Did Obama really wi
Post# of 1903
Posted On: 12/08/2012 3:27:59 PM
 |
| Did Obama really win? MORE evidence of skullduggery in vote count |
 The question must be asked. I wish I didn't have to be the one to ask it. But, since no one else will, it falls to me. Did Barack Obama actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? My answer is an unequivocal no. It was not a free and fair election. In fact, if we as a nation don't acknowledge the reality of what I am saying, we may never have a free and fair election again in the future of this once-great nation. Click here to help fight against voter fraud. Here are some facts to consider: The Obama campaign accepted at least some foreign campaign cash – willingly and knowingly. The campaign website could have prohibited it. It did not. In other words, it deliberately left open the door for illegal foreign contributions in its "by any means necessary" quest for re-election. WND has proven that by actually contributing under the name Osama bin Laden from a Pakistani IP address, with a phony physical address and other neon-lit red flags in hopes of catching attention. Obama accepted illegal foreign contributions in 2008 without penalty, so why would anyone expect him not to repeat his crime in 2012? No one can know the extent of the fraud, because Obama has refused to release the identity of donors of $200 or less – yet he boasts that most of the money he collected was in small amounts.  James O'Keefe and Project Veritas spent months heroically proving the absolute willingness and eagerness of Democratic operatives to commit voter fraud – especially by having people cast multiple votes. Military ballots were systematically denied active-duty servicemen and women around the world. This would be a scandal if it happened once. But it has become the norm when Democrats are in charge of the Defense Department. It would be a scandal if it were due to incompetence. But it appears to be a deliberate effort to suppress the military vote. It would be a scandal if it were not a close election. But it was. Prior to the election, Democrats fought for open voting requiring no identification – particularly photo ID. Coincidentally, Obama won every state that didn't fully require photo ID to vote. Democrats contended that voter ID laws suppress the vote. But they do not. They only suppress the illegal vote. Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Obama received "astronomical" numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received "over 99 percent" of the vote. Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Obama received 99.5 percent of the vote, defeating Romney 9,955 to 55. Obama also won 99.8 percent of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. Obama received 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain. Obama won in the four critical swing states by a grand total of 500,000 votes. Some 5 million independents changed their votes from Obama to Romney in 2012. So Romney started the day 2.5 million votes ahead of where McCain was in 2008, as Jack Wheeler points out. This means that 5.5 million Republican voters are not accounted for. Either they didn't show up at the polls or their votes were not counted. Does anyone believe there was less enthusiasm by Republicans about this election than for the one in 2008? I could go on and on, but you get the point. In such a close election, these anomalies are unacceptable. In an election in which all the voter fraud appears to be perpetrated by one side, it could more than make the difference in the race. Worse yet, will an unscrupulous party that would resort to such crimes to win ever permit another free and fair election in the future – especially if the crimes are not exposed and punished severely? |
(0)
(0)