Was it a fair vote? Well, was it?

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - Joseph Farah

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.

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.

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. In an­other Ohio county, Obama won with 108 per­cent of the vot­ers reg­is­tered.

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?

I be­lieve go­ing into the elec­tion that at least 5 per­cent of the Demo­cratic vote would be fraud­u­lent. That would mean Republicans would have to out­per­form Democrats by 6 per­cent to win. I sus­pect now I was too con­ser­va­tive in my pro­jec­tions about the expected level of crim­i­nal­ity per­pe­trated by Obama’s Democrats.

Do I think Obama won fair and square? No. I think he won only be­cause of sys­tem­atic fraud, cor­rup­tion and abuse in the 2012 elec­tion.

If we want to en­sure that Amer­ica has free and fair elec­tions in the fu­ture, we bet­ter get to work. Amer­ica’s po­lit­i­cal sys­tem is be­com­ing a thugoc­racy.

I’ve filed a Fed­eral Elec­tions Com­mis­sion com­plaint at con­sid­er­able cost. I have no il­lu­sions that it will be easy to chal­lenge a sit­ting pres­i­dent within his own bu­reau­cracy. But I’m do­ing it.

We’re fight­ing to pre­serve the con­cept of rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ment — elec­tions that ac­tu­ally mean some­thing.

We’re fight­ing to ex­pose what no other news agency in the world ap­par­ently has an in­ter­est in ex­pos­ing — the dark un­der­belly of cor­rup­tion, fraud and abuse in our po­lit­i­cal sys­tem. Can you help? Joseph Farah is a na­tion­ally syn­di­cated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.