OBAMA CRIME: 2008 Archives

The word is that a Kerry for President in 2004 worker now living in New Hampshire made off with $100,000 in campaign funds and has now been indicted. When will somebody get indicted for the Obama campaign's fraudulent online fundraising that bought him the election? Somebody with Chicagoland political smarts had to be in on it.

On second thought, if Eric Holder is the attorney general, it probably won't happen. Anybody who engineered the pardon of multimillionaire fugitive financier Marc Rich and okayed the pardon of Puerto Rican terrorists to get the Puerto Rican vote for Hillary's run for Senate in New York probably won't be interested in such inconsequential stuff as his boss buying the presidency. Oh, and Holder also okayed the commutation of the decades' long sentences of two convicted Weather Underground terrorist friends of (guess who?) Obama friends WU terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. In the course of the WU robbing a Brinks-type truck, two policeman and a guard were killed.

The following is a good up-to-date summary of Obama's fradulent fundraising. As previously reported on this website, tests by private citizens disclosed that all the normal credit card ID safeguards had been disabled on Obama websites. All that was needed was a valid credit card number to have a contribution accepted by the campaign, regardless of the name (Donald Duck, say) that was used. Foreign credit cards were not blocked either. The McCain campaign had all ID security devices activated and foreign credit cards were rejected. More than half of Obama's contributors of $650 millon cannot be identified. The FEC has been formally asked to investigate Obama's fundraising for what appears to be deliberate fraud. The ID security devices cannot be disabled by accident.

Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain.

But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory.

And one question is: Did Obama “buy” the election?

Continue reading "FEC TO INVESTIGATE OBAMA CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FRAUD?"

Victor Davis Hanson notes some history of Obama's methods:

Individually, the extra-electoral efforts are irrelevant. But in the aggregate, they start to add up. In 1996 Obama goes to court, challenges the petition signatures of mostly African-American voters, and gets all his rivals eliminated from the ballot and so de facto runs unopposed.

In 2004 sealed divorce records were strangely released destroying the chances of his chief Democratic rival Blair Hull; then in the general, lightning again struck, and Republican front-runner Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records were likewise mysteriously released—and he too crashed, in effect, leaving Obama without a serious primary or general election rival.

In this campaign, Acorn galvanizes to register voters and almost immediately runs into serial charges of voter registration fraud. Now an Obama ad runs asking Americans simply to take the day off to help get out the Obama vote: apparently American businesses, universities, and the government all are supposed to sacrifice hundreds of millions of dollars in lost collective work days to subsidize the Obama campaign in order "to change history"?

When one marries all that with the swarming of radio stations when someone like Stanley Kurtz goes on, the threats to go to court to stop ads, or the blacklisting of TV stations who dared to conduct tough interviews, the same old pattern reappears of by any means necessary. And in turn the explanation for all that?

Add in the demonization of Joe the Plumber, who was minding his own business in his own driveway when Obama came up looking for a vote with cameras following.

And now add in the discovery of deliberate massive fundraising to bring in illegal campaign contributions.

For Obama, the end justifies the means. In his earlier efforts the Democratic Chicago machine took care of the opposition candidates. Obama himself helped train ACORN in voter registration and intimidation of bankers, so he knows their methods. And the Chicago Democratic machine is running Obama's campaign, so the intimidation of critics and the underworld methods of fundraising are being handled by experts.

Obama's morality is traceable to his Marxist traiining. The Saul Alinsky school of communist community organizing in which Obama immersed himself makes it clear: There is no such thing as right or wrong except as you see it. The end does justify the means. All means are okay. Truth is a commodity to be bent and twisted as you see fit to reach the goal. Use the smokescreen that best works with the masses. Tell them anything they'll believe to win. Alinsky's hero, to whom he dedicated his manual for social revolution, was Lucifer, who defied God and gained a kingdom.

Hanson concludes his observation this way:

The messianic style—the cosmic tug to "change history", or stop the seas from rising or the planet from heating, juxtaposed with the creepy faux-Greek columns, Michelle's "deign to enter" politics snippet, the fainting at rallies, the Victory Column mass address, the vero possumus presidential seal, and the 'we are the change we've been waiting for' mantra—reflects the omnipresent narcissism: the exalted ends of electing a prophet always justify the often crude and all too mortal means.

If this is considered 'right', I'd rather be wrong with McCain.

It has been discovered that the Obama campaign has disabled all normal credit card security checks online. As a consequence, illegal contributions can roll in from foreign and other prohibited sources using fake names. It has now been discovered that online donations may be made using pre-paid credit cards which can be purchansed at any variety store and are totally anonymous. In September alone the Obama campaign received over $100 million of its $150 million online. Such deliberate facilitation of illegal contributions by a presidential candidate is fraud at the highest imaginable level. As Mark Steyn correctly observed:

Two-thirds of the record-breaking haul Obama raised for the final stretch of the campaign comes from a racket set up to facilitate fake names, phony addresses and untraceable cards.

This is massive fraud to steal the election. How long has it been going on? How much of these huge sums the campaign has raised are illegal? The after-the-fact checking catches a mere fraction of the illegal when the automatic security measures are shut off and names like Adolphe Hitler go sailing through. And the media is looking the other way.

And to think the man presiding over this criminal enterprise might become president.

To read more, start here or here.

Hillary Clinton supporters now claim that Obama committed massive fraud in their caucus contests in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. The evidence in this article sounds pretty convincing. The mystery is that the Clinton campaign did nothing about it, even thoug Obama's entire margin of victory was due to his excellent showing in the caucuses.

Obama has been involved in what looks like some variety of election fraud since his first election to office. In his first run for Illinois state senate he was able to knock all three of his Democratic opponents off the ballot by challenging their signatures. The incumbent was knocked out even though she had filed twice the number of required signatures. While challenges occur all time, for three to be knocked off has to be some sort of a record. This could only have happened with the collusion of the Chicago political machine, which apparently had decided this was a bright, young fellow they could do business with who had a promising future.

In the Iowa presidential nomination caucuses, there were reports of busloads of African-Americans pouring in from Chicago. Obama had close ties with ACORN's Chicago unit, which is reported to have worked for him in his first Illiinois race. (Since he had knocked out all Democratic opposition from the ballot and there was no Republican candidate, one wonders what they did.)

And it has now been admitted by the Obama campaign that ACORN was paid $832,000 for voter turnout work in the contest with Hillary (after they disguised the payment as being for something else.

A long account with the ring of truth.

Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud
Monday, October 27, 2008 10:45 AM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: “I told you so.”

Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.

Obama’s surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama’s victory in Iowa and in 12 other caucus states was no miracle. “It was fraud,” she told Newsmax.

Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.

“After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,” she said.

In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. “The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud,” Long said.

In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.

In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party because of the massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign’s actions “amount to criminal violations” and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.

In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn’t vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.

Obama’s win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention.

Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Clinton would be the Democrats’ nominee running against John McCain.

Citing a detailed report on the voting results and delegate accounts by accountant Piniel Cronin, “there were only four pledged delegates between Hillary and Obama once you discount caucus fraud,” Long said.

Long has compiled many of these eyewitness reports from the 14 caucus states in a 98-page, single-spaced report and in an interactive Web site.

ACORN involvement

The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,000 for “voter turnout” work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on “staging, sound and light” and “advance work.”

State and federal law enforcement in 11 states are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud against the Obama campaign. ACORN workers repeatedly registered voters in the name of “Mickey Mouse,” and registered the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys twice: once in Nevada, and again in Minnesota.

A group that has worked with ACORN in the past registered a dead goldfish under the name “Princess Nudelman” in Illinois. When reporters informed Beth Nudelman, a Democrat, that her former pet was a registered voter, she said, “This person is a dead fish."

ACORN was known for its “intimidation tactics,” said independent scholar Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., who has researched Obama’s long-standing ties to the group.

Fully 30 percent of 1.3 million new voters ACORN claims to have registered this year are believed to be illegitimate.

Long shared with Newsmax some of the emails and sworn affidavits she received from Hillary supporters who witnessed first-hand the thuggish tactics employed by Obama campaign operatives in Iowa and elsewhere.

Jeff, a precinct captain for Clinton from Davenport, Iowa, thought his caucus was in the bag for his candidate, until just minutes before the voting actually began.

“From 6-6:30 p.m., it appeared as I had expected. Young, old males, females, Hispanics, whites, gay and lesbian friends arriving. Very heavily for Ms. Clinton, a fair amount for Edwards and some stragglers for Obama,” he said.

That makeup corresponded to what he had witnessed from many precinct walks he had made through local neighborhoods.

“My mind began to feel victory for my lady,’ he said. “THEN: at 6:50 p.m., over 75 people of African-American descent came walking in, passed the tables and sat in the Obama section. I knew one of them from my canvassing. I knew another one who did not live in this precinct. And aside from four or five families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct. And one of those black couples were in my Hillary section,” he said.

Thanks to the last-minute influx of unknown Obama supporters, Obama won twice the number of delegates from the precinct as Hillary Clinton.

After it was over, “a very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back” to Illinois, Jeff said.

Obama’s flagrant busing of out-of-state caucus participants from Illinois was so obvious that even Joe Biden — today his running mate, then his rival — pointed it out at the time.

At a campaign stop before the Jan. 3 caucus at the JJ Diner in Des Moines, Biden “said what we were all thinking when he got on stage and said, ‘Hello Iowa!’ and then turned to Barack’s crowd and shouted, ‘and Hello Chicago!’” another precinct captain for Hillary told Long.

Thanks to Illinois campaign workers bused across the border into Iowa, all the precincts in eastern Iowa went for Obama, guaranteeing his win in the caucuses, Long said.

Obama supporters were also bused into northeast Iowa from Omaha, Nebraska, where Obama campaign workers were seen handing out “i-pods and free stuff: T-shirts, clothes, shoes, and free meals” to students and people in homeless shelters,” according to eyewitness reports Long collected.

In Iowa City, red and white chartered buses with Illinois license plates arrived from Illinois packed with boisterous African-American high school students, who came to caucus for Obama in Iowa after being recruited by Obama campaign workers.

2,000 complaints in Texas

In a change in the Democratic National Committee rules for this year’s election season, four states had caucuses and primaries: Washington, Nebraska, Idaho, and Texas. “But Texas is the only one that counted both the caucus result and the primary result,” Long told Newsmax. “The others didn’t count the primary at all, calling it a ‘beauty contest.’”

Because caucuses are more informal, and can last hours, they tend to favor candidates with a strong ground operation or whose supporters use strong-arm tactics to intimidate their rivals.

“There is inherent voter disenfranchisement in the caucuses,” Long said. “Women are less likely to go to caucuses than men, because they don’t like the public nature of the caucus. The elderly are less likely to go to a caucus. People who work shifts can’t go if they work the night shift. And parents with young children can’t go out for four hours on a week night. All these people are traditionally Clinton supporters,” she said.

But Obama’s victories in the caucuses weren’t the result of better organization, Long insists. “It was fraud.”

In state after state, Hillary was leading Obama in the polls right up until the last minute, when Obama won a landslide victory in the caucuses.

The discrepancies between the polls and the caucus results were stunning, Long told Newsmax. The most flagrant example was Minnesota. A Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute poll just one week before the Feb. 5 caucus gave Hillary a 7-point lead over Obama, 40-33.

But when the Minnesota caucus results were counted, Obama won by a landslide, with 66.39 percent to just 32.23 percent for Hillary, giving him 48 delegates, compared with 24 for Clinton.

“No poll is that far off,” Long told Newsmax.

Similar disparities occurred in 13 of 14 caucus states.

In Colorado and Idaho, Obama had a 2-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the polls, but won by more than 2-1 in the caucuses, sweeping most delegates.

In Kansas, Hillary had a slight edge over Obama in the polls, but Obama won 74 percent of the votes in the caucus and most of the delegates. In nearly every state, he bested the pre-caucus polls by anywhere from 12 percent to more than 30 percent.

This year’s primary rules for the Democrats favored the caucus states over the primary states.

“Caucus states made up only 1.1 million (3 percent) of all Democratic votes, but selected 626 (15 percent) of the delegates,” says Gigi Gaston, a filmmaker who has made a documentary on the caucus fraud.

In Texas alone, she says, there were more than 2,000 complaints from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supporters of Obama’s strong-arm tactics.

One Hillary supporter, who appears in Gaston’s new film, “We Will Not Be Silenced,” says she received death threats from Obama supporters after they saw her address in an online video she made to document fraud during the Texas caucus. “People called me a whore and a skank,” she said.

John Siegel, El Paso Area Captain for Hillary, said, “Some people saw outright cheating. Other people just saw strong-arm tactics. I saw fraud.”

Another woman, who was not identified in the film, described the sign-in process. “You’re supposed to sign your names on these sheets. The sheets are supposed to be controlled, and passed out — this is kind of how you maintain order. None of that was done. The sheets were just flying all over the place. You could put in your own names. You could add your own sheets or anything. It was just filled with fraud.”

Other witnesses described how Obama supporters went through the crowds at the caucus telling Hillary supporters they could go home because their votes had been counted, when in fact no vote count had yet taken place.

“I couldn’t believe this was happening,” one woman said in the film. “I thought this only happened in Third World countries.”

On election day in Texas, Clinton campaign lawyer Lyn Utrecht issued a news release that the national media widely ignored.

The campaign legal hot line has been flooded with calls containing specific accusations of irregularities and voter intimidation against the Obama campaign,” she wrote. “This activity is undemocratic, probably illegal, and reflects a wanton disregard for the caucus process.”

She identified 18 separate precincts where Obama operatives had removed voting packets before the Clinton voters could arrive, despite a written warning from the state party not to remove them.

The hot line also received numerous calls during the day that “the Obama campaign has taken over caucus sites and locked the doors, excluding Clinton campaign supporters from participating in the caucus,” she wrote.

“There are numerous instances of Obama supporters filing out precinct convention sign-in sheets during the day and submitting them as completed vote totals at caucus. This is expressly against the rules,” she added.

But no one seemed to care.

Despite Clinton’s three-and-a-half point win in the Texas primary — 50.87 percent to 47.39 percent —Obama beat her in the caucus the same day by 56 to 43.7 percent, giving him a 38-to-29 advantage in delegates.

Linda Hayes investigated the results at the precinct level in three state Senate districts. Under the rules of the Texas Democratic Party, participants in the caucuses had to reside in the precinct where they were caucusing, and had to have voted in the Democratic primary that same day.

When she began to see the results coming in from the precincts that were wildly at variance with the primary results, “I could see that something was wrong,” Hayes said.

Hayes says she found numerous anomalies as she went through the precinct sign-in sheets.

“Many, many, many Obama people either came to the wrong precinct, they did not sign in properly, they did not show ID, or they did not vote that day.” And yet, their votes were counted.

In a letter to Rep. Lois Capps, a Clinton supporter calling himself “Pacific John,” described the fraud he had witnessed during the caucuses.

“On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see,” he wrote.

“We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time, like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 am.”

The story of how Obama stole the Democratic Party caucuses — and consequently, the Democratic Party nomination — is important not just because it prefigures potential voter fraud in the Nov. 4 presidential election, which is under way.

It’s important because it fits a pattern that Chicago journalists and a few national and international commentators have noticed in all of the elections Obama has won in his career.

NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher described Obama’s first election victory, for the Illinois state Senate, in a recent commentary that appeared in the London Telegraph.

“Mr. Obama won a seat in the state Senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified,” Fletcher wrote.

Obama’s election to the U.S. Senate “was even more curious,” conservative columnist Tony Blankley wrote in The Washington Times.

Citing an account that appeared in The Times of London, Blankley described how Obama managed to squeeze out his main Democratic rival, Blair Hull, after divorce papers revealed allegations that Hull had allegedly made a death threat to his former wife.

Then in the general election, “lightning struck again,” Blankley wrote, when his Republican opponent, wealthy businessman Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw in extremis after his divorce papers revealed details of his sexual life with his former wife.

Just weeks before the election, the Illinois Republican party called on Alan Keyes of Maryland to challenge Obama in the general election. Obama won a landslide victory.

“Mr. Obama’s elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means,” Blankley wrote, while “the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.”

Hillary Clinton supporters, belatedly, now agree.

The Obama campaign appears to be engaged in a massive criminal enterprise that has collected tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars in illegal campaign contributions online. The campaign has deliberately disabled all of the credit card security measures used to identify the true user of a credit card. Fake contributions have poured in. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been contributed online in amounts less than $200, the minimum required to be federally reported. A sampling has revealed hundreds of fake names. The Obama campaign cannot verify the identify of any such contributor and has no mechanism for doing so. One guesstimate is that something in excess of $60 million has come to the campaign from foreign sources; only Americans living or traveling abroad can contribute legally to a presidential campaign.

By contrast, the McCain/Palin campaign has all the usual credit card security checks in place, rejects automatically all would-be contributions that don't measure up to the same standards used by Amazon and Costco plus screening out foreign donations. The McCain/Palin campaign vets all contributions under $200 as rigorously as larger amounts to ensure contributions are legal and they can identify all donors.

Is it deliberate? Yes, it has to be, according to this information. The author Mark Steyn, who has his own website to sell his books, explains via the Power Line blog:

Steyn and many readers (thanks to all) wrote to explain that the Obama campaign has chosen to reject, and the McCain campaign has chosen to adopt, the Address Verification System, or AVS. It is a simple tool that prevents credit card fraud.

As Steyn observed, "the AVS security checks most merchant processors use to screen out fraudulent transactions (and, incidentally, overseas customers) were intentionally disabled by the Obama campaign -- and thus their web donation page enables fraudulent (and/or foreign) donations."

Steyn also reported the contribution of NRO reader "Della Ware" of "12345 No Way." Steyn later reported that "Ms. Ware's" contribution was actually withdrawn from her account yesterday.

Campaign contributions under false names are illegal, as are contributions by noncitizens. Federal campaign law also limits the amount any one citizen can contribute to the presidential campaign to $2,300. The acceptance of campaign contributions via credit card without AVS protection facilitates illegal contributions. This is what the Obama campaign has chosen to do, and what the McCain campaign has chosen to avoid.

Steyn elaborated on this point at the end of the day:

[I]n order to accept donations from "Della Ware" and "Saddam Hussein" et al, the Obama website had, intentionally, to disable all the default security settings on their credit-card processing. I took a look at the inner sanctum of my (alas, far more modest) online retail operation this afternoon and, in order to permit fraud as easy as that which the Obama campaign is facilitating, you have to uncheck every single box on the AVS system, each one of which makes it very explicit just what you're doing - ie, accepting transactions with no "billing address", no "street address" match, no "zip code" match, with a bank "of non-US origin" (I've got nothing against those, but a US campaign fundraiser surely should be wary), etc. When you've disabled the whole lot one step at a time, then you've got a system tailor-made for fake names and bogus addresses.

This finding was brought to the attention of the New York Times which dismissed it as inconsequential. The Washington Post also took a look and didn't seem to appreciate the immensity of what is apparently going on. At least some observers, such as Beldar on the Hugh Hewitt blog sees the seriousness of it:

For a start, every honest Democrat should demand that everyone associated with the decision to disable the most basic anti-fraud mechanisms from the Obama-Biden campaign's credit-card donations systems be publicly identified and immediately fired. Every honest Democrat should demand the immediate and full cooperation from the campaign — pointedly beginning with Barack Obama — in seeing them prosecuted and convicted.

Power Line appears totally defeatist about the media doing anything now:

Maybe after the campaign is safely over someone will be interested enough to find out how much of Obama's record campaign fundraising was criminal. Ten percent? Twenty? Fifty?

The only newspaper to address this outrage is Investor's Business Daily

While the media has expressed great admiration for Obama's ability to raise huge amounts of money, why does it not think what appears to be the facilitation of fake and foreign contributions is not a news story? The media's dereliction of duty in reporting the true Obama story to the American public throughout the campaign is now crowned by its ignoring of this massive subversion of law.

Obama came up in politics through the corrupt Chicago Democratic political machine (as so often described in the Chicgo press), which helped pave his way by eliminating would-be opponents and steering political fixers like Tony Rezko (at least $240,000 to Obama, now waiting prison sentence for political corruption) his way.

That same Democratic machine is running Obama's campaign today and has used its underworld skills to amass hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal donations for Obama's campaign.

If ever pressed on this massive fraudulent crime, one can be sure Obama will express his usual ignorance, just as he "never heard" in 20 years any of Jeremiah Wright's anti-white anti-Jewish, anti-American tirades.

After Rezko's conviction, Obama got away with "That's not the Tony Rezko I knew."

As for the terrorist bomber and communist William (Bill) Ayers who collaborated with Obama for seven years funding projects to radicalize school children and destabilize the social system, Obama first said he never had heard of the bombings and then said he was only eight when they happened. No one asked why Obama was facilitating Ayers' communist agenda. The media gave him a pass.

Can the media let Obama get away with another big lie this time, when crime on such a massive scale appears to have been committed for his benefit and which has corrupted the presidential election? Where are the federal investigators and prosecutors?

Obama has worked closely with the Chicago machne men throughout the entire campaign in falsifying his life story and hiding details that would turn away voters. No original birth certificate has been released, college and law school records are sealed, files from Obama's Illinois senate years can't be found, his health record is a one page letter. With hundreds of millions of dollars involved, how can Obama not be involved? There is no "deniablity" here.

If the election isn't stolen by ACORN's fradulent voter registration campaign on behalf of their decades-long friend and champion Obama, it may be stolen by these hundreds of millions in illegal donations smothering all opposition voices.

The American people have been disenfranchised by hiding information about Obama, by media looking the other way and, now, by what appears to be massive illegal contributions. The American people would not knowingly vote for a fraud like Obama if they knew the truth. The real Obama has been successfully kept hidden. There is much to fear from this man who will do anything to become president, such as presiding over this fundraising enterprise. One worries more every day about what Obama is hiding as well as what he is doing.

Who is he?

The American people are being duped.