Stealing And Buying The Presidency

A pair of stories make a nice set of bookends to Barack Obama's candidacy for President.

Stealing the Presidency: An Obama/ACORN Primer By Kyle-Anne Shiver
The Buying of the Presidency 2008 By Richard Baehr

Excerpts:

Stealing...

When one is fighting a war "against social evils," one is above the law. Rules and laws are for the other people.

For the past eight years, Americans have been bombarded nearly nonstop by cries of "Bush stole the White House," without a single proven shred of evidence, without a single indictment or conviction of Republicans on vote fraud, vote rigging or anything even close. Meanwhile the only group indicated and convicted in actual vote fraud cases in the last two elections -- ACORN -- is fully mobilized still, claims to have registered 1.3 million new voters this year, and is tied historically and inextricably to our front-running candidate for President, Barack Obama.

Yet, here we are two weeks out from what may very well be an actual, stolen presidential election.

ACORN pledged to spend $35 million this year in voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bulk of this money has been targeted at the most important battleground states of the past 2 elections. And as the National Black Republican Association proclaims, ACORN's motto is: "Let Every Fraudulent Vote Count!" Indeed the ACORN strategy apparently rests on Mickey Mouse & company voting early, often and everywhere.

Should legal, registered, qualified voters be concerned that their votes will be negated by fraudulent votes? Yes, we all should be.

With investigations ongoing in about a dozen states, Barack Obama has requested that everything be turned over to a special prosecutor. Not just any special prosecutor either. Obama wants all of the ACORN investigations lumped into the ongoing, Democrat-launched probe into Justice Dept. attorney firings in the Bush Administration.

The bottom line here is simple. Obama and the Democrats are attempting to frame every investigation into voter fraud, vote rigging and vote buying from the past 2 elections, as well as this one, as purely political. According to Obama and the Democrats in control of Congress, none of this ACORN fraud ever happened. The attorneys were fired because they refused to investigate ACORN and the Democrats say that was political. Obama claims that all investigations now being mounted by states and the FBI are intended to suppress voter turnout, and are politically motivated.

Shiver goes on to talk about how the Supreme Court denied the suit against Ohio Sec. State Jennifer Brunner (previous history here). The SC kicked the case back to state court. Also, the Buckeye Institute has filed a RICO suit against ACORN in Ohio, which invokes some rules intended to combat organized crime (if I understand it correctly), and the GOP and Clinton Dems are teaming up to fight ACORN:

As reported on the Hillbuzz website last week:

"What's happening here is something we have never seen before: centrist Clinton Democrats and Republicans are working together to expose the DNC and Obama campaign's illegal activities and orchestrated, coordinated fraud. Both parties are working with federal agents to investigate ACORN, which has been funded with upwards of $800,000 in questionable donations from the Obama campaign (in what appears to be the expressed and explicit direction to engineer voter fraud in the general election).

"The tactics being employed now in the 15 states currently under investigation are the VERY SAME TACTICS we saw on the ground in Iowa, Texas, Colorado, Nebraska, Indiana, and other states working for Hillary Clinton in the primaries."

I think this is the first real example of Barack Obama bringing people together from opposite sides of the aisle! The article contains a ton of information about fraud in swing states and Dem caucuses, so go check out the whole thing for the details. The bottom line is that if Obama wins in November, it is very likely that at least a large part of his victory will be due to his fraudulent friends in ACORN.

Buying...

In every battleground state the story is the same. Obama has run ads 3 to 4 times as often as McCain and the gap is widening each week. Most of the Obama ads, of course, are negative ads about McCain, and in most cases false or misleading according to factcheck.org. It is as if one basketball team is playing with a rule that its players foul out after committing 2 personal fouls, while and its opponent is allowed six personal fouls per player. Or maybe one basket is two feet lower, or one team can not include any player over six feet tall.

In essence, we do not have a fair fight. Obama has always liked it that way when it comes to his campaigns. Obama said at one point that if the McCain campaign brought "a knife to the fight, we would bring a gun" -- revealing that he did not care about a level playing field . Anyone familiar with his campaign against Alice Palmer in 1996, where he used challenges to nominating petitions to completely eliminate all his challengers in the Democratic primary for the Illinois State Senate, should have realized this aspect of Obama's campaign style. Michael Barone's "The Coming Obama Thugocracy" describes Obama's effort to silence critics. And of course, there were the revelations by the Chicago Tribune of two sex scandals relating to Obama's opponents in the U.S. Senate race in 2004: the first served to eliminate Blair Hull, who held a solid lead over Obama in the race for the Democratic nomination before the story broke, and the other forced Jim Ryan, the GOP nominee, from the race. Did Obama or his campaign have a role in supplying damaging information to the media about these stories (Obama's campaign manger once worked for the Tribune), or is he just the luckiest politician alive?

Both the Obama campaign and its volunteer army in the national media are quite comfortable with all of this, since it is producing the result they desire.

Over half of [the $700 million he will have raised throughout the campaign] has come from fat cats, such as the few hundred people who gave his campaign, the DNC, and state parties $11 million in one night in Hollywood last month. Among small individual donors, about whom far less is known, there have been questions raised about some of the donors, and sources. Mr. Good Will, for instance, has given multiple donations totaling over $17,000 (the limit for an individual donor in a cycle is $2300 for the primary campaign, and $2300 for the general election). Any donation of $200 or more requires a form to be completed. Mr. Good Will gave many times but always less than the level requiring more personal information.

One thing is clear: Obama has shown how much he likes to spend by how he has run this campaign. This is a foretaste of his npresidency should he be elected. Repeat the phrase "tax and spend", and you will get a good sense of what an Obama Presidency would be like. If a candidate can spend on a Presidential campaign more than double what any other campaign in history has ever spent before, think of what the size of the federal government will look like after one or two terms of an Obama presidency.

How a candidate runs his campaign is an important indicator of the character of the man or woman we may elect. In the case of Obama, the evidence is that he is a very skillful, ambitious, and driven candidate, and also a very, very cynical and dishonest one. What Obama says means very little. He is after all a clever lawyer. We have had a recent experience with a very smart lawyer as President and how he parsed words. In Obama's case, the lies have been pretty blatant, despite the best spinning efforts by the campaign.

It is not his words, but what Obama does that matters. And right now, Barack Obama is trying to buy the Presidency, and it looks like he is succeeding.

So, Obama is buying and stealing the Presidency. You can quibble over the details and interpretations if you want, but I think it's pretty clear that's what's going on. The question is: who is helping him buy and steal it, and what will they want in return?

I fear the answer.

There's my two cents.