The US Department of Justice has ordered the state of Georgia to stop verifying voter registrations. Not only does this prevent Georgia from verifying that voters are actually citizens, but it prevents the state from verifying that the person even exists! Now non-citizens and dead people can legally vote! That is how much Obama hates democracy.
Yes, this is really happening. Read this memo issued by the Georgia Secretary of State, in which she rebukes the “shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections.”
This mandate from the Obama Administration is completely illogical and unnecessary. Not a single person has come forward to say he or she could not vote because of the verification process.
It’s quite obvious that Obama is trying to facilitate his fellow “community organizers.” Members of undeniably corrupt organizations like ACORN will be casting votes in every precinct under a different name. Truck loads of illegals will be taken to the polls. Democracy is under assault; not in a country on the other side of the world, but right here in the United States.
The Obama Administration is corrupt and power-thirsty… A dangerous combination. But Hugo Chavez said it best: “Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right!”
Sign the petition initiated by Karen Handel, Georgia Secretary of State!
Based on poll results and numerous surveys of the media, it seems apparent that uninformed voters and biased news sources won the election for Barack Obama.
First, it’s worth noting that many Obama voters were so politically uninformed it’s embarrassing:
57.4% of Obama voters could not correctly say which party controls congress, and more than half of these voters incorrectly thought Republicans control congress. Statistically, this performance is worse than random guessing!
More than a third of Obama voters didn’t know who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are. One democrat described Nancy Pelosi as “pretty cool,” but was unable to describe her roll in the government. The poll also indicated that substantially more republican voters were informed about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Secondly, polls have revealed that many democrats knew very little about their own candidate:
88.4% could not correctly identify Obama as the candidate that said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket. Again, this is statistically worse than random guessing.
82.6% could not correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting his opponents kicked off the ballot.
56.1% of Obama voters didn’t know that Obama began his political career at the home of Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist who said his bombings “didn’t do enough.”
Conversely, here’s what Obama voters knew about Sarah Palin:
94% of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter.
86% of Obama voters identified Palin as the candidate who spent $150,000 on a campaign wardrobe.
86.9 % of Obama voters thought that Palin said she could see Russia from her “house.” However, this quote actually came from Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live.
How did so many American’s gather such slanted knowledge? A study performed by a writer for the Washington Post may contain a few clues:
“[Washington Post] readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.”
This “news” paper published 246% more laudatory opinion pieces exalting Barack Obama than the number of opinion pieces in favor of John McCain. And this only scratches the surface. The Post also had more stories dedicated to Obama, published more photos of Obama, and contained closer coverage of the Obama campaign. Simultaneously, the number of negative pieces released about McCain exceeded the number of negative Obama pieces by 181%. At least their slogan doesn’t proclaim The Post is fair and balanced.
This revolting degree of bias was exhibited by virtually every media outlet in America, according to Journalism.org:
