a serious business.

He said they have bought into a narrative that Obama is strictly a reformer. The truth, Kass says, is that he is a bare-knuckled politician. And using the rules to win his first office is part of who Obama is.

“It’s not the tactics of ‘let’s all people come together and put your best ideas forward and the best ideas win,’ ” Kass said. “That’s the spin; that’s in the Kool-Aid. You can have some. Any flavor. But the real deal was, get rid of Alice Palmer.
advertisement

“There are those who think that registering people to vote and getting them involved in politics and then using this tactic in terms of denying Alice Palmer the right to compete, that these things are inconsistent. And guess what? They are. They are inconsistent. But that’s the politics he plays.”

My problem isn’t so much with Obama’s past tactics so much as with his message in light of those tactics, and in light of his past associations.

It’s bad enough that Barack Obama lectures us on race relations only after having been caught spending the past 23 years in as toxic of a racial environment as well, fellow Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

But to emerge from brutally and cynically stealing an office from a far more popular incumbent candidate and then calling yourself “the candidate of hope and change” is not only morally vacuous, but calls upon Americans to abandon their intelligence and common sense for smarmy, self-serving rhetoric.