Originally Posted by [url=http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1216821&page=2552]On July 18, 2010, at forums.hannity.com, bluecat6[/url]":6y20wqvx][size=7]"Competent authority" seems to be the term of the week by Obots. A fews ago it was something different and before that something different. Having trouble with [a] term that has meaning are we?
Lets not forget that Obama started his career by manipulating and attacking the basic rules of elections. He did it by invalidating his opponents on technicalities. Even those opponents [who] were fully authorized by "competent authorities" to be on the ballot. Our "system" of voting and electioneering rules are based on personal honor and personal integrity. It is not designed to be iron-clad in its application and control. It is fragile. At the beginning, Obama and his backers such as Bill Ayers showed they care nothing about honor. They wanted what they wanted. Honor and integrity as it was known in the 18th century be ----.
So they ruthlessly and viciously eliminated the competition using technicalities to invalidate petition signatures. A cheap, dirty, methodical, non-honorable tactic. This goes beyond honor and lack of respect for the fragile system of US elections. It shows a purposeful willingness to manipulate the system by Obama... and his backers who were known radicals and in many cases foreign entities.
So Obama was willing to attack and change the decisions of "competent authority" to wipe out his competition in 1996. His challenge was without honor or respect for the system. The current challenges are completely out of respect and honor to the US system of politics - one that completely relies on integrity and honor.
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/ ... index.html[/url]
From the article:
As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.
...
(the approach below is something we now see - in Hawaii).
The Obama campaign called this report "a hit job." It insisted that CNN talk to a state representative who supports Obama, because, according to an Obama spokesman, she would be objective. But when we called her, she said she can't recall details of petition challenges, who engineered them for the Obama campaign or why all the candidates were challenged.
But Obama did it anyway, clearing the field of any real competition.
Obama's staff would not comment on what the senator thinks about that petition challenge now.
...
But Palmer supporters, who did not want to be identified, said that she never anointed Obama as her successor and that the retelling of the story by Obama supporters is designed to distract from the fact he muscled his way into office.
...
But back at the time he was running for state Senate, Askia said, he was dismayed Obama would use such tactics.
"It wasn't honorable," he said. "I wouldn't have done it."
He said the Obama team challenged every single one of his petitions on "technicalities."
If names were printed instead of signed in cursive writing, they were declared invalid. If signatures were good but the person gathering the signatures wasn't properly registered, those petitions also were thrown out.
Askia came up 69 signatures short of the required number to be on the ballot.
...
"There are those who think that registering people to vote and getting them involved in politics and then using this tactic in terms of denying Alice Palmer the right to compete, that these things are inconsistent. And guess what? They are. They are inconsistent. But that's the politics he plays."[/size]