Thoughts on the Election

Guys,

I meant to comment on the election a lot sooner, but I was busy with post Sandy business at our trashed shore house back then.  I've also been busy at work.  Anyway, I have thoughts on the election, and I think it was a fraud; I think it was stolen.

In 59 voting districts in Philadelphia, there were 19,605 votes cast.  Out of those votes cast, there were ZERO for Romney-zero!  How likely is that?  Consider the following.  One, Mickey Mouse is always good for a few write-in votes; even a cartoon character got more votes than Romney did.  Secondly, even if these voting districts were black; even of 95% of blacks voted for Obama; that would still mean that 5% of them voted for Romney, correct?  If multiply the numbers, (0.05*19,605), we should have had 980 black votes for Romney.  However, we're supposed to believe that there were zero votes for Romney in these 59 Philly voting districts.

The same thing happened in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  Cuyahoga County is better known as Cleveland, OH.  In certain, Cleveland voting districts, again, we had zero votes cast for Romney.  Again, how likely is that?  How likely is it that a major party candidate gets fewer votes than Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck?  How likely is it that no blacks voted for Romney when the statistics say that he should garner 5% of those votes?

Then, we have to consider the countless reports of vote numbers EXCEEDING the numbers of registered voters in certain jurisdictions!  That's right; in many jurisdictions, there were greater than 100% votes cast.  One jurisdiction had 108% votes cast.  What does this mean?  For example, let's say that a certain city or county has 100,000 registered voters; no jurisdiction will have an even 100,000 registered voters, but play along; this is for illustrative purposes only.  What this means is that there were 108,000 votes cast, even though this hypothetical jurisdiction has only 100,000 voters!  Does this pass the smell test?

How could anyone win re-election with Obama's record?  How could any man win re-election when the prices of food and fuel have doubled?  How could anyone win re-election when incomes have dropped while prices have gone up?  How could anyone win re-election when hit by that double whammy?  How could anyone win re-election when record numbers of people are losing their homes?  How could anyone win an election when presiding over the WORST economy since the Great Depression?

One theory I've heard proffered says that there are more people on the dole, so many don't feel the bad effects of the economy like they would have in the past.  While it's true that there are more takers (i.e. people on the gov't dole), their handouts won't go as far in this economy.  They have to buy food and fuel too, not to mention pay utilities.  Well, their funds won't go as far, so they have to be feeling the effects of Obama's socialist policies too.

What bothers me about all this is that the Republican party isn't contesting the results; they aren't even raising the same questions I raised here!  Moreover, the conservative pundits to whom I listen (mainly Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin with a little Sean Hannity and Andy David mixed in) haven't made a big deal about this.  Rush, in all fairness, did point out the voting irregularities in Philly; he spent part of one show discussing this one day immediately following the election.  However, he hasn't raised a fuss about it; he hasn't made a hue and cry about this travesty.  Wouldn't one expect him to cry from the rooftops about this?  Wouldn't one expect Mark Levin to raise a fuss about voting fraud?  One would think so, given their opposition to Obama and his policies.

I could go on, but you get my point; the recent 're-election' of Barack Hussein Obama was stolen.  Yeah, I said it!  BHO did not win the recent election fairly.  Sorry folks, but there's too much smoke here; there's too much that doesn't pass the 'smell test'.  Usually, if there's smoke, there's fire MAKING that smoke; usually, if something stinks, it's because something is rotten-duh!  With all that smells here, nothing is being done; nothing is even being investigated.  That's what bothers me.

Folks, if we don't have honest, fair elections, we don't have a republic; we don't have anything!  If we don't have honest elections, people will lose what little faith they still have in the system.  What happens when people lose faith in the system?  I could think of many answers to that question, and none of them are good.

In closing, the recent, American election was a fraud; it was stolen; Barack Hussein Obama did NOT win the election in a legitimate fashion.  How can anyone tell me with a straight face that, in certain jurisdictions, Mitt Romney received ZERO votes out of thousands cast?  How can anyone tell me that a major party candidate received no votes when Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are always good for a few write-in votes?  How can anyone tell me that certain jurisdictions had more votes cast than had voters?  How can anyone tell me this passes the smell test?  It doesn't-end of story.

MarkyMark

What Abortion Says about Women

Folks,

I'd like to talk about what abortion says about women.  It says nothing good; if anything, it says that they're the epitome & quintessence of evil.

Women are the ONLY species of life that kills their own babies-the only one!  Not even rats, the most vile, evil, and disgusting of animals, kill their own babies; even the despicable mother rat does not kill her own babies.  However, women do, and they've done so to the tune of 50 MILLION PLUS since 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

Also, what's telling is that the majority of women are in favor of abortion.  If they weren't, then politicians wouldn't be deathly afraid of doing anything that could be even remotely construed as infringing on what is euphemistically called "a woman's right to choose".  No matter how you slice it, politicians are deathly afraid to do anything about abortion.  Why?  Because the majority of women (who comprise the majority of voters, BTW) are in favor it, that's why.

It should really be called a right to choose murder, because that's what abortion is.  Yeah, I said it! You don't like that?  Too freakin' bad!  I'll call a spade a freakin' shovel; here, we tell the TRUTH.  Isn't it rather telling about women when they dislike the truth so much?

What does it say about women when they have chosen to commit a genocide almost UNPARALLELED in human history?  What does it say about them?  Uh MarkyMark, you're being hateful towards women-wah!  Well, what would YOU call a mass murder totaling over fifty million lives, hmmm?  Sounds like genocide to me, and women have committed it en masse.  Hitler, who some say killed six million Jews, has nothing on modern, American women.  Neither does Josef Stalin, who killed at least 20 million Russians during his reign of terror.  American women have killed more than history's two most evil men combined!  Did you ever think about that?

In closing, abortion says that women are evil.  Sorry, but there's no gentle way to put it.  When you have a genocide unparalleled in the annals of human history, those committing said genocide are evil.  When a group of people have committed more mass murders than Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin COMBINED, I'd call that genocide, wouldn't you?  What do you call those who commit genocide on such a mass scale?  Traditionally, we've called them evil.  Since women are responsible for over fifty MILLION babies being killed since 1973, they are evil no matter how you slice it.  Until next time...

MarkyMark