George Soros and his Power Grab, important information.

George Soros buys the nomination, by Ed Hamler.

I came to the same conclusions about Soros KNOWING NOTHING about what Mr. Hamler had written. We've both come to the same conclusion using different research methods.

MInnesota Caucus Controversy.

Here is a quote from the Minnesota Daily Newspaper,

Sen. Barack Obama took each state that held a caucus Tuesday by an exceptionally wide margin, save American Samoa. In states that held primaries, the margins of victory were more even-keeled, perhaps representing a more realistic method of vote counting.

Clear, concise, exactly what I have been saying on this blog for months. Why are these fraudulent caucus results not being challenged? Minnesota had a two to one margin of victory for Barack Obama, NOBODY believes that if the democratic party held a primary in Minnesota instead of a caucus that Barack Obama would have won by a 2-1 margin. As I recall, Hillary Clinton was actually winning by 7 points in Minnesota just one week before the 2008 caucus was held.

North Carolina Update...

I happened upon this comment. It kind of rings true as Barack Obama had a huge lead over Hillary Clinton based on the mail in vote.

And for all those people who only see evil--

Here's a comment from the news-Record from March 9, 2008:

"We had been receiving, for the last couple of weeks or so, about 1,500 to 2,200 voter registration applications daily," said Johnnie Mclean, deputy director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

In 2004, her office received only a few hundred a day, she said.

"This is, by far, the largest we've seen," Mclean said.

One reason for the state's uptick are prefilled voter registration applications from a Washington-based voting advocacy group that were mailed to thousands of private mailboxes in North Carolina. Recipients can verify their information and mail the cards to the state elections office."

Get it??? They've been sending packets to North Carolina for months now? The Deputy Director of the Board of Elections is HAPPY that so many new people are registering.
wasa1 | 04.30.08 - 6:09 pm | #

The Kind of Lawsuit against the DNC that could actually make a difference.

I think a lawsuit prior to the Denver coronation could play a significant role in the 2008 democratic nomination process.

However, my research leads me to believe that no judge would actually favor overturning the current democratic result no matter what evidence was presented.

However, if I had the resources, I would file a lawsuit to try and get a ruling in which a judge declares whether or not "fair reflection" was followed in this years democratic race. I believe a judge might rule that Fair Reflection WAS NOT in force in the 2008 democratic process.

Think of it as an asterisk in front a sports record.

Asterisks in front of a sports record designates that something about that record needs to be explained whenever the record is quoted.

I believe that Barack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages all being from caucus states is a statistical abberation that is so far out of alignment that it cannot be called "fair reflection" of the voters in those states. When a candidate wins approximately 15 caucuses and 18 primaries, and their top 11 caucus wins are also the top 11 in winning percentage, something is mathematically out of joint. The top 10 should have been a blend, perhaps as many as 7 caucus wins and 3 primary wins, but any more of a mismatch than that and something was up and the results are tainted.

As further evidence, we know that three states that held both primaries and caucuses show OVER A 30% SWING IN HILLARY CLINTON'S FAVOR from the caucus result to the primary result.

If a judge could be presented enough convincing evidence that fair reflection did not happen in many of the caucus state contests, a ruling stating that the democrats did not live up to fair reflection in the 2008 election would be ethically devastating to the Barack Obama camp.

Many other specific situations could also be brought up that thoroughly show virtually all of the critical rulings favoring Barack Obama throughout the 2008 election campaign, another sign that fair reflection did not happen.

MSNBC, Huffington Post, David Axlerod Timeline to Destroy the Clintons early in the 2008 Presidential Race.

Why did 3 superdelegates leave John Edwards and join Barack Obama before Edwards had quit the race? Why did Edwards quit the race just days before all the caucus elections were to be held? Edwards voters were 40% in favor of Clinton and 25% in favor of Obama when Edwards quit the race, yet it was evident that Barack Obama got the big bump in the caucus state contests held soon after Edwards had quit.

It appears that Richardson, Edwards and Obama colluded by all taking their names off the ballot in Michigan right at the October 2007 filing deadline. It is possible they may have shared their groups of supporters precinct by precinct in the early caucus races to optimize each candidates overall position. If Richardson, Edwards and Hillary had colluded against Barack, the charge of racism would have been rightfully leveled. But when it is three males against a more mature female opponent, no one mentions ageism and sexism.

In Nevada, the culinary Union, even though it was comprised of at least 40% hispanic, somehow picked Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, (I'd really like to know how that backroom deal went down) then poured it on by creating outrageous rules for voting elegibility along the Vegas Strip. Only Hotel employees could vote in the vegas strip caucuses, and their delegate totals were significantly higher than any other caucus precincts in the entire state.

When the Nevada teachers union filed a legitimate lawsuit that the Vegas Strip Caucuses would have too much influence as compared to all the other caucuses in the state, the Clintons were attacked as being racist and anti-Latino!

Not to be outdone, Bill Clinton was then accused of racism in South Carolina! I think it is possible that David Axlerod was involved in these early racism charges against the Clintons.

Here is where it really gets weird. Dan Abrams of MSNBC began clamoring that the superdelegates should not dictate the outcome of the race. Interesting side note, Dan Abrams uses the name "Beat the Press" in his daily television show and even claims to be the first one to have used the name. This is comedy and lying all rolled into one as it was Arianna Huffington circa 1997 that pitched a show called "Beat the Press" for television syndication, but it was never picked up. We all know how closely intertwined Arianna Huffington is with MSNBC.



Is it possible that Abrams and Huffington worked out a deal that allowed Abrams to use Arianna Huffington's concept "Beat the Press" (Dan Abrams has proudly claimed he was the first to use the phrase "Beat the Press"), if Abrams would agree to intimidate the superdelegates with his daily diatribe against the superdelegates deciding the outcome of the race? Dan Abrams went on and on for days over the "Super delegates cannot decide the race" theme.

While Abrams was putting forth the "superdelegates cannot control the nomination process" theme, The Great Plains caucus contests were falling in shockingly unrepresentative fashion for Barack Obama. John Edwards had just quit the race prior to these February Great Plains Caucuses and Edwards' top rural advisor, Dave "Mudcat" Saunders had stated on MSNBC: "I will do everything in my power so he doesn't endorse Hillary Clinton."

hmmm, a John Edwards rural advisor who hates Hillary Clinton is suddenly available just in time for the Great Plains States Caucuses, which results in incredibly unrealistic numbers for Barack Obama and ends up being the difference maker in the 2008 democratic race.

After the Caucus Contests victories in February Barack Obama managed to achieve the suspicious feat of 51% of the vote (not counting Florida and Michigan) yet 57% of the delegates.Nobody at MSNBC seemed to think it was biased news reporting to try and diminish the superdelegates role in the election while simultaneously ignoring Barack Obama's significantly higher percentage of delegates 57% versus his popular vote total 51%.

Backed by Dan Abrams MSNBC show demanding that the super delegates not decided the race, Donna Brazile decided to become the decider and began to threaten that if the superdelegates decided the race there would basically be rioting in the streets. The evidence is shockingly there that from the beginning the fix was in to eliminate Hillary Clinton from the race, all thanks to Billionaire George Soros and his unhealthy influence on several media sources in the 2008 democratic race.

Nevada Caucus Tactics Involved a Purely Republican Florida 2000 Maneuver by the Barack Obama Camp.

Click on Image to enlarge.

Click on image to enlarge.

Click on Image to Enlarge.

When Al Gore tried to get votes recounted in Florida in 2000, the Republicans accused him of trying to change the voting rules to benefit him. In actuality, because of a one week voter recount time limit, what Al Gore did was try and address voting discrepancies without creating massive chaos an entire state recount would cause. I find it shocking that a Florida recount would not automatically trigger additional time to recount the votes. Apparently the United States supreme court was comfortable with a florida recount system that sticks to a schedule even if that schedule precludes a legitimate statewide recount from being possible. (gasp).

Because of this, Al Gore was trapped into asking for pieces of the Florida revote pie, and that is when the Republicans hit him with the accusation that Gore wanted to change the rules until Gore won. In Nevada, a similar thing happened. The Vegas Strip culinary workers were able to set up close to a dozen voting locations along the vegas strip. The problem with this was the caucus voting was ONLY available to the hotel workers and no one else who lived or worked in the area. Additionally, speaking out in public for Hillary Clinton in this type of situation could make an employee feel like their job was in danger for going against their bosses. The percentage of selected delegates from these specific caucus locations was going to favor the culinary union over any one else that voted elsewhere in the Nevada Caucus.

The Barack Obama camp received the endorsement of the Las Vegas culinary union (and you gotta wonder what sleazy tactics went on to get it since Hillary Clinton is supported by Hispanics and the culinary union has a very large contingent of Hispanics). There were also reports of intimidation among the Hispanic union members by the higher ups to vote for Barack Obama.

When individual members of the teachers union brought up the various inequities that would give the culinary union an unfair delegate advantage over all other voting counties in the state of Nevada, they were immediately attacked on all fronts and charges of racism ensued. Bill Clinton appeared in a newsclip eloquently defending the lawsuit and the lack of fairness in allowing Vegas Strip voting to count for more than any other group in the state. Some people have posted this clip on youtube and tried to imply that Bill Clinton was somehow being arrogant or upset. Actually Bill Clinton was basically 100% correct in his comments.

Then came the "Florida Manuever" by the Barack Obama camp. When the Nevada lawsuit was filed, the Barrack Obama people and their bot friends accused the Clinton's of filing a lawsuit to change the rules only because they did not get the union's endorsement. This is the kind of accusation that damages a reputation and is something usually reserved for the opposite political party, as the Republicans did to Al Gore back in 2000. In this instance it is the Barack Obama camp doing "the Florida Manuever" to a fellow democrat, Hillary Clinton.

While there are instances in which both sides hammered each other over various political stances, the Nevada situation was different because the lawsuit was bringing up the issue of "Fair Reflection" and the Barack Obama camp had no stomach to make sure the Nevada Caucus fairly reflected the vote of the state. What was the Clintons reward for supporting the conceopt of "Fair Reflection" in Nevada?

You can google Nevada Caucus Lawsuit and you will find a preponderance of articles that take Barack Obama's position and unfairly paint the Clinton's as being elitists and against fairness. Some articles even claim the Clintons arer racist against Hispanics!

It appears to me that the DNC only believed in Fair Reflection when it benefited Barack Obama, and the DNC did not support Fair Reflection when it benefited Hillary Clinton.

Check out these links. 13 page Lawsuit document (Item 33 on page 6 gets to the heart of the matter

Pathetic Attempt to by Ben Smith to accuse the Clintons of "disenfranchising" the culinary workers union.

This one on Alternet claims it is a "dubious lawsuit".

How can it be a dubious lawsuit to ask that the percentage of delegates selected from the Vegas Strip be porptionately equal to the rest of the state???

The craziest part of all, and bears repeating, the Vegas strip caucuses were only open to the employees of the hotel holding the caucus. No LOCAL RESIDENTS WERE ALLOWED IN, AND, could you imagine saying in public that you supported Hillary Clinton in the middle of a culinary union vote in which the union higher ups had already supported Barack Obama?

AFTER CLICKING THIS LINK, CHECK OUT THE COMMENTS SECTION TO SEE THE OBAMABOTS IN ACTION.

Who would stand up in front of their bosses and upper management and speak on Hillary Clinton's behalf? The fear of losing one's job, whether valid or not, is more than enough to quell Hillary Clinton Supporters from standing up at a culinary caucus meeting and speaking on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Even if the likelihood of losing one's job not really there, the perception of punishment CAN EASILY BE THERE.

While the Clintons were then accused of being anti-hispanic in Las Vegas, Bill Clinton was also being accused of being racist in South Carolina. Bill Clinton, racist? It is such a laughable concept, yet the racism card was played over and over by the George Soros influenced media early on and often.

If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Switched their Super Delegate totals, Hillary Clinton would be the Presumptive Nominee!

Besides the "Great 12 State Fiasco" in which Hillary Clinton wins 11 of 12 States and picks up 555 delegates while Barack Obama LOSES those same 11 of 12 states and picks ups 550 delegates, there is the Caucus Theft Caper in which Barack Obama doubles the amount of delegates Hillary Clinton gets even though polling shows in many of those caucus contests the two were a lot closer together in popularity, which now brings us to "The Charge of the Super Delegate Brigade".

Even with all the manipulation done to help Barack Obama eeke out a delegate victory over Hillary Clinton, did you know that if the Super Delegate numbers were simply switched, Hillary getting Barack's total, and Barack getting Hillary's total, Hillary Clinton would actually be the presumptive nominee.

So the reason this was not allowed to happen was because of the caucus contests, that clearly did nothing to accurately and fairly reflect the will of the voters in those states.

All I ask is that all caucus contests be revoted using a primary style of voting, and that these primaries be funded by the american military reducing their fuel consumption by 10% for just a couple of days. That's all it would take to pay for the revote.

Newsweek, or is it NewsTweak, joins the George Soros, Kool Aid Drinking Party.

MSNBC tab on Newsweek's website. It's just one big incestuous news family spawned by George Soros. George Soros, Huffington Post, Moveon.org, MSNBC, Newseek, Daily Kos, Media Matters, all there to push forward the agenda of George Soros.

Jonathan Alter was on television with Keith Olbermann trashing and attacking John McCain, and his memory for defending Hillary Clinton from the Media Attacks she actually did suffer.

Just one week earlier, the magazine Alter works for, Newsweek, ran an offensive piece that claimed there is no way to cheat in national elections. The irony of the article was that it NEVER mentioned the caucus state votes, and it NEVER mentioned the concept of Fair Reflection.

The conclusionary quote to the Newsweek article is wrought with obfuscation. "It is very, very hard to swing entire elections through large-scale polling-place fraud, in part because to do so one needs to organize great numbers of voters willing to commit felonies by registering as Mickey Mouse. And then voting in mouse ears. If we could just put the myth of vote fraud to rest, we would go a long way toward restoring "voter confidence."

Um, what about caucus fraud in which only thousands have to be involved? what about the overall will of over 35 million being circumvented by a mere million caucus voters?

It's just part of the same old, same old, MSNBC, Newsweek, George Soros, Huffington Post, not there to post the real news, just the news that fits their own agenda.

To top it off, Newsweek has now run a poll that shows Barack Obama 15 points ahead whereas all over polls show Barack Obama ahead by 4-8 points. Is this the best we can expect from one of our "top" magazines?

Complete alignment with one political party over the other while holding onto the claim that these organizations are "news groups" is fraud, but actually dictating WHICH CANDIDATE is "elected" within a major political party just might be treason.

How David Axelrod Corrupted Barack Obama.

One of the bulls eye moments in this years campaign was John McCain mentioning that Barack Obama had only been to Iraq once, whereas every other major presidential candidate had been there at least three times or more. From the moment this point was made a couple of months ago, it was pretty evident that Barack Obama would need to go visit the troops at least one more time this year.

I also think it's fair to say that if the "Barack in Iraq" topic hadn't been brought up by McCain, Barack might not not have made it a priority, unless there was some strategic advantage to be gained by going to Iraq.

Yesterday on MSNBC, the "Barack in Iraq" situation was discussed with David Axelrod on MSNBC. Mr. Axelrod looked right into the camera and without so much as a finger wag nor a flinch, said that Barack going to Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO with John McCain bringing up the topic.

It saddened me to see the absolutely unflinching, completely sociopathic look on Mr. Axelrod's face as he attempted to look into the camera and try and be believeable as he downplayed McCain's role in Barack going to Iraq.

Rather than for once, just once, giving McCain a minor bit of credit for a shot across the bow that actually made a slight dent in the Barack Obama facade, and THEN downplaying it as not being that big of a deal, Axelrod was in full denial mode as he stated that Barack Obama had planned all along to go to Iraq.

It reminded me of the Pee Wee Herman movie when he goes over the handlebars of his own bicycle and makes a spectacular summersault and crash, and then looks up at a group of kids and says, "I meant to do that".

It saddened me because as I watched Axelrod lose all credibility right in front of my eyes, I realized that it is his sociopathic mindset that has contaminated whatever purity Barack Obama may have still had before his campaign began.

Deny everything, never admit any weakness, just power through on down the road. You know, the way the Bush administration does it.

Change, what change?

What do Hillary Clinton People Want?

I can't speak for others. I know what I want however. I want FAIR REFLECTION in the caucus states. The delegates that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton receive from the caucus states should actually mirror their popularity in the caucus contests. I actually don't mind if the delegate count slightly favors the candidate that "worked harder" in those states, but I don't want to see delegate counts that are so far off the probable popular vote, (fair reflection) it becomes laughable, which is what we have now.

If it take conducting actual primaries in the caucus states to gain FAIR REFLECTION, than I am for that. I would estimate the cost to do this at about 90% less than what our Military spends in one day on FUEL. If our military reduced their fuel usage by 10% for just one day, the government could easily pay for the caucus contest elections to be redone as primaries.

I also want an admission from Barack Obama that taking his name off of the Michigan Ballot at the last possible moment (in October, 2007), was done in collusion with John Edwards and Bob Richardson so they would gain a tactical advantage in Iowa over Hillary Clinton. If you want proof that ageism and sexism were at play, and racism was not, there is no way that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson would have ever combined forces against Barack Obama in Iowa, but the three younger men did combine forces against a female.

Because of this collusion in Iowa, Barack Obama should not expect delegates in any noticeable amount from Michigan. Carl Levin has already stated that Michigan had a legitimate, desperate reason for moving up their primary. Michigan was not the only state to move up their primary date, making their "punishment" questionable. North Carolina was awarded 28 delegates for NOT moving up their primary date. Was Michigan offered anything for not moving up their primary date?

The reason given for punishing Florida and Michigan states was that next time will be worse if there is no punishment this time. I can design a system that levels the playing field AND gives states a method for moving up their date if a state feels in desperate need of being heard. So the solution is not punishment now, but one which FIRST offers a more logical, representative method for all states to follow.

I find it fascinating that the party that wants more education and less jails opts for a punishment first mode when it comes time to solve their own internal problems. I call that, hypocrisy.

Near the end of the campaign, not all uncommitted delegates and super delegates were voting for whom they wanted. Instead they were voting for whom they were being told by the media was the presumptive, presumptive winner. This is a form of voter fraud. The first vote by a delegate or superdelegate should be for whom they are supporting, not whom they are being told is already the presumptive presumptive nominee.

There are some super delegates and uncommitted delegates who simply did not vote for Hillary Clinton because they thought she could not win. This creates a false delegate count. The is time later, if one chooses, to vote for whom is going to win rather than whom one is supporting. Forcing delegates into voting for who was winning rather than who they wanted to win prior to Denver was voter manipulation.

I also want an admission from MSNBC, Huffington Post, and George Soros that they influenced peddled the media to make sure Barack Obama won. Without all of this happening, there can be no real democratic winner, and no real harmony among democrats.

Tim Russert Passes.

Please leave a Tim Russert remembrance if you have one.

What Hillary Clinton Supporters are Fighting For.

I believe that George Soros, Huffington Post, MSNBC, MoveON.org and a few others spearheaded a move to secure the democratic nomination for Barack Obama. If this is true, AND they cheated to do it, then it is essential that this result be overturned, otherwise the affect it will have on future presidential races could be catastrophic.

If Barack Obama was assisted in winning the democratic nomination by George Soros, Huffington Post, Move On, and MSNBC, then in the future, viable democratic candidates might feel compelled to get the blessing of the above group or not even make an attempt to run for the presidency. Donors may not even bother donating money to a campaign if the candidate does not have the approval of those mentioned above since they will have all the power.

If MSNBC is successful in changing the way they report news and gain viewers in the process, and also get to select who the presumptive democratic candidate is before the public even casts a single vote, they will never change back to being a news station that reports the news, rather than manipulates it.

The higher ups who support Fox television news, upon seeing how that they lost the presidential race to a democratic candidate who was financially propped up and helped by so many forces, may begin interfere in the republic nominating process to a greater degree. Rather than waiting until the public elects the Republican nominee, Fox News and their higher ups may choose to take the mystery out of this step and in essence help pre-select the presumptive Republican nominee in the same manner that George Soros, MSNBC, Huffington Post and Move On have done with Barack Obama.

The fight to see "truth in voting" win out, also known as Fair Reflection, not only affects this election, but will have far reaching consequences in future presidential elections as well. A lot is at stake in seeing the real truth come out of the fraudulent caucus voting that helped the democratic presumptive nominee, Barack Obama gain an ill gotten advantage over Hillary Clinton.

Fair Reflection Protest Movement.

Please click on the link below to learn about the Fair Reflection Protest Movement.

Fair Reflection Protest Movement

MSNBC and Huffington Post Lay it on Thick as Hillary Clinton is Forced to Suspend her Campaign.

The false platitudes pour in from both Huffington Post and MSNBC over Hillary Clinton's forced suspension speech. Forcing a suspension speech from Hillary Clinton so early after the end of democratic nomination race, when Hillary Clinton had had as many popular votes if not more than the presumptive nominee (Barack Obama), is unprecedented in the history of the United States.

Fox News seems to support the presumptive Republican candidate, but did Fox News actually demand that John McCain be the nominee? Doubtful.

It appears that Fox did not have anywhere near as much of a hand in selecting the actual Republican candidate as MSNBC and Huffington Post have had in pushing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

In the past, billionaire tycoons may have backed one political party over another, but this year a billionaire has actually controlled the american news media and internet news into favoring a specific candidate (Barack Obama) over the more popular candidate (Hillary Clinton), when both were with the same political party. This apparently takes the practice of "billionaire butting in" to a whole new, corrupt level.

From my point of view, disassembling the democratic party and reassembling it with higher ups that don't take their walking orders from George Soros and Arianna Huffington is the best way to save the democratic party in the long run. While Barack Obama talks a good game about change, if he is successful in his run for the presidency he will actually set back the democratic party a decade or more as future candidates will have to be approved by George Soros and Arianna Huffington.

At the end of the day, Barack Obama won because of the constant media attack against Hillary Clinton. The media attack was pinioned on the result of the fraudulent over votes in the caucus state contests. MSNBC and all news media refused to address the lack of Fair Reflection in the Great Plains Caucus contests. Barack Obama won by wildly inaccurate amounts in the caucus state votes, and all the media will say about this is that Barack Obama had better ground forces in those states.

Nobody dares to bring up the concept of "Fair Reflection", except for the coolest head on the block, Harold Ickes.

South Dakota Punctures Obama's Hold on the Northern Great Plain States and Raises New Questions about Barack's Caucus States Wins.

One of the two areas that Barack Obama dominated in was the Great Northern Plain States and some of the surrounding states as well. However this dominance was achieved through caucus contests and not primary contests.

Just prior to the final week of voting for the democratic nominee, surrounding the State of South Dakota were 9 Obama caucus contest wins, all done via caucus voting. The result of many of those caucus contests were highly lopsided caucus victories that resulted in a suspiciously high allocation of delegates to Barack Obama.Montana and South Dakota were the only states in the Great Northern Plains to hold primaries, and they did so on the final day of elections for the democratic nomination. Barack Obama had aleady won 9 straight caucuses in the great Northern Plain States that surround South Dakota. However in the only Two Great Plain State primaries that were held instead of caucuses, Hillary Clinton won in South Dakota, and Barack Obama won in Montana. Apparently Hillary won the democratic vote in Montana but Barack picked up the Republican vote!

The combined popular primary vote total of Montana and South Dakota were almost evenly split between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with Barack barely having more total votes between the two states. In no way did the popular vote total come anywhere near the margin of victory that Barack Obama achieved in all of the surrounding Great Plain States caucus contests.

This once again reinforces the reality that Barack Obama received a discordant amount of delegates from caucus state contests than Hillary Clinton. In the primary state elections, where voters get all day to vote and vote in the privacy of a voting booth, Hillary Clinton does significantly better than in the caucus state contests which severly limit voter participation.

Speaking of racism, isn't Montana known as a gun loving state? How does the Obama camp spin that Barack won in a state that probably has similar beliefs to those in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, including loving their guns, yet voting for Obama? lol, actually he may not won if not for the Republican cross over vote.

When Obama loses in gun loving states, the spin of racism is used, when Barack Obama wins in gun loving states, the state is called "enlightened".