Obama campaign directly implicated in voter fraud

[F&D]

This, from Lyn Utrecht, Counsel, Hillary Clinton for President.

Don't shoot the messenger:

BREAKING: Obama Campaign Implicated DIRECTLY in Election Fraud

Allegations are no longer confined to ACORN

There is no place in the American electoral process for the types of voter suppression, intimidation and harassment systematically engaged in by the Obama campaign, its allies and supporters.
Sincerely,

Lyn Utrecht, Counsel, Hillary Clinton for President


It is said that, during the Nuremberg trials, Nazi war criminals used the following defenses: (1) “It didn’t happen,” (2) “I wasn’t there” and (3) “besides, I was only following orders.” Given the onslaught of indictments and guilty pleas of ACORN personnel for voter registration fraud, Barack Obama’s handlers and enablers cannot argue that it didn’t happen. Barack Obama’s “Fight the Smears” page says he never organized with ACORN (i.e. he claims he wasn’t there), which has been exposed as an outright falsehood. Now that his own campaign has been implicated directly with highly credible allegations of election fraud, he can’t even argue that he was just following orders.

We recommend that our readers do a Google search on “Lyn Utrecht” (Hillary Clinton’s campaign counsel) and “Obama.” The result will be a large number of Web pages with credible allegations of tactics such as intimidation of voters by threatening them with the loss of their jobs if they caucused for Hillary Clinton, preference cards that were pre-marked for Obama, shutting Clinton supporters out of caucusing locations, stuffing the ballot box with the votes of unregistered voters and children, and other conduct far better suited to a Third World dictator like Robert Mugabe, or a corrupt political figure like Boss Tweed, than to a United States Senator.

More: Lynn Utrecht's full letter

[dave b]

So, you were going to vote for HRC, but those mean Obama people wouldn't let you?

db

[F&D]

Originally Posted by dave b

So, you were going to vote for HRC, but those mean Obama people wouldn't let you?

db

I'd sure as hell rather see Hillary as the Dem. candidate than this Chicago thug.

So do I take your response to mean that you really don't care that the Obama campaign is directly involved in anti-democratic voter fraud? The ends justify the means, hmm? You're the kind of useful idiot that Lenin so loved.

[dave b]

Grizzly Groundswell, huh?

Clinton campaign, huh?

Bottom of the barrel, huh?

db

[El Conquistador]

Originally Posted by F&D

So do I take your response to mean that you really don't care that the Obama campaign is directly involved in anti-democratic voter fraud?

My guess is that he (like many others around here) doesn't believe most of the accusations you present here.

[F&D]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

My guess is that he (like many others around here) doesn't believe most of the accusations you present here.

Well that's obvious. What I'm curious about is what their intellectual basis is for this disbelief, since they never dispute the facts on the table. There is some pretty powerful leftist idiological brainwashing going on around here. It's more akin to blind unthinking religious devotion than anything else.

I suppose that's appropriate however, since Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam endorsed Obama, literally calling Obama the messiah.

[SXSMITH]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

My guess is that he (like many others around here) doesn't believe most of the accusations you present here.

Well of course they don't. Haven't you seen their photos?

[shadows090]

Lol. I always hear people say "This is bull, it's just accusations." Hey how about this, search it up. Were you aware of ACORN being involved in voter fraud at least? Or do you claim that's a lie as well?

This is not new stuff. A lot of people would just rather not hear about it.

[jim schmidt]

[prodigal27]

It's a letter from a PO'd council member. I think if that had been true, it would have been all over CNN and MSNBC a long time ago.
In regards to Louis Farrakhan, you can't control what people say about you. I find that it's pretty childish to try to discredit someone, by saying "Since that moron likes him, he must be a moron too".
I could use examples of negative people that support anyone, but it doesn't mean that the individual is anywhere near the same level.

[F&D]

Originally Posted by prodigal27

It's a letter from a PO'd council member. I think if that had been true, it would have been all over CNN and MSNBC a long time ago.

There are lots of truths about Obama that should have been all over the mass media a long time ago.

In regards to Louis Farrakhan, you can't control what people say about you. I find that it's pretty childish to try to discredit someone, by saying "Since that moron likes him, he must be a moron too".
I could use examples of negative people that support anyone, but it doesn't mean that the individual is anywhere near the same level.

I was merely drawing the obvious parallel between Farrakhan's Messiah speech and the mindless Obama zealotry we see here. Nevertheless, when someone like Farrakhan says he likes someone, to the point of elevating him to Messiah status, a thinking person should pause to consider what characteristsics of the subject inspire this kind of praise.

[prodigal27]

Originally Posted by F&D

There are lots of truths about Obama that should have been all over the mass media a long time ago. They weren't on there because there wasn't enough evidence to support it.





I was merely drawing the obvious parallel between Farrakhan's Messiah speech and the mindless Obama zealotry we see here. Nevertheless, when someone like Farrakhan says he likes someone, to the point of elevating him to Messiah status, a thinking person should pause to consider what characteristsics of the subject inspire this kind of praise.

It's a simple concept, especially for a news organization. You WANT people to watch, if you can prove that something that serious actually happend, you would get all of the press. Especially FOX news, they'd be all over it.

There is no parallel, Farrakhan likes Obama, okay we get it. To use that as a reason to dislike somone else is asinine. Bush likes McCain, a lot. But that doesn't mean you call McCain a moron country killer, no matter how much you dislike Bush. Nobody looks at the actual person in question anymore. They try to find others that look bad then use that as a strategy. When this happens, it generally means that you can't find anything wrong with the actual guy you're trying to make look bad, so you resort to 3rd party associations.

[F&D]

Originally Posted by prodigal27

There is no parallel, Farrakhan likes Obama, okay we get it. To use that as a reason to dislike somone else is asinine. Bush likes McCain, a lot. But that doesn't mean you call McCain a moron country killer, no matter how much you dislike Bush. Nobody looks at the actual person in question anymore. They try to find others that look bad then use that as a strategy. When this happens, it generally means that you can't find anything wrong with the actual guy you're trying to make look bad, so you resort to 3rd party associations.

Obama's history and associations tell us a great deal about who he is and his ideology. Why is this not important? There is plenty that is actually wrong with the guy, like the original topic of this thread for one.

[shadows090]

So, if McCain was a member of fascist parties, would you consider that a problem?

[F&D]

Originally Posted by shadows090

So, if McCain was a member of fascist parties, would you consider that a problem?

You'll have to be a little more specific. I'm evaluating Obama on his proven socialist background.