Top 10 Poorest Cities
What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI(1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY(2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954;
Cincinnati, OH(3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984;
Cleveland, OH(4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989;
Miami, FL(5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis, MO(6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949;
El Paso, TX(7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI(8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908;
Philadelphia, PA(9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952;
Newark, NJ(10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.
Pittsburgh, PA(11) ... No Republican held ANY office in Pittsburgh for 65 years until two were elected in 1995.
Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
It is the disadvantaged (define that however you will) who habitually elect Democrats --- yet they are still disadvantaged after all these years! Imagine that.
Like Charles Barkley said: "The poor have been voting for Democrats for 50 year s and they are still poor" !!!!!!
Blog Archive
December 10, 2008
November 10, 2008
EDITORS NOTE FOR NOV 11 2008
AS MANY OF YOU KNOW I HAVE OVER THE PAST YEAR WORKED AT GETTING LEGISLATION PAST IN THE FEDERAL LINE TO CEASE PAYING PENSIONS TO THOSE "CONVICTED FELONS". THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THEM. ROSTENKOWSKI, CUNNINGHAM, JUDGE HASTINGS (NOW DRAWING A JUDGES RETIREMENT THO HE IS NOW IN CONGRESS) AND THERE ARE OTHERS.
THE IRONY OF THIS EFFORT IS THIS. I PURSUED CLOSURE TO THE PROBLEM BY WRITING AND HOUNDING MY SENATOR TED STEVENS OF ALASKA. I FELT THAT I HAD A CHAMPION IN MR. STEVENS, AS HE FAITHFULLY ANSWERED MY QUERIES AS TO THE STATUS OF THE BILL GOING THROUGH CONGRESS AND SENATE.
ON FEBRUARY 11 2008, I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MR.STEVENS ADVISING ME THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL PENSION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IS TITLE IV OF S.1. THIS LEGISLATION APPLIES TO LAWMAKERS CONVICTED OF A CRIME AFTER THE BILL BECAME LAW. ARTICLE I. SECTION 0 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS "ex post facto" LAWS, THEREFORE, THIS LAW DOES NOT APPLY PUNISHMENT RETROACTIVELY.
I MENTION IRONY IN THIS CASE FOR AS I WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THIS SENATOR OF MINE, THIS WEASEL WAS IN THE THROES OF CRIMES AT THE VERY TIME HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY PUTTING A STOP TO THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ($126,000. PER YEAR TO ROSTENKOWSKI) ANNUALLY. HE WAS CONVICTED IN FEDERAL COURT OF SEVEN FELONY COUNTS. OF COURSE AS ANY MISCREANT THE DENIALS WILL LAST FOR EVER. THE FACTS REMAIN HE WAS CONVICTED.
THE BITTER PART OF THIS IS THAT THE SLIMES IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE A LAW TO BREAK AND APPARENTLY BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE TYPE OF CRIME BEING BROKEN BEFORE THERE CAN BE THE TYPE OF PUNISHMENT METED TO THEM IN WITH THE VALUE OF OR WORTH OF THE CRIME. THUS IF ONE TAKES MONEY OR FAVOR FOR MISGUIDED DEED AND IS CONVICTED ME/SHE/IT MAY GO TO JAIL BUT THE GAIN (MONEY OR FAVOR) REMAINS WITH THEM.
THIS A TRAVESTY THAT CAN BE HANDLED, AS I SEE IT, VERY QUICKLY. IT IS CALLED 'ANSWER TO YOUR OATH'. MOST OF US IN OUR WORKING LIFETIME HAVE HAD TO ANSWER
OR FACE THAT 'ANSWER TO YOUR OATH' AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER.
MOST OATHS PROCLAIM THAT THE MAKER OF THE OATH WILL OBEY THE STRUCTURE (LAWS OF, CONSTITUTION OF, OR OTHER MANIFESTO OF) MAKING UP THE STANDARD BY WHICH ALL EMPLOYEES
FUNCTION. THIS IS CALLED 'STANDARD OF ETHICS' FOR THOSE NEEDING HELP.
WITH THIS IN MIND THEN THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE TRUE. BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME(CURRENTLY OKAY TO TAKE GIFTS OR MONEY) AND GET A LITTLE JAIL TIME BUT, BUT, BUT, YOU STILL GET TO KEEP YOUR MILLION DOLLAR PENSION. REMEMBER THAT JAIL TIME FOR MOST OF THESE SLIME BAGS IS LESS THAT 36 MONTHS. EVEN I CAN DO THAT STANDING ON MY HEAD.
MY NAME IS DAVE ANDERSON AND YOU CAN REACH ME AT oad@alaska.net I ASK YOU TO JOIN ME IN PURSUING AN HONEST END TO THE CORRUPTION RAMPANT IN THE CAPITOL CITY.
THE IRONY OF THIS EFFORT IS THIS. I PURSUED CLOSURE TO THE PROBLEM BY WRITING AND HOUNDING MY SENATOR TED STEVENS OF ALASKA. I FELT THAT I HAD A CHAMPION IN MR. STEVENS, AS HE FAITHFULLY ANSWERED MY QUERIES AS TO THE STATUS OF THE BILL GOING THROUGH CONGRESS AND SENATE.
ON FEBRUARY 11 2008, I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MR.STEVENS ADVISING ME THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL PENSION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IS TITLE IV OF S.1. THIS LEGISLATION APPLIES TO LAWMAKERS CONVICTED OF A CRIME AFTER THE BILL BECAME LAW. ARTICLE I. SECTION 0 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS "ex post facto" LAWS, THEREFORE, THIS LAW DOES NOT APPLY PUNISHMENT RETROACTIVELY.
I MENTION IRONY IN THIS CASE FOR AS I WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THIS SENATOR OF MINE, THIS WEASEL WAS IN THE THROES OF CRIMES AT THE VERY TIME HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY PUTTING A STOP TO THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ($126,000. PER YEAR TO ROSTENKOWSKI) ANNUALLY. HE WAS CONVICTED IN FEDERAL COURT OF SEVEN FELONY COUNTS. OF COURSE AS ANY MISCREANT THE DENIALS WILL LAST FOR EVER. THE FACTS REMAIN HE WAS CONVICTED.
THE BITTER PART OF THIS IS THAT THE SLIMES IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE A LAW TO BREAK AND APPARENTLY BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE TYPE OF CRIME BEING BROKEN BEFORE THERE CAN BE THE TYPE OF PUNISHMENT METED TO THEM IN WITH THE VALUE OF OR WORTH OF THE CRIME. THUS IF ONE TAKES MONEY OR FAVOR FOR MISGUIDED DEED AND IS CONVICTED ME/SHE/IT MAY GO TO JAIL BUT THE GAIN (MONEY OR FAVOR) REMAINS WITH THEM.
THIS A TRAVESTY THAT CAN BE HANDLED, AS I SEE IT, VERY QUICKLY. IT IS CALLED 'ANSWER TO YOUR OATH'. MOST OF US IN OUR WORKING LIFETIME HAVE HAD TO ANSWER
OR FACE THAT 'ANSWER TO YOUR OATH' AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER.
MOST OATHS PROCLAIM THAT THE MAKER OF THE OATH WILL OBEY THE STRUCTURE (LAWS OF, CONSTITUTION OF, OR OTHER MANIFESTO OF) MAKING UP THE STANDARD BY WHICH ALL EMPLOYEES
FUNCTION. THIS IS CALLED 'STANDARD OF ETHICS' FOR THOSE NEEDING HELP.
WITH THIS IN MIND THEN THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE TRUE. BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME(CURRENTLY OKAY TO TAKE GIFTS OR MONEY) AND GET A LITTLE JAIL TIME BUT, BUT, BUT, YOU STILL GET TO KEEP YOUR MILLION DOLLAR PENSION. REMEMBER THAT JAIL TIME FOR MOST OF THESE SLIME BAGS IS LESS THAT 36 MONTHS. EVEN I CAN DO THAT STANDING ON MY HEAD.
MY NAME IS DAVE ANDERSON AND YOU CAN REACH ME AT oad@alaska.net I ASK YOU TO JOIN ME IN PURSUING AN HONEST END TO THE CORRUPTION RAMPANT IN THE CAPITOL CITY.
November 8, 2008
Republicans Will Emerge Stronger Than Ever
Republicans Will Emerge Stronger Than Ever
Thursday, November 6, 2008 4:28 PM
If ever there was an election that was not worth winning, it was the contest of 2008. While it was hard-fought on both sides, had McCain won, it might have spelled the end of the Republican Party. As it is, the party is well-situated to come back in 2010 and in 2012, if it learns the lessons of this year.
Simply put, all hell is about to break loose in the markets and the economy.
The mortgage crisis will likely be followed by defaults in credit card debt, student loans and car loans. We will probably be set for two years of zero growth, according to economists with whom I talk. And the federal efforts to protect the nation from the worst of the recession will probably lead to huge budget deficits and resulting inflation. We are in for stagflation that could last for years.
Had McCain won, he would be the latter-day Hoover, blamed for the disaster that unfolded on his watch. Now it is Obama's problem. With the Republicans suffering a wipeout in congressional elections (although not as bad as they feared), the ball is now squarely in the Democratic court. Good luck!
If Obama raises taxes, the situation could get even worse. With a liberal Congress on his hands, he will be constrained to move to the left, if he needs any pushing.
When Clinton was elected in 1992, the Democrats in control of Congress gave him a clear message: Either you govern within the four walls of the Democratic Caucus or you won't get our support. Crossing the aisle to get Republican votes, even including the GOP in negotiations, was a no-no for which the president would pay dearly if he transgressed.
The result was predictable. Moderate initiatives like welfare reform were scrapped, the Congress passed tax hikes and legislation became festooned with liberal amendments.
Faced with the need to round up every last vote in the Senate and House Democratic caucuses, Clinton had no choice but to load up conservative bills like an anti-crime measure with liberal pork (like a provision for midnight basketball courts in urban areas) to get unanimous caucus backing.
Obama will have to move left to appease his caucus. He will become their hostage, and they his jailers.
This dynamic will produce extreme-left-wing governance, which the Republicans can blame for the continuation of the recession and for any worsening. The party will recover, fed by anger at Obama's policies, and will emerge from this defeat stronger than ever.
But the Republicans must learn the lesson of MoveOn.org. Founded in the bleak days of the Clinton impeachment, MoveOn developed a grass-roots Internet base. Building up its e-list of activists and contributors, MoveOn laid the basis for the incredible Internet appeal of the Obama campaign. At last count, Obama has 4.5 million donors, most online.
Conservatives cannot count on the Republican Party to fight their battles for them, and certainly cannot count on them to win. The right needs to develop cyber-roots conservative organizations to rival the power of groups like MoveOn.org.
The stellar efforts of Newsmax.com and its ally, GOPtrust.com, illustrate the power of such efforts. Together, these groups raised $10 million for an independent expenditure on media in swing states featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American bombast.
And their efforts worked.
Virtually all the polls agreed that Obama would win 52 percent to 53 percent of the vote, but the surveys varied in the amount of undecideds they found.
On Election Day, virtually every undecided voter went to McCain, and Obama's final vote share was no more and no less than the 52 percent to 53 percent the surveys had predicted. This unanimity among undecided voters is attributable to the endgame of groups like GOPtrust.com and Newsmax.com.
These groups have to lead the way in running media to battle against the leftist legislation that will undoubtedly emanate from the Obama administration and the liberal Congress America has just elected. Then they can become the basis for a Republican resurgence, just as MoveOn.org was this year for the Democrats.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, November 6, 2008 4:28 PM
If ever there was an election that was not worth winning, it was the contest of 2008. While it was hard-fought on both sides, had McCain won, it might have spelled the end of the Republican Party. As it is, the party is well-situated to come back in 2010 and in 2012, if it learns the lessons of this year.
Simply put, all hell is about to break loose in the markets and the economy.
The mortgage crisis will likely be followed by defaults in credit card debt, student loans and car loans. We will probably be set for two years of zero growth, according to economists with whom I talk. And the federal efforts to protect the nation from the worst of the recession will probably lead to huge budget deficits and resulting inflation. We are in for stagflation that could last for years.
Had McCain won, he would be the latter-day Hoover, blamed for the disaster that unfolded on his watch. Now it is Obama's problem. With the Republicans suffering a wipeout in congressional elections (although not as bad as they feared), the ball is now squarely in the Democratic court. Good luck!
If Obama raises taxes, the situation could get even worse. With a liberal Congress on his hands, he will be constrained to move to the left, if he needs any pushing.
When Clinton was elected in 1992, the Democrats in control of Congress gave him a clear message: Either you govern within the four walls of the Democratic Caucus or you won't get our support. Crossing the aisle to get Republican votes, even including the GOP in negotiations, was a no-no for which the president would pay dearly if he transgressed.
The result was predictable. Moderate initiatives like welfare reform were scrapped, the Congress passed tax hikes and legislation became festooned with liberal amendments.
Faced with the need to round up every last vote in the Senate and House Democratic caucuses, Clinton had no choice but to load up conservative bills like an anti-crime measure with liberal pork (like a provision for midnight basketball courts in urban areas) to get unanimous caucus backing.
Obama will have to move left to appease his caucus. He will become their hostage, and they his jailers.
This dynamic will produce extreme-left-wing governance, which the Republicans can blame for the continuation of the recession and for any worsening. The party will recover, fed by anger at Obama's policies, and will emerge from this defeat stronger than ever.
But the Republicans must learn the lesson of MoveOn.org. Founded in the bleak days of the Clinton impeachment, MoveOn developed a grass-roots Internet base. Building up its e-list of activists and contributors, MoveOn laid the basis for the incredible Internet appeal of the Obama campaign. At last count, Obama has 4.5 million donors, most online.
Conservatives cannot count on the Republican Party to fight their battles for them, and certainly cannot count on them to win. The right needs to develop cyber-roots conservative organizations to rival the power of groups like MoveOn.org.
The stellar efforts of Newsmax.com and its ally, GOPtrust.com, illustrate the power of such efforts. Together, these groups raised $10 million for an independent expenditure on media in swing states featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American bombast.
And their efforts worked.
Virtually all the polls agreed that Obama would win 52 percent to 53 percent of the vote, but the surveys varied in the amount of undecideds they found.
On Election Day, virtually every undecided voter went to McCain, and Obama's final vote share was no more and no less than the 52 percent to 53 percent the surveys had predicted. This unanimity among undecided voters is attributable to the endgame of groups like GOPtrust.com and Newsmax.com.
These groups have to lead the way in running media to battle against the leftist legislation that will undoubtedly emanate from the Obama administration and the liberal Congress America has just elected. Then they can become the basis for a Republican resurgence, just as MoveOn.org was this year for the Democrats.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
November 4, 2008
GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
D O N E
THAT IS ABOUT ALL I CAN SAY, DONE. I DON'T MEAN THAT WE ARE DONE, BUT RATHER THAT FOR THE TIME BEING SOME THINGS ARE DONE.
WHAT DISTURBS ME IS THAT THE ELECTION IS BARELY OVER (LESS THAN ONE HOUR SINCE McCAIN
CONCEDED) AND I AM HEARING THAT ALL OF THE SUDDEN THIS IS A BLACK NATION. AND IF I DON'T LIKE IT LEAVE.
HAVE NEWS FOR THOSE THINKERS, THIS IS MY COUNTRY AND THE FOLKS THAT PROFESS OTHERWISE
ARE IN FOR A RUDE AWAKENING FOR I SHALL BE HERE TILL MY LAST BREATH AN WILL HELP TO GET RID OF THE USURPERS AND TEMPORARY OCCUPANTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
ALL OF US MUST KEEP OUR FAITH IN THE TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF ANY LEADERSHIP IN THIS OUR COUNTRY, WE WILL PREVAIL AND SUCCEED IN AVERTING TAX, HEALTH, MILITARY, AND ECONOMIC DISASTERS. FAITH, ALWAYS FAITH.
THAT IS ABOUT ALL I CAN SAY, DONE. I DON'T MEAN THAT WE ARE DONE, BUT RATHER THAT FOR THE TIME BEING SOME THINGS ARE DONE.
WHAT DISTURBS ME IS THAT THE ELECTION IS BARELY OVER (LESS THAN ONE HOUR SINCE McCAIN
CONCEDED) AND I AM HEARING THAT ALL OF THE SUDDEN THIS IS A BLACK NATION. AND IF I DON'T LIKE IT LEAVE.
HAVE NEWS FOR THOSE THINKERS, THIS IS MY COUNTRY AND THE FOLKS THAT PROFESS OTHERWISE
ARE IN FOR A RUDE AWAKENING FOR I SHALL BE HERE TILL MY LAST BREATH AN WILL HELP TO GET RID OF THE USURPERS AND TEMPORARY OCCUPANTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
ALL OF US MUST KEEP OUR FAITH IN THE TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF ANY LEADERSHIP IN THIS OUR COUNTRY, WE WILL PREVAIL AND SUCCEED IN AVERTING TAX, HEALTH, MILITARY, AND ECONOMIC DISASTERS. FAITH, ALWAYS FAITH.
November 3, 2008
FROM THE EDITOR
AS THIS DAY PASSES AND TOMORROW WE FACE AN ELECTION OF THE MANNER NOT SEEN IN MOST OF OUR LIVES, IT OCCURS TO ME THAT HERE ARE CERTAIN DISTINCT DIFFERENCES IN OUR CANDIDATES AND THAT BRINGS UP THE QUESTION "WHAT DO WE REALLY WANT" AND THUS SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF I WOULD OFFER THE FOLLOWING.
A SAFE AND SECURE NATION, BORDERS PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL INDIVIDUALS, OUR PROPERTY, POSITIVE PROTECTION FROM INTRUDERS SEEKING TO TOPPLE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND OUR WAY OF LIFE AND DESTROY THE VERY FIBERS FROM WHICH OUR NATION IS BUILT.
THE RIGHT AS A CITIZEN TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE THE SEARCH FOR A WAY THAT I, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, MAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE BENEFIT OF MY FELLOW CITIZENS AND CONVERSELY THAT I MIGHT ENJOY THE PLEASURES CREATED BY THE FREE MIND OF OTHERS, BE IT A NEW METHOD OF HEATING OR COOLING ONE'S HOME, OR A NON-POLLUTING METHOD OF TRANSPORT.
I WOULD OFFER THAT THE CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTED FOLKS BE FOREMOST IN OUR MINDS AND THAT A JUST PUNISHMENT BE METED TO THE WRONG DOERS, THE ALLOWING OF PENSIONS TO CONVICTED FELONS SHOULD BE A THING OF THE PAST. IF THE OFFICE SEEKER CAN NOT BE HAPPY WITH THE HONOR OF SERVICE AND THE AMPLE SALARIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE OFFICE THEN HE/SHE/IT SHOULD STAY AWAY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IS AND MUST BE THE PRIME MANDATE.
I WOULD AND DO SINCERELY HOPE THAT THIS ELECTION WILL PRODUCE THE QUALITY LEADERSHIP THAT THIS GREAT COUNTRY DESERVES. WHERE TRUST WITHIN THE COUNTRY IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AND WHERE OUTSIDE FORCE RECOGNIZE THAT PUSHING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL GAIN YOU NOTHING, THE STEPPING ON US AND OURS OUT HAS GOT END.
THE MESSAGE OF YOU ARE WITH US OR YOU ARE AGAINST US MUST MUST COME TO FRUITION.
WITH THIS IN MIND THE SECURITY OF NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES BUT ALL NATIONS WILL UNDERSTAND A HIGHT DEGREE OF SECURITY AND WELL BEING.
WHAT EVER YOU DO ON THE 4TH OF OCTOBER YOU MUST.........VOTE
A SAFE AND SECURE NATION, BORDERS PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL INDIVIDUALS, OUR PROPERTY, POSITIVE PROTECTION FROM INTRUDERS SEEKING TO TOPPLE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND OUR WAY OF LIFE AND DESTROY THE VERY FIBERS FROM WHICH OUR NATION IS BUILT.
THE RIGHT AS A CITIZEN TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE THE SEARCH FOR A WAY THAT I, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, MAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE BENEFIT OF MY FELLOW CITIZENS AND CONVERSELY THAT I MIGHT ENJOY THE PLEASURES CREATED BY THE FREE MIND OF OTHERS, BE IT A NEW METHOD OF HEATING OR COOLING ONE'S HOME, OR A NON-POLLUTING METHOD OF TRANSPORT.
I WOULD OFFER THAT THE CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTED FOLKS BE FOREMOST IN OUR MINDS AND THAT A JUST PUNISHMENT BE METED TO THE WRONG DOERS, THE ALLOWING OF PENSIONS TO CONVICTED FELONS SHOULD BE A THING OF THE PAST. IF THE OFFICE SEEKER CAN NOT BE HAPPY WITH THE HONOR OF SERVICE AND THE AMPLE SALARIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE OFFICE THEN HE/SHE/IT SHOULD STAY AWAY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IS AND MUST BE THE PRIME MANDATE.
I WOULD AND DO SINCERELY HOPE THAT THIS ELECTION WILL PRODUCE THE QUALITY LEADERSHIP THAT THIS GREAT COUNTRY DESERVES. WHERE TRUST WITHIN THE COUNTRY IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AND WHERE OUTSIDE FORCE RECOGNIZE THAT PUSHING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL GAIN YOU NOTHING, THE STEPPING ON US AND OURS OUT HAS GOT END.
THE MESSAGE OF YOU ARE WITH US OR YOU ARE AGAINST US MUST MUST COME TO FRUITION.
WITH THIS IN MIND THE SECURITY OF NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES BUT ALL NATIONS WILL UNDERSTAND A HIGHT DEGREE OF SECURITY AND WELL BEING.
WHAT EVER YOU DO ON THE 4TH OF OCTOBER YOU MUST.........VOTE
Obama's Mine Shaft
Obama's Mine Shaft
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama's plan to bankrupt anyone building a new coal plant prioritizes global warming myths over U.S. energy independence. It also wields government power punitively and will hurt the economy.
Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 17, Barack Obama singled out new coal plant construction for big taxes. The scheme, part of the cap-and-trade energy policy he wants to implement as president, is meant to tax coal producers straight out of business.
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can," Obama said. "It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Isolated gaffe? No. On his own Web site, Obama declares:
"Once we make dirty energy expensive, the second step in my plan is to invest $150 billion over the next decade to ensure the development and deployment of clean, affordable energy."
In other words, Obama's plan is confiscatory taxes to first destroy America's domestic energy producers, and once that bridge is burned, force the U.S. to rely on alternative energies that haven't been developed. The big-government plan might make ideologues happy, but in the real world, it won't work. History shows that centrally planned industries fail, and when there's an energy shortage, the private sector works best when it's left alone.
We aren't just talking Cuba, where the agricultural base was destroyed after Fidel Castro decreed that it would produce only sugar, or Russia, where farms were devastated in the 1930s after collectivization.
In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter splashed out billions to develop shale oil and created a vast boondoggle with no new energy produced. In Brazil, the military-financed ethanol project also was a money-pit until the 1990s when the government ended all involvement.
Obama's $150 billion plan would be no different. But it's worse than just burning money because its punitive element destroys one of America's best competitive advantages: its treasure trove of coal and the companies that produce it.
America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, with the world's largest demonstrated reserve base of 489 billion short tons, the Energy Department says. About 93% of it is used to produce electricity, and it provides about half of U.S. electricity needs. As the nation's economy expands, that need for coal is projected to grow about 20% by 2030.
If that need can't be met, consumers will be hit with high prices brought on by shortages. Meanwhile, America's 80,000 miners and 1.6 million workers in coal-related and coal-dependent industries would suffer from Obama's taxes on new plants.
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system," Obama said in another interview, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." He added that because "I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to the consumers."
The biggest problem with Obama's plan is that it taxes productive companies, and offers nothing but "hope" to replace the missing energy. He does not propose using our current resources as a bridge to cleaner energy. He'd rather stop their use cold. No nuclear power, no offshore drilling, no new coal plants, and if consumers have to pay more, too bad. Obama's attack on coal use surely will leave us poorer.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama's plan to bankrupt anyone building a new coal plant prioritizes global warming myths over U.S. energy independence. It also wields government power punitively and will hurt the economy.
Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 17, Barack Obama singled out new coal plant construction for big taxes. The scheme, part of the cap-and-trade energy policy he wants to implement as president, is meant to tax coal producers straight out of business.
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can," Obama said. "It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Isolated gaffe? No. On his own Web site, Obama declares:
"Once we make dirty energy expensive, the second step in my plan is to invest $150 billion over the next decade to ensure the development and deployment of clean, affordable energy."
In other words, Obama's plan is confiscatory taxes to first destroy America's domestic energy producers, and once that bridge is burned, force the U.S. to rely on alternative energies that haven't been developed. The big-government plan might make ideologues happy, but in the real world, it won't work. History shows that centrally planned industries fail, and when there's an energy shortage, the private sector works best when it's left alone.
We aren't just talking Cuba, where the agricultural base was destroyed after Fidel Castro decreed that it would produce only sugar, or Russia, where farms were devastated in the 1930s after collectivization.
In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter splashed out billions to develop shale oil and created a vast boondoggle with no new energy produced. In Brazil, the military-financed ethanol project also was a money-pit until the 1990s when the government ended all involvement.
Obama's $150 billion plan would be no different. But it's worse than just burning money because its punitive element destroys one of America's best competitive advantages: its treasure trove of coal and the companies that produce it.
America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, with the world's largest demonstrated reserve base of 489 billion short tons, the Energy Department says. About 93% of it is used to produce electricity, and it provides about half of U.S. electricity needs. As the nation's economy expands, that need for coal is projected to grow about 20% by 2030.
If that need can't be met, consumers will be hit with high prices brought on by shortages. Meanwhile, America's 80,000 miners and 1.6 million workers in coal-related and coal-dependent industries would suffer from Obama's taxes on new plants.
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system," Obama said in another interview, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." He added that because "I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to the consumers."
The biggest problem with Obama's plan is that it taxes productive companies, and offers nothing but "hope" to replace the missing energy. He does not propose using our current resources as a bridge to cleaner energy. He'd rather stop their use cold. No nuclear power, no offshore drilling, no new coal plants, and if consumers have to pay more, too bad. Obama's attack on coal use surely will leave us poorer.
Headlines
Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Obama Has Links to ANOTHER '60s Radical
2. Noam Chomsky: Iran ‘Entitled’ to Uranium Enrichment
3. Obama’s Tax Hike Would Impact Blue States
4. Russians in U.S. Back McCain
5. Dolphins’ Huizenga Wary of Obama Tax Plan
6. Poll: Israelis Prefer McCain Over Obama
7. We Heard: Bean Counters, Michelle Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Obama Has Links to ANOTHER '60s Radical
Barack Obama has consistently sought to distance himself from former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. But it’s a different story with another student radical from the 1960s — Marilyn Katz — who is actually on Obama’s fundraising team.
Katz, a public relations executive in Chicago, serves on Obama’s national finance committee. She is listed as a fundraising “bundler” on his Web site, has hosted fundraisers for the candidate, and attended the Democratic Convention as part of the Illinois delegation.
But during the violent protests of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Katz was the security chief for the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which spawned Ayers and the Weather Underground.
During those protests, Katz advocated throwing studded nails in front of police cars, the Chicago Tribune reported.
In 1969, an undercover policeman named William Frapolly testified at the “Chicago Seven” trials, and prosecutors asked him to describe his collaboration with organizers of the protest the previous year.
He testified that one night in Chicago’s Lincoln Park, Katz briefed a group of protesters on the use of “guerilla nails.”
“She had two types,” he told the court.
“One was a cluster of nails that were sharpened at both ends, and they were fastened in the center. It looked like they were welded or soldered. She said these were good for throwing or putting underneath tires.
“She showed another set that was the same type of nails sharpened at both ends, but they were put through a Styrofoam cylinder.”
A prosecutor asked, “To whom was she showing these objects?”
Frapolly answered, “Everyone in the group.”
Katz was a principal organizer of the October 2002 anti-war demonstration in Chicago where Obama first expressed his opposition to the looming Iraq war.
In 2005, she co-authored the book “Stopping War, Seeking Justice” along with longtime Marxist and Obama supporter Carl Davidson.
Now she is co-chair of Chicagoans Against War & Injustice, and her public relations firm is working on contracts with the city of Chicago worth millions of dollars. She lists as her clients the city’s housing authority, law department, and departments of housing, human services, streets and sanitation, and public health, among others.
As for her relationship with Ayers, who admitted helping to bomb the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970s, the Tribune reported that she has said, “Bill and I were in different parts of SDS. We disagreed on tactics.”
Guy Benson wrote on Townhall.com about Obama’s Katz connection: “There are so many objectionable figures in Obama’s social milieu, new revelations about yet another garden variety radical may elicit shrugs at this point . . .
“Perhaps it follows that someone who preferred lobbing guerilla nails at police over planting pipe bombs in federal buildings would be integrated into Obama’s official campaign apparatus without so much as a second look.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Noam Chomsky: Iran ‘Entitled’ to Uranium Enrichment
Radical leftist Noam Chomsky has attacked America’s stance on Iran and says the Islamic Republic has the right to enrich uranium.
The MIT professor and author told the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) that public opinion in the U.S. “overwhelmingly holds that Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy.”
He added that “nobody thinks they have the right to develop nuclear weapons,” but Iran is “of course entitled to uranium enrichment.”
He also lashed out at Western media for asserting that Iran is “defying the world” over its nuclear program.
“That’s a funny definition of the ‘world,’” he said in his IRNA interview. “The Non-Aligned Movement, for example, which is the majority of countries, endorses Iran’s right to enrich uranium.”
He went further in his attack on U.S. policy, claiming that America’s hostile stance toward Iran results from Iran’s refusal “to subordinate itself to U.S. will. Iran is an independent actor. It is defiant of the U.S. and that’s not tolerated.
“In fact, that’s official policy going back to World War II in which the U.S. would try to create a world order in which it is dominant.”
Chomsky’s remarks to the IRNA are far from the first time he has verbally assaulted the nation of his birth.
As Newsmax magazine reported earlier, the author of “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” has compared America to Nazi Germany, called capitalism a worse form of tyranny than communism, and referred to the Pentagon as “the most hideous institution on earth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Obama’s Tax Hike Would Impact Blue States
Democrat Barack Obama’s plan to raise tax rates for families earning more than $250,000 would have the greatest impact on high-income states that are likely to vote Democratic in this year’s presidential election.
The Internal Revenue Service provides figures on the number of married couples with adjusted gross incomes over $200,000.
In 2006, 6.5 percent of all married couples reported an AGI above $200,000, “squarely in line with Obama’s claim that only 5 percent of families would pay more,” Forbes magazine observed.
The jurisdiction with the highest percentage of married couples that would be impacted by Obama’s tax plan is Washington, D.C., where 23 percent of couples report an AGI above $200,000. Washington is certain to go for Obama on Election Day.
In Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts, more than 10 percent of couples earn over $200,000. Those three states voted Democratic in 2000 and 2004 and are solidly in Obama’s camp this year, according to electoral maps drawn up by the Realclearpolitics Web site and political analyst Dick Morris.
Rounding out the top 10 jurisdictions with the highest percentage of couples earning in excess of $200,000 are Maryland (9.7 percent), New York (8.7 percent), California (8.4 percent), Virginia (8.4 percent), Illinois (7.4 percent) and Colorado (7.1 percent).
Only two of those states, Virginia and Colorado, are not solidly in Obama’s camp, and both of them are “leaning Obama,” according to Realclearpolitics and Morris.
On the other hand, four of the five states with the lowest percentage of couples earning over $200,000 voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004 “and are likely to give John McCain their electoral votes,” Forbes predicts.
They are West Virginia (2.4 percent), Arkansas (3.4), Kentucky (3.4), and North Dakota (3.5) — although Realclearpolitics has West Virginia only “leaning McCain” and rates North Dakota as a tossup.
Iowa, where 3.5 percent of couples earn more than $200,000, went for Bush in 2004 but is solidly for Obama this year.
Half of the 3.5 million couples reporting an AGI over $200,000 live in California.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Russians in U.S. Back McCain
The overwhelming majority of Russian immigrants in the U.S. say they will cast their ballots for Republican John McCain in the Nov. 4 presidential election, according to the Moscow Bureau of Human Rights (MBHR).
MBHR reported on a poll among Russian immigrants in New York, California, Georgia, New Jersey, Florida, and Massachusetts between Aug. 30 and Oct. 10, which was conducted in cooperation with the American Jewish Congress, Interfax Information Services reported.
Of the 79 percent of respondents who said they are certain to go to the polls, over half, 63 percent, said they will vote for McCain; 11 percent will choose Barack Obama; and 25 percent remain undecided.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2006 that about 3.1 million people in the U.S. cite their ancestry as Russian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dolphins’ Huizenga Wary of Obama Tax Plan
H. Wayne Huizenga, co-owner of the NFL’s Miami Dolphins, said Barack Obama’s plan to raise the capital gains tax could hasten his move to sell most of his remaining share of the team.
“He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it,” Huizenga said.
“If you [sell] this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes.”
Huizenga sold 50 percent of the team and Dolphin Stadium to businessman Stephen Ross earlier this year for $550 million, and wants to sell another 45 percent to Ross. The transfer has already been approved by NFL owners, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.
“It’s been 19 years and after 19 years, it’s kind of time” to sell, Huizenga said. “I don’t want to be one of those owners who gets real old and hangs in there. We know some of those stories already.”
Huizenga turns 71 in December.
Bobby Gravitz, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, disputed Huizenga’s statement, saying Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax maximum from
15 percent to 20 percent — a 33-percent increase rather than double.
Gravitz noted that the 20 percent rate would be “a third lower than the rate that President Reagan set in 1986.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Poll: Israelis Prefer McCain Over Obama
If Israelis could vote in the U.S. presidential election, they would choose Republican nominee John McCain over his Democratic rival Barack Obama by a substantial margin, a poll reveals.
In the survey of 500 Israeli adults commissioned by the Rabin Center for
Israel Studies, McCain was chosen by 46 percent of respondents, compared
to 34 percent for Obama.
“Most Israelis remain convinced that McCain’s approach to regional threats to both Israel and American interests is far more realistic than Obama’s,” Israel Today reported.
The poll also found that Israelis are comfortable with McCain’s position that the U.S. should step back from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. We Heard . . .
THAT the bean counters will be tallying up the score the morning after Election Day — the bean counters at Sweet Sue’s restaurant in Tyler, Texas, that is.
Patrons are each given one bean per visit, and they can express their presidential choice by dropping the bean in either the Barack Obama jar or the John McCain jar.
The beans won’t be counted until Wednesday morning, local station KLTV reported.
Of course, the results won’t mean a hill of beans in the presidential race. But managers at Sweet Sue’s say the bean poll, a long-held tradition at the restaurant, has always been very close to national poll results.
THAT the new coach of Oregon State University’s basketball team, Craig Robinson, has a sister named Michelle who is married to a man named Barack Obama.
Yes, that Barack Obama.
“It’s really hard to get my arms around the fact that my sister could be first lady, that my brother-in-law could be president,” Robinson said.
But Democrats can’t expect the school’s winning ways to rub off on Obama in the general election. Oregon State went 0-18 in conference play last year, and according to USA Today “is a solid news media pick to finish last again this season.”
1. Obama Has Links to ANOTHER '60s Radical
2. Noam Chomsky: Iran ‘Entitled’ to Uranium Enrichment
3. Obama’s Tax Hike Would Impact Blue States
4. Russians in U.S. Back McCain
5. Dolphins’ Huizenga Wary of Obama Tax Plan
6. Poll: Israelis Prefer McCain Over Obama
7. We Heard: Bean Counters, Michelle Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Obama Has Links to ANOTHER '60s Radical
Barack Obama has consistently sought to distance himself from former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. But it’s a different story with another student radical from the 1960s — Marilyn Katz — who is actually on Obama’s fundraising team.
Katz, a public relations executive in Chicago, serves on Obama’s national finance committee. She is listed as a fundraising “bundler” on his Web site, has hosted fundraisers for the candidate, and attended the Democratic Convention as part of the Illinois delegation.
But during the violent protests of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Katz was the security chief for the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which spawned Ayers and the Weather Underground.
During those protests, Katz advocated throwing studded nails in front of police cars, the Chicago Tribune reported.
In 1969, an undercover policeman named William Frapolly testified at the “Chicago Seven” trials, and prosecutors asked him to describe his collaboration with organizers of the protest the previous year.
He testified that one night in Chicago’s Lincoln Park, Katz briefed a group of protesters on the use of “guerilla nails.”
“She had two types,” he told the court.
“One was a cluster of nails that were sharpened at both ends, and they were fastened in the center. It looked like they were welded or soldered. She said these were good for throwing or putting underneath tires.
“She showed another set that was the same type of nails sharpened at both ends, but they were put through a Styrofoam cylinder.”
A prosecutor asked, “To whom was she showing these objects?”
Frapolly answered, “Everyone in the group.”
Katz was a principal organizer of the October 2002 anti-war demonstration in Chicago where Obama first expressed his opposition to the looming Iraq war.
In 2005, she co-authored the book “Stopping War, Seeking Justice” along with longtime Marxist and Obama supporter Carl Davidson.
Now she is co-chair of Chicagoans Against War & Injustice, and her public relations firm is working on contracts with the city of Chicago worth millions of dollars. She lists as her clients the city’s housing authority, law department, and departments of housing, human services, streets and sanitation, and public health, among others.
As for her relationship with Ayers, who admitted helping to bomb the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970s, the Tribune reported that she has said, “Bill and I were in different parts of SDS. We disagreed on tactics.”
Guy Benson wrote on Townhall.com about Obama’s Katz connection: “There are so many objectionable figures in Obama’s social milieu, new revelations about yet another garden variety radical may elicit shrugs at this point . . .
“Perhaps it follows that someone who preferred lobbing guerilla nails at police over planting pipe bombs in federal buildings would be integrated into Obama’s official campaign apparatus without so much as a second look.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Noam Chomsky: Iran ‘Entitled’ to Uranium Enrichment
Radical leftist Noam Chomsky has attacked America’s stance on Iran and says the Islamic Republic has the right to enrich uranium.
The MIT professor and author told the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) that public opinion in the U.S. “overwhelmingly holds that Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy.”
He added that “nobody thinks they have the right to develop nuclear weapons,” but Iran is “of course entitled to uranium enrichment.”
He also lashed out at Western media for asserting that Iran is “defying the world” over its nuclear program.
“That’s a funny definition of the ‘world,’” he said in his IRNA interview. “The Non-Aligned Movement, for example, which is the majority of countries, endorses Iran’s right to enrich uranium.”
He went further in his attack on U.S. policy, claiming that America’s hostile stance toward Iran results from Iran’s refusal “to subordinate itself to U.S. will. Iran is an independent actor. It is defiant of the U.S. and that’s not tolerated.
“In fact, that’s official policy going back to World War II in which the U.S. would try to create a world order in which it is dominant.”
Chomsky’s remarks to the IRNA are far from the first time he has verbally assaulted the nation of his birth.
As Newsmax magazine reported earlier, the author of “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” has compared America to Nazi Germany, called capitalism a worse form of tyranny than communism, and referred to the Pentagon as “the most hideous institution on earth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Obama’s Tax Hike Would Impact Blue States
Democrat Barack Obama’s plan to raise tax rates for families earning more than $250,000 would have the greatest impact on high-income states that are likely to vote Democratic in this year’s presidential election.
The Internal Revenue Service provides figures on the number of married couples with adjusted gross incomes over $200,000.
In 2006, 6.5 percent of all married couples reported an AGI above $200,000, “squarely in line with Obama’s claim that only 5 percent of families would pay more,” Forbes magazine observed.
The jurisdiction with the highest percentage of married couples that would be impacted by Obama’s tax plan is Washington, D.C., where 23 percent of couples report an AGI above $200,000. Washington is certain to go for Obama on Election Day.
In Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts, more than 10 percent of couples earn over $200,000. Those three states voted Democratic in 2000 and 2004 and are solidly in Obama’s camp this year, according to electoral maps drawn up by the Realclearpolitics Web site and political analyst Dick Morris.
Rounding out the top 10 jurisdictions with the highest percentage of couples earning in excess of $200,000 are Maryland (9.7 percent), New York (8.7 percent), California (8.4 percent), Virginia (8.4 percent), Illinois (7.4 percent) and Colorado (7.1 percent).
Only two of those states, Virginia and Colorado, are not solidly in Obama’s camp, and both of them are “leaning Obama,” according to Realclearpolitics and Morris.
On the other hand, four of the five states with the lowest percentage of couples earning over $200,000 voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004 “and are likely to give John McCain their electoral votes,” Forbes predicts.
They are West Virginia (2.4 percent), Arkansas (3.4), Kentucky (3.4), and North Dakota (3.5) — although Realclearpolitics has West Virginia only “leaning McCain” and rates North Dakota as a tossup.
Iowa, where 3.5 percent of couples earn more than $200,000, went for Bush in 2004 but is solidly for Obama this year.
Half of the 3.5 million couples reporting an AGI over $200,000 live in California.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Russians in U.S. Back McCain
The overwhelming majority of Russian immigrants in the U.S. say they will cast their ballots for Republican John McCain in the Nov. 4 presidential election, according to the Moscow Bureau of Human Rights (MBHR).
MBHR reported on a poll among Russian immigrants in New York, California, Georgia, New Jersey, Florida, and Massachusetts between Aug. 30 and Oct. 10, which was conducted in cooperation with the American Jewish Congress, Interfax Information Services reported.
Of the 79 percent of respondents who said they are certain to go to the polls, over half, 63 percent, said they will vote for McCain; 11 percent will choose Barack Obama; and 25 percent remain undecided.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2006 that about 3.1 million people in the U.S. cite their ancestry as Russian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dolphins’ Huizenga Wary of Obama Tax Plan
H. Wayne Huizenga, co-owner of the NFL’s Miami Dolphins, said Barack Obama’s plan to raise the capital gains tax could hasten his move to sell most of his remaining share of the team.
“He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it,” Huizenga said.
“If you [sell] this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes.”
Huizenga sold 50 percent of the team and Dolphin Stadium to businessman Stephen Ross earlier this year for $550 million, and wants to sell another 45 percent to Ross. The transfer has already been approved by NFL owners, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.
“It’s been 19 years and after 19 years, it’s kind of time” to sell, Huizenga said. “I don’t want to be one of those owners who gets real old and hangs in there. We know some of those stories already.”
Huizenga turns 71 in December.
Bobby Gravitz, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, disputed Huizenga’s statement, saying Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax maximum from
15 percent to 20 percent — a 33-percent increase rather than double.
Gravitz noted that the 20 percent rate would be “a third lower than the rate that President Reagan set in 1986.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Poll: Israelis Prefer McCain Over Obama
If Israelis could vote in the U.S. presidential election, they would choose Republican nominee John McCain over his Democratic rival Barack Obama by a substantial margin, a poll reveals.
In the survey of 500 Israeli adults commissioned by the Rabin Center for
Israel Studies, McCain was chosen by 46 percent of respondents, compared
to 34 percent for Obama.
“Most Israelis remain convinced that McCain’s approach to regional threats to both Israel and American interests is far more realistic than Obama’s,” Israel Today reported.
The poll also found that Israelis are comfortable with McCain’s position that the U.S. should step back from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. We Heard . . .
THAT the bean counters will be tallying up the score the morning after Election Day — the bean counters at Sweet Sue’s restaurant in Tyler, Texas, that is.
Patrons are each given one bean per visit, and they can express their presidential choice by dropping the bean in either the Barack Obama jar or the John McCain jar.
The beans won’t be counted until Wednesday morning, local station KLTV reported.
Of course, the results won’t mean a hill of beans in the presidential race. But managers at Sweet Sue’s say the bean poll, a long-held tradition at the restaurant, has always been very close to national poll results.
THAT the new coach of Oregon State University’s basketball team, Craig Robinson, has a sister named Michelle who is married to a man named Barack Obama.
Yes, that Barack Obama.
“It’s really hard to get my arms around the fact that my sister could be first lady, that my brother-in-law could be president,” Robinson said.
But Democrats can’t expect the school’s winning ways to rub off on Obama in the general election. Oregon State went 0-18 in conference play last year, and according to USA Today “is a solid news media pick to finish last again this season.”
Palin Slams Obama Over Coal Comments
Sunday, November 2, 2008 8:46 PM
Responding to the discovery of an audio tape of an old Barak Obama interview Sunday, Sarah Palin accused the Democrat of “talking about bankrupting the coal industry,” as she campaigned through the coal regions of Ohio.
“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he's comfortable letting that happen,” Palin said. “And you got to listen to the tape.”
The audiotape Palin referred to was recorded by the San Francisco Chronicle in a Jan. 17 interview and uncovered by the Drudge Report.
“Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?” Palin said, according to CBS News.
Someone in the crowd shouted, “Liberal media!”
“This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago,” Palin said. “You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”
In the audiotape, Obama reiterated his call for a cap and trade system on carbon and greenhouse gases.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” Obama said. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”
Responding to Palin’s comments, the Chronicle said the tape had never been hidden away.
“Let's be very clear: The Chronicle did not, and has never, hidden any interview, audio or video, of Obama from its readers,” the paper responded on one of its political blogs.
“The truth: The paper's January editorial board session with Obama included comments about coal. The entire interview has been in the public domain, available on line to the public — and to the McCain campaign — since early January.”
An Obama representative said Obama’s remarks were taken out of context. In another part of the interview, Obama said the idea of eliminating coal plants was “an illusion.”
“The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies--and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program,” the representative said.
“We know that additional work is necessary to develop and deploy these technologies. That is why Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. It’s strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).”
2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, November 2, 2008 8:46 PM
Responding to the discovery of an audio tape of an old Barak Obama interview Sunday, Sarah Palin accused the Democrat of “talking about bankrupting the coal industry,” as she campaigned through the coal regions of Ohio.
“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he's comfortable letting that happen,” Palin said. “And you got to listen to the tape.”
The audiotape Palin referred to was recorded by the San Francisco Chronicle in a Jan. 17 interview and uncovered by the Drudge Report.
“Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?” Palin said, according to CBS News.
Someone in the crowd shouted, “Liberal media!”
“This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago,” Palin said. “You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”
In the audiotape, Obama reiterated his call for a cap and trade system on carbon and greenhouse gases.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” Obama said. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”
Responding to Palin’s comments, the Chronicle said the tape had never been hidden away.
“Let's be very clear: The Chronicle did not, and has never, hidden any interview, audio or video, of Obama from its readers,” the paper responded on one of its political blogs.
“The truth: The paper's January editorial board session with Obama included comments about coal. The entire interview has been in the public domain, available on line to the public — and to the McCain campaign — since early January.”
An Obama representative said Obama’s remarks were taken out of context. In another part of the interview, Obama said the idea of eliminating coal plants was “an illusion.”
“The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies--and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program,” the representative said.
“We know that additional work is necessary to develop and deploy these technologies. That is why Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. It’s strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).”
2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
McCain Only 2 Points Behind
IBD Poll: McCain Only 2 Points Behind
Sunday, November 2, 2008 4:46 PM
John McCain is trailing presidential rival Barack Obama by just two points heading into Election Day, according to a new tracking poll released Sunday by Investors Business Daily.
Overall, McCain trails Obama by 2.1 percentage points — 46.7 percent to 44.6 percent, with 8.7 percent not sure — in the tracking poll released Sunday by IBD and its polling partner, the TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics (TIPP).
The latest numbers continue a tightening trend that shows McCain steadily gaining while Obama’s support around 47 percent of respondents is holding firm.
Independents who'd been leaning to Obama shifted to McCain to leave that key group a tossup, according to the IBD pollsters. McCain also pulled even in the Midwest, and moved back strongly into the lead with men. He is padding his gains among Protestants and Catholics, and is favored for the first time by high school graduates.
The newest poll shows that McCain has made steady gains in the West, up from 37 percent of respondents to 44 percent. He still leads Obama in the South, 50 percent to 45 percent, and he is tied in the Midwest, 45 percent to 45 percent, with 12 percent still not sure.
In terms of age group, McCain still is virtually tied with Obama with respondents in the categories between 25 years of age and 64. Some 9 percent are still undecided. He leads among voters 65 and over by 2 points, 45 percent to 43 percent. Obama has a commanding lead only among the young respondents, those 18 to 24. But that group's reliability on Election Day varies tremendously.
Among party faithful, the poll shows that McCain is holding onto Republicans by an overwhelming margin — he has 89 percent locked up — and is winning now among self-described independents, 45 to 43 percent.
McCain also has a 15-point lead over Obama among voters who earn at least $75,000 a year, and now holds a 54 percent to 40 percent edge among male voters, up from a 4-point lead just several weeks ago.
The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent. IBD said its polling partner, TIPP, has been the most accurate pollster during the 2004 election season.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved
Sunday, November 2, 2008 4:46 PM
John McCain is trailing presidential rival Barack Obama by just two points heading into Election Day, according to a new tracking poll released Sunday by Investors Business Daily.
Overall, McCain trails Obama by 2.1 percentage points — 46.7 percent to 44.6 percent, with 8.7 percent not sure — in the tracking poll released Sunday by IBD and its polling partner, the TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics (TIPP).
The latest numbers continue a tightening trend that shows McCain steadily gaining while Obama’s support around 47 percent of respondents is holding firm.
Independents who'd been leaning to Obama shifted to McCain to leave that key group a tossup, according to the IBD pollsters. McCain also pulled even in the Midwest, and moved back strongly into the lead with men. He is padding his gains among Protestants and Catholics, and is favored for the first time by high school graduates.
The newest poll shows that McCain has made steady gains in the West, up from 37 percent of respondents to 44 percent. He still leads Obama in the South, 50 percent to 45 percent, and he is tied in the Midwest, 45 percent to 45 percent, with 12 percent still not sure.
In terms of age group, McCain still is virtually tied with Obama with respondents in the categories between 25 years of age and 64. Some 9 percent are still undecided. He leads among voters 65 and over by 2 points, 45 percent to 43 percent. Obama has a commanding lead only among the young respondents, those 18 to 24. But that group's reliability on Election Day varies tremendously.
Among party faithful, the poll shows that McCain is holding onto Republicans by an overwhelming margin — he has 89 percent locked up — and is winning now among self-described independents, 45 to 43 percent.
McCain also has a 15-point lead over Obama among voters who earn at least $75,000 a year, and now holds a 54 percent to 40 percent edge among male voters, up from a 4-point lead just several weeks ago.
The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent. IBD said its polling partner, TIPP, has been the most accurate pollster during the 2004 election season.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved
Obama Coverup Altered History
Obama Coverup Altered History
Monday, November 3, 2008 1:54 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
Just before Halloween, Politico published a story saying the media really are not rooting for Barack Obama. Nor are they biased against John McCain. Rather, the story attributed the fact that twice as many positive stories are appearing about Obama than about McCain to journalists just doing their job of following the news.
Was Politico trying to pull off a Halloween prank? I have seen firsthand how the media have favored Obama, while ignoring their obligation to report the news. As chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax, I began writing stories about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor and former pastor, Jan. 7 with “Barack Obama’s Racist Church.”
The so-called Black Value System that Wright’s church promotes asserts that America structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons” and takes other steps to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” the story reported.
In sermons and interviews, Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid, the story reported. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
I cited two exceptions to the media blackout about Obama and his church. Back in 2007, Sean Hannity of Fox News confronted Wright on TV and asked how a Black Value System would be any more acceptable than a white value system. Tucker Carlson of MSNBC described Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ as having a “racially exclusive theology” that “contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity.”
During the next two and a half months, I wrote more than half a dozen stories disclosing new information about Obama and Wright. On Jan. 14, I broke the story on the church’s lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan with “ Obama’s Minister Honored Farrakhan.”
The story on Newsmax.com quoted Wright’s glowing praise of Farrakhan in the church magazine “Trumpet.”
On March 6, I wrote “Obama Minister Exudes Hatred.”
That story quoted the full text of a sermon Wright gave at Howard University. Among other things, the sermon said that America created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks. Based on that sermon, I sent a proposed Op-Ed to The Washington Post’s editorial side. I sent a similar piece to the paper’s “Outlook” section. Both rejected the piece.
Meanwhile, I sent the Newsmax stories to dozens of people I know in the print and broadcast media. In contrast to their interest in Joe the plumber’s background, no media outlet would touch the Wright stories. When I mentioned the stories to a cable news reporter I know, she said she could never propose running such a story.
“The media love Obama,” she said. “If you want to do a critical story about him, you are considered by the network to be biased.”
Finally, on March 12, Fox News ran a portion of a Wright sermon. ABC ran more excerpts the next day. On March 15, my Op-Ed, ‘Obama and the Minister,' appeared in The Wall Street Journal. Based on my reporting for Newsmax, it included excerpts from the Howard University sermon.
Referring to that piece, the March 15 New York Times said, “On Friday, Senator John McCain’s campaign forwarded to reporters an article in The Wall Street Journal in which Mr. Wright was quoted as saying, ‘Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run,’ and accusing the United States of importing drugs, exporting guns and training murderers.”
Yet for nearly three months, the media had refused to pick up the stories about Wright. Largely as a result of the stories’ being picked up, Obama’s double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton in national polls vanished, according to pollsters. At the same time, McCain shot up in the polls, and Clinton began pulling ahead of Obama in primary elections. If the media had done its job as Politico claims it does, Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president.
After the first flurry of stories, the media have continued to be reluctant to raise Wright as an issue. Politico’s Oct. 28 story by John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei asserts that the reason Wright has been “basically a non-issue” during the general election campaign is that his connection to Obama has an “out of bounds racial subtext.”
I may not be black, but I know what racism is. In 1964, as an editor of my college paper, I wrote articles that exposed discrimination against blacks in rental housing in Worcester, Mass., leading to investigations and a crackdown by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. In 1984, I wrote Washington Post stories revealing that Lena Ferguson had been denied membership in the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) because she was black. The stories led not only to her admission to the DAR but also to her appointment as chairman and founder of the D.C. DAR Scholarship Committee.
The fact that a man Obama described as his mentor, sounding board, and adviser for 20 years routinely denounced America has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with character and Obama’s true beliefs.
The media’s continuing coverup of Obama’s associations with radical hate-mongers like Wright is a shameful chapter in the history of American journalism.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, November 3, 2008 1:54 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
Just before Halloween, Politico published a story saying the media really are not rooting for Barack Obama. Nor are they biased against John McCain. Rather, the story attributed the fact that twice as many positive stories are appearing about Obama than about McCain to journalists just doing their job of following the news.
Was Politico trying to pull off a Halloween prank? I have seen firsthand how the media have favored Obama, while ignoring their obligation to report the news. As chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax, I began writing stories about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor and former pastor, Jan. 7 with “Barack Obama’s Racist Church.”
The so-called Black Value System that Wright’s church promotes asserts that America structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons” and takes other steps to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” the story reported.
In sermons and interviews, Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid, the story reported. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
I cited two exceptions to the media blackout about Obama and his church. Back in 2007, Sean Hannity of Fox News confronted Wright on TV and asked how a Black Value System would be any more acceptable than a white value system. Tucker Carlson of MSNBC described Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ as having a “racially exclusive theology” that “contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity.”
During the next two and a half months, I wrote more than half a dozen stories disclosing new information about Obama and Wright. On Jan. 14, I broke the story on the church’s lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan with “ Obama’s Minister Honored Farrakhan.”
The story on Newsmax.com quoted Wright’s glowing praise of Farrakhan in the church magazine “Trumpet.”
On March 6, I wrote “Obama Minister Exudes Hatred.”
That story quoted the full text of a sermon Wright gave at Howard University. Among other things, the sermon said that America created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks. Based on that sermon, I sent a proposed Op-Ed to The Washington Post’s editorial side. I sent a similar piece to the paper’s “Outlook” section. Both rejected the piece.
Meanwhile, I sent the Newsmax stories to dozens of people I know in the print and broadcast media. In contrast to their interest in Joe the plumber’s background, no media outlet would touch the Wright stories. When I mentioned the stories to a cable news reporter I know, she said she could never propose running such a story.
“The media love Obama,” she said. “If you want to do a critical story about him, you are considered by the network to be biased.”
Finally, on March 12, Fox News ran a portion of a Wright sermon. ABC ran more excerpts the next day. On March 15, my Op-Ed, ‘Obama and the Minister,' appeared in The Wall Street Journal. Based on my reporting for Newsmax, it included excerpts from the Howard University sermon.
Referring to that piece, the March 15 New York Times said, “On Friday, Senator John McCain’s campaign forwarded to reporters an article in The Wall Street Journal in which Mr. Wright was quoted as saying, ‘Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run,’ and accusing the United States of importing drugs, exporting guns and training murderers.”
Yet for nearly three months, the media had refused to pick up the stories about Wright. Largely as a result of the stories’ being picked up, Obama’s double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton in national polls vanished, according to pollsters. At the same time, McCain shot up in the polls, and Clinton began pulling ahead of Obama in primary elections. If the media had done its job as Politico claims it does, Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president.
After the first flurry of stories, the media have continued to be reluctant to raise Wright as an issue. Politico’s Oct. 28 story by John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei asserts that the reason Wright has been “basically a non-issue” during the general election campaign is that his connection to Obama has an “out of bounds racial subtext.”
I may not be black, but I know what racism is. In 1964, as an editor of my college paper, I wrote articles that exposed discrimination against blacks in rental housing in Worcester, Mass., leading to investigations and a crackdown by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. In 1984, I wrote Washington Post stories revealing that Lena Ferguson had been denied membership in the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) because she was black. The stories led not only to her admission to the DAR but also to her appointment as chairman and founder of the D.C. DAR Scholarship Committee.
The fact that a man Obama described as his mentor, sounding board, and adviser for 20 years routinely denounced America has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with character and Obama’s true beliefs.
The media’s continuing coverup of Obama’s associations with radical hate-mongers like Wright is a shameful chapter in the history of American journalism.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
November 2, 2008
Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close
Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says
Saturday, November 1, 2008 2:59 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had “an open line between them” to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.
“Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn’t, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago,” said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam.
White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.
White said Obama was “part of the Chicago scene” where Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and radicals would go to each other’s events and support each other’s causes.
“Even though Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, within the black community, the political and militant nationalist community is very small. So it wouldn’t be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other,” White told Newsmax.
The Anti-Defamation League has denounced Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam as a “hate group.”
Farrakhan has called Jews “bloodsuckers,” “satanic” and accused them of running the slave trade. He has labeled gays as “degenerates.” In a 2006 speech, the ADL again condemned Farrakhan when he said: “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It's the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!"
Obama was careful to “denounce” Farrakhan’s comments – but not the man -- during the Democratic primary season earlier this year, but only after Hillary Clinton called him out for benefiting from Farrakhan’s support.
Farrakhan endorsed Obama in a videotaped speech to his followers at Mosque Miryam in Chicago in February. “You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth,” Farrakhan said.
He told the crowd that Obama was the new “messiah.” See Video: Farrakhan Endorses Obama, Calls Him Messiah.
Once the news media and the Clinton campaign got hold of those comments from Farrakhan, demands mounted from all sides that Obama “renounce” Farrakhan.
But as he has done repeatedly throughout this campaign, Obama was careful to parse his words.
“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments,” he said during one appearance on “Meet the Press.” “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.”
Obama hastened to point out that Farrakhan had been praising him as “an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”
But Obama, once again, was less than candid.
In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.”
At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago’s South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.
The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama’s then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright.
Obama spoke at length with the Chicago Reader upon his return from the Million Man March. “What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said.
“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress,” Obama said.
“Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."
“Black nationalism” is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father.”
Obama further parsed his words in a Feb. 25, 2008, presentation to a Jewish community meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, where he insisted that Wright “does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.”
And yet, just months earlier, Wright’s Trumpet magazine gave Farrakhan its Lifetime Achievement Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”
That award was the fruit of a long and deep relationship between the two men, White told Newsmax. In 1984, Wright accompanied Farrakhan on his much-criticized trip to meet Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, at a time when Gadhafi was considered an enemy of the United States.
Wright also accompanied Farrakhan and Jackson to Syria in 1986, where they successfully negotiated with Syrian strongman for the release of downed American pilot Robert O. Goodman.
Obama’s Speaking Style
In addition to the ideological affinity Obama expressed for the black nationalist movement, White believes that Obama owes much of his success as a public orator to speaking techniques that Farrakhan developed over the years, and exploited for years to great success.
“If you listen to the rhetoric and you take away Obama’s political jargon, you hear a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like,” White said.
Any American who has listened to early radio or television interviews of Obama can hear how dramatically Obama’s speaking style has changed since he became a United States senator.
In clips dating from 2001 and even early 2004, Obama speaks haltingly and in long, rambling sentences packed with legalese and dense pseudo-academic rhetoric. But not today.
“As a former minister of the Nation of Islam, I know how they speak,” White told Newsmax. “I don’t know who was training Obama. But that style is not a ministerial style like in the Christian church. It’s a Nation of Islam style.”
White began in the late 1970s as a foot soldier in the Fruit of Islam, the military branch of Farrakhan’s Black Muslim group, then rose to become a minister of the Nation of Islam and a top deputy to Farrakhan himself.
Known initially as Brother Vibert L.X., and later as Minister V.L. Muhammad, he parted ways with Farrakhan not long after the Million Man March, after nearly 25 years within the organization.
White’s 2002 book “Inside the Nation of Islam” prompted death threats by Farrakhan loyalists, so he left Illinois and moved to Florida to teach at the University of Central Florida.
He told Newsmax that Obama’s remarkable speaking style, even his manner of standing at a podium to appear larger than life, is directly copied from Farrakhan.
“If the Nation of Islam can’t do anything else, it can train people how to speak. And nobody can outspeak a Muslim minister,” he said.
Earlier this year, a pro-Clinton blog run by former CIA officer Larry Johnson unearthed a 2004 photograph showing Michelle Obama and Farrakahn’s wife, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, at an event hosted by Jackson’s Citizenship Education Foundation.
Newsmax queried Obama’s U.S. Senate office, his Chicago office and his campaign press office about his ties to Farrakhan, but did not receive a reply.
Ever since he appeared before the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama has attempted to convince the Jewish community that he is pro-Israel.
But his longstanding ties to Farrakhan, Wright and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi, among others, have disturbed many Jewish community leaders.
Sen. John McCain publicly chastised The Los Angeles Times on Thursday for not releasing a videotape the newspaper said it possessed of a 2003 dinner for Khalidi, where Obama reportedly accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide” against the Palestinians.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, November 1, 2008 2:59 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had “an open line between them” to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.
“Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn’t, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago,” said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam.
White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.
White said Obama was “part of the Chicago scene” where Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and radicals would go to each other’s events and support each other’s causes.
“Even though Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, within the black community, the political and militant nationalist community is very small. So it wouldn’t be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other,” White told Newsmax.
The Anti-Defamation League has denounced Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam as a “hate group.”
Farrakhan has called Jews “bloodsuckers,” “satanic” and accused them of running the slave trade. He has labeled gays as “degenerates.” In a 2006 speech, the ADL again condemned Farrakhan when he said: “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It's the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!"
Obama was careful to “denounce” Farrakhan’s comments – but not the man -- during the Democratic primary season earlier this year, but only after Hillary Clinton called him out for benefiting from Farrakhan’s support.
Farrakhan endorsed Obama in a videotaped speech to his followers at Mosque Miryam in Chicago in February. “You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth,” Farrakhan said.
He told the crowd that Obama was the new “messiah.” See Video: Farrakhan Endorses Obama, Calls Him Messiah.
Once the news media and the Clinton campaign got hold of those comments from Farrakhan, demands mounted from all sides that Obama “renounce” Farrakhan.
But as he has done repeatedly throughout this campaign, Obama was careful to parse his words.
“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments,” he said during one appearance on “Meet the Press.” “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.”
Obama hastened to point out that Farrakhan had been praising him as “an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”
But Obama, once again, was less than candid.
In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.”
At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago’s South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.
The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama’s then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright.
Obama spoke at length with the Chicago Reader upon his return from the Million Man March. “What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said.
“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress,” Obama said.
“Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."
“Black nationalism” is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father.”
Obama further parsed his words in a Feb. 25, 2008, presentation to a Jewish community meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, where he insisted that Wright “does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.”
And yet, just months earlier, Wright’s Trumpet magazine gave Farrakhan its Lifetime Achievement Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”
That award was the fruit of a long and deep relationship between the two men, White told Newsmax. In 1984, Wright accompanied Farrakhan on his much-criticized trip to meet Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, at a time when Gadhafi was considered an enemy of the United States.
Wright also accompanied Farrakhan and Jackson to Syria in 1986, where they successfully negotiated with Syrian strongman for the release of downed American pilot Robert O. Goodman.
Obama’s Speaking Style
In addition to the ideological affinity Obama expressed for the black nationalist movement, White believes that Obama owes much of his success as a public orator to speaking techniques that Farrakhan developed over the years, and exploited for years to great success.
“If you listen to the rhetoric and you take away Obama’s political jargon, you hear a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like,” White said.
Any American who has listened to early radio or television interviews of Obama can hear how dramatically Obama’s speaking style has changed since he became a United States senator.
In clips dating from 2001 and even early 2004, Obama speaks haltingly and in long, rambling sentences packed with legalese and dense pseudo-academic rhetoric. But not today.
“As a former minister of the Nation of Islam, I know how they speak,” White told Newsmax. “I don’t know who was training Obama. But that style is not a ministerial style like in the Christian church. It’s a Nation of Islam style.”
White began in the late 1970s as a foot soldier in the Fruit of Islam, the military branch of Farrakhan’s Black Muslim group, then rose to become a minister of the Nation of Islam and a top deputy to Farrakhan himself.
Known initially as Brother Vibert L.X., and later as Minister V.L. Muhammad, he parted ways with Farrakhan not long after the Million Man March, after nearly 25 years within the organization.
White’s 2002 book “Inside the Nation of Islam” prompted death threats by Farrakhan loyalists, so he left Illinois and moved to Florida to teach at the University of Central Florida.
He told Newsmax that Obama’s remarkable speaking style, even his manner of standing at a podium to appear larger than life, is directly copied from Farrakhan.
“If the Nation of Islam can’t do anything else, it can train people how to speak. And nobody can outspeak a Muslim minister,” he said.
Earlier this year, a pro-Clinton blog run by former CIA officer Larry Johnson unearthed a 2004 photograph showing Michelle Obama and Farrakahn’s wife, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, at an event hosted by Jackson’s Citizenship Education Foundation.
Newsmax queried Obama’s U.S. Senate office, his Chicago office and his campaign press office about his ties to Farrakhan, but did not receive a reply.
Ever since he appeared before the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama has attempted to convince the Jewish community that he is pro-Israel.
But his longstanding ties to Farrakhan, Wright and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi, among others, have disturbed many Jewish community leaders.
Sen. John McCain publicly chastised The Los Angeles Times on Thursday for not releasing a videotape the newspaper said it possessed of a 2003 dinner for Khalidi, where Obama reportedly accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide” against the Palestinians.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama Explains National Anthem Stance
Obama Explains National Anthem Stance
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:17 PM
Subject: FW:
> Subject:
> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:19:58 -0600
> From: jmelancon@sjrmc.net
> To: mommalacita@hotmail.com
>
> > > I hope every one is listening, before it is too late.
> > Perhaps there are SOME out there who are beginning to get
> > 'the picture'. The following is a narrative taken
> > from Sunday Morning's televised 'Meet The
> > Press'. And the author is employed by none other than
> > the Washington Post!! Yeah......the Washington Post of New
> > York and Los Angeles Times fame!! Must say that I'm
> > dually impressed..................
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From Sunday's Televised 'Meet the Press'
> > Senator Obama was asked About his stance on the American
> > Flag. > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill
> > Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain why he
> > doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is
> > played.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The General also stated to the Senator that according
> > to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...
> > During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is
> > displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected
> > to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand
> > over the heart. At the very least, 'Stand and Face
> > It'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, 'As I've
> > said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as
> > taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in
> > the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of
> > oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like
> > message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It
> > should be swapped for something less parochial and less
> > bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the
> > World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might
> > salute it.'We should consider to reinvent our National
> > Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our
> > enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to
> > disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East
> > Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should
> > conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace
> > prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord
> > between our governments. When I become President, I will
> > seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those
> > who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom
> > from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have
> > placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My
> > wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons.
> > Together she and I have attended several flag burning
> > ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has her views
> > and I have mine'. Of course now, I have found myself
> > about to become the President of the United States and I
> > have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring
> > CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of
> > hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming our
> > Country's First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to
> > overwhelm the United States of America.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WHAAAAAAAT ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This
> > could possibly be our next President.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I, for one, am speechless.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dale Lindsborg, Washington Post
>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:17 PM
Subject: FW:
> Subject:
> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:19:58 -0600
> From: jmelancon@sjrmc.net
> To: mommalacita@hotmail.com
>
> > > I hope every one is listening, before it is too late.
> > Perhaps there are SOME out there who are beginning to get
> > 'the picture'. The following is a narrative taken
> > from Sunday Morning's televised 'Meet The
> > Press'. And the author is employed by none other than
> > the Washington Post!! Yeah......the Washington Post of New
> > York and Los Angeles Times fame!! Must say that I'm
> > dually impressed..................
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From Sunday's Televised 'Meet the Press'
> > Senator Obama was asked About his stance on the American
> > Flag. > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill
> > Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain why he
> > doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is
> > played.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The General also stated to the Senator that according
> > to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...
> > During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is
> > displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected
> > to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand
> > over the heart. At the very least, 'Stand and Face
> > It'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, 'As I've
> > said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as
> > taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in
> > the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of
> > oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like
> > message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It
> > should be swapped for something less parochial and less
> > bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the
> > World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might
> > salute it.'We should consider to reinvent our National
> > Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our
> > enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to
> > disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East
> > Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should
> > conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace
> > prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord
> > between our governments. When I become President, I will
> > seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those
> > who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom
> > from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have
> > placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My
> > wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons.
> > Together she and I have attended several flag burning
> > ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has her views
> > and I have mine'. Of course now, I have found myself
> > about to become the President of the United States and I
> > have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring
> > CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of
> > hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming our
> > Country's First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to
> > overwhelm the United States of America.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WHAAAAAAAT ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This
> > could possibly be our next President.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I, for one, am speechless.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dale Lindsborg, Washington Post
>
November 1, 2008
The Colonel and Lincoln.
THIS HAS BEEN OUT SEVERAL TIMES BUT DESERVES YOUR ATTENTION NOW.
Subject: The Colonel and Lincoln......... POWERFUL
TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND READ THIS LETTER. THESE ARE STRONG, POWERFUL AND
COURAGEOUS WORDS COMING FROM A RETIRED COLONEL, AND READ WHAT LINCOLN HAD TO
SAY AT THE END. WOW!
33 Senators Voted Against English as America's Official Language on June 6,
2007.
On Wed. 6 June 2007, Colonel Harry Riley, USA, Ret. wrote:
Senators: Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348.... to
make English America's official language is astounding.
On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure
the bedrock, character and principles of America, I can only surmise your
vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.
I don't much care where you come from. What your religion is. Whether you're
black, white, or some other color...male or female......Democrat, Republican
or Independent...... But I do care when you are a United States Senator
representing Citizens of America ....and Vote against English as the
official language of the United States.
Your vote reflects Betrayal. Political Surrender. Violates Your Pledge of
Allegiance. Dishonors historical principle. Rejects Patriotism. Borders on
traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United
States Senator...impeachment... Recall..Or other appropriate action is
warranted, or worse.
Four of you voting against English as America 's Official Language were
Presidential
Candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama.
Four Senators vying to lead America, but won't, or don't, have the courage
to cast a vote in favor of English as America's Official Language when 91%
of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.
This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators
have disgraced themselves as 'political Hacks'..... Unworthy as Senators and
certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States .
If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it
will literally 'rock you out of your socks'... And preferably totally out of
the United States Senate.
The entire immigration bill is a farce... Your action only confirms this
really isn't about America ... it is about self-serving
politics...despicable at best. It has been said: 'Never Argue with an
Idiot....They'll drag you down to their level!'
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID:
'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale
and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly
tried and hanged!!!'
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING AROUND THE UNITED STATES UNTIL THE ELECTION IN
NOVEMBER...
Subject: The Colonel and Lincoln......... POWERFUL
TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND READ THIS LETTER. THESE ARE STRONG, POWERFUL AND
COURAGEOUS WORDS COMING FROM A RETIRED COLONEL, AND READ WHAT LINCOLN HAD TO
SAY AT THE END. WOW!
33 Senators Voted Against English as America's Official Language on June 6,
2007.
On Wed. 6 June 2007, Colonel Harry Riley, USA, Ret. wrote:
Senators: Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348.... to
make English America's official language is astounding.
On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure
the bedrock, character and principles of America, I can only surmise your
vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.
I don't much care where you come from. What your religion is. Whether you're
black, white, or some other color...male or female......Democrat, Republican
or Independent...... But I do care when you are a United States Senator
representing Citizens of America ....and Vote against English as the
official language of the United States.
Your vote reflects Betrayal. Political Surrender. Violates Your Pledge of
Allegiance. Dishonors historical principle. Rejects Patriotism. Borders on
traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United
States Senator...impeachment... Recall..Or other appropriate action is
warranted, or worse.
Four of you voting against English as America 's Official Language were
Presidential
Candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama.
Four Senators vying to lead America, but won't, or don't, have the courage
to cast a vote in favor of English as America's Official Language when 91%
of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.
This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators
have disgraced themselves as 'political Hacks'..... Unworthy as Senators and
certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States .
If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it
will literally 'rock you out of your socks'... And preferably totally out of
the United States Senate.
The entire immigration bill is a farce... Your action only confirms this
really isn't about America ... it is about self-serving
politics...despicable at best. It has been said: 'Never Argue with an
Idiot....They'll drag you down to their level!'
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID:
'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale
and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly
tried and hanged!!!'
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING AROUND THE UNITED STATES UNTIL THE ELECTION IN
NOVEMBER...
Adding Up Obama + Pelosi + Reid + Frank
Adding Up Obama + Pelosi + Reid + Frank
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Last week I made the open-and-shut case for John McCain: In a dangerous world entering an era of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, the choice between the most prepared foreign policy candidate in memory vs. a novice with zero experience and the wobbliest one-world instincts is not a close call.
But it's all about economics and kitchen-table issues, we are told. OK. Start with economics.
Neither candidate has particularly deep economic knowledge or finely honed economic instincts. Neither has any clear idea exactly what to do in the current financial meltdown.
Hell, neither does anyone else, including the best economic minds in the world, from Henry Paulson to the head of the European Central Bank. Yet they have muddled through with some success.
Both McCain and Barack Obama have assembled fine economic teams that may differ on the details of their plans but have reasonable approaches to managing the crisis. So forget the hype. Neither candidate has an advantage on this issue.
On other domestic issues, McCain is just the kind of moderate conservative that the Washington/media establishment once loved — the champion of myriad conservative heresies that made him a burr in the side of congressional Republicans and George W. Bush.
But now that he is standing in the way of an audacity-of-hope Democratic restoration, erstwhile friends recoil from McCain on the pretense that he has suddenly become right wing.
Self-serving rubbish. McCain is who he always was. Generally speaking, he sees government as a Rooseveltian counterweight (Teddy with a touch of Franklin) to the various malefactors of wealth and power.
He wants government to tackle large looming liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. He wants to free up health insurance by beginning to sever its debilitating connection to employment — a ruinous accident of history (arising from World War II wage and price controls) that increases the terror of job loss, inhibits labor mobility and saddles American industry with costs that are driving it (see: Detroit) into insolvency. And he supports lower corporate and marginal tax rates to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation.
An eclectic, moderate, generally centrist agenda in a guy almost congenitally given to bipartisanship.
Obama, on the other hand, talks less and less about bipartisanship, his calling card during his earlier messianic stage. He does not need to. If he wins, he will have large Democratic majorities in both houses. And unlike 1992, Obama is no Clinton centrist.
What will you get?
(1) Card check, meaning the abolition of the secret ballot in the certification of unions in the workplace. Large men will come to your house at night and ask you to sign a card supporting a union. You will sign.
(2) The so-called Fairness Doctrine — a project of Nancy Pelosi and leading Democratic senators — a Hugo Chavez-style travesty designed to abolish conservative talk radio.
(3) Judges who go beyond even the constitutional creativity we expect from Democratic appointees. Judges chosen according to Obama's publicly declared criterion: "empathy" for the "poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old" — in a legal system historically predicated on the idea of justice entirely blind to one's station in life.
(4) An unprecedented expansion of government power. Yes, I know. It has already happened. A conservative government has already partially nationalized the mortgage industry, the insurance industry and nine of the largest U.S. banks.
This is all generally swallowed because everyone understands that the current crisis demands extraordinary measures. The difference is that conservatives are instinctively inclined to make such measures temporary.
Whereas an Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Barney Frank administration will find irresistible the temptation to use the tools inherited — $700 billion of largely uncontrolled spending — as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically remake the American economy and social compact.
This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing, growth-killing marginal tax rates.
The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Last week I made the open-and-shut case for John McCain: In a dangerous world entering an era of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, the choice between the most prepared foreign policy candidate in memory vs. a novice with zero experience and the wobbliest one-world instincts is not a close call.
But it's all about economics and kitchen-table issues, we are told. OK. Start with economics.
Neither candidate has particularly deep economic knowledge or finely honed economic instincts. Neither has any clear idea exactly what to do in the current financial meltdown.
Hell, neither does anyone else, including the best economic minds in the world, from Henry Paulson to the head of the European Central Bank. Yet they have muddled through with some success.
Both McCain and Barack Obama have assembled fine economic teams that may differ on the details of their plans but have reasonable approaches to managing the crisis. So forget the hype. Neither candidate has an advantage on this issue.
On other domestic issues, McCain is just the kind of moderate conservative that the Washington/media establishment once loved — the champion of myriad conservative heresies that made him a burr in the side of congressional Republicans and George W. Bush.
But now that he is standing in the way of an audacity-of-hope Democratic restoration, erstwhile friends recoil from McCain on the pretense that he has suddenly become right wing.
Self-serving rubbish. McCain is who he always was. Generally speaking, he sees government as a Rooseveltian counterweight (Teddy with a touch of Franklin) to the various malefactors of wealth and power.
He wants government to tackle large looming liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. He wants to free up health insurance by beginning to sever its debilitating connection to employment — a ruinous accident of history (arising from World War II wage and price controls) that increases the terror of job loss, inhibits labor mobility and saddles American industry with costs that are driving it (see: Detroit) into insolvency. And he supports lower corporate and marginal tax rates to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation.
An eclectic, moderate, generally centrist agenda in a guy almost congenitally given to bipartisanship.
Obama, on the other hand, talks less and less about bipartisanship, his calling card during his earlier messianic stage. He does not need to. If he wins, he will have large Democratic majorities in both houses. And unlike 1992, Obama is no Clinton centrist.
What will you get?
(1) Card check, meaning the abolition of the secret ballot in the certification of unions in the workplace. Large men will come to your house at night and ask you to sign a card supporting a union. You will sign.
(2) The so-called Fairness Doctrine — a project of Nancy Pelosi and leading Democratic senators — a Hugo Chavez-style travesty designed to abolish conservative talk radio.
(3) Judges who go beyond even the constitutional creativity we expect from Democratic appointees. Judges chosen according to Obama's publicly declared criterion: "empathy" for the "poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old" — in a legal system historically predicated on the idea of justice entirely blind to one's station in life.
(4) An unprecedented expansion of government power. Yes, I know. It has already happened. A conservative government has already partially nationalized the mortgage industry, the insurance industry and nine of the largest U.S. banks.
This is all generally swallowed because everyone understands that the current crisis demands extraordinary measures. The difference is that conservatives are instinctively inclined to make such measures temporary.
Whereas an Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Barney Frank administration will find irresistible the temptation to use the tools inherited — $700 billion of largely uncontrolled spending — as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically remake the American economy and social compact.
This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing, growth-killing marginal tax rates.
The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
All Charisma, No Heart
All Charisma, No Heart
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Character: Barack Obama would "spread the wealth" as president, but until lately the Obamas were giving less than 1% of their own high incomes to the needy and neglecting even poverty-stricken blood relatives.
Sen. Barack Obama is apparently quite a cheapskate when it comes to giving to charity. From 2001 to 2004, the tax returns for Mr. and Mrs. Ebenezer Obama show less than $8,500 in donations out of the nearly $1 million they made.
In 2005 and 2006, with book royalties making them millionaires, their charitable contributions rose to about 5% of income. But how "charitable" are some of the causes Obama supports? In 2006, for instance, he gave more than $20,000 to the notorious Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Imagine that. Giving tens of thousands of dollars to someone who preaches "not God Bless America; God damn America!" from the pulpit. It remains incomprehensible that John McCain chose not to hammer home Obama's close association with Wright. The Wright issue has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with radical ideology.
Another supposed charitable donation was the more than $13,000 Obama gave to the Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC last year confirmed that it is a hard-core segregationist organization. When white liberal Democrat Steve Cohen ran in a majority-black House district in Memphis in 2006, he pledged to become the first white CBC member. But once he won, caucus members told him that whites need not apply.
Juxtapose that with the South Carolina state Republican Party chairman feeling compelled last month to resign his 12-year membership in an exclusive whites-only country club. Imagine the uproar if McCain, like Obama, had given a $13,000 "charitable donation" to a group that restricts membership based on race.
How can Obama spare thousands for Chicago's Muntu Theater of African dance, while allowing his 56-year-old Aunt Zeituni, about whom he reminisces fondly in his best-selling "Dreams From My Father," to live in a South Boston slum, as exposed by the Times of London this week? While Obama was swimming in well over $600 million in cash contributions, his underprivileged Kenyan-born auntie actually sent his campaign a modest donation.
A 2003 Associated Press story profiling poor people who buy lottery tickets at check-cashing stores apparently quotes Obama's Aunt Zeituni, describing her as unemployed and cash-strapped.
Obama's Uncle Omar, also described affectionately in his book, was apparently evicted from his Boston home in 2000 after losing his job. Then there is Obama's 26-year-old half brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama, discovered by the Italian edition of Vanity Fair to be living in a hovel near Nairobi, claiming to earn "less than a dollar a month."
It's funny how Obama can sell his memoir exploiting his relatives and humanize himself for voters, yet be too busy getting ready to change the world to be there for them when they need a hand.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Character: Barack Obama would "spread the wealth" as president, but until lately the Obamas were giving less than 1% of their own high incomes to the needy and neglecting even poverty-stricken blood relatives.
Sen. Barack Obama is apparently quite a cheapskate when it comes to giving to charity. From 2001 to 2004, the tax returns for Mr. and Mrs. Ebenezer Obama show less than $8,500 in donations out of the nearly $1 million they made.
In 2005 and 2006, with book royalties making them millionaires, their charitable contributions rose to about 5% of income. But how "charitable" are some of the causes Obama supports? In 2006, for instance, he gave more than $20,000 to the notorious Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Imagine that. Giving tens of thousands of dollars to someone who preaches "not God Bless America; God damn America!" from the pulpit. It remains incomprehensible that John McCain chose not to hammer home Obama's close association with Wright. The Wright issue has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with radical ideology.
Another supposed charitable donation was the more than $13,000 Obama gave to the Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC last year confirmed that it is a hard-core segregationist organization. When white liberal Democrat Steve Cohen ran in a majority-black House district in Memphis in 2006, he pledged to become the first white CBC member. But once he won, caucus members told him that whites need not apply.
Juxtapose that with the South Carolina state Republican Party chairman feeling compelled last month to resign his 12-year membership in an exclusive whites-only country club. Imagine the uproar if McCain, like Obama, had given a $13,000 "charitable donation" to a group that restricts membership based on race.
How can Obama spare thousands for Chicago's Muntu Theater of African dance, while allowing his 56-year-old Aunt Zeituni, about whom he reminisces fondly in his best-selling "Dreams From My Father," to live in a South Boston slum, as exposed by the Times of London this week? While Obama was swimming in well over $600 million in cash contributions, his underprivileged Kenyan-born auntie actually sent his campaign a modest donation.
A 2003 Associated Press story profiling poor people who buy lottery tickets at check-cashing stores apparently quotes Obama's Aunt Zeituni, describing her as unemployed and cash-strapped.
Obama's Uncle Omar, also described affectionately in his book, was apparently evicted from his Boston home in 2000 after losing his job. Then there is Obama's 26-year-old half brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama, discovered by the Italian edition of Vanity Fair to be living in a hovel near Nairobi, claiming to earn "less than a dollar a month."
It's funny how Obama can sell his memoir exploiting his relatives and humanize himself for voters, yet be too busy getting ready to change the world to be there for them when they need a hand.
October 30, 2008
NEWSSHOPPE READERS PLEASE ALERT YOUR FRIENDS TO THE CONTENTS OF THIS ARTICLE.
WE CERTAINLY DO NOT THE ELECTION STOLEN
Time is running out! We must act now so that left wing groups like ACORN know that they can't get away with "stealing" your vote!
But as if potentially "stealing" your vote was not bad enough - to add insult to injury - a new story has come to light that is equally as troubling:
If you're a soldier overseas - putting your life on the line to defend and preserve our freedoms - FORGET IT... YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK... APPARENTLY YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT!
According to the website StoptheACLU.com:
"This year’s election mischief is not limited to the fraud perpetrated by Obama’s old ACORN friends. Swing state Virginia has been finding lame excuses to toss out military ballots, even as it allows nonresident college students to vote there... As if to replace the military voters who will not be allowed a say in the election, bureaucrats have visited Fairfax County jail to encourage criminals to vote."
Just in case you haven't heard the story, essentially, the Fairfax County Virginia Registrar of Voters found a discrepancy between the Virginia law and the federal law and used it as a pathetic excuse to start throwing out absentee votes of service members.
According to the Associated Press, Fairfax County General Registrar Rokey W. Suleman II said; "We're following the letter of Virginia law."
Jed Babbin with Human Events knew better:
"The just-issued opinion smacks down the partisan effort by Fairfax registrar Rokey Suleman who -- contrary to federal law -- was requiring military absentee ballots to show the address of the witness countersigning the ballot."
For the record, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Bob McDonnell issued an opinion on Monday in defense of our men and women in uniform but Suleman's bone-headed action is just one example of the transparent hypocrisy of the liberal bureaucrats across the country.
It's likely you'll hear of more.
And one thing is becoming abundantly clear.
It's not about attempting to "stop voter disenfranchisement" or making sure that "every vote counts."
That's why, with the election about a week away, we can't afford to lose a second!
Patriotic Americans must stand up and continue to be counted!
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
It's A Little Bigger Than A Few Dead People Voting In Chicago.
Recently, we told you about massive voter registration fraud in Nevada and Georgia.
To refresh your memory, according to the liberal New York Times:
"In the year ending Sept. 30, election officials in Nevada, for example, used the Social Security database more than 740,000 times to check voter files or registration applications and found more than 715,000 nonmatches, federal records show. Election officials in Georgia ran more than 1.9 million checks on voter files or voter registration applications and found more than 260,000 nonmatches."
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Add Indiana, Ohio and Colorado to the list.
According to the Associated Press:
"The Indiana secretary of state's office says it has found evidence of 'multiple criminal violations' in connection with voter registration applications in Lake County. Secretary of State Todd Rokita says they include possible violations of state and federal racketeering laws."
"Rokita says 30 percent of the applications included information that was obviously incorrect, incomplete or illegible. He calls it a "fraud perpetrated on all of the people of Indiana."
As for Ohio... according to UPI:
"President George W. Bush has asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the status of 200,000 newly registered Ohio voters."
Some liberals simply shrug off this threat to our system of government.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile wrote for CNN:
"The so-called ACORN scandal is no more than a few canvassers trying to meet their quota and make easy money by cheating the system."
But others are more brazen and are actually demanding the courts reinstate questionable registrations already purged from the voter rolls.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
"A similar legal drama could play out in Colorado. Republicans there are charging that the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is loading up the voter rolls with unqualified people. Democrats are asking a federal court to reinstate approximately 30,000 Colorado voters purged from registration lists by Secretary of State Mike Coffman, a Republican."
It's becoming painfully obvious.
We're not just talking about a handful of dead people voting in Chicago.
We're talking about bedlam.
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
The Integrity of Our Elections Are At Stake.
There's only ONE way to STOP ACORN.
The actions you take (or do not take) RIGHT NOW as you read this urgent appeal may well determine whether or not ACORN will succeed.
The Internet Blog Powerline.com went so far as to write:
"It is reasonable to ask whether ACORN is in fact a criminal conspiracy to subvert the voting rights of Americans."
ACORN's actions, which are currently under investigation in 12 states, may actually strike at the very heart of the freedoms we cherish and enjoy in the United States of America!
This is one of the most urgent and pivotal letters we've ever put before you.
These are desperate times and simply listening to Sean Hannity or Rush talk about this evolving scandal on the radio WILL NOT STOP ACORN!
Hearing allegations about ACORN on FOX News WILL NOT STOP ACORN!
Simply shooting off an angry e-mail IS NOT going to STOP ACORN!
And no, threatening legal action AFTER the fact IS NOT going to STOP ACORN!
Frankly, RIGHT NOW, talk is cheap.
There's ONLY ONE WAY TO STOP the apparent massive voter fraud that may be taking place right under your nose.
Simply put, it's now within the realm of possibility that hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of fraudulent votes could be cast in pivotal swing states and make a farce of our entire electoral process!
There is not a moment to lose!
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
A History of Fraud and Deceit...
ACORN has a long and dubious history.
House Minority Leader John Boehner recently said:
“Election cycle after election cycle, this organization has been at the forefront of breaking the law in order to promote their left-wing agenda. All the while, they have been the recipients of millions of dollars of federal funding through various federal programs and third-party groups. House Republicans took a stand recently to cut off funding to an ACORN slush fund created by their allies in the House Majority, but now more must be done."
Boehner continued:
"ACORN spent decades promoting the housing policies that brought America’s economy to the brink, and similarly over the years has committed fraud on our system of elections, making American voters question the fairness and accuracy of the exercise of their most fundamental right under the Constitution. Now it is time to cut off ACORN before it grows even more destructive.”
Michael Gaynor with Canada Free Press recounts:
“These are recent complaints, but ACORN’s history is riddled with criminal activity. During the last major election [2006], the Wall Street Journal did a story about ACORN. Four ACORN workers had been indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms to the Kansas City, Missouri, election board; other ACORN workers were convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado and investigations, at the time the article was written, were under way in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania."
Gaynor also writes of more recent indictments and investigations:
"Last year, The Seattle Times reported the biggest voter-registration fraud scheme in Washington history. Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged for filling out and submitting more than 1,800 fictitious voter-registration cards during a 2006 registration drive in King and Pierce counties.’ (Keith Ervin, ‘Three plead guilty in fake voter scheme,’ 10-30-2007)"
"This year, an ACORN employee in West Reading, PA, was sentenced for up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and tampering with records. A second ACORN worker pleaded not guilty to the same charges and is free on $10,000 bail.
"There are also examples of indictments this year, such as the four ACORN employees in Kansas City charged with identity theft and filing false registrations during the 2006 election and the Reynoldsburg fellow indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties. And there are current investigations into ACORN for voter fraud all over the map... ."
If criminal indictments did not deter ACORN in the past...
...why would they deter ACORN NOW?
No, there is only one solution to this problem.
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
WE CERTAINLY DO NOT THE ELECTION STOLEN
Time is running out! We must act now so that left wing groups like ACORN know that they can't get away with "stealing" your vote!
But as if potentially "stealing" your vote was not bad enough - to add insult to injury - a new story has come to light that is equally as troubling:
If you're a soldier overseas - putting your life on the line to defend and preserve our freedoms - FORGET IT... YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK... APPARENTLY YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT!
According to the website StoptheACLU.com:
"This year’s election mischief is not limited to the fraud perpetrated by Obama’s old ACORN friends. Swing state Virginia has been finding lame excuses to toss out military ballots, even as it allows nonresident college students to vote there... As if to replace the military voters who will not be allowed a say in the election, bureaucrats have visited Fairfax County jail to encourage criminals to vote."
Just in case you haven't heard the story, essentially, the Fairfax County Virginia Registrar of Voters found a discrepancy between the Virginia law and the federal law and used it as a pathetic excuse to start throwing out absentee votes of service members.
According to the Associated Press, Fairfax County General Registrar Rokey W. Suleman II said; "We're following the letter of Virginia law."
Jed Babbin with Human Events knew better:
"The just-issued opinion smacks down the partisan effort by Fairfax registrar Rokey Suleman who -- contrary to federal law -- was requiring military absentee ballots to show the address of the witness countersigning the ballot."
For the record, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Bob McDonnell issued an opinion on Monday in defense of our men and women in uniform but Suleman's bone-headed action is just one example of the transparent hypocrisy of the liberal bureaucrats across the country.
It's likely you'll hear of more.
And one thing is becoming abundantly clear.
It's not about attempting to "stop voter disenfranchisement" or making sure that "every vote counts."
That's why, with the election about a week away, we can't afford to lose a second!
Patriotic Americans must stand up and continue to be counted!
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
It's A Little Bigger Than A Few Dead People Voting In Chicago.
Recently, we told you about massive voter registration fraud in Nevada and Georgia.
To refresh your memory, according to the liberal New York Times:
"In the year ending Sept. 30, election officials in Nevada, for example, used the Social Security database more than 740,000 times to check voter files or registration applications and found more than 715,000 nonmatches, federal records show. Election officials in Georgia ran more than 1.9 million checks on voter files or voter registration applications and found more than 260,000 nonmatches."
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Add Indiana, Ohio and Colorado to the list.
According to the Associated Press:
"The Indiana secretary of state's office says it has found evidence of 'multiple criminal violations' in connection with voter registration applications in Lake County. Secretary of State Todd Rokita says they include possible violations of state and federal racketeering laws."
"Rokita says 30 percent of the applications included information that was obviously incorrect, incomplete or illegible. He calls it a "fraud perpetrated on all of the people of Indiana."
As for Ohio... according to UPI:
"President George W. Bush has asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the status of 200,000 newly registered Ohio voters."
Some liberals simply shrug off this threat to our system of government.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile wrote for CNN:
"The so-called ACORN scandal is no more than a few canvassers trying to meet their quota and make easy money by cheating the system."
But others are more brazen and are actually demanding the courts reinstate questionable registrations already purged from the voter rolls.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
"A similar legal drama could play out in Colorado. Republicans there are charging that the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is loading up the voter rolls with unqualified people. Democrats are asking a federal court to reinstate approximately 30,000 Colorado voters purged from registration lists by Secretary of State Mike Coffman, a Republican."
It's becoming painfully obvious.
We're not just talking about a handful of dead people voting in Chicago.
We're talking about bedlam.
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
The Integrity of Our Elections Are At Stake.
There's only ONE way to STOP ACORN.
The actions you take (or do not take) RIGHT NOW as you read this urgent appeal may well determine whether or not ACORN will succeed.
The Internet Blog Powerline.com went so far as to write:
"It is reasonable to ask whether ACORN is in fact a criminal conspiracy to subvert the voting rights of Americans."
ACORN's actions, which are currently under investigation in 12 states, may actually strike at the very heart of the freedoms we cherish and enjoy in the United States of America!
This is one of the most urgent and pivotal letters we've ever put before you.
These are desperate times and simply listening to Sean Hannity or Rush talk about this evolving scandal on the radio WILL NOT STOP ACORN!
Hearing allegations about ACORN on FOX News WILL NOT STOP ACORN!
Simply shooting off an angry e-mail IS NOT going to STOP ACORN!
And no, threatening legal action AFTER the fact IS NOT going to STOP ACORN!
Frankly, RIGHT NOW, talk is cheap.
There's ONLY ONE WAY TO STOP the apparent massive voter fraud that may be taking place right under your nose.
Simply put, it's now within the realm of possibility that hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of fraudulent votes could be cast in pivotal swing states and make a farce of our entire electoral process!
There is not a moment to lose!
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
A History of Fraud and Deceit...
ACORN has a long and dubious history.
House Minority Leader John Boehner recently said:
“Election cycle after election cycle, this organization has been at the forefront of breaking the law in order to promote their left-wing agenda. All the while, they have been the recipients of millions of dollars of federal funding through various federal programs and third-party groups. House Republicans took a stand recently to cut off funding to an ACORN slush fund created by their allies in the House Majority, but now more must be done."
Boehner continued:
"ACORN spent decades promoting the housing policies that brought America’s economy to the brink, and similarly over the years has committed fraud on our system of elections, making American voters question the fairness and accuracy of the exercise of their most fundamental right under the Constitution. Now it is time to cut off ACORN before it grows even more destructive.”
Michael Gaynor with Canada Free Press recounts:
“These are recent complaints, but ACORN’s history is riddled with criminal activity. During the last major election [2006], the Wall Street Journal did a story about ACORN. Four ACORN workers had been indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms to the Kansas City, Missouri, election board; other ACORN workers were convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado and investigations, at the time the article was written, were under way in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania."
Gaynor also writes of more recent indictments and investigations:
"Last year, The Seattle Times reported the biggest voter-registration fraud scheme in Washington history. Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged for filling out and submitting more than 1,800 fictitious voter-registration cards during a 2006 registration drive in King and Pierce counties.’ (Keith Ervin, ‘Three plead guilty in fake voter scheme,’ 10-30-2007)"
"This year, an ACORN employee in West Reading, PA, was sentenced for up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and tampering with records. A second ACORN worker pleaded not guilty to the same charges and is free on $10,000 bail.
"There are also examples of indictments this year, such as the four ACORN employees in Kansas City charged with identity theft and filing false registrations during the 2006 election and the Reynoldsburg fellow indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties. And there are current investigations into ACORN for voter fraud all over the map... ."
If criminal indictments did not deter ACORN in the past...
...why would they deter ACORN NOW?
No, there is only one solution to this problem.
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
STOP THE ACTS OF ACORN
NEWSSHOPPE READERS PLEASE ALERT YOUR FRIENDS TO THE CONTENTS OF THIS ARTICLE.
WE CERTAINLY DO NOT THE ELECTION STOLEN.
Time is running out! We must act now so that left wing groups like ACORN know that they can't get away with "stealing" your vote!
But as if potentially "stealing" your vote was not bad enough - to add insult to injury - a new story has come to light that is equally as troubling:
If you're a soldier overseas - putting your life on the line to defend and preserve our freedoms - FORGET IT... YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK... APPARENTLY YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT!
According to the website StoptheACLU.com:
"This year’s election mischief is not limited to the fraud perpetrated by Obama’s old ACORN friends. Swing state Virginia has been finding lame excuses to toss out military ballots, even as it allows nonresident college students to vote there... As if to replace the military voters who will not be allowed a say in the election, bureaucrats have visited Fairfax County jail to encourage criminals to vote."
Just in case you haven't heard the story, essentially, the Fairfax County Virginia Registrar of Voters found a discrepancy between the Virginia law and the federal law and used it as a pathetic excuse to start throwing out absentee votes of service members.
According to the Associated Press, Fairfax County General Registrar Rokey W. Suleman II said; "We're following the letter of Virginia law."
Jed Babbin with Human Events knew better:
"The just-issued opinion smacks down the partisan effort by Fairfax registrar Rokey Suleman who -- contrary to federal law -- was requiring military absentee ballots to show the address of the witness countersigning the ballot."
For the record, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Bob McDonnell issued an opinion on Monday in defense of our men and women in uniform but Suleman's bone-headed action is just one example of the transparent hypocrisy of the liberal bureaucrats across the country.
It's likely you'll hear of more.
And one thing is becoming abundantly clear.
It's not about attempting to "stop voter disenfranchisement" or making sure that "every vote counts."
That's why, with the election about a week away, we can't afford to lose a second!
Patriotic Americans must stand up and continue to be counted!
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
It's A Little Bigger Than A Few Dead People Voting In Chicago.
Recently, we told you about massive voter registration fraud in Nevada and Georgia.
To refresh your memory, according to the liberal New York Times:
"In the year ending Sept. 30, election officials in Nevada, for example, used the Social Security database more than 740,000 times to check voter files or registration applications and found more than 715,000 nonmatches, federal records show. Election officials in Georgia ran more than 1.9 million checks on voter files or voter registration applications and found more than 260,000 nonmatches."
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Add Indiana, Ohio and Colorado to the list.
According to the Associated Press:
"The Indiana secretary of state's office says it has found evidence of 'multiple criminal violations' in connection with voter registration applications in Lake County. Secretary of State Todd Rokita says they include possible violations of state and federal racketeering laws."
"Rokita says 30 percent of the applications included information that was obviously incorrect, incomplete or illegible. He calls it a "fraud perpetrated on all of the people of Indiana."
As for Ohio... according to UPI:
"President George W. Bush has asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the status of 200,000 newly registered Ohio voters."
Some liberals simply shrug off this threat to our system of government.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile wrote for CNN:
"The so-called ACORN scandal is no more than a few canvassers trying to meet their quota and make easy money by cheating the system."
But others are more brazen and are actually demanding the courts reinstate questionable registrations already purged from the voter rolls.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
"A similar legal drama could play out in Colorado. Republicans there are charging that the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is loading up the voter rolls with unqualified people. Democrats are asking a federal court to reinstate approximately 30,000 Colorado voters purged from registration lists by Secretary of State Mike Coffman, a Republican."
It's becoming painfully obvious.
We're not just talking about a handful of dead people voting in Chicago.
We're talking about bedlam.
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
The Integrity of Our Elections Are At Stake.
There's only ONE way to STOP ACORN.
The actions you take (or do not take) RIGHT NOW as you read this urgent appeal may well determine whether or not ACORN will succeed.
The Internet Blog Powerline.com went so far as to write:
"It is reasonable to ask whether ACORN is in fact a criminal conspiracy to subvert the voting rights of Americans."
ACORN's actions, which are currently under investigation in 12 states, may actually strike at the very heart of the freedoms we cherish and enjoy in the United States of America!
This is one of the most urgent and pivotal letters we've ever put before you.
These are desperate times and simply listening to Sean Hannity or Rush talk about this evolving scandal on the radio WILL NOT STOP ACORN!
Hearing allegations about ACORN on FOX News WILL NOT STOP ACORN!
Simply shooting off an angry e-mail IS NOT going to STOP ACORN!
And no, threatening legal action AFTER the fact IS NOT going to STOP ACORN!
Frankly, RIGHT NOW, talk is cheap.
There's ONLY ONE WAY TO STOP the apparent massive voter fraud that may be taking place right under your nose.
Simply put, it's now within the realm of possibility that hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of fraudulent votes could be cast in pivotal swing states and make a farce of our entire electoral process!
There is not a moment to lose!
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
A History of Fraud and Deceit...
ACORN has a long and dubious history.
House Minority Leader John Boehner recently said:
“Election cycle after election cycle, this organization has been at the forefront of breaking the law in order to promote their left-wing agenda. All the while, they have been the recipients of millions of dollars of federal funding through various federal programs and third-party groups. House Republicans took a stand recently to cut off funding to an ACORN slush fund created by their allies in the House Majority, but now more must be done."
Boehner continued:
"ACORN spent decades promoting the housing policies that brought America’s economy to the brink, and similarly over the years has committed fraud on our system of elections, making American voters question the fairness and accuracy of the exercise of their most fundamental right under the Constitution. Now it is time to cut off ACORN before it grows even more destructive.”
Michael Gaynor with Canada Free Press recounts:
“These are recent complaints, but ACORN’s history is riddled with criminal activity. During the last major election [2006], the Wall Street Journal did a story about ACORN. Four ACORN workers had been indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms to the Kansas City, Missouri, election board; other ACORN workers were convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado and investigations, at the time the article was written, were under way in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania."
Gaynor also writes of more recent indictments and investigations:
"Last year, The Seattle Times reported the biggest voter-registration fraud scheme in Washington history. Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged for filling out and submitting more than 1,800 fictitious voter-registration cards during a 2006 registration drive in King and Pierce counties.’ (Keith Ervin, ‘Three plead guilty in fake voter scheme,’ 10-30-2007)"
"This year, an ACORN employee in West Reading, PA, was sentenced for up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and tampering with records. A second ACORN worker pleaded not guilty to the same charges and is free on $10,000 bail.
"There are also examples of indictments this year, such as the four ACORN employees in Kansas City charged with identity theft and filing false registrations during the 2006 election and the Reynoldsburg fellow indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties. And there are current investigations into ACORN for voter fraud all over the map... ."
If criminal indictments did not deter ACORN in the past...
...why would they deter ACORN NOW?
No, there is only one solution to this problem.
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
WE CERTAINLY DO NOT THE ELECTION STOLEN.
Time is running out! We must act now so that left wing groups like ACORN know that they can't get away with "stealing" your vote!
But as if potentially "stealing" your vote was not bad enough - to add insult to injury - a new story has come to light that is equally as troubling:
If you're a soldier overseas - putting your life on the line to defend and preserve our freedoms - FORGET IT... YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK... APPARENTLY YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT!
According to the website StoptheACLU.com:
"This year’s election mischief is not limited to the fraud perpetrated by Obama’s old ACORN friends. Swing state Virginia has been finding lame excuses to toss out military ballots, even as it allows nonresident college students to vote there... As if to replace the military voters who will not be allowed a say in the election, bureaucrats have visited Fairfax County jail to encourage criminals to vote."
Just in case you haven't heard the story, essentially, the Fairfax County Virginia Registrar of Voters found a discrepancy between the Virginia law and the federal law and used it as a pathetic excuse to start throwing out absentee votes of service members.
According to the Associated Press, Fairfax County General Registrar Rokey W. Suleman II said; "We're following the letter of Virginia law."
Jed Babbin with Human Events knew better:
"The just-issued opinion smacks down the partisan effort by Fairfax registrar Rokey Suleman who -- contrary to federal law -- was requiring military absentee ballots to show the address of the witness countersigning the ballot."
For the record, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Bob McDonnell issued an opinion on Monday in defense of our men and women in uniform but Suleman's bone-headed action is just one example of the transparent hypocrisy of the liberal bureaucrats across the country.
It's likely you'll hear of more.
And one thing is becoming abundantly clear.
It's not about attempting to "stop voter disenfranchisement" or making sure that "every vote counts."
That's why, with the election about a week away, we can't afford to lose a second!
Patriotic Americans must stand up and continue to be counted!
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
It's A Little Bigger Than A Few Dead People Voting In Chicago.
Recently, we told you about massive voter registration fraud in Nevada and Georgia.
To refresh your memory, according to the liberal New York Times:
"In the year ending Sept. 30, election officials in Nevada, for example, used the Social Security database more than 740,000 times to check voter files or registration applications and found more than 715,000 nonmatches, federal records show. Election officials in Georgia ran more than 1.9 million checks on voter files or voter registration applications and found more than 260,000 nonmatches."
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Add Indiana, Ohio and Colorado to the list.
According to the Associated Press:
"The Indiana secretary of state's office says it has found evidence of 'multiple criminal violations' in connection with voter registration applications in Lake County. Secretary of State Todd Rokita says they include possible violations of state and federal racketeering laws."
"Rokita says 30 percent of the applications included information that was obviously incorrect, incomplete or illegible. He calls it a "fraud perpetrated on all of the people of Indiana."
As for Ohio... according to UPI:
"President George W. Bush has asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the status of 200,000 newly registered Ohio voters."
Some liberals simply shrug off this threat to our system of government.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile wrote for CNN:
"The so-called ACORN scandal is no more than a few canvassers trying to meet their quota and make easy money by cheating the system."
But others are more brazen and are actually demanding the courts reinstate questionable registrations already purged from the voter rolls.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
"A similar legal drama could play out in Colorado. Republicans there are charging that the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is loading up the voter rolls with unqualified people. Democrats are asking a federal court to reinstate approximately 30,000 Colorado voters purged from registration lists by Secretary of State Mike Coffman, a Republican."
It's becoming painfully obvious.
We're not just talking about a handful of dead people voting in Chicago.
We're talking about bedlam.
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
The Integrity of Our Elections Are At Stake.
There's only ONE way to STOP ACORN.
The actions you take (or do not take) RIGHT NOW as you read this urgent appeal may well determine whether or not ACORN will succeed.
The Internet Blog Powerline.com went so far as to write:
"It is reasonable to ask whether ACORN is in fact a criminal conspiracy to subvert the voting rights of Americans."
ACORN's actions, which are currently under investigation in 12 states, may actually strike at the very heart of the freedoms we cherish and enjoy in the United States of America!
This is one of the most urgent and pivotal letters we've ever put before you.
These are desperate times and simply listening to Sean Hannity or Rush talk about this evolving scandal on the radio WILL NOT STOP ACORN!
Hearing allegations about ACORN on FOX News WILL NOT STOP ACORN!
Simply shooting off an angry e-mail IS NOT going to STOP ACORN!
And no, threatening legal action AFTER the fact IS NOT going to STOP ACORN!
Frankly, RIGHT NOW, talk is cheap.
There's ONLY ONE WAY TO STOP the apparent massive voter fraud that may be taking place right under your nose.
Simply put, it's now within the realm of possibility that hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of fraudulent votes could be cast in pivotal swing states and make a farce of our entire electoral process!
There is not a moment to lose!
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
A History of Fraud and Deceit...
ACORN has a long and dubious history.
House Minority Leader John Boehner recently said:
“Election cycle after election cycle, this organization has been at the forefront of breaking the law in order to promote their left-wing agenda. All the while, they have been the recipients of millions of dollars of federal funding through various federal programs and third-party groups. House Republicans took a stand recently to cut off funding to an ACORN slush fund created by their allies in the House Majority, but now more must be done."
Boehner continued:
"ACORN spent decades promoting the housing policies that brought America’s economy to the brink, and similarly over the years has committed fraud on our system of elections, making American voters question the fairness and accuracy of the exercise of their most fundamental right under the Constitution. Now it is time to cut off ACORN before it grows even more destructive.”
Michael Gaynor with Canada Free Press recounts:
“These are recent complaints, but ACORN’s history is riddled with criminal activity. During the last major election [2006], the Wall Street Journal did a story about ACORN. Four ACORN workers had been indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms to the Kansas City, Missouri, election board; other ACORN workers were convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado and investigations, at the time the article was written, were under way in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania."
Gaynor also writes of more recent indictments and investigations:
"Last year, The Seattle Times reported the biggest voter-registration fraud scheme in Washington history. Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged for filling out and submitting more than 1,800 fictitious voter-registration cards during a 2006 registration drive in King and Pierce counties.’ (Keith Ervin, ‘Three plead guilty in fake voter scheme,’ 10-30-2007)"
"This year, an ACORN employee in West Reading, PA, was sentenced for up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and tampering with records. A second ACORN worker pleaded not guilty to the same charges and is free on $10,000 bail.
"There are also examples of indictments this year, such as the four ACORN employees in Kansas City charged with identity theft and filing false registrations during the 2006 election and the Reynoldsburg fellow indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties. And there are current investigations into ACORN for voter fraud all over the map... ."
If criminal indictments did not deter ACORN in the past...
...why would they deter ACORN NOW?
No, there is only one solution to this problem.
Some battles must be fought to the bitter end... win, lose or draw. This is one of those battles. This is one of those times. We simply cannot stop now... we must fight this battle to the bitter end. If we don't, lawmakers and bureaucrats across the country will think the American people will simply roll over and accept what constitutes a complete mockery of our electoral process. It will never end and each mockery and offense will simply become more egregious and more blatant. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent, separate and distinct Blast Faxes to President George W. Bush and each and every Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them to call Congress back into session immediately and demand that they pass emergency legislation that will require all voters to present valid state or federal IDs at the polling place or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Tell them that the cherished privilege to vote is pivotal to our way of life and MUST be protected from ALL illegitimate challenges whether they come from the political left or the political right!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/acorniiinm.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the button does not work, you should copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
We MUST flood our legislative officials with high-impact faxes and calls. After you take action, please forward this urgent and time sensitive alert to at least 10 of your friends. Our system of government hangs in the balance!
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
Obama's 'Change' Is Socialism
Obama's 'Change' Is Socialism
Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:56 AM
By: Michael Reagan
The other day, I went to a Hollywood luncheon crammed with producers, directors, writers, and other film industry notables.
One of them, Larry Gelbart of “MASH” fame, spoke telling the group that since capitalism has failed, why don’t we try socialism?
Try socialism? Take a sip of it and see how it tastes? It doesn’t work that way.
There’s an old saying that you can’t be half-socialist any more than you can be half-pregnant; get knocked up with a socialist fetus and you’ll have to deliver a full-born Marxist. There’s nothing in between. Try it, you’ll like it; and if you don’t, as the lads in the Gestapo used to tell people, they had ways to make them like it.
Larry Gelbart gorged himself at the capitalist table and came away with untold millions, now safely banked, and continues to collect even more millions from never-ending reruns of the “MASH” sitcom. Having made his bundle from our capitalist free-enterprise system, he seems to be telling us now that the rest of us should get in the socialist bread line and eat crumbs while he feasts on caviar.
One of the realities of this age is that the great mass of the American people haven’t traveled abroad to see how the rest of the world lives, a lot of it under dreary socialist regimes with stalled economies and no real chance for advancement for the ordinary citizen.
Moreover, our shoddy educational curriculum that has left most younger Americans so deficient in the study of history that vast numbers of them think George Washington was a Civil War general, or a lumberman who chopped down cherry trees. They have no real understanding of the economic system that allowed us to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation since the Roman Empire ruled most of the known world 2,000 years ago.
Given that mournful reality, the moment the economic Rolls Royce engine that drove this nation to the top of the hill stalls, instead of installing new spark plugs to get it going again, they go looking for an alternative mode of transportation.
In the present case, Obama and the Democrats are directing them to Larry Gelbart’s used-economic system lot where he shows them a jalopy with a fancy paint job on the outside and a one-cylinder motor inside that goes chug-chug.
Listening to the advice of a man who made his name and his money on a show about America’s military at war — yet told the same audience that our armed forces are nothing but “mercenaries” — doesn’t seem the smartest thing to do.
We are now a few days away from an election in which one of the presidential candidates is trying to sell that jalopy on Larry Gelbart’s lot and convince us that it is really a luxury limo that will get hundreds of miles to the gallon and carry us off to the promised land, where the rich will be impoverished and the middle class enriched and everybody will be deliriously happy.
Call Barack Obama’s program socialism, however, and he’ll swear on a stack of Qurans it isn’t. He calls it change. He says it’s fairness, not Marxism.
Oh?
How does he explain the proven fact that he has been wallowing in a sty surrounded by fervent socialists and sharing in their swill for most of his life?
According to Fox’s Bill Sammon, his messiahship recalled that when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles "to avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," he wrote in "Dreams From My Father," his memoir. "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." And that was his milieu for all his years in Chicago.
To anyone familiar with socialism, Obama’s programs fit comfortably within the pages of Karl Marx’s playbook, the root of which is the redistribution of the wealth, the key to the entire Obamian vault.
What’s mine is yours, and he’s the middle man.
It’s socialism lite, and it can only evolve into socialism heavy. Remember, you can’t be half-socialist, and Barack Obama knows it.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:56 AM
By: Michael Reagan
The other day, I went to a Hollywood luncheon crammed with producers, directors, writers, and other film industry notables.
One of them, Larry Gelbart of “MASH” fame, spoke telling the group that since capitalism has failed, why don’t we try socialism?
Try socialism? Take a sip of it and see how it tastes? It doesn’t work that way.
There’s an old saying that you can’t be half-socialist any more than you can be half-pregnant; get knocked up with a socialist fetus and you’ll have to deliver a full-born Marxist. There’s nothing in between. Try it, you’ll like it; and if you don’t, as the lads in the Gestapo used to tell people, they had ways to make them like it.
Larry Gelbart gorged himself at the capitalist table and came away with untold millions, now safely banked, and continues to collect even more millions from never-ending reruns of the “MASH” sitcom. Having made his bundle from our capitalist free-enterprise system, he seems to be telling us now that the rest of us should get in the socialist bread line and eat crumbs while he feasts on caviar.
One of the realities of this age is that the great mass of the American people haven’t traveled abroad to see how the rest of the world lives, a lot of it under dreary socialist regimes with stalled economies and no real chance for advancement for the ordinary citizen.
Moreover, our shoddy educational curriculum that has left most younger Americans so deficient in the study of history that vast numbers of them think George Washington was a Civil War general, or a lumberman who chopped down cherry trees. They have no real understanding of the economic system that allowed us to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation since the Roman Empire ruled most of the known world 2,000 years ago.
Given that mournful reality, the moment the economic Rolls Royce engine that drove this nation to the top of the hill stalls, instead of installing new spark plugs to get it going again, they go looking for an alternative mode of transportation.
In the present case, Obama and the Democrats are directing them to Larry Gelbart’s used-economic system lot where he shows them a jalopy with a fancy paint job on the outside and a one-cylinder motor inside that goes chug-chug.
Listening to the advice of a man who made his name and his money on a show about America’s military at war — yet told the same audience that our armed forces are nothing but “mercenaries” — doesn’t seem the smartest thing to do.
We are now a few days away from an election in which one of the presidential candidates is trying to sell that jalopy on Larry Gelbart’s lot and convince us that it is really a luxury limo that will get hundreds of miles to the gallon and carry us off to the promised land, where the rich will be impoverished and the middle class enriched and everybody will be deliriously happy.
Call Barack Obama’s program socialism, however, and he’ll swear on a stack of Qurans it isn’t. He calls it change. He says it’s fairness, not Marxism.
Oh?
How does he explain the proven fact that he has been wallowing in a sty surrounded by fervent socialists and sharing in their swill for most of his life?
According to Fox’s Bill Sammon, his messiahship recalled that when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles "to avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," he wrote in "Dreams From My Father," his memoir. "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." And that was his milieu for all his years in Chicago.
To anyone familiar with socialism, Obama’s programs fit comfortably within the pages of Karl Marx’s playbook, the root of which is the redistribution of the wealth, the key to the entire Obamian vault.
What’s mine is yours, and he’s the middle man.
It’s socialism lite, and it can only evolve into socialism heavy. Remember, you can’t be half-socialist, and Barack Obama knows it.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Obama Would Kill Millions of Jobs
Romney: Obama Would Kill Millions of Jobs
Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:11 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
In the final days of the campaign, John McCain needs to emphasize that Barack Obama would kill millions of jobs, Mitt Romney tells Newsmax.
“It’s too late in the process to be unveiling new initiatives,” Romney says. “Instead, you focus on the consequences of an Obama presidency and the benefits of a McCain presidency. And frankly, in my lifetime, I don’t recall a more anti-job program than Barack Obama’s.”
McCain’s program creates jobs, Romney says, while Obama’s shrinks them.
“My own view is that’s the message in the last days. Boil it down in a way that people understand,” Romney says. “You don’t have to go through all the differences and the details. The headline is: Barack Obama will kill millions of jobs in America; John McCain will create millions of jobs in America.”
While the economic crisis has hurt McCain’s chances, “What caused this downturn was profligate borrowing in the mortgage market,” Romney observes. “And who’s been pushing that? Democrats and a lot of Republicans. And then, when it came to regulate that borrowing, Republicans wanted to regulate it and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrats said no, just hand out the money. That’s what caused this downturn.”
In fact, “Republican Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire authored a bill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Democrats blocked it,” Romney says. “This is Barney Frank trying to do the old two-step. This is the guy that led the charge to hand out mortgage money to people who couldn’t afford to pay. And it’s caused the crisis that we’re seeing. It’s just easy to say blame George Bush, and that’s what the Democrats are doing.”
Obama’s program would kill jobs because it would raise taxes on companies and entrepreneurships that create jobs, Romney says.
In addition, “Putting a penalty on employers that don’t provide a government-approved healthcare program kills jobs,” he says. “The card check program to unionize small business kills a lot of jobs, permanently. And John McCain’s program creates jobs.
"He lowers taxes on employers to create incentives to add jobs. He puts in place a healthcare plan that lets individuals buy their own insurance and keeps the burden off employers. And he invests in truly becoming energy independent, which lowers our energy prices and makes it more attractive to do business in this country.”
Romney has been campaigning for McCain and he's also been campaigning for 28 congressional candidates, five U.S. Senate candidates, and two gubernatorial candidates.
Formed in April, Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC has donated $202,000 to 75 GOP candidates. He’s made another $173,000 in donations through his affiliated state PACs, including to the National Organization of Marriage in California to pass Proposition 8 and to an effort to stop a ballot initiative in Massachusetts to decriminalize marijuana use.
In all, financial support through Romney-controlled state and federal PACs has totaled $375,000.
Asked whether he would run for the presidency again, Romney says, “As you know, politics is a lot about timing; and when the window opens, you either step through or you decide not to. Well, the window opened for me, I stepped through, I got on the stage, battled hard, but I lost fair and square. And looking down the road, it’s hard to imagine the window opening again. But you know, time will tell.”
In the meantime, Romney is going on a whirlwind tour in the final days of the campaign.
“I think this is an absolutely critical time for our country, so all the team is pulling on the oars as hard as we can,” Romney says. “I’ve seen John McCain come from behind before, and it was in the race where he was running against me and Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani. He surprises folks. There’s not a lot of time to go, but I don’t count this race over yet.”
Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:11 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
In the final days of the campaign, John McCain needs to emphasize that Barack Obama would kill millions of jobs, Mitt Romney tells Newsmax.
“It’s too late in the process to be unveiling new initiatives,” Romney says. “Instead, you focus on the consequences of an Obama presidency and the benefits of a McCain presidency. And frankly, in my lifetime, I don’t recall a more anti-job program than Barack Obama’s.”
McCain’s program creates jobs, Romney says, while Obama’s shrinks them.
“My own view is that’s the message in the last days. Boil it down in a way that people understand,” Romney says. “You don’t have to go through all the differences and the details. The headline is: Barack Obama will kill millions of jobs in America; John McCain will create millions of jobs in America.”
While the economic crisis has hurt McCain’s chances, “What caused this downturn was profligate borrowing in the mortgage market,” Romney observes. “And who’s been pushing that? Democrats and a lot of Republicans. And then, when it came to regulate that borrowing, Republicans wanted to regulate it and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrats said no, just hand out the money. That’s what caused this downturn.”
In fact, “Republican Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire authored a bill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Democrats blocked it,” Romney says. “This is Barney Frank trying to do the old two-step. This is the guy that led the charge to hand out mortgage money to people who couldn’t afford to pay. And it’s caused the crisis that we’re seeing. It’s just easy to say blame George Bush, and that’s what the Democrats are doing.”
Obama’s program would kill jobs because it would raise taxes on companies and entrepreneurships that create jobs, Romney says.
In addition, “Putting a penalty on employers that don’t provide a government-approved healthcare program kills jobs,” he says. “The card check program to unionize small business kills a lot of jobs, permanently. And John McCain’s program creates jobs.
"He lowers taxes on employers to create incentives to add jobs. He puts in place a healthcare plan that lets individuals buy their own insurance and keeps the burden off employers. And he invests in truly becoming energy independent, which lowers our energy prices and makes it more attractive to do business in this country.”
Romney has been campaigning for McCain and he's also been campaigning for 28 congressional candidates, five U.S. Senate candidates, and two gubernatorial candidates.
Formed in April, Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC has donated $202,000 to 75 GOP candidates. He’s made another $173,000 in donations through his affiliated state PACs, including to the National Organization of Marriage in California to pass Proposition 8 and to an effort to stop a ballot initiative in Massachusetts to decriminalize marijuana use.
In all, financial support through Romney-controlled state and federal PACs has totaled $375,000.
Asked whether he would run for the presidency again, Romney says, “As you know, politics is a lot about timing; and when the window opens, you either step through or you decide not to. Well, the window opened for me, I stepped through, I got on the stage, battled hard, but I lost fair and square. And looking down the road, it’s hard to imagine the window opening again. But you know, time will tell.”
In the meantime, Romney is going on a whirlwind tour in the final days of the campaign.
“I think this is an absolutely critical time for our country, so all the team is pulling on the oars as hard as we can,” Romney says. “I’ve seen John McCain come from behind before, and it was in the race where he was running against me and Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani. He surprises folks. There’s not a lot of time to go, but I don’t count this race over yet.”
McCain Slams Obama for Breaking Donation Vow
McCain Slams Obama for Breaking Donation Vow
Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:25 PM
By: David A. Patten
Sen. Barack Obama bought his eye-popping, prime-time TV extravaganza with $4 million and something else: “It was paid for with broken promises,” says Sen. John McCain.
McCain is slamming Obama for breaking pledges to abide by campaign finance reform and accept public financing for his campaign.
“When you’re watching this gauzy, feel-good commercial, just remember that it was paid for with broken promises,” McCain said Wednesday evening. “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”
Obama’s campaign “is now being flooded with hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed and questionable donations,”McCain said.
Obama’s June flip-flop on financing drew sharp criticism from some quarters but not generally from the mainstream media. Conservative direct-marketing guru Richard Viguerie told Newsmax the shift is part of a larger pattern.
“The facts of life are that Senator Obama makes decisions that help advance his career, and promises and relationships are to be discarded if they interfere with his ambitions,” Viguerie said.
Obama is the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public system of financing presidential campaigns. That system, which is designed to reduce the influence of huge campaign contributions on presidential politics, would have limited Obama to the same $85 million that McCain received when he accepted public financing.
When Obama announced his decision in June to reverse course and reject public financing, his aides confided privately that it could mar Obama’s image as a reformer offering a new brand of politics.
At the time, Obama blamed his decision on McCain and the GOP. “We’ve already seen that [McCain] is not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies’ running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations,” Obama said.
Viguerie rejects that explanation as “nothing more than a small and transparent fig leaf.”
Obama’s decision to reject public financing was a sharp reversal from earlier promises:
In early 2007, in a Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing, Obama stated that he wanted to work out an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing.
Obama also stated on a questionnaire, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,” according to The New York Times,
On Feb. 26, during the Democratic primary debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Obama said, “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure we have a system that works for everybody.” The McCain campaign maintains that Obama’s operatives never joined them in substantive negotiations before Obama’s announcement that he would not accept public financing.
On April 27, Obama told Fox News host Chris Wallace: “I have promised that I would sit down with John McCan and talk about can we preserve a public [financing] system.”
Obama’s reversal on public campaign financing, and the huge amounts of cash he is raising from unidentified or untraceable donors, inevitably will lead to a major scandal, McCain has warned. Obama has raised close to $200 million from donations of $200 or less, the level at which donors’ names do not have to be reported to the SEC. McCain has released the names of all of his donors, including those who contributed less than $200.
“Senator Obama has unleashed a force which we will pay a very dear price for sometime in the future, if not now,” McCain told The Washington Times on Oct. 22. “Because it’s very unlikely we can track down and document the contributions that he refused to reveal.”
Independent 527 groups, named after the section of the tax code that allows them to participate in political activity without being taxed, have almost gone unnoticed in this year’s election. Several reasons have been cited for their reduced impact:
The downturn in the economy has reduced the donations given to the independent groups that mount 527 campaigns.
McCain, a staunch advocate of campaign-finance reform, is a long-time critic of the influence of so-called soft-money, which may have discouraged some contributors.
The FEC fined several 527 organizations for their activities following the 2004 election, and the prospect of legal entanglements may have made them less attractive vehicles for influencing elections.
At the time Obama opted out of public financing, his advisers expected he could raise $200 to $300 million for the general election. Obama’s actual fundraising figures have far exceeded that amount. His campaign raised more than $150 million in September alone, which has allowed him to outspend McCain in some key battleground states by a margin of 2-to-1.
Indeed, it now appears likely that Obama will raise and spend more money than President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, combined, spent in 2004. And those figures do not account for the massive assistance Obama has received from groups such as ACORN, the AFL-CIO and other unions, abortion-rights, and other organizations.
Obama’s use of the Internet is sure to revolutionize campaign financing, experts say. But whether it will also trigger a push for reform remains to be seen. The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint with the FEC charging that a host of Obama donations come from fictitious figures or foreign sources, or exceed the legal limits.
All of which means that the burgeoning controversy over Obama’s fundraising practices may dog his administration from the very outset, if he wins the election.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:25 PM
By: David A. Patten
Sen. Barack Obama bought his eye-popping, prime-time TV extravaganza with $4 million and something else: “It was paid for with broken promises,” says Sen. John McCain.
McCain is slamming Obama for breaking pledges to abide by campaign finance reform and accept public financing for his campaign.
“When you’re watching this gauzy, feel-good commercial, just remember that it was paid for with broken promises,” McCain said Wednesday evening. “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”
Obama’s campaign “is now being flooded with hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed and questionable donations,”McCain said.
Obama’s June flip-flop on financing drew sharp criticism from some quarters but not generally from the mainstream media. Conservative direct-marketing guru Richard Viguerie told Newsmax the shift is part of a larger pattern.
“The facts of life are that Senator Obama makes decisions that help advance his career, and promises and relationships are to be discarded if they interfere with his ambitions,” Viguerie said.
Obama is the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public system of financing presidential campaigns. That system, which is designed to reduce the influence of huge campaign contributions on presidential politics, would have limited Obama to the same $85 million that McCain received when he accepted public financing.
When Obama announced his decision in June to reverse course and reject public financing, his aides confided privately that it could mar Obama’s image as a reformer offering a new brand of politics.
At the time, Obama blamed his decision on McCain and the GOP. “We’ve already seen that [McCain] is not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies’ running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations,” Obama said.
Viguerie rejects that explanation as “nothing more than a small and transparent fig leaf.”
Obama’s decision to reject public financing was a sharp reversal from earlier promises:
In early 2007, in a Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing, Obama stated that he wanted to work out an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing.
Obama also stated on a questionnaire, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,” according to The New York Times,
On Feb. 26, during the Democratic primary debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Obama said, “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure we have a system that works for everybody.” The McCain campaign maintains that Obama’s operatives never joined them in substantive negotiations before Obama’s announcement that he would not accept public financing.
On April 27, Obama told Fox News host Chris Wallace: “I have promised that I would sit down with John McCan and talk about can we preserve a public [financing] system.”
Obama’s reversal on public campaign financing, and the huge amounts of cash he is raising from unidentified or untraceable donors, inevitably will lead to a major scandal, McCain has warned. Obama has raised close to $200 million from donations of $200 or less, the level at which donors’ names do not have to be reported to the SEC. McCain has released the names of all of his donors, including those who contributed less than $200.
“Senator Obama has unleashed a force which we will pay a very dear price for sometime in the future, if not now,” McCain told The Washington Times on Oct. 22. “Because it’s very unlikely we can track down and document the contributions that he refused to reveal.”
Independent 527 groups, named after the section of the tax code that allows them to participate in political activity without being taxed, have almost gone unnoticed in this year’s election. Several reasons have been cited for their reduced impact:
The downturn in the economy has reduced the donations given to the independent groups that mount 527 campaigns.
McCain, a staunch advocate of campaign-finance reform, is a long-time critic of the influence of so-called soft-money, which may have discouraged some contributors.
The FEC fined several 527 organizations for their activities following the 2004 election, and the prospect of legal entanglements may have made them less attractive vehicles for influencing elections.
At the time Obama opted out of public financing, his advisers expected he could raise $200 to $300 million for the general election. Obama’s actual fundraising figures have far exceeded that amount. His campaign raised more than $150 million in September alone, which has allowed him to outspend McCain in some key battleground states by a margin of 2-to-1.
Indeed, it now appears likely that Obama will raise and spend more money than President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, combined, spent in 2004. And those figures do not account for the massive assistance Obama has received from groups such as ACORN, the AFL-CIO and other unions, abortion-rights, and other organizations.
Obama’s use of the Internet is sure to revolutionize campaign financing, experts say. But whether it will also trigger a push for reform remains to be seen. The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint with the FEC charging that a host of Obama donations come from fictitious figures or foreign sources, or exceed the legal limits.
All of which means that the burgeoning controversy over Obama’s fundraising practices may dog his administration from the very outset, if he wins the election.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations
Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:27 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.
Some of these “red flag” donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.
A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed “yellow flags” such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten.
Under federal law, only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate to federal political campaigns. It is illegal for the campaigns to accept money knowingly from foreign donors.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 placed new restrictions on political fundraising after the scandals of 1996, when the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was exposed for having taken millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.
But even with the new laws, it remains very difficult to identify with any precision foreign money if a campaign itself does not cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and perform its own due diligence.
Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money.
The Newsmax investigation focused only on donors whose names the Obama campaign disclosed, which are available to public scrutiny through the Federal Election Commission Web site.
In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.
That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.
For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”
Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama’s donor list to identify those who apparently aren’t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis.
Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obama donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.
“Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors,” Rustmann said. “Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”
Rustmann and his investigative team expressed “high suspicions” that 118 donors flagged as “red” were not U.S. citizens.
“That’s all we can say for certain, because it’s difficult to prove citizenship with no database that lists citizens,” Rustmann said.
Typical is Victor A. of Lagos, Nigeria, who gave $500 to the campaign in May. In the FEC database, his address is listed as Ikoyi, NA. But a closer look at the actual itemized receipts filed by the campaign shows that he declared his address as 9e Awori Street Dolphin Estate, Lagos, Nigeria.
That apparently slipped by the eagle eyes of the Obama campaign’s finance team.
A survey of the Obama donor base returns 8,794 donations from individuals who gave their state as “NA.” They included donors from Bangalore, India; London; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Lagos, Nigeria; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Thousands more gave state abbreviations that, combined with the city addresses they listed, clearly referred to foreign countries. Examples include IT (Italy), FR (France), GR (Greece), NZ (New Zealand), JP (Japan), GA (Gaza).
Another 2,372 donors gave their state of residence as “ZZ,” with cities including Moscow, Barcelona, Beirut, London, Lausanne, Singapore, Hagatna, Gunma-Ken, Buelach, Shanghai, Geneva, Prague, Aichi-Gun, Kiev, Hong Kong, and others.
The Obama campaign claims that these donors with overseas addresses are Americans living abroad, but there is no way of knowing that for certain because the campaign has not systematically required proof of citizenship from overseas donors.
The pace of foreign donations and other questionable fundraising practices has increased during the past few weeks, even as Obama campaign spokesmen say they have closed loopholes on their Web site and changed the credit-card authorization procedures that have allowed such donations. The Federal Election Commission had flagged 16,639 potential foreign donations as of Oct. 21 that brought in $5,249,263.96 to the campaign.
Take the case of Jo Jacquet, who gave $23,065 to Obama in 23 separate contributions last month. CTC found three people with variations of the name “Jo Anna Jacquet” who had U.S. addresses and Social Security numbers. It is not clear whether this specific Obama donor is a U.S. citizen.
“Jo Jacquet” made all of her contributions on two days, alternating between $5 and $2,300 charges to a credit card.
On all of the donations, she gave her employer as “DFDFGDFG,” and her profession as “DFGDFGDFGHFGH.” None of this attracted the suspicions of the Obama campaign or of Chase Paymentech, the company that processes the Obama campaign’s credit card donations.
The FEC requested that the Obama campaign re-attribute or re-designate all of the money from “Jo Jacquet” that went beyond the $4,600 limit but did not require that it be refunded. Under campaign finance rules, the campaign can shift this money into the “Obama Victory” account, a joint fundraising committee with much higher individual limits that it operates with the Democratic National Committee.
One apparent reason for the unusual number of foreign donors who may not hold U.S. citizenship is the fact the Obama campaign turned off the security features most merchants demand for customers when doing online transactions, such as verifying the card number against the cardholder’s name and billing address.
Another major loophole is the apparent widespread use of gift cards, which notoriously have been used for money-laundering purposes, especially in places such as Russia and Ukraine, industry security analysts tell Newsmax.
Newsmax asked James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, who was responsible for taking the unusual step of deactivating the Address Verification Service recommended by VISA USA on the Obama Web site. Such security features can be deactivated by the processing company, or at the request of the merchant, in this case, Obama for America.
Wester said that Paymentech was “not going to be issuing a statement at this time.”
VISA USA has a series of verification tools it recommends to online merchants to prevent online credit card fraud and to guarantee the security of personal credit-card information.
“Fraudsters have been known to test credit card numbers by making online donations to charitable organizations,” a credit-card industry insider told Newsmax, on condition of anonymity.
In fact, by operating as a “high-risk merchant,” the Obama campaign could put both its donors and Chase Paymentech at risk, he said.
“A legitimate online merchant or charity would call in the Secret Service or the FBI” if it saw the high fraud rates that have appeared on the Obama campaign Web site.
“If they are not taking basic security safeguards to prevent such obvious online fraud as you have found, then how can any donor have confidence that they will protect credit card information? But if cash flow is the name of the game, it doesn’t matter as long as they get the money up-front and get the job done. They can pay the fines later,” he added.
Following are a few of the individuals the Newsmax/CTC International investigation found of overseas donors. To demonstrate its compliance with FEC regulations, the Obama campaign should request proof that these individuals are, indeed, U.S. citizens;
Nasser Z. of 187 Blvd Bineau in Paris-France, “NA,” made seven donations totaling $785. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship. But on Nasser’s personal blog, he states that he is of Algerian origin and lives between Paris and Dubai. He also notes that he is not registered to vote in the United States and hints that he may be an adviser to the Obama campaign on Arab relations.
Salem H. gave $200 to the campaign in March 2008, listing a London address. He said he worked as a salesman for “Anaka,” No information was found either on Haffar or his company indicating U.S. citizenship.
Essomba H. made 11 donations totaling $265. Essomba gave an address in Lyon, “NA,” and said he was unemployed but working for “Association,” the French equivalent of a community organizer. CTC found that Essomba actually worked for PDT Associates Afrikespace et Oyenga, which showed him as living in Lyon, France. His personal blog states, "I'm a Cameroonian living in France” and notes that he is not registered to vote.
Gedewon (or Gideon) G. made 32 donations totaling $1,095. Although he lists his employer as “Filtom Design Services” and his residence as Toronto, Canada, CTC could find no company with that name. Gedewon frequently posts blogs to a Web site for expatriate Eritreans, where he often promotes Obama.
Mahamane M. gave $500 to the campaign and listed his address as Niamey, the capitol of the central African state of Niger. He listed his occupation as managing director of C.N.U.T. Niger. The Public Transport Users Council, CNUT is affiliated with the prime minister’s office. In an interview, Mahamane said he is particularly interested in developing transportation resources that will help bring Niger’s extensive uranium resources to market.
Gilles M. lives in Zurich and claims to be “founder and senior consultant” of 4?ME (sic) Image Consulting. Gilles made three donations to the campaign for a total of $240.39. The campaign found him suspicious enough to return one of them in July, but kept the rest. Under FEC rules, that will bring Gilles back into the shadows, since his aggregate contributions now total less than $200.
Stamen S. of Sofia, Bulgaria, lists his profession as “Mployer” and his employer as "Employer." He has made ten donations totaling $170. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Francis B. . of La Creche, France, made three donations totaling $200. He is reported as being a medicine physician at Hospital-Niort and is listed. CTC found no verifiable record of U.S. citizenship.
Pedro M.,. who said he was a salesman for Intermundo in Prague, made two donations for a total of $900. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Sandeep M., . an investment manager at Clariden Leu, Kuesnacht, in Zurich, Switzerland, gave the maximum $2,300 allowed per election. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Marissa M., . a nurse living in Guatemala City, gave eight $25 donations. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Somine L. . declared that she worked at the French Ministry of Culture in Paris, and donated $100. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Although CTC had no way of accurately evaluating the real amount of foreign donations based on the survey they did for Newsmax, Rustmann said he believe that the anecdotal evidence was clear.
“In my opinion, from what I have seen here, millions of dollars came from illegal donations, because the Obama campaign did little to vet the donors,” Rustmann said.
An earlier Newsmax estimate, based on the unusual occurrence of unrounded contributions, which fundraising experts attributed to foreign currency donations, concluded that as much as $63 million could have come from foreign sources.
A veteran investigator with the Criminal Investigative Division of the U.S. Secret Service told Newsmax on Monday that most of the donor fraud Newsmax has identified could fly under the radar of federal investigators, unless the feds received a complaint from a victim of identify fraud.
Identify fraud certainly appeared to be the case when it came to the $174,800 donated in September in the name of Manchester, Mo., resident, Mary T. Biskup. A retired insurance manager, Biksup told The Washington Post that she never gave the money to the Obama campaign, and had checked her credit-card statements and couldn’t find any trace of a charge to her account.
“We're not out a penny," Biskup said. "I gather that someone has hacked into something using other people's credit cards and putting my name on it."
The credit-card industry often covers up identify fraud, such as apparently occurred with Biskup. Credit-card companies would rather swallow losses and chargebacks than admit to consumers that criminals have cracked their security systems, insiders tell Newsmax.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:27 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.
Some of these “red flag” donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.
A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed “yellow flags” such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten.
Under federal law, only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate to federal political campaigns. It is illegal for the campaigns to accept money knowingly from foreign donors.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 placed new restrictions on political fundraising after the scandals of 1996, when the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was exposed for having taken millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.
But even with the new laws, it remains very difficult to identify with any precision foreign money if a campaign itself does not cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and perform its own due diligence.
Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money.
The Newsmax investigation focused only on donors whose names the Obama campaign disclosed, which are available to public scrutiny through the Federal Election Commission Web site.
In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.
That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.
For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”
Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama’s donor list to identify those who apparently aren’t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis.
Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obama donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.
“Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors,” Rustmann said. “Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”
Rustmann and his investigative team expressed “high suspicions” that 118 donors flagged as “red” were not U.S. citizens.
“That’s all we can say for certain, because it’s difficult to prove citizenship with no database that lists citizens,” Rustmann said.
Typical is Victor A. of Lagos, Nigeria, who gave $500 to the campaign in May. In the FEC database, his address is listed as Ikoyi, NA. But a closer look at the actual itemized receipts filed by the campaign shows that he declared his address as 9e Awori Street Dolphin Estate, Lagos, Nigeria.
That apparently slipped by the eagle eyes of the Obama campaign’s finance team.
A survey of the Obama donor base returns 8,794 donations from individuals who gave their state as “NA.” They included donors from Bangalore, India; London; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Lagos, Nigeria; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Thousands more gave state abbreviations that, combined with the city addresses they listed, clearly referred to foreign countries. Examples include IT (Italy), FR (France), GR (Greece), NZ (New Zealand), JP (Japan), GA (Gaza).
Another 2,372 donors gave their state of residence as “ZZ,” with cities including Moscow, Barcelona, Beirut, London, Lausanne, Singapore, Hagatna, Gunma-Ken, Buelach, Shanghai, Geneva, Prague, Aichi-Gun, Kiev, Hong Kong, and others.
The Obama campaign claims that these donors with overseas addresses are Americans living abroad, but there is no way of knowing that for certain because the campaign has not systematically required proof of citizenship from overseas donors.
The pace of foreign donations and other questionable fundraising practices has increased during the past few weeks, even as Obama campaign spokesmen say they have closed loopholes on their Web site and changed the credit-card authorization procedures that have allowed such donations. The Federal Election Commission had flagged 16,639 potential foreign donations as of Oct. 21 that brought in $5,249,263.96 to the campaign.
Take the case of Jo Jacquet, who gave $23,065 to Obama in 23 separate contributions last month. CTC found three people with variations of the name “Jo Anna Jacquet” who had U.S. addresses and Social Security numbers. It is not clear whether this specific Obama donor is a U.S. citizen.
“Jo Jacquet” made all of her contributions on two days, alternating between $5 and $2,300 charges to a credit card.
On all of the donations, she gave her employer as “DFDFGDFG,” and her profession as “DFGDFGDFGHFGH.” None of this attracted the suspicions of the Obama campaign or of Chase Paymentech, the company that processes the Obama campaign’s credit card donations.
The FEC requested that the Obama campaign re-attribute or re-designate all of the money from “Jo Jacquet” that went beyond the $4,600 limit but did not require that it be refunded. Under campaign finance rules, the campaign can shift this money into the “Obama Victory” account, a joint fundraising committee with much higher individual limits that it operates with the Democratic National Committee.
One apparent reason for the unusual number of foreign donors who may not hold U.S. citizenship is the fact the Obama campaign turned off the security features most merchants demand for customers when doing online transactions, such as verifying the card number against the cardholder’s name and billing address.
Another major loophole is the apparent widespread use of gift cards, which notoriously have been used for money-laundering purposes, especially in places such as Russia and Ukraine, industry security analysts tell Newsmax.
Newsmax asked James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, who was responsible for taking the unusual step of deactivating the Address Verification Service recommended by VISA USA on the Obama Web site. Such security features can be deactivated by the processing company, or at the request of the merchant, in this case, Obama for America.
Wester said that Paymentech was “not going to be issuing a statement at this time.”
VISA USA has a series of verification tools it recommends to online merchants to prevent online credit card fraud and to guarantee the security of personal credit-card information.
“Fraudsters have been known to test credit card numbers by making online donations to charitable organizations,” a credit-card industry insider told Newsmax, on condition of anonymity.
In fact, by operating as a “high-risk merchant,” the Obama campaign could put both its donors and Chase Paymentech at risk, he said.
“A legitimate online merchant or charity would call in the Secret Service or the FBI” if it saw the high fraud rates that have appeared on the Obama campaign Web site.
“If they are not taking basic security safeguards to prevent such obvious online fraud as you have found, then how can any donor have confidence that they will protect credit card information? But if cash flow is the name of the game, it doesn’t matter as long as they get the money up-front and get the job done. They can pay the fines later,” he added.
Following are a few of the individuals the Newsmax/CTC International investigation found of overseas donors. To demonstrate its compliance with FEC regulations, the Obama campaign should request proof that these individuals are, indeed, U.S. citizens;
Nasser Z. of 187 Blvd Bineau in Paris-France, “NA,” made seven donations totaling $785. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship. But on Nasser’s personal blog, he states that he is of Algerian origin and lives between Paris and Dubai. He also notes that he is not registered to vote in the United States and hints that he may be an adviser to the Obama campaign on Arab relations.
Salem H. gave $200 to the campaign in March 2008, listing a London address. He said he worked as a salesman for “Anaka,” No information was found either on Haffar or his company indicating U.S. citizenship.
Essomba H. made 11 donations totaling $265. Essomba gave an address in Lyon, “NA,” and said he was unemployed but working for “Association,” the French equivalent of a community organizer. CTC found that Essomba actually worked for PDT Associates Afrikespace et Oyenga, which showed him as living in Lyon, France. His personal blog states, "I'm a Cameroonian living in France” and notes that he is not registered to vote.
Gedewon (or Gideon) G. made 32 donations totaling $1,095. Although he lists his employer as “Filtom Design Services” and his residence as Toronto, Canada, CTC could find no company with that name. Gedewon frequently posts blogs to a Web site for expatriate Eritreans, where he often promotes Obama.
Mahamane M. gave $500 to the campaign and listed his address as Niamey, the capitol of the central African state of Niger. He listed his occupation as managing director of C.N.U.T. Niger. The Public Transport Users Council, CNUT is affiliated with the prime minister’s office. In an interview, Mahamane said he is particularly interested in developing transportation resources that will help bring Niger’s extensive uranium resources to market.
Gilles M. lives in Zurich and claims to be “founder and senior consultant” of 4?ME (sic) Image Consulting. Gilles made three donations to the campaign for a total of $240.39. The campaign found him suspicious enough to return one of them in July, but kept the rest. Under FEC rules, that will bring Gilles back into the shadows, since his aggregate contributions now total less than $200.
Stamen S. of Sofia, Bulgaria, lists his profession as “Mployer” and his employer as "Employer." He has made ten donations totaling $170. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Francis B. . of La Creche, France, made three donations totaling $200. He is reported as being a medicine physician at Hospital-Niort and is listed. CTC found no verifiable record of U.S. citizenship.
Pedro M.,. who said he was a salesman for Intermundo in Prague, made two donations for a total of $900. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Sandeep M., . an investment manager at Clariden Leu, Kuesnacht, in Zurich, Switzerland, gave the maximum $2,300 allowed per election. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Marissa M., . a nurse living in Guatemala City, gave eight $25 donations. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Somine L. . declared that she worked at the French Ministry of Culture in Paris, and donated $100. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
Although CTC had no way of accurately evaluating the real amount of foreign donations based on the survey they did for Newsmax, Rustmann said he believe that the anecdotal evidence was clear.
“In my opinion, from what I have seen here, millions of dollars came from illegal donations, because the Obama campaign did little to vet the donors,” Rustmann said.
An earlier Newsmax estimate, based on the unusual occurrence of unrounded contributions, which fundraising experts attributed to foreign currency donations, concluded that as much as $63 million could have come from foreign sources.
A veteran investigator with the Criminal Investigative Division of the U.S. Secret Service told Newsmax on Monday that most of the donor fraud Newsmax has identified could fly under the radar of federal investigators, unless the feds received a complaint from a victim of identify fraud.
Identify fraud certainly appeared to be the case when it came to the $174,800 donated in September in the name of Manchester, Mo., resident, Mary T. Biskup. A retired insurance manager, Biksup told The Washington Post that she never gave the money to the Obama campaign, and had checked her credit-card statements and couldn’t find any trace of a charge to her account.
“We're not out a penny," Biskup said. "I gather that someone has hacked into something using other people's credit cards and putting my name on it."
The credit-card industry often covers up identify fraud, such as apparently occurred with Biskup. Credit-card companies would rather swallow losses and chargebacks than admit to consumers that criminals have cracked their security systems, insiders tell Newsmax.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
October 29, 2008
David Letterman's Opinion - Wow!
Subject: FW: David Letterman's Opinion - Wow!
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:57:30 +0000
---
David Letterman wrote this; it's the David we don't often see...
'As most of you know I am not a President
Bush fan, nor have I ever been, but this is not
about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and it
seems to hit the mark.'
'The other day I was reading Newsweek
magazine and came across some Poll data I found
rather hard to believe. It must be true given
the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67
percent of Americans are unhappy with the
direction the country is headed and 69 percent of
the country is unhappy with the performance of
the President. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry
just ain't happy and want a change. So being the
knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What
are we so unhappy about?''
A.. Is it that we have electricity and
running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
B.. Is our unhappiness the result of
having air conditioning in the summer and heating
in the winter?
C.. Could it be that 95.4 percent of
these unhappy folks have a job?
D.. Maybe it is the ability to walk
into a grocery store at any time and see more
food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last
year?
E.. Maybe it is the ability to drive our
cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the
Atlantic Ocean without having to present
identification papers as we move through each
state?
F.. Or possibly the hundreds of clean
and safe motels we would find along the way that
can provide temporary shelter?
G.. I guess having thousands of
restaurants with varying cuisine from around the
world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck
our car, emergency workers show up and provide
services to help all an d even send a helicopter
to take you to the hospital.
I.. Perhaps you are one of the 70
percent of Americans who own a home.< BR>
J.. You may be upset with knowing that
in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of
trained firefighters will appear in moments and
use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames,
thus saving you, your family, and your
belongings.
K.. Or if, while at home watching one
of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or
prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun
and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you
and your family against attack or loss.
L.. This all in the backdrop of a
neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and
pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where
90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M.. How about the complete religious,
social and political freedoms we enjoy that are
the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that i s what has 67% of you folks
unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of
ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever
seen. No w onder the world loves the U.S. , yet
has a great disdain for its citizens. They see
us for what we are. The most blessed people in
the world who do nothing but complain about what
we don't have, and what we hate about the country
instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the
president who took us into war and has no plan to
get us out? The president who has a measly 31
percent approval rating? Is this the same
president who guided the nation in the dark days
after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to
bring an economy out of recession? Could this
be the same guy who has been called every name in
the book for succeeding in keeping all the
spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist
attacks? The commander in chief of an
all-volunteer army that i s out there defending
you and me?
Did you hear how bad the President is
on the news or talk show? Did this news affect
you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't
take a look around for yourself and see all the
good things and be glad? Think about
it......are you upset at the President because he
actually caused you personal pain OR is it
because the 'Media' told you he was failing to
kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.
Make no mistake about it.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have
volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have
died for your freedom. There is currently no
draft in this country. They didn't have to go.
They are able to refuse to go and end up with
either a ''general'' discharge, an 'other than
honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a
''dishonorable' ' discharge after a few days in
the brig.
So why then the flat -ou t discontentment
in the minds of 69 percent of Americans?
< BR>
Say what you want but I blame it on the
media. If it bleeds it leads and they
specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a
car crash with blood and guts How many will
watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The
media knows this and media outlets are for-profit
corporations. They offer what sells, and when
criticized, try to defend their actions by
'justifying' them in one way or another Just ask
why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J.
Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill
his wife, but if he did he would have done it
this way......Insane!
Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New
York Times for the bot tom of your bird cage.
Then start being grateful for all we have as
country. There is exponentially more good than
bad. We are am ong the most blessed people on
Earth and should thank God several times a day,
or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With
hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud
slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up
the country from one end to another, and with the
threat of bird flu and terrorist attack s, 'Are we
sure this is a good time to take God out of the
Pledge of Allegiance?'
David Letterman
Please keep this in circulation. There
are so many people who need to read This
'We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to
remain stupid.' ~Benjamin Franklin
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:57:30 +0000
---
David Letterman wrote this; it's the David we don't often see...
'As most of you know I am not a President
Bush fan, nor have I ever been, but this is not
about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and it
seems to hit the mark.'
'The other day I was reading Newsweek
magazine and came across some Poll data I found
rather hard to believe. It must be true given
the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67
percent of Americans are unhappy with the
direction the country is headed and 69 percent of
the country is unhappy with the performance of
the President. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry
just ain't happy and want a change. So being the
knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What
are we so unhappy about?''
A.. Is it that we have electricity and
running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
B.. Is our unhappiness the result of
having air conditioning in the summer and heating
in the winter?
C.. Could it be that 95.4 percent of
these unhappy folks have a job?
D.. Maybe it is the ability to walk
into a grocery store at any time and see more
food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last
year?
E.. Maybe it is the ability to drive our
cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the
Atlantic Ocean without having to present
identification papers as we move through each
state?
F.. Or possibly the hundreds of clean
and safe motels we would find along the way that
can provide temporary shelter?
G.. I guess having thousands of
restaurants with varying cuisine from around the
world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck
our car, emergency workers show up and provide
services to help all an d even send a helicopter
to take you to the hospital.
I.. Perhaps you are one of the 70
percent of Americans who own a home.< BR>
J.. You may be upset with knowing that
in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of
trained firefighters will appear in moments and
use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames,
thus saving you, your family, and your
belongings.
K.. Or if, while at home watching one
of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or
prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun
and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you
and your family against attack or loss.
L.. This all in the backdrop of a
neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and
pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where
90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M.. How about the complete religious,
social and political freedoms we enjoy that are
the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that i s what has 67% of you folks
unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of
ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever
seen. No w onder the world loves the U.S. , yet
has a great disdain for its citizens. They see
us for what we are. The most blessed people in
the world who do nothing but complain about what
we don't have, and what we hate about the country
instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the
president who took us into war and has no plan to
get us out? The president who has a measly 31
percent approval rating? Is this the same
president who guided the nation in the dark days
after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to
bring an economy out of recession? Could this
be the same guy who has been called every name in
the book for succeeding in keeping all the
spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist
attacks? The commander in chief of an
all-volunteer army that i s out there defending
you and me?
Did you hear how bad the President is
on the news or talk show? Did this news affect
you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't
take a look around for yourself and see all the
good things and be glad? Think about
it......are you upset at the President because he
actually caused you personal pain OR is it
because the 'Media' told you he was failing to
kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.
Make no mistake about it.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have
volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have
died for your freedom. There is currently no
draft in this country. They didn't have to go.
They are able to refuse to go and end up with
either a ''general'' discharge, an 'other than
honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a
''dishonorable' ' discharge after a few days in
the brig.
So why then the flat -ou t discontentment
in the minds of 69 percent of Americans?
< BR>
Say what you want but I blame it on the
media. If it bleeds it leads and they
specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a
car crash with blood and guts How many will
watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The
media knows this and media outlets are for-profit
corporations. They offer what sells, and when
criticized, try to defend their actions by
'justifying' them in one way or another Just ask
why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J.
Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill
his wife, but if he did he would have done it
this way......Insane!
Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New
York Times for the bot tom of your bird cage.
Then start being grateful for all we have as
country. There is exponentially more good than
bad. We are am ong the most blessed people on
Earth and should thank God several times a day,
or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With
hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud
slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up
the country from one end to another, and with the
threat of bird flu and terrorist attack s, 'Are we
sure this is a good time to take God out of the
Pledge of Allegiance?'
David Letterman
Please keep this in circulation. There
are so many people who need to read This
'We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to
remain stupid.' ~Benjamin Franklin
Arabs: Obama ‘One of Us'
Arabs: Obama ‘One of Us'
While Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama “has tried to push his origins into the background, his ‘Islamic roots’ have won him a place in many Arabs’ hearts.”
That’s the observation of Iranian-born commentator Amir Taheri, whose column in Tuesday’s New York Post notes that many Arabs and other Muslims see Obama as “one of them.”
They see that Obama has Arabic-Islamic first and middle names: Barack means “blessed” and Hussein means “beautiful.” His last name is Swahili, an East African language based on Arabic, Taheri writes. His sister is named Oumah, Arabic for “the community of the faithful;” his daughter Malia bears the name of a daughter of the noted Caliph Othman; and his father and stepfather were both Muslims.
Although Taheri did not note it, Obama was raised partially as a Muslim when he lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather. While there, he studied at two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim student.
As such he received Islamic religious instruction, studied the Koran, and prayed with other students. He did attend mosque, albeit infrequently, with his stepfather.
Obama’s religious upbringing after Indonesia is somewhat of a mystery until his late 20s. At that point, Obama says he converted to Christianity after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in Chicago.
Still, Obama has maintained strong support from American Muslims, including Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam movement. Farrakhan has endorsed Obama and has called him the “messiah.”
These factors have made Obama a big hit in the Arab world, where he has received wide praise, including:
The Syrian regime has indicated its preference for Obama. Buthaina Shaaban, an adviser to President Bashar al-Assad, has written: “The change suggested by Obama is essential not only for the U.S. but for the entire human family.”
Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi called Obama “a Muslim” and said: “All the people in the Arab and Muslim world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcome him and prayed for his success,” although Qaddafi also expressed criticism of Obama’s comments on the future of Jerusalem.
Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said this year: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.”
Hezbollah’s second in command, Sheik Naim al-Kassim, urged Americans to vote for Obama as a step toward peace with Islam, and pro-Hezbollah columnist Amal Saad-Ghorayeb said there is “no doubt Arabs should welcome an Obama presidency,” according to Taheri.
In Saudi Arabia, commentator Hussein Shobokshi wrote that an Obama presidency “would mark an important moral transformation in the superpower and is a healthy indicator of the long-awaited improvement in the international arena.”
Some columnists also have noted Obama’s close ties to several Palestinian radicals, including Columbia University Prof. Rashid Khalidi — former communications director for the Palestinian Liberation Organization — and another Palestinian political activist, the late Edward Said.
The “Arab street” also favors Obama. Recent surveys found that he is the preferred candidate in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
While Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama “has tried to push his origins into the background, his ‘Islamic roots’ have won him a place in many Arabs’ hearts.”
That’s the observation of Iranian-born commentator Amir Taheri, whose column in Tuesday’s New York Post notes that many Arabs and other Muslims see Obama as “one of them.”
They see that Obama has Arabic-Islamic first and middle names: Barack means “blessed” and Hussein means “beautiful.” His last name is Swahili, an East African language based on Arabic, Taheri writes. His sister is named Oumah, Arabic for “the community of the faithful;” his daughter Malia bears the name of a daughter of the noted Caliph Othman; and his father and stepfather were both Muslims.
Although Taheri did not note it, Obama was raised partially as a Muslim when he lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather. While there, he studied at two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim student.
As such he received Islamic religious instruction, studied the Koran, and prayed with other students. He did attend mosque, albeit infrequently, with his stepfather.
Obama’s religious upbringing after Indonesia is somewhat of a mystery until his late 20s. At that point, Obama says he converted to Christianity after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in Chicago.
Still, Obama has maintained strong support from American Muslims, including Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam movement. Farrakhan has endorsed Obama and has called him the “messiah.”
These factors have made Obama a big hit in the Arab world, where he has received wide praise, including:
The Syrian regime has indicated its preference for Obama. Buthaina Shaaban, an adviser to President Bashar al-Assad, has written: “The change suggested by Obama is essential not only for the U.S. but for the entire human family.”
Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi called Obama “a Muslim” and said: “All the people in the Arab and Muslim world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcome him and prayed for his success,” although Qaddafi also expressed criticism of Obama’s comments on the future of Jerusalem.
Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said this year: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.”
Hezbollah’s second in command, Sheik Naim al-Kassim, urged Americans to vote for Obama as a step toward peace with Islam, and pro-Hezbollah columnist Amal Saad-Ghorayeb said there is “no doubt Arabs should welcome an Obama presidency,” according to Taheri.
In Saudi Arabia, commentator Hussein Shobokshi wrote that an Obama presidency “would mark an important moral transformation in the superpower and is a healthy indicator of the long-awaited improvement in the international arena.”
Some columnists also have noted Obama’s close ties to several Palestinian radicals, including Columbia University Prof. Rashid Khalidi — former communications director for the Palestinian Liberation Organization — and another Palestinian political activist, the late Edward Said.
The “Arab street” also favors Obama. Recent surveys found that he is the preferred candidate in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama's Plumbers
Obama's Plumbers
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Election '08: Ohio Democrats refused to act on ACORN's massive vote fraud. Yet they have time to scour the private records of Joe the Plumber. No wonder Barack Obama finds the Constitution an inconvenience.
Joe Wurzelbacher (also known as Joe the Plumber) has learned there's a price to pay for being the one to get Obama to admit that he has a socialist dream to "spread the wealth." Not only are you thrust into the public eye, you get the privilege of having government officials who support Obama rifle through private files looking for dirt on you.
Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and a maxed-out contributor to the Obama campaign, has confirmed that she approved the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher after the Oct. 15 presidential debate.
Jones-Kelley explained her governmental prying by saying, "Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look" at them. For example, she cited the case of a lottery winner who was found to owe back child support. But Wurzelbacher didn't win the lottery; he merely asked how much more of his hard-earned money was going to be taxed away under the Obama plan.
According to the Columbus-Dispatch, at least four state computer checks on Wurzelbacher were conducted shortly after Republican John McCain frequently brought up "Joe the Plumber" during the final presidential debate. In addition to the Department of Job and Family Services, driver's license and vehicle registration information on "Joe" was pulled from Bureau of Motor Vehicles computers. BMV information on Wurzelbacher also was obtained through accounts assigned to the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.
In a 2001 radio interview in which Obama again expressed belief in the "redistribution of wealth," the Illinois senator regretted that the Supreme Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Will Obama, through his appointments to the court, remove those constraints? Is "Joe" only the first on an Obama's enemies list?
Contrast this investigative frenzy with the refusal of Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, to use government records to check the thousands of new voters registered by ACORN and others for registration fraud. She also refused notify local election officials when fraud was discovered.
This isn't the first time team Obama has sought to stifle dissent, threatening to use the powers of government to intimidate and punish its opponents. A recent report on KMOV-TV in St. Louis said:
"The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign."
The Obama campaign will target anyone who says this emperor has no clothes. It wasn't long ago that a team of 30 lawyers, investigators and Democratic party operatives trekked up to Alaska to find dirt on Sarah Palin. Now they're after Joe the Plumber.
Should Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gain unfettered control of the powers of government and the Supreme Court and reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine, they might come after you.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Election '08: Ohio Democrats refused to act on ACORN's massive vote fraud. Yet they have time to scour the private records of Joe the Plumber. No wonder Barack Obama finds the Constitution an inconvenience.
Joe Wurzelbacher (also known as Joe the Plumber) has learned there's a price to pay for being the one to get Obama to admit that he has a socialist dream to "spread the wealth." Not only are you thrust into the public eye, you get the privilege of having government officials who support Obama rifle through private files looking for dirt on you.
Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and a maxed-out contributor to the Obama campaign, has confirmed that she approved the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher after the Oct. 15 presidential debate.
Jones-Kelley explained her governmental prying by saying, "Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look" at them. For example, she cited the case of a lottery winner who was found to owe back child support. But Wurzelbacher didn't win the lottery; he merely asked how much more of his hard-earned money was going to be taxed away under the Obama plan.
According to the Columbus-Dispatch, at least four state computer checks on Wurzelbacher were conducted shortly after Republican John McCain frequently brought up "Joe the Plumber" during the final presidential debate. In addition to the Department of Job and Family Services, driver's license and vehicle registration information on "Joe" was pulled from Bureau of Motor Vehicles computers. BMV information on Wurzelbacher also was obtained through accounts assigned to the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.
In a 2001 radio interview in which Obama again expressed belief in the "redistribution of wealth," the Illinois senator regretted that the Supreme Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Will Obama, through his appointments to the court, remove those constraints? Is "Joe" only the first on an Obama's enemies list?
Contrast this investigative frenzy with the refusal of Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, to use government records to check the thousands of new voters registered by ACORN and others for registration fraud. She also refused notify local election officials when fraud was discovered.
This isn't the first time team Obama has sought to stifle dissent, threatening to use the powers of government to intimidate and punish its opponents. A recent report on KMOV-TV in St. Louis said:
"The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign."
The Obama campaign will target anyone who says this emperor has no clothes. It wasn't long ago that a team of 30 lawyers, investigators and Democratic party operatives trekked up to Alaska to find dirt on Sarah Palin. Now they're after Joe the Plumber.
Should Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gain unfettered control of the powers of government and the Supreme Court and reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine, they might come after you.
Let's See-----
Let's See-----
.A Guy named Joe, who happens to be a plumber with ambitions for a bigger business, questioned and challenged a Guy named Barack, who happens to be running for President of the US/Leader of the Free World.
And withing 24 hours the Media has given us more information about Joe's life than they've given us about Barack's life in the past 18 months.
Thanks to a diligent press corps, we now know about Joe's professional licensing status, his income tax situation, his employment history, his domestic squabbles, his voting record, everything associated with his personal identity; his education.. It's probably been reported somewhere whether he wears boxers or briefs.
Thanks to a lazy press corps.We still don't know what grades Obama made in college; how he got into Harvard; when he met Bill "the bomber" Ayers; when he stopped doing illegal drugs; his medical history; whether he still smokes cigarettes; the extent of his affiliation with socialist/communist organizations; why he's no longer a licensed attorney; whether he lied on his Bar application;----
Whether he'd qualify for a security clearance if he were just an "average Joe;" what passport he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981; who his ex-girlfriends are; whether he was or still is an Indonesian citizen; why his Kenyan grandmother insists he was born there; whether he was ever legally named Barry Soetoro or anything else besides Barack Hussein Obama-----;
Why he needed the help of a crook to purchase his family home; where he was on Nov. 6 and 7, 1999; what the long-version of his birth certificate says; why he helped an anti-American, pro-Islamic candidate for Kenyan President against US interests; why he listened to Rev. Wright's sermons for 20 years; how many times he took his kids to a Rev. Wright sermon; what he actually did as chair of the Annenberg Challenge; the depth of his relationship with ACORN.
Well, you get the idea.
But, really, I am SO relieved that the Mainstream Media has done its job vetting Joe The Plumber, who is NOT running for public office, but who had the AUDACITY to challenge Barack Hussein Obama, who wants my vote for President of the United States of America."
.A Guy named Joe, who happens to be a plumber with ambitions for a bigger business, questioned and challenged a Guy named Barack, who happens to be running for President of the US/Leader of the Free World.
And withing 24 hours the Media has given us more information about Joe's life than they've given us about Barack's life in the past 18 months.
Thanks to a diligent press corps, we now know about Joe's professional licensing status, his income tax situation, his employment history, his domestic squabbles, his voting record, everything associated with his personal identity; his education.. It's probably been reported somewhere whether he wears boxers or briefs.
Thanks to a lazy press corps.We still don't know what grades Obama made in college; how he got into Harvard; when he met Bill "the bomber" Ayers; when he stopped doing illegal drugs; his medical history; whether he still smokes cigarettes; the extent of his affiliation with socialist/communist organizations; why he's no longer a licensed attorney; whether he lied on his Bar application;----
Whether he'd qualify for a security clearance if he were just an "average Joe;" what passport he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981; who his ex-girlfriends are; whether he was or still is an Indonesian citizen; why his Kenyan grandmother insists he was born there; whether he was ever legally named Barry Soetoro or anything else besides Barack Hussein Obama-----;
Why he needed the help of a crook to purchase his family home; where he was on Nov. 6 and 7, 1999; what the long-version of his birth certificate says; why he helped an anti-American, pro-Islamic candidate for Kenyan President against US interests; why he listened to Rev. Wright's sermons for 20 years; how many times he took his kids to a Rev. Wright sermon; what he actually did as chair of the Annenberg Challenge; the depth of his relationship with ACORN.
Well, you get the idea.
But, really, I am SO relieved that the Mainstream Media has done its job vetting Joe The Plumber, who is NOT running for public office, but who had the AUDACITY to challenge Barack Hussein Obama, who wants my vote for President of the United States of America."
Best Regards
Best Regards,
>
> As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride. . ."we are no
> longer a Christian nation"!!!!; we are now a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . . ." As with so many other
> statements I've heard him (and his wife) make, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd hear something like that from a
> presidential candidate in this nation. To think our forefathers fought and died for the right for our nation to be a Christian
> nation--and to have this man say with pride that we are no longer that. How far this na tion has come from what our founding
> fathers intended it to be.
>
> I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing now--send your concerns, written simply and sincerely, to the Christians on your
> email list. With God's help, and He is still in control of this nation and all else, we can show this man and the world in
> November that we are, indeed, still a Christian nation!
>
> Subject: REVELATIONS CHAPTER 13 VERSE 5
>
>
>
> How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations?
>
> Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is.
> Almost a four-year term of a Presidency.
>
> All I can say is "Lord, Have mercy on us!"
>
> According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will
> Be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with
> Persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise
> false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything..
>
> Do we recognize this description??
>
> I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to post this as many times as
> You can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet..do it! I refuse to take a chance on this unknown
> candidate who came out of nowhere.
>
> As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride. . ."we are no
> longer a Christian nation"!!!!; we are now a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . . ." As with so many other
> statements I've heard him (and his wife) make, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd hear something like that from a
> presidential candidate in this nation. To think our forefathers fought and died for the right for our nation to be a Christian
> nation--and to have this man say with pride that we are no longer that. How far this na tion has come from what our founding
> fathers intended it to be.
>
> I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing now--send your concerns, written simply and sincerely, to the Christians on your
> email list. With God's help, and He is still in control of this nation and all else, we can show this man and the world in
> November that we are, indeed, still a Christian nation!
>
> Subject: REVELATIONS CHAPTER 13 VERSE 5
>
>
>
> How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations?
>
> Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is.
> Almost a four-year term of a Presidency.
>
> All I can say is "Lord, Have mercy on us!"
>
> According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will
> Be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with
> Persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise
> false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything..
>
> Do we recognize this description??
>
> I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to post this as many times as
> You can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet..do it! I refuse to take a chance on this unknown
> candidate who came out of nowhere.
> Why I (A Black Man) Can't Vote For Obama
THIS CONTAINS GRAFIC NOTATIONS HOWEVER TRUTHFUL IT IS.
PLEASE PASS THIS ON IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!
> Why I (A Black Man) Can't Vote For Obama
> I wanted to send this article from Huntley Brown - he is a fabulous
> concert pianist, man of God and is a black man. I appreciate so much his
> reasoning for not voting for Obama, I would like to see this article
> spread out via Email to as many as possible. It's good stuff! Dcn. Miguel
> A. Salazar
>
> Why I Can't Vote For Obama -- By Huntley Brown
>
> Dear Friends,
> A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an
> email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I
> decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen
> some of this before but it's worth repeating...
>
> First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support.
> Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain
> why I will not be voting for him.
>
> Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I
> process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower)
> means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is
> the leader.
>
> I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because
> that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone
> from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now
> I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus
> and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
>
> In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets
> abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning
> to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
>
> We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, don't judge someone by the
> color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't know
> Obama so all I can go off is his voting record. His voting record earned
> him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
> NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
> To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes
> some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what
> would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
>
> There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
> There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
> There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
> There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme
> Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
> There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex
> marriage.
> There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion. There is
> a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two
> judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth
> abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
> Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue
> The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:
>
> A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with
> forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
> B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
> C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
> D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are
> then opened to enlarge the hole.
> E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The
> child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead
> baby is then removed.
> God help him.
> There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.
>
> Think about this: You can't give a kid an aspirin without parental
> notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental
> notification. This is insane.
> There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.
>
> Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright
> teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why
> now?
>
> Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A
> disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 "Go and
> make disciples of all nations." This means reproduce yourself. Teach
> people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you
> believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
>
> Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets
> that said they have a
>
> 1. Commitment to the White Community
> 2. Commitment to the White Family
> 3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
> 4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills
> available to the White Community.
> 5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for
> Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
> 6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the
> White Value System
> 7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
>
> Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
>
> Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of
> Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like
> this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would
> have been marching outside.
>
> This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20
> years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be
> about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the
> whole world.
>
> A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value
> system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a
> white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race
> that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
>
> Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian
> James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone
> once wrote: "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified
> totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and
> against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
>
> Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
>
> So what does all this mean for the nation?
>
> In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to
> lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
>
> Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel
> 1:9 "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the
> king who will reign over them will do."
>
> Then God says
>
> 1 Samuel 1:18 " When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the
> king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19
> But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a
> king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king
> to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 21 When Samuel
> heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The
> LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
>
> Here is what we know for sure.
>
> God is not schizophrenic
>
> He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain.
> As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so
> obviously many people are not hearing from God.
>
> Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama
> contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.
>
> For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the
> face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though
> I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion.
> He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am
> sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are
> against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights,
> even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look
> the other way because of the economy.
>
> I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I
> have two questions for all my liberal friends.
>
> Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
>
> 1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.
>
> 2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the
> nation?
> Blessings,
> Huntley Brown
PLEASE PASS THIS ON IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!
> Why I (A Black Man) Can't Vote For Obama
> I wanted to send this article from Huntley Brown - he is a fabulous
> concert pianist, man of God and is a black man. I appreciate so much his
> reasoning for not voting for Obama, I would like to see this article
> spread out via Email to as many as possible. It's good stuff! Dcn. Miguel
> A. Salazar
>
> Why I Can't Vote For Obama -- By Huntley Brown
>
> Dear Friends,
> A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an
> email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I
> decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen
> some of this before but it's worth repeating...
>
> First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support.
> Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain
> why I will not be voting for him.
>
> Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I
> process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower)
> means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is
> the leader.
>
> I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because
> that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone
> from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now
> I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus
> and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
>
> In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets
> abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning
> to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
>
> We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, don't judge someone by the
> color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't know
> Obama so all I can go off is his voting record. His voting record earned
> him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
> NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
> To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes
> some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what
> would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
>
> There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
> There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
> There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
> There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme
> Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
> There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex
> marriage.
> There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion. There is
> a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two
> judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth
> abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
> Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue
> The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:
>
> A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with
> forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
> B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
> C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
> D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are
> then opened to enlarge the hole.
> E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The
> child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead
> baby is then removed.
> God help him.
> There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.
>
> Think about this: You can't give a kid an aspirin without parental
> notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental
> notification. This is insane.
> There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.
>
> Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright
> teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why
> now?
>
> Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A
> disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 "Go and
> make disciples of all nations." This means reproduce yourself. Teach
> people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you
> believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
>
> Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets
> that said they have a
>
> 1. Commitment to the White Community
> 2. Commitment to the White Family
> 3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
> 4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills
> available to the White Community.
> 5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for
> Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
> 6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the
> White Value System
> 7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
>
> Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
>
> Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of
> Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like
> this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would
> have been marching outside.
>
> This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20
> years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be
> about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the
> whole world.
>
> A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value
> system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a
> white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race
> that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
>
> Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian
> James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone
> once wrote: "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified
> totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and
> against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
>
> Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
>
> So what does all this mean for the nation?
>
> In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to
> lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
>
> Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel
> 1:9 "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the
> king who will reign over them will do."
>
> Then God says
>
> 1 Samuel 1:18 " When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the
> king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19
> But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a
> king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king
> to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 21 When Samuel
> heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The
> LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
>
> Here is what we know for sure.
>
> God is not schizophrenic
>
> He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain.
> As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so
> obviously many people are not hearing from God.
>
> Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama
> contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.
>
> For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the
> face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though
> I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion.
> He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am
> sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are
> against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights,
> even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look
> the other way because of the economy.
>
> I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I
> have two questions for all my liberal friends.
>
> Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
>
> 1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.
>
> 2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the
> nation?
> Blessings,
> Huntley Brown
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
Subject:Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper - almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor - which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house - along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign - because that campaign had sought his advice - you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension - so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie - that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad - even bad weather - on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth - even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time - and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter - while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe - and vote as if - President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats - including Barack Obama - and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans - then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper - almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor - which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house - along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign - because that campaign had sought his advice - you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension - so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie - that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad - even bad weather - on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth - even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time - and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter - while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe - and vote as if - President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats - including Barack Obama - and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans - then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts from an Illinois voter
Subject: Thoughts from an Illinois voter
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:16:45 -0700
Though this is a long letter, it is worth the read. It has some of the same views I have concerning the candidates. Something to consider when you vote.
THIS LETTER MAKES MORE SENSE THAN ANYTHING I HAVE SEEN, HEARD, OR READ, CONCERNING THE UPCOMING ELECTION...
IT'S A LETTER FROM A U.S. CITIZEN... WHO LIVES IN ILLINOIS... AND OBVIOUSLY IS A 'SELF-THINKER'... NOT JUST A 'FOLLOWER'!!!
IF YOU ONLY READ ONE THING, REGARDING THIS ELECTION... LET THIS BE THE ONE THING!! AFTER READING IT, YOU WILL PROBABLY WANT TO FORWARD IT TO OTHER AMERICANS WHO ARE 'SELF THINKERS'!!
An impassioned letter from a 'nobody'. But he gives his telephone number at the end.
Subject: FW: A letter from Ilinois
Dear Friends (fellow Americans all)
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas ' but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their t axes for more government programs.
We are in the unique position in = this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change'.
'Change what?', I ask.
'Well, we're going to change America', they say.
'In what way?', I query.
'We want someone new and fresh in= the White House', they exclaim.
'So, someone who's not a politician?', I say.
'Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama', they state.
'So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news, and win his party's nomination for the White House that system's all wrong?'
'No, no, that part of the system's okay we just need a lot of change.'
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.'
Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why only that he's going to change a lot of stuff 'Change, change, change.' I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, 'What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?'
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I'll be forthright with you I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
Here's a question - 'Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.'
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country, and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'
I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change, can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.
Phone: 760.434.1395
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:16:45 -0700
Though this is a long letter, it is worth the read. It has some of the same views I have concerning the candidates. Something to consider when you vote.
THIS LETTER MAKES MORE SENSE THAN ANYTHING I HAVE SEEN, HEARD, OR READ, CONCERNING THE UPCOMING ELECTION...
IT'S A LETTER FROM A U.S. CITIZEN... WHO LIVES IN ILLINOIS... AND OBVIOUSLY IS A 'SELF-THINKER'... NOT JUST A 'FOLLOWER'!!!
IF YOU ONLY READ ONE THING, REGARDING THIS ELECTION... LET THIS BE THE ONE THING!! AFTER READING IT, YOU WILL PROBABLY WANT TO FORWARD IT TO OTHER AMERICANS WHO ARE 'SELF THINKERS'!!
An impassioned letter from a 'nobody'. But he gives his telephone number at the end.
Subject: FW: A letter from Ilinois
Dear Friends (fellow Americans all)
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas ' but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their t axes for more government programs.
We are in the unique position in = this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change'.
'Change what?', I ask.
'Well, we're going to change America', they say.
'In what way?', I query.
'We want someone new and fresh in= the White House', they exclaim.
'So, someone who's not a politician?', I say.
'Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama', they state.
'So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news, and win his party's nomination for the White House that system's all wrong?'
'No, no, that part of the system's okay we just need a lot of change.'
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.'
Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why only that he's going to change a lot of stuff 'Change, change, change.' I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, 'What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?'
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I'll be forthright with you I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
Here's a question - 'Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.'
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country, and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'
I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change, can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.
Phone: 760.434.1395
Axis Of Bias
Axis Of Bias
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media: A major newspaper suppresses damning video of Barack Obama partying with pro-terrorism radicals. Meanwhile, Obama punishes news outlets that do their jobs. Fairness Doctrine anyone?
Los Angeles Times owner Sam Zell must have thought of the Chicago Cubs when he OK'd the layoff of 75 editorial employees this week. Zell owns the lovable loser Cubs, who haven't won the World Series in a century, and the liberal media are turning into the Cubs of modern communications.
But news-hungry consumers don't find it lovable when the media elite keep important stories to themselves. John McCain has demanded that the L.A. Times release its videotape of a 2003 farewell party in Chicago at which Obama is said to have grandly toasted guest of honor Rashid Khalidi, the late PLO head Yasser Arafat's spokesman. (Ex-terrorist Bill Ayers may have been there too.)
But the Times apparently doesn't think Americans are entitled to see Obama praising a terrorist mouthpiece before they decide whether to make him president for four years. Similarly, major news outlets buried this week's story of Obama calling for "major redistributive change" in a newly discovered 2001 radio interview.
But if you think we've got an unholy alliance between liberal Democrats in Washington and this country's media elite now, just watch what happens if Obama becomes president with a Democratic Congress — especially if it features a filibuster-proof Senate.
Major Democratic congressional leaders like Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, 2004 presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want the reinstitution of the outdated, pre-Internet "Fairness Doctrine." They want to counter the news revolution in which blogs and talk radio have taken on the Big Three TV networks.
The Obama campaign claims Obama opposes a new Fairness Doctrine, but City Journal editor Brian C. Anderson doesn't think a President Obama would veto such a bill. Moreover, Obama and most Democrats want to impose more "local accountability" on broadcasters, "setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal," as Anderson notes.
This measure is "clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows," Anderson says. "It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge." Obama would pair that with relicensing stations every two years instead of the current eight.
We have already seen that Obama's forces have no scruples about punishing media organizations who do not act as disciples of "The One." Newswomen with both WFTV in Orlando, Fla., and the CBS affiliate in Philadelphia dared to ask running mate Joseph Biden about Obama's plans to "spread the wealth," as he infamously told Ohio's Joe the Plumber. The Obama campaign let the journalists know they were now personae non grata.
With both the executive and legislative branches firmly in the power of the most liberal leadership ever — Obama, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — it is naive to think they would not move against those who most threaten their prospects in the midterm elections of 2010. And that is Fox News and conservative talk radio, supported by the blogosphere.
The establishment media and liberal Democrats constitute an axis of bias, arming to threaten the free speech of Americans. George Orwell, call your office.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media: A major newspaper suppresses damning video of Barack Obama partying with pro-terrorism radicals. Meanwhile, Obama punishes news outlets that do their jobs. Fairness Doctrine anyone?
Los Angeles Times owner Sam Zell must have thought of the Chicago Cubs when he OK'd the layoff of 75 editorial employees this week. Zell owns the lovable loser Cubs, who haven't won the World Series in a century, and the liberal media are turning into the Cubs of modern communications.
But news-hungry consumers don't find it lovable when the media elite keep important stories to themselves. John McCain has demanded that the L.A. Times release its videotape of a 2003 farewell party in Chicago at which Obama is said to have grandly toasted guest of honor Rashid Khalidi, the late PLO head Yasser Arafat's spokesman. (Ex-terrorist Bill Ayers may have been there too.)
But the Times apparently doesn't think Americans are entitled to see Obama praising a terrorist mouthpiece before they decide whether to make him president for four years. Similarly, major news outlets buried this week's story of Obama calling for "major redistributive change" in a newly discovered 2001 radio interview.
But if you think we've got an unholy alliance between liberal Democrats in Washington and this country's media elite now, just watch what happens if Obama becomes president with a Democratic Congress — especially if it features a filibuster-proof Senate.
Major Democratic congressional leaders like Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, 2004 presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want the reinstitution of the outdated, pre-Internet "Fairness Doctrine." They want to counter the news revolution in which blogs and talk radio have taken on the Big Three TV networks.
The Obama campaign claims Obama opposes a new Fairness Doctrine, but City Journal editor Brian C. Anderson doesn't think a President Obama would veto such a bill. Moreover, Obama and most Democrats want to impose more "local accountability" on broadcasters, "setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal," as Anderson notes.
This measure is "clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows," Anderson says. "It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge." Obama would pair that with relicensing stations every two years instead of the current eight.
We have already seen that Obama's forces have no scruples about punishing media organizations who do not act as disciples of "The One." Newswomen with both WFTV in Orlando, Fla., and the CBS affiliate in Philadelphia dared to ask running mate Joseph Biden about Obama's plans to "spread the wealth," as he infamously told Ohio's Joe the Plumber. The Obama campaign let the journalists know they were now personae non grata.
With both the executive and legislative branches firmly in the power of the most liberal leadership ever — Obama, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — it is naive to think they would not move against those who most threaten their prospects in the midterm elections of 2010. And that is Fox News and conservative talk radio, supported by the blogosphere.
The establishment media and liberal Democrats constitute an axis of bias, arming to threaten the free speech of Americans. George Orwell, call your office.
'Undecideds' Could Shift Toward McCain
'Undecideds' Could Shift Toward McCain
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:06 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
If current survey trends continue, Obama will finish with less than 50 percent in the polls. Even discounting the Nader vote (some people never learn), the undecided voters could tip the race either way. How will they break?
Since there is no incumbent, they cannot automatically be assigned to the challenger; and since turnout is likely to be huge, the current undecided voters will probably make their way to the polls and cast their ballots.
But for whom?
At the beginning of this contest, Obama effectively made the case that the election was a referendum on Bush's performance in office. Painting a vote for McCain as a desire for "four more years of the same failed policies," he made the most of Bush's dismal approval rating. Had he been able to keep the focus on Bush, he would likely have inherited most of the undecided vote.
But as Obama surged into a more or less permanent lead in October, animated by the financial crisis, he has assumed many of the characteristics of an incumbent. Every voter asks himself one question before he or she casts a ballot: Do I want to vote for Obama? His uniqueness, charisma, and assertive program have so dominated the dialogue that the election is now a referendum on Obama.
As Obama has oscillated, moving somewhat above or somewhat below 50 percent in all the October polls, his election likely hangs in the balance. If he falls short of 50 percent in these circumstances, a majority of the voters can be said to have rejected him. Likely, a disproportionate number of the undecideds will vote for McCain.
But don't write Obama off. His candidacy strikes such enthusiasm among young and minority voters that there is still a chance that a massive turnout will deliver the race to the Democrats.
None of the polling organizations has any experience with — or model for — so massive a turnout, especially among voters notorious for staying at home. But the primaries proved that these young and minority voters will not stay home this time, but will vote for Obama.
The effect of this increased vote is hard to calculate, but it may be enough to offset the undecideds who will vote for McCain.
But the basic point, six days away from Election Day, is that even if Obama clings to a 4- or 5-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over.
The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent. As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.
Clearly, in recent weeks, McCain has been able to cast Obama as a leftist. He has made the issue of income redistribution central to the campaign. With the aid of Joe the plumber and the discovery of Obama's Chicago PBS interview, in which he lamented the absence of redistribution of wealth, McCain has made the proposition seem central to Obama's ideology.
The unprecedented power the bailout has given the government over the banking industry raises the real specter of socialism in America. The banks have, effectively, been nationalized.
How will government use its power over them? This new reality, coupled with Obama's professed pursuit of "social and political justice" through "redistribution of the wealth," is enough to send a shiver down the spine of those who embrace the free market as the key to economic growth.
The audacity of Obama's injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the voters seem to be buying it.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:06 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
If current survey trends continue, Obama will finish with less than 50 percent in the polls. Even discounting the Nader vote (some people never learn), the undecided voters could tip the race either way. How will they break?
Since there is no incumbent, they cannot automatically be assigned to the challenger; and since turnout is likely to be huge, the current undecided voters will probably make their way to the polls and cast their ballots.
But for whom?
At the beginning of this contest, Obama effectively made the case that the election was a referendum on Bush's performance in office. Painting a vote for McCain as a desire for "four more years of the same failed policies," he made the most of Bush's dismal approval rating. Had he been able to keep the focus on Bush, he would likely have inherited most of the undecided vote.
But as Obama surged into a more or less permanent lead in October, animated by the financial crisis, he has assumed many of the characteristics of an incumbent. Every voter asks himself one question before he or she casts a ballot: Do I want to vote for Obama? His uniqueness, charisma, and assertive program have so dominated the dialogue that the election is now a referendum on Obama.
As Obama has oscillated, moving somewhat above or somewhat below 50 percent in all the October polls, his election likely hangs in the balance. If he falls short of 50 percent in these circumstances, a majority of the voters can be said to have rejected him. Likely, a disproportionate number of the undecideds will vote for McCain.
But don't write Obama off. His candidacy strikes such enthusiasm among young and minority voters that there is still a chance that a massive turnout will deliver the race to the Democrats.
None of the polling organizations has any experience with — or model for — so massive a turnout, especially among voters notorious for staying at home. But the primaries proved that these young and minority voters will not stay home this time, but will vote for Obama.
The effect of this increased vote is hard to calculate, but it may be enough to offset the undecideds who will vote for McCain.
But the basic point, six days away from Election Day, is that even if Obama clings to a 4- or 5-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over.
The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent. As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.
Clearly, in recent weeks, McCain has been able to cast Obama as a leftist. He has made the issue of income redistribution central to the campaign. With the aid of Joe the plumber and the discovery of Obama's Chicago PBS interview, in which he lamented the absence of redistribution of wealth, McCain has made the proposition seem central to Obama's ideology.
The unprecedented power the bailout has given the government over the banking industry raises the real specter of socialism in America. The banks have, effectively, been nationalized.
How will government use its power over them? This new reality, coupled with Obama's professed pursuit of "social and political justice" through "redistribution of the wealth," is enough to send a shiver down the spine of those who embrace the free market as the key to economic growth.
The audacity of Obama's injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the voters seem to be buying it.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
October 28, 2008
Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit
Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit
Friday, October 24, 2008 4:16 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.
The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Berg's suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.
The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.
By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has “admitted” that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings.
Berg released a long list of “admissions” he submitted to Obama’s lawyers on Sept. 15, and asked that they produce documents relating to Obama’s place of birth and citizenship.
Instead of responding, lawyers for Obama and the DNC asked the court to dismiss the case. But Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued no ruling in the case that would have given Obama’s lawyers more time.
“There are lots of legal ways to stonewall,” a well-placed Republican attorney told Newsmax, who was not authorized to comment officially on the case. “But failing to respond is not one of them.”
“The first thing they teach you in law school,” he added, “is don’t put a complaint like this in a drawer. That’s how a nuisance case can become a problem.”
The 30-day deadline for defendants to comply with a discovery request is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
“It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side,” Berg said after he filed a motion on Thursday for summary judgment.
“The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. [Obama] admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”
In a contentious case, lawyers on both sides will haggle over the production of documents, and will frequently go beyond the deadlines, several lawyers told Newsmax.
“The rules are more often complied with in the breech rather than the observance,” a senior trial attorney who has close ties to the Democrat Party, but is not involved in the current case, told Newsmax.
“Lawyers frequently do not return telephone calls or meet discovery deadlines because of sheer inadvertence. Therefore, we do not consider a failure to respond as a ‘violation,’” he said.
Allegations surrounding Obama’s place of birth have been swirling for months. Earlier this year, the Obama campaign sought to put down the rumors by making available a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, issued in 2007 by the State of Hawaii. [See the Certification of Live Birth — Click Here.]
Respected conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called the Berg lawsuit a “conspiracy theory” that had been put to rest by the Obama campaign over the summer but ”has arisen like a zombie yet again to suck the credibility out of the conservative blogosphere.”
However, the 2007 document produced by the Obama campaign omits key information that normally appears on birth certificates in the United States, including the name of the hospital where he was born, the size and weight of the baby, and sometimes the name of the doctor who delivered him.
In addition, the critics of the 2007 document note that Obama's father is described as “African,” a term used today. The formal language in official documents at the time — 1961 — would have identified his race as “Negro” or “Colored.”
The Web site snarkybytes.com has produced a vault copy of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth from 1963, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. [See the vault copy — Click Here.]
In addition to naming the hospital and more details about the baby, the 1963 vault copy also includes the “usual residence of the mother,” and the “usual occupation” of the father. None of this information appears on the 2007 Live Birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign.
Berg has been a perennial political candidate in Pennsylvania, having run in Democrat primaries for attorney general, lieutenant governor, governor, and other offices without success. He served as deputy attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania from 1972-1980.
His credibility was tarnished by work he did for the far-left “9/11 for the Truth” campaign, which alleged in a federal lawsuit that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was caused by “controlled demolition” ordered by the president of the United States.
Nevertheless, in recent weeks, lawsuits have been filed in seven additional states demanding that Barack Obama produce an original vault copy of his birth certificate, to dispel the rumors that he is not a natural-born United States citizen.
The latest suits have been filed in state and federal courts in Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut to compel Obama to release his birth records.
Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state superior courts to force the states’ secretary of state, as the chief state elections officer, to require Obama to produce original birth records from Hawaii, or else decertify him as a candidate for the presidency.
Ironically, Obama mentions his birth certificate in passing on Page 26 of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father.” “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” he wrote.
Lawyers for Obama and the DNC did not return calls for comment on the current status of the case, or explain why the Obama campaign did not simply put to rest the whole controversy by releasing the birth certificate that Obama apparently cherished as a teenager.
In the past, questions about Sen. John McCain's legal status have arisen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone at a U.S. Army hospital. McCain had legal experts vet his constitutional qualifications, and he also disclosed a copy of his birth certificate.
Friday, October 24, 2008 4:16 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.
The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Berg's suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.
The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.
By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has “admitted” that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings.
Berg released a long list of “admissions” he submitted to Obama’s lawyers on Sept. 15, and asked that they produce documents relating to Obama’s place of birth and citizenship.
Instead of responding, lawyers for Obama and the DNC asked the court to dismiss the case. But Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued no ruling in the case that would have given Obama’s lawyers more time.
“There are lots of legal ways to stonewall,” a well-placed Republican attorney told Newsmax, who was not authorized to comment officially on the case. “But failing to respond is not one of them.”
“The first thing they teach you in law school,” he added, “is don’t put a complaint like this in a drawer. That’s how a nuisance case can become a problem.”
The 30-day deadline for defendants to comply with a discovery request is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
“It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side,” Berg said after he filed a motion on Thursday for summary judgment.
“The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. [Obama] admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”
In a contentious case, lawyers on both sides will haggle over the production of documents, and will frequently go beyond the deadlines, several lawyers told Newsmax.
“The rules are more often complied with in the breech rather than the observance,” a senior trial attorney who has close ties to the Democrat Party, but is not involved in the current case, told Newsmax.
“Lawyers frequently do not return telephone calls or meet discovery deadlines because of sheer inadvertence. Therefore, we do not consider a failure to respond as a ‘violation,’” he said.
Allegations surrounding Obama’s place of birth have been swirling for months. Earlier this year, the Obama campaign sought to put down the rumors by making available a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, issued in 2007 by the State of Hawaii. [See the Certification of Live Birth — Click Here.]
Respected conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called the Berg lawsuit a “conspiracy theory” that had been put to rest by the Obama campaign over the summer but ”has arisen like a zombie yet again to suck the credibility out of the conservative blogosphere.”
However, the 2007 document produced by the Obama campaign omits key information that normally appears on birth certificates in the United States, including the name of the hospital where he was born, the size and weight of the baby, and sometimes the name of the doctor who delivered him.
In addition, the critics of the 2007 document note that Obama's father is described as “African,” a term used today. The formal language in official documents at the time — 1961 — would have identified his race as “Negro” or “Colored.”
The Web site snarkybytes.com has produced a vault copy of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth from 1963, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. [See the vault copy — Click Here.]
In addition to naming the hospital and more details about the baby, the 1963 vault copy also includes the “usual residence of the mother,” and the “usual occupation” of the father. None of this information appears on the 2007 Live Birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign.
Berg has been a perennial political candidate in Pennsylvania, having run in Democrat primaries for attorney general, lieutenant governor, governor, and other offices without success. He served as deputy attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania from 1972-1980.
His credibility was tarnished by work he did for the far-left “9/11 for the Truth” campaign, which alleged in a federal lawsuit that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was caused by “controlled demolition” ordered by the president of the United States.
Nevertheless, in recent weeks, lawsuits have been filed in seven additional states demanding that Barack Obama produce an original vault copy of his birth certificate, to dispel the rumors that he is not a natural-born United States citizen.
The latest suits have been filed in state and federal courts in Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut to compel Obama to release his birth records.
Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state superior courts to force the states’ secretary of state, as the chief state elections officer, to require Obama to produce original birth records from Hawaii, or else decertify him as a candidate for the presidency.
Ironically, Obama mentions his birth certificate in passing on Page 26 of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father.” “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” he wrote.
Lawyers for Obama and the DNC did not return calls for comment on the current status of the case, or explain why the Obama campaign did not simply put to rest the whole controversy by releasing the birth certificate that Obama apparently cherished as a teenager.
In the past, questions about Sen. John McCain's legal status have arisen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone at a U.S. Army hospital. McCain had legal experts vet his constitutional qualifications, and he also disclosed a copy of his birth certificate.
The Real Obama
The Real Obama
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" remark to Ohio's Joe the Plumber was a rare peek at the radical behind the guarded rhetoric. A newly-unearthed 2001 radio interview provides full view.
The real, unguarded Barack Obama has been exposed, and Americans should hear it for themselves before they make the most consequential electoral decision of their lifetime.
Speaking to Chicago public radio station WBEZ seven years ago, then-Illinois state Sen. Obama reflected on the history of the civil rights movement.
"Where the movement succeeded," he said, "was in court-imposed remedies regarding segregation and voting rights."
But where it failed was that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."
The man now a week away from possibly being elected president then lamented that "the civil rights movement became so court-focused" that it veered away from action to "put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that."
"Redistributive change" — so that's the kind of "change we need" and "change we can believe in" that a President Obama would give America. Exactly as he told Joe the Plumber.
It's pretty hard to spin a term as obvious as "redistributive change," but the Obama campaign is doing its desperate best. He was actually defending conservative legal principles, an Obama legal adviser absurdly told the Politico Web site.
The 2001 interview also finds an unwary Obama saying the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren — which in Warren's 1953-to-1969 tenure was the most activist and power-grabbing in U.S. history — "wasn't that radical" because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted."
Asked by a caller about further "reparative economic work" from the federal courts, Sen. Obama replied that he was "not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," but that "any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."
As president, however, "economic change through the courts" would be only a Supreme Court appointment or two away, supported by dozens of Obama's lower-court appointments.
Congress too is eagerly getting ready to enact "redistributive change." Last week, top House Democrats discussed taxing Americans' pretax contributions to 401(k) plans, with the promise of tens of billions of dollars in new government revenues every year — plus forcing workers to invest in government debt, shifting trillions of dollars from private savings to government control.
Could that be part of what Obama meant in Colorado this weekend when he warned, "make no mistake . . . we will all need to sacrifice"? Was it part of what running mate Joe Biden meant last week when he said of corporate executives, "their pensions go first"? Do workers' pensions then "go" next?
Too many Americans think this radical urban organizer is just another Clinton or Gore. But a vote for Obama is a vote for socialist "spreading of wealth," as Obama admitted to Joe the Plumber, and a vote for "major redistributive change," as he put it in 2001.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" remark to Ohio's Joe the Plumber was a rare peek at the radical behind the guarded rhetoric. A newly-unearthed 2001 radio interview provides full view.
The real, unguarded Barack Obama has been exposed, and Americans should hear it for themselves before they make the most consequential electoral decision of their lifetime.
Speaking to Chicago public radio station WBEZ seven years ago, then-Illinois state Sen. Obama reflected on the history of the civil rights movement.
"Where the movement succeeded," he said, "was in court-imposed remedies regarding segregation and voting rights."
But where it failed was that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."
The man now a week away from possibly being elected president then lamented that "the civil rights movement became so court-focused" that it veered away from action to "put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that."
"Redistributive change" — so that's the kind of "change we need" and "change we can believe in" that a President Obama would give America. Exactly as he told Joe the Plumber.
It's pretty hard to spin a term as obvious as "redistributive change," but the Obama campaign is doing its desperate best. He was actually defending conservative legal principles, an Obama legal adviser absurdly told the Politico Web site.
The 2001 interview also finds an unwary Obama saying the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren — which in Warren's 1953-to-1969 tenure was the most activist and power-grabbing in U.S. history — "wasn't that radical" because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted."
Asked by a caller about further "reparative economic work" from the federal courts, Sen. Obama replied that he was "not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," but that "any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."
As president, however, "economic change through the courts" would be only a Supreme Court appointment or two away, supported by dozens of Obama's lower-court appointments.
Congress too is eagerly getting ready to enact "redistributive change." Last week, top House Democrats discussed taxing Americans' pretax contributions to 401(k) plans, with the promise of tens of billions of dollars in new government revenues every year — plus forcing workers to invest in government debt, shifting trillions of dollars from private savings to government control.
Could that be part of what Obama meant in Colorado this weekend when he warned, "make no mistake . . . we will all need to sacrifice"? Was it part of what running mate Joe Biden meant last week when he said of corporate executives, "their pensions go first"? Do workers' pensions then "go" next?
Too many Americans think this radical urban organizer is just another Clinton or Gore. But a vote for Obama is a vote for socialist "spreading of wealth," as Obama admitted to Joe the Plumber, and a vote for "major redistributive change," as he put it in 2001.
October 27, 2008
OCTOBER SURPRISE??? WE HOPE
THIS COULD VERY WELL BE THE OCTOBER SURPRISE.
Law of Estoppel Snags Obama:
"I am ineligible... to serve as President..."
Pennsylvania attorney Phillip Berg, in his lawsuit (see documents
at http://obamacrimes.com) questioning Barack Hussein Obama's
right to become President, filed a request for admissions. In the
request, he stated certain allegations and required Obama and the
DNC to admit to the truth of them or to deny them within 30 days.
According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the respondent must
answer within the specified time frame or the court will accept
the silence of the respondent as acquiescence - an admission of
the truth of the allegations. The respondent thereby estops his
future protests against the factual nature of the allegations.
Unfortunately for the People of America, neither Barack nor
the DNC came forward to admit or deny Berg's allegations within
the allotted time. Now we have a constitutional challenge on
our hands. Ipso facto, the court must assume Obama and the DNC
admitted to the allegations, and it must rule that Obama has no
right to pursue the office of President of the United States. Why?
Because these admissions prove that Obama has no right to run
for president or become president - they admit that he did not
qualify by way of natural born citizenship.
Instead of responding to the request for admissions, Barack put his
campaign on hold and jetted off to Hawaii to tend to his ailing
grandmother. I consider this "coincidence" way too coincidental.
I believe he has gone to do damage control - to find some sneaky
way to fabricate and/or slip into the system some kind of plausible
birth certificate in a criminal effort to prove the US citizenship
which he has to this point refused to substantiate by credible
documented evidence.
Before you start feeling too sorry for Obama and his supporters,
remember that Obama had plenty of opportunity to present proper and
certified evidence of his birth. And the public has every right
to question his integrity, in light of the sketchy history of
his mother's country-hopping and multi-nationalist associations
preceding and coinciding with his birth. In his arrogance,
Obama refused to presentc credible evidence of his birth, and
he has tried to get the court challenge dismissed out of hand.
If he somehow gets into the presidency, I believe we can expect
more of the same recalcitrant deceit and duplicity.
This has NOTHING to do with Obama's politics. It has to do with
his obedience to his oath of loyalty to the Constitution for the
USA and the laws pursuant thereto.
Law Notes:
1.. Silence constitutes acquiescence and it can equate to fraud
for one who has the duty to respond.
2.. Silence constitutes an implied representation of the
existence of the state of facts in question and will operate
as an estoppel.
3.. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there
is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left
unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v. Tweel,
550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden,
424 F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64
A. 932 (1906).;
4.. "He who is silent when conscience requires him to speak
shall be debarred from speaking when conscience requires him
to be silent." Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. D. A. Dorsey,
1932.FL.40867, 149 So. 759 (1932).
5.. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 301 provides for "Admission
by silence." Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(d),
Florida rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.110(e) and Florida
Statute 90.803(6)(c) maintain that failure to deny constitutes
tacit admission.
6.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_admissions
Law of Estoppel Snags Obama:
"I am ineligible... to serve as President..."
Pennsylvania attorney Phillip Berg, in his lawsuit (see documents
at http://obamacrimes.com) questioning Barack Hussein Obama's
right to become President, filed a request for admissions. In the
request, he stated certain allegations and required Obama and the
DNC to admit to the truth of them or to deny them within 30 days.
According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the respondent must
answer within the specified time frame or the court will accept
the silence of the respondent as acquiescence - an admission of
the truth of the allegations. The respondent thereby estops his
future protests against the factual nature of the allegations.
Unfortunately for the People of America, neither Barack nor
the DNC came forward to admit or deny Berg's allegations within
the allotted time. Now we have a constitutional challenge on
our hands. Ipso facto, the court must assume Obama and the DNC
admitted to the allegations, and it must rule that Obama has no
right to pursue the office of President of the United States. Why?
Because these admissions prove that Obama has no right to run
for president or become president - they admit that he did not
qualify by way of natural born citizenship.
Instead of responding to the request for admissions, Barack put his
campaign on hold and jetted off to Hawaii to tend to his ailing
grandmother. I consider this "coincidence" way too coincidental.
I believe he has gone to do damage control - to find some sneaky
way to fabricate and/or slip into the system some kind of plausible
birth certificate in a criminal effort to prove the US citizenship
which he has to this point refused to substantiate by credible
documented evidence.
Before you start feeling too sorry for Obama and his supporters,
remember that Obama had plenty of opportunity to present proper and
certified evidence of his birth. And the public has every right
to question his integrity, in light of the sketchy history of
his mother's country-hopping and multi-nationalist associations
preceding and coinciding with his birth. In his arrogance,
Obama refused to presentc credible evidence of his birth, and
he has tried to get the court challenge dismissed out of hand.
If he somehow gets into the presidency, I believe we can expect
more of the same recalcitrant deceit and duplicity.
This has NOTHING to do with Obama's politics. It has to do with
his obedience to his oath of loyalty to the Constitution for the
USA and the laws pursuant thereto.
Law Notes:
1.. Silence constitutes acquiescence and it can equate to fraud
for one who has the duty to respond.
2.. Silence constitutes an implied representation of the
existence of the state of facts in question and will operate
as an estoppel.
3.. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there
is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left
unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v. Tweel,
550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden,
424 F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64
A. 932 (1906).;
4.. "He who is silent when conscience requires him to speak
shall be debarred from speaking when conscience requires him
to be silent." Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. D. A. Dorsey,
1932.FL.40867, 149 So. 759 (1932).
5.. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 301 provides for "Admission
by silence." Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(d),
Florida rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.110(e) and Florida
Statute 90.803(6)(c) maintain that failure to deny constitutes
tacit admission.
6.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_admissions
To Barack Hussein Obama, You lie again.
THANK YOU ALICE.
This is EXCELLENT! Please forward this to everyone on your mailing list. May God Bless America.
To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that
proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers
than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your
relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to
America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that
you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what
you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only
saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that
you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of
concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about 'race'
contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you
said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements
about white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20
years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America
on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that
you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North
Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels . Joe Biden repeated
your words in his debate with Sarah Palin . while the video tape
from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I
would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months
without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with
enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater
concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would
work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that
you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about
military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the
greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the
troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal
while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you
voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be
removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as
you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops
unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you
lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the
record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican
was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you
vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most
liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13%
of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement
from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to
include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal,
the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have
talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other
day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had
just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of
Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of
Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that
you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor
of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against
additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the
opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for
alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John
McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially
corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing
ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn
from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for
food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a
tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the
voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and
Joe Biden. You lied to America.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90%
of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time
with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of
the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted
90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from
the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from
your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you
spin the facts.
You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan. You claimed that
the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you
abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the
financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions
to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and
your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along
with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of
concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and
Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of
fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax
dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you
sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter
fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal
campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of
dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your
political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and
you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and
you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern,
the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your
relationships with them to America.
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'they
cling to their guns and religion.' 'they will say that I am black.'
You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as
racist. You divide America.
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you
forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the
Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 Billion in
earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will
cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in
military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your
economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is
of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.
The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion
per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than
1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for
the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today,
you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You
are lying to America.
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public
financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican
PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and
2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George
Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America.
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers
union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated religion
from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with
students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics
into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash
our children. They are in it for themselves ... not America. Are
you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and
the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to
Republicans? You are deceiving America.
Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we
Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before
anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches,
motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric.
You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You distorted facts.
You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your
advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal
political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and
associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with
'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43
previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22
years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the
time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an
earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not
justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness,
dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your
dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater
than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill
Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty
of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on
political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest
character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our
political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America
to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest
should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political
issues more important than character. Would these same people vote
for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would
they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they
hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? .... of
course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for
you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your
dishonesty? because some of these people are frightened about the
future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are
praying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some
(especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and
promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Ad olf Hitler in
1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing
Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy
are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has
camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you
really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day,
forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling
dishonesty.
Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in
your decisions about the future.
Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot
trust you.
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to
refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the
mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about
your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating,
lack of operational leadership experience, and general
dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention to your relationships
and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The
fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships
themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon .
Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that
those gentlemen lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury
... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own ....
but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to
send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need
to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your
dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really
are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help
America if we deserve you.
Michael Master;
McLean, Virginia
This is EXCELLENT! Please forward this to everyone on your mailing list. May God Bless America.
To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that
proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers
than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your
relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to
America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that
you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what
you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only
saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that
you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of
concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about 'race'
contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you
said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements
about white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20
years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America
on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that
you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North
Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels . Joe Biden repeated
your words in his debate with Sarah Palin . while the video tape
from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I
would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months
without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with
enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater
concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would
work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that
you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about
military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the
greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the
troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal
while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you
voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be
removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as
you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops
unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you
lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the
record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican
was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you
vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most
liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13%
of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement
from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to
include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal,
the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have
talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other
day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had
just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of
Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of
Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that
you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor
of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against
additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the
opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for
alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John
McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially
corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing
ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn
from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for
food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a
tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the
voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and
Joe Biden. You lied to America.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90%
of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time
with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of
the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted
90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from
the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from
your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you
spin the facts.
You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan. You claimed that
the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you
abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the
financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions
to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and
your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along
with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of
concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and
Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of
fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax
dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you
sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter
fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal
campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of
dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your
political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and
you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and
you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern,
the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your
relationships with them to America.
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'they
cling to their guns and religion.' 'they will say that I am black.'
You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as
racist. You divide America.
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you
forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the
Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 Billion in
earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will
cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in
military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your
economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is
of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.
The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion
per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than
1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for
the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today,
you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You
are lying to America.
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public
financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican
PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and
2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George
Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America.
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers
union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated religion
from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with
students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics
into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash
our children. They are in it for themselves ... not America. Are
you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and
the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to
Republicans? You are deceiving America.
Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we
Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before
anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches,
motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric.
You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You distorted facts.
You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your
advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal
political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and
associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with
'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43
previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22
years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the
time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an
earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not
justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness,
dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your
dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater
than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill
Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty
of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on
political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest
character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our
political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America
to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest
should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political
issues more important than character. Would these same people vote
for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would
they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they
hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? .... of
course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for
you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your
dishonesty? because some of these people are frightened about the
future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are
praying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some
(especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and
promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Ad olf Hitler in
1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing
Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy
are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has
camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you
really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day,
forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling
dishonesty.
Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in
your decisions about the future.
Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot
trust you.
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to
refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the
mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about
your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating,
lack of operational leadership experience, and general
dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention to your relationships
and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The
fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships
themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon .
Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that
those gentlemen lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury
... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own ....
but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to
send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need
to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your
dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really
are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help
America if we deserve you.
Michael Master;
McLean, Virginia
These events are actual events from history..
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Pause a moment, reflect back.
These events are actual events from history..
They really happened!!!
Do you remember?
1> 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male extremist.
2> In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists.
3> In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists.
4> During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists.
5> In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists.
6> In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists.
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists.
8> In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists.
9> In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists.
10> In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists.
11> On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists.
12> In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists.
13> In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people... Absolutely No Profiling!
They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
According to The Book of Revelations:
The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.
And Now:
For the award winning Act of Stupidity Of all times the People of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the face of the Planet -- The Presidency of the United states of America . A Male of Muslim descent who is the most extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an extremest) and in his 40s.
Have the American People completely lost their Minds, or just their Power of Reason ???
I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate Obama...
Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it!
or again. . . just delete if you disagree.
RRC101808
Pause a moment, reflect back.
These events are actual events from history..
They really happened!!!
Do you remember?
1> 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male extremist.
2> In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists.
3> In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists.
4> During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists.
5> In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists.
6> In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists.
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists.
8> In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists.
9> In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists.
10> In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists.
11> On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists.
12> In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists.
13> In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people... Absolutely No Profiling!
They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
According to The Book of Revelations:
The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.
And Now:
For the award winning Act of Stupidity Of all times the People of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the face of the Planet -- The Presidency of the United states of America . A Male of Muslim descent who is the most extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an extremest) and in his 40s.
Have the American People completely lost their Minds, or just their Power of Reason ???
I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate Obama...
Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it!
or again. . . just delete if you disagree.
RRC101808
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?
This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.
I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'>From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.
I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'>From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
October 26, 2008
JOE THE PLUMBER
Dear Reader:
"Joe the plumber" has a secret plan to destroy Barack Obama.
If you believe the media, Joe is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type � he is a true threat to the "Anointed One" � Barack Obama � and his chances of becoming president of the United States.
This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it's true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber..
Why? Because he's an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family.
One day, Joe woke up and suddenly realized that Barack Obama is going to punish him with brutal taxes.
Just by coincidence � and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence � Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood.
When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question � something the press has not done during the past two years � the Anointed One wilted.
How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money? The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business!
As Obama put it, shouldn't Joe want to help him "spread the wealth around?"
With that one remark, Obama's disguise as a moderate crumbled.
At the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (PAC), we are working to remove Obama's disguise as a moderate once and for all.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst has praised the National Republican Trust for our work and says we can change this election.
Here's what Dick said: "The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on Election Day."
That's why we are going directly to folks like you and millions of Americans via the Internet, cable, and broadcast TV.
We are telling the unvarnished truth about Obama, exposing his out-and-out lies.
Here are just three of Obama's biggest lies:
Obama Lie No. 1 � I will tax just the rich.
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone.
Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as "rich."
Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe's rich too. Under Obama, he won't be able to hire new employees and grow his business.
Joe's not alone. Obama says he'll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you'll pay 7 percent!
Obama Lie No. 2 � I want to give a tax cut
to the middle class.
Baloney!
Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's an automatic 5 percent (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers.
Plus middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15 percent to almost 30 percent.
He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.
Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared. There goes your idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future.
Obama Lie No. 3 � I want to make America
more secure.
Another outright lie.
In an age when crazies like Iran's Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to "destroy" the United States and Israel, Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," Obama said.
He has promised to cut "tens of billions" of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more "secure," Obama plans to disarm us.
In the age of 9/11 can we afford such a radical Leftist in the White House?
No, we can't.
Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs.
He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.
He is so radical he even backed driver's licenses for illegal aliens � even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan.
But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver's licenses as a state senator in Illinois.
He is also the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live-born children � children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.'s total ban on private handguns � a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an "F" on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard-educated elitist. To him, we Americans are simply "bitter" and he has mocked us saying "[they] cling to their guns and their religion."
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked..
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama's home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was "anointed" by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
Finally, McCain is fighting back � just like Hillary did. His poll numbers have improved.
But Obama is spending huge amounts of cash in the swing states.
That's why we need your help. To go into these states and tell the American public the truth about Obama.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton's strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
RRC102108
"Joe the plumber" has a secret plan to destroy Barack Obama.
If you believe the media, Joe is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type � he is a true threat to the "Anointed One" � Barack Obama � and his chances of becoming president of the United States.
This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it's true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber..
Why? Because he's an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family.
One day, Joe woke up and suddenly realized that Barack Obama is going to punish him with brutal taxes.
Just by coincidence � and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence � Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood.
When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question � something the press has not done during the past two years � the Anointed One wilted.
How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money? The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business!
As Obama put it, shouldn't Joe want to help him "spread the wealth around?"
With that one remark, Obama's disguise as a moderate crumbled.
At the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (PAC), we are working to remove Obama's disguise as a moderate once and for all.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst has praised the National Republican Trust for our work and says we can change this election.
Here's what Dick said: "The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on Election Day."
That's why we are going directly to folks like you and millions of Americans via the Internet, cable, and broadcast TV.
We are telling the unvarnished truth about Obama, exposing his out-and-out lies.
Here are just three of Obama's biggest lies:
Obama Lie No. 1 � I will tax just the rich.
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone.
Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as "rich."
Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe's rich too. Under Obama, he won't be able to hire new employees and grow his business.
Joe's not alone. Obama says he'll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you'll pay 7 percent!
Obama Lie No. 2 � I want to give a tax cut
to the middle class.
Baloney!
Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's an automatic 5 percent (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers.
Plus middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15 percent to almost 30 percent.
He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.
Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared. There goes your idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future.
Obama Lie No. 3 � I want to make America
more secure.
Another outright lie.
In an age when crazies like Iran's Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to "destroy" the United States and Israel, Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," Obama said.
He has promised to cut "tens of billions" of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more "secure," Obama plans to disarm us.
In the age of 9/11 can we afford such a radical Leftist in the White House?
No, we can't.
Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs.
He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.
He is so radical he even backed driver's licenses for illegal aliens � even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan.
But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver's licenses as a state senator in Illinois.
He is also the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live-born children � children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.'s total ban on private handguns � a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an "F" on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard-educated elitist. To him, we Americans are simply "bitter" and he has mocked us saying "[they] cling to their guns and their religion."
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked..
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama's home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was "anointed" by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
Finally, McCain is fighting back � just like Hillary did. His poll numbers have improved.
But Obama is spending huge amounts of cash in the swing states.
That's why we need your help. To go into these states and tell the American public the truth about Obama.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton's strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
RRC102108
Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Tax Policy: Democratic nominee Barack Obama touts his tax plan as just a way to "spread the wealth." But to us it looks like something quite different: a declaration of war on capital.
Obama has described his plan to hike taxes as "neighborliness," "patriotism" and "justice." In fact, it's the widest-ranging assault on capital — and those who create it — in at least a generation, possibly longer.
Look at just a few of the things he and congressional Democrats have in mind: Higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs (anyone earning over $250,000), higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on dividends, a possible raid on Americans' 401(k)s, a takeover of America's private health care industry, strict new limits on what CEOs can make, and the reimposition of the death tax.
Add it up, and Obama will usher in a new era in America — one where capital, the engine of our economic growth and success, is punished severely through the tax code. If Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, it'll be the only form of capital punishment their party will support.
Obama denies this, but listen to Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, who said just last week: "I believe later on, there should be tax increases. . . there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."
And all this in the middle of what looks like a deep recession. This is a big reason why stock markets in the U.S. and abroad have plunged in recent weeks. As Obama climbs in the polls, investors have awakened to a stark fiscal reality.
This should worry all Americans. A 2005 study found 57 million U.S. households — 60% of the total — owned stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Average people don't realize they'll take a direct hit.
Higher taxes lower returns on capital. This means everything — wages, stock prices, real estate — will have to decline further as Obama's tax hikes take hold. That means fewer jobs.
This reverses what has always been America's recipe for success: an economy built on low taxes, few regulations, free trade and, in general, letting markets decide winners and losers.
Obama says he's merely "spreading the wealth" — taking money from those who've earned it and giving it to those who haven't. But we already "spread the wealth." According to economists Gerald Prante and Andrew Chamberlain, the top 40% of households redistribute $1 trillion each year through the tax code to the bottom 60%. And yes, that includes the middle class.
By the way, the top 5% of earners — those squarely in Obama's tax-hike cross hairs — already pay 60% of all taxes. Obama's changes would skew that further.
Worse, many of Obama's "get the rich" tax hikes are really targeted at successful small businesses that create nearly 90% of all U.S. jobs. Among tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more, some 67% report small-business income.
At this delicate time in our economic history, talk of tax hikes on wealth creators and capital is irresponsible — a recipe for the kind of market meltdowns we've seen repeatedly in recent weeks.
Spread the wealth? More like, destroy it.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Tax Policy: Democratic nominee Barack Obama touts his tax plan as just a way to "spread the wealth." But to us it looks like something quite different: a declaration of war on capital.
Obama has described his plan to hike taxes as "neighborliness," "patriotism" and "justice." In fact, it's the widest-ranging assault on capital — and those who create it — in at least a generation, possibly longer.
Look at just a few of the things he and congressional Democrats have in mind: Higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs (anyone earning over $250,000), higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on dividends, a possible raid on Americans' 401(k)s, a takeover of America's private health care industry, strict new limits on what CEOs can make, and the reimposition of the death tax.
Add it up, and Obama will usher in a new era in America — one where capital, the engine of our economic growth and success, is punished severely through the tax code. If Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, it'll be the only form of capital punishment their party will support.
Obama denies this, but listen to Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, who said just last week: "I believe later on, there should be tax increases. . . there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."
And all this in the middle of what looks like a deep recession. This is a big reason why stock markets in the U.S. and abroad have plunged in recent weeks. As Obama climbs in the polls, investors have awakened to a stark fiscal reality.
This should worry all Americans. A 2005 study found 57 million U.S. households — 60% of the total — owned stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Average people don't realize they'll take a direct hit.
Higher taxes lower returns on capital. This means everything — wages, stock prices, real estate — will have to decline further as Obama's tax hikes take hold. That means fewer jobs.
This reverses what has always been America's recipe for success: an economy built on low taxes, few regulations, free trade and, in general, letting markets decide winners and losers.
Obama says he's merely "spreading the wealth" — taking money from those who've earned it and giving it to those who haven't. But we already "spread the wealth." According to economists Gerald Prante and Andrew Chamberlain, the top 40% of households redistribute $1 trillion each year through the tax code to the bottom 60%. And yes, that includes the middle class.
By the way, the top 5% of earners — those squarely in Obama's tax-hike cross hairs — already pay 60% of all taxes. Obama's changes would skew that further.
Worse, many of Obama's "get the rich" tax hikes are really targeted at successful small businesses that create nearly 90% of all U.S. jobs. Among tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more, some 67% report small-business income.
At this delicate time in our economic history, talk of tax hikes on wealth creators and capital is irresponsible — a recipe for the kind of market meltdowns we've seen repeatedly in recent weeks.
Spread the wealth? More like, destroy it.
No Reason For Conservatives To Jump Ship
No Reason For Conservatives To Jump Ship
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain.
I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling "Stop!"
I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example.
As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association — with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Dirty campaigning, indeed.
Who Will Answer At 3 a.m.?
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world?
A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Choose Most Prepared Man
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain.
I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling "Stop!"
I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example.
As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association — with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Dirty campaigning, indeed.
Who Will Answer At 3 a.m.?
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world?
A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Choose Most Prepared Man
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Barack H. Dewey
Barack H. Dewey
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama's certainty about winning betrays the same arrogance found in his socialist ideology. "President Dewey" learned the hard way that Americans reject candidates who count their chickens.
How sad to be remembered by history for telling voters, "Your future is still ahead of you." New York Republican Gov. Thomas Dewey's snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory in his 1948 run against Harry Truman was filled with many such platitudes.
But were Dewey's vacuities any less empty and meaningless than "At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future"? This is how Sen. Obama — promoted as the greatest orator of our time — closed his convention stadium speech.
Or his infamous "We are the ones we've been waiting for"? Or even his campaign's monosyllabic slogan, "Change," emblazoned on the fuselage of Obama's campaign jet. (What do they call it, Air Force The One?)
Saying a whole bunch of nothing with a nice ring to it is not the only way Obama is copying "the little man on the wedding cake," as the ever-witty Alice Roosevelt Longworth referred to Dewey. Obama has also been acting as if he's got the presidency in the bag.
"I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here," he told a northern Virginia crowd Wednesday.
In Chicago, construction has already begun for a $2 million Obama fest for Election Night at Grant Park on the shore of Lake Michigan, in spite of Democratic Mayor Richard Daley warning that it would be a logistical nightmare and suggesting another venue.
Then there was his "national security council meeting" in Richmond, where advisers "prepared" him for the foreign policy challenges of the Obama administration. And Obama economic advisers are "already in constant touch" with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
In his book "With Reagan," Edwin Meese recalled Ronald Reagan making a point of avoiding overconfidence at the end of the 1980 campaign when it was clear that he would beat Jimmy Carter.
Reagan knew, according to Meese, that "planning to govern before being elected would smack of smugness and have a negative effect on the electorate," and he "constantly worried about being a latter-day Thomas Dewey."
Imagine how Reagan would go after Obama for his arrogance — which extends to his misguided policies to tax the investment that drives the economy, mask tax credits as welfare, spend hundreds of billions more annually and use talk to win the global war on terror.
In his inimitable style, Reagan would no doubt warn Obama that that "righteous wind" he feels could soon become a head wind, and blow all his hot air right back into his face.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama's certainty about winning betrays the same arrogance found in his socialist ideology. "President Dewey" learned the hard way that Americans reject candidates who count their chickens.
How sad to be remembered by history for telling voters, "Your future is still ahead of you." New York Republican Gov. Thomas Dewey's snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory in his 1948 run against Harry Truman was filled with many such platitudes.
But were Dewey's vacuities any less empty and meaningless than "At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future"? This is how Sen. Obama — promoted as the greatest orator of our time — closed his convention stadium speech.
Or his infamous "We are the ones we've been waiting for"? Or even his campaign's monosyllabic slogan, "Change," emblazoned on the fuselage of Obama's campaign jet. (What do they call it, Air Force The One?)
Saying a whole bunch of nothing with a nice ring to it is not the only way Obama is copying "the little man on the wedding cake," as the ever-witty Alice Roosevelt Longworth referred to Dewey. Obama has also been acting as if he's got the presidency in the bag.
"I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here," he told a northern Virginia crowd Wednesday.
In Chicago, construction has already begun for a $2 million Obama fest for Election Night at Grant Park on the shore of Lake Michigan, in spite of Democratic Mayor Richard Daley warning that it would be a logistical nightmare and suggesting another venue.
Then there was his "national security council meeting" in Richmond, where advisers "prepared" him for the foreign policy challenges of the Obama administration. And Obama economic advisers are "already in constant touch" with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
In his book "With Reagan," Edwin Meese recalled Ronald Reagan making a point of avoiding overconfidence at the end of the 1980 campaign when it was clear that he would beat Jimmy Carter.
Reagan knew, according to Meese, that "planning to govern before being elected would smack of smugness and have a negative effect on the electorate," and he "constantly worried about being a latter-day Thomas Dewey."
Imagine how Reagan would go after Obama for his arrogance — which extends to his misguided policies to tax the investment that drives the economy, mask tax credits as welfare, spend hundreds of billions more annually and use talk to win the global war on terror.
In his inimitable style, Reagan would no doubt warn Obama that that "righteous wind" he feels could soon become a head wind, and blow all his hot air right back into his face.
Obama's Publicists
Obama's Publicists
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Journalism: Have the feeling Barack Obama gets more favorable coverage than John McCain? It's not just a perception, it's a reality, according to yet another study confirming media bias.
The right-of-center sector of the blogosphere has for months maintained that the mainstream media are "in the tank" for Obama. The observant bloggers were right.
"Coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable — and has become more so over time," says a Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism study that looked at newspapers and cable news shows from the end of the conventions to the last presidential debate. Coverage of Obama, naturally, was much more positive than negative or neutral. His ratio of favorable stories to overall stories was more than 2 1/2 times as large as McCain's.
The second most unfavorable coverage went not to McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, but to Obama's, Joe Biden. "Limited coverage" of the Delaware senator "was far more negative than Palin's, and nearly as negative as McCain's." The small sample size makes any conclusion irrelevant, though.
The study called Biden "nearly the invisible man" because he's been largely ignored. In our view, his frequent gaffes should earn him extended negative coverage, but he's gotten a pass. Scornful reporting is reserved for Republicans such as Palin, who got bad press in 39% of the stories about her. Only 28% were positive, a third neutral.
Such bias against Republicans is institutional. The Media Research Center found that between the end of the primaries and Tuesday, network news broadcast 84 stories criticizing McCain ads while only 32 had a negative tone toward Obama ads. And the Center for Media and Public Affairs notes that the GOP ticket is the butt of late-night comic jokes seven times as often as the Democratic pair.
Despite the one-sided coverage in favor of their party, some Democrats won't be happy until they have shut down any opposition and shredded the First Amendment. Among them is Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who shares his party's eagerness to reinstate the clearly unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine. This is the Federal Communications Commission rule that once required broadcasters to give equal time to all sides on public issues.
"My thought is that radio and media generally should have a higher calling than just to reflect a particular point of view," Bingaman recently told an Albuquerque radio station, apparently forgetting that the rule of law and America's foundational documents are our guiding principles, not what he thinks.
Should Obama be elected and the Democrats gain large majorities in both congressional chambers, we expect the Fairness Doctrine, scrapped in 1987, to be resurrected.
To paraphrase a note from one of our contributors: Who knew the Democrats were closet totalitarians? We'll all know, however, when constitutionally guaranteed free speech is snuffed out.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Journalism: Have the feeling Barack Obama gets more favorable coverage than John McCain? It's not just a perception, it's a reality, according to yet another study confirming media bias.
The right-of-center sector of the blogosphere has for months maintained that the mainstream media are "in the tank" for Obama. The observant bloggers were right.
"Coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable — and has become more so over time," says a Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism study that looked at newspapers and cable news shows from the end of the conventions to the last presidential debate. Coverage of Obama, naturally, was much more positive than negative or neutral. His ratio of favorable stories to overall stories was more than 2 1/2 times as large as McCain's.
The second most unfavorable coverage went not to McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, but to Obama's, Joe Biden. "Limited coverage" of the Delaware senator "was far more negative than Palin's, and nearly as negative as McCain's." The small sample size makes any conclusion irrelevant, though.
The study called Biden "nearly the invisible man" because he's been largely ignored. In our view, his frequent gaffes should earn him extended negative coverage, but he's gotten a pass. Scornful reporting is reserved for Republicans such as Palin, who got bad press in 39% of the stories about her. Only 28% were positive, a third neutral.
Such bias against Republicans is institutional. The Media Research Center found that between the end of the primaries and Tuesday, network news broadcast 84 stories criticizing McCain ads while only 32 had a negative tone toward Obama ads. And the Center for Media and Public Affairs notes that the GOP ticket is the butt of late-night comic jokes seven times as often as the Democratic pair.
Despite the one-sided coverage in favor of their party, some Democrats won't be happy until they have shut down any opposition and shredded the First Amendment. Among them is Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who shares his party's eagerness to reinstate the clearly unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine. This is the Federal Communications Commission rule that once required broadcasters to give equal time to all sides on public issues.
"My thought is that radio and media generally should have a higher calling than just to reflect a particular point of view," Bingaman recently told an Albuquerque radio station, apparently forgetting that the rule of law and America's foundational documents are our guiding principles, not what he thinks.
Should Obama be elected and the Democrats gain large majorities in both congressional chambers, we expect the Fairness Doctrine, scrapped in 1987, to be resurrected.
To paraphrase a note from one of our contributors: Who knew the Democrats were closet totalitarians? We'll all know, however, when constitutionally guaranteed free speech is snuffed out.
Petty Officer
Petty Officer
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: No one's vote should be swayed by Gen. Colin Powell's long-expected Obama endorsement. Like other self-serving, 11th-hour Obama supporters, his reasons couldn't be shallower.
When novelist Christopher Buckley recently endorsed Barack Obama for president, he didn't come up with very compelling reasons. "He is that rara avis" (rare bird), according to the son of the late conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr., "the politician who writes his own books. Imagine." That presumably will make our armed forces feel better when Obama squanders the extraordinary turnaround they engineered in Iraq.
The younger Buckley's backing sounds eerily similar to another skilled writer's equally irrational judgment of another dangerous Democratic presidential nominee. "It was as if he knew that God had given him intelligence and good work that would make sense, and so he could give his strength to the world and get new strength back," Norman Mailer wrote after meeting candidate Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Carter's "strength" was viewed differently by the Soviet Union, which after less than three years of Carter was emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan.
More seriousness might have been expected from former Secretary of State Powell. But on NBC's "Meet the Press," the four-star general described Obama as "a transformational figure" who "because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities . . . has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
All this amounts to a string of vacuous catchphrases.
How can someone who served Ronald Reagan as he fought the Cold War, George H. W. Bush as he fought the Gulf War and George W. Bush as he fought the global war on terror support a man from leftist circles in Southside Chicago who has bragged, "I will slow our development of future combat systems" and who promises "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions"?
Among Powell's rationales is his "difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court." Would he rather have another ACLU activist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the high court instead of a John Roberts or Samuel Alito?
Powell also took a cheap shot at McCain running mate Sarah Palin, whom he claimed isn't ready to be president. Truth is, Palin's qualifications outweigh those of Obama, who has never managed a small business, let alone the largest state of the Union.
The only credible conclusion, especially considering Powell's timing, calculated for maximum impact, is that this is petty payback to the Bush administration and the Republican Party for the president's refusal to take his advice on Iraq.
An Obama administration, in fact, might make Powell's prediction that the Iraq conflict cannot "be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States" seem to come true. Powell might have just given himself a future in the Democratic Party, but in this instance a fine general has not served his country.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: No one's vote should be swayed by Gen. Colin Powell's long-expected Obama endorsement. Like other self-serving, 11th-hour Obama supporters, his reasons couldn't be shallower.
When novelist Christopher Buckley recently endorsed Barack Obama for president, he didn't come up with very compelling reasons. "He is that rara avis" (rare bird), according to the son of the late conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr., "the politician who writes his own books. Imagine." That presumably will make our armed forces feel better when Obama squanders the extraordinary turnaround they engineered in Iraq.
The younger Buckley's backing sounds eerily similar to another skilled writer's equally irrational judgment of another dangerous Democratic presidential nominee. "It was as if he knew that God had given him intelligence and good work that would make sense, and so he could give his strength to the world and get new strength back," Norman Mailer wrote after meeting candidate Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Carter's "strength" was viewed differently by the Soviet Union, which after less than three years of Carter was emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan.
More seriousness might have been expected from former Secretary of State Powell. But on NBC's "Meet the Press," the four-star general described Obama as "a transformational figure" who "because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities . . . has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
All this amounts to a string of vacuous catchphrases.
How can someone who served Ronald Reagan as he fought the Cold War, George H. W. Bush as he fought the Gulf War and George W. Bush as he fought the global war on terror support a man from leftist circles in Southside Chicago who has bragged, "I will slow our development of future combat systems" and who promises "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions"?
Among Powell's rationales is his "difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court." Would he rather have another ACLU activist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the high court instead of a John Roberts or Samuel Alito?
Powell also took a cheap shot at McCain running mate Sarah Palin, whom he claimed isn't ready to be president. Truth is, Palin's qualifications outweigh those of Obama, who has never managed a small business, let alone the largest state of the Union.
The only credible conclusion, especially considering Powell's timing, calculated for maximum impact, is that this is petty payback to the Bush administration and the Republican Party for the president's refusal to take his advice on Iraq.
An Obama administration, in fact, might make Powell's prediction that the Iraq conflict cannot "be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States" seem to come true. Powell might have just given himself a future in the Democratic Party, but in this instance a fine general has not served his country.
RNC: Obama 'Outside Law' on Donors
RNC: Obama 'Outside Law' on Donors
Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:40 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
The Republican National Committee on Thursday supplemented its Oct. 6 complaint to the Federal Election Committee and — citing new revelations by Newsmax and other news organizations — called on the FEC to “immediately conduct a full audit” of the Obama campaign accounts.
The RNC complaint asserts that the Obama campaign had demonstrated a “lack of compliance with the law” because of its acceptance of prohibited donations from foreign nationals, excessive contributions from individuals, and donations from unknown sources.
At the same time, RNC officials said they recognize that the FEC has “no authority” to freeze campaign accounts or to take other actions that would actually prevent the Obama campaign from spending money illegally obtained from foreign nationals to influence the U.S. presidential election.
“The system isn’t designed for actors who are going to ignore the law,” RNC chief legal counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
A Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign’s campaign finance disclosures found 60,000 donations in unrounded amounts that fundraising experts said clearly suggested were “foreign currency transactions” translated into U.S. dollars.
The Obama campaign claims that many of these donations were purchases of T-shirts from the Obama store. However, when asked by Newsmax to provide an accounting for receipts and expenditures of the Obama store, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt could only name a single supplier who sold merchandise worth less than $500,000, according to campaign records.
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Donations Enshrouded in Mystery."]
RNC chief counsel Sean Caircross commended Newsmax for reporting that helped to break open the secretive fundraising schemes used by the Obama campaign.
“The Newsmax articles constitute some of the exhibits to our original complaint,” he said. “We commend Newsmax and other media organizations who are doing a good job in looking into what seems to be a rather large issue for the Obama campaign.”
Reporting by Newsmax and others of fictitious donors such as “Family Guy” and “King Kong” made it “clear that the Obama For America campaign is operating outside of the law,” Cairncross said.
“The complete and total lack of any control mechanisms within the Obama campaign’s fundraising operation has undermined any confidence in their ability to curtail excessive, foreign, and fraudulent contributions and demands immediate attention from the Federal Election Commission (FEC),” he added.
The RNC now believes that the Obama campaign violated federal election law by “accepting contributions resulting from third party fraud, and possibly accepting contributions made in the name of another,” the complaint asserts.
Such contributions — made in the name of “Saddam Hussein,” “Osama bin Laden,” “OJ Simpson” and others — are the only violation of federal election law that carries a criminal penalty, RNC sources and outside campaign finance lawyers said.
While the Obama campaign has said repeatedly that they have procedures in place to screen out possible illegal donations, the spate of news reporting to the contrary shows that they have failed, the latest RNC complaint asserts.
“Developing a large donor base and raising enormous sums of money” — excuses commonly cited by the Obama campaign for the influx of illegal donations — “is not an excuse for ignoring the law.”
While the Obama campaign claims that it has “bent over backward” to root out illegal contributions, it has ignored contributions that were explicitly made by foreign nationals, the complaint says, citing an August 2008 report from the Associated Press.
The AP report identified Australian citizen Richard Watters, who contributed $1,000 to the Obama campaign via the Internet “by entering a fake U.S. passport number and checking a box stating that he was a U.S. citizen living abroad.”
In another case, a Canadian donor named Tom Sanderson gave $500 to the Obama campaign via the Internet, and included a note in one of the address fields stating, “I am not a (sic) American citizen!”
“From the moment it was made, the Sanderson contribution was clear on its face that it was coming to a foreign national,” the RNC complaint states.
Given that the Obama campaign couldn’t detect such an obvious violation of law, “it is unsurprising that (Obama for America) was also unable to detect contributions from unknown sources with blatantly fictitious names,” the complaint says.
The RNC complaint cites the “now infamous” cases of “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro,” which Newsmax helped to expose.
[Editor's Note: See "Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign."]
The New York Times exposed contributions from other fictitious donors such as “Test Person,” residing in “Some Place, Utah,” and “Jockim Alberton,” residing at a fictional address in Wilmington, Delaware. They also cited donors giving the names “Derty West” and “Derty Poiuuy,” both residing in “rewq, ME.”
The Los Angeles Times found a series of contributions from “Mong Kong” that gave a nonexistent address. The Obama campaign said they were unaware of the illegality of these contributions until the press reports appeared.
Other contributions were comprised of randomly selected letters. The Obama campaign took 37 separate donations of $10 each from “Jgtj Jfggijfgi,” $7,497.59 from “Dahsudhu Hdusahfd,” and $11,900 from “Uadhshgu Hduadh.”
The RNC says it believes that while some of the contributors using fictitious names may have done so “in order to remain anonymous… Many of them may have been using fictitious names to skirt the law,” since their contributions were “far more than the $4,300 legal limit.”
Not only has the Obama campaign “accepted contributions from unknown sources, but it also may have accepted contributions made in the name of another,” the RNC said.
“A Newsmax investigation reports the existence of a growing trend to purchase disposable “gift” credit cards to make donations,” the complaint says, citing a report that appeared earlier this week.
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Turns Blind Eye to Credit Card Donation Fraud."]
“These 'gift' credit cards can only be tracked by the numbers, so there is no way of knowing who made the contribution,” the complaint states.
A Newsmax informant said he had made a series of $5 donations in less than an hour, each time using “a different name and address, all of which were obviously fictitious and some even including foreign addresses,” the RNC complaint states.
Among the fictitious donors were “Daffy Duck,” “Bart Simpson,” and “Raela Odinga.”
In addition, the RNC cited several media reports that said both personal and corporate credit cards had been charged with unauthorized contributions to the Obama campaign.
Ms. Patricia Phillips, a Virginia resident who also is a candidate for the State Senate, discovered a $5 charge on her corporate credit card statement for a contribution to the Obama campaign.
“Ms. Phillip’s situation is troublesome for two primary reasons,” the RNC complaint states. “First, OFA accepted a contribution from a corporate credit card,” which is illegal. “Second, OFA accepted a contribution that was fraudulently made.”
The Washington Post uncovered that donation, as well as a $2,300 contribution made to OFA that was charged to the credit card of Steve and Rachel Larman of Missouri without the couple’s knowledge.
As Republicans, they were surprised to receive their credit card statement and discover the donation to the Obama campaign.
The RNC complaint noted that, by all appearances, the Obama campaign had disabled standard security features on its fundraising website.
“For example, online merchants usually match the cardholders’ provided name and address to the credit card number to protect against fraud,” the RNC noted. But “given the high number of fictitious contributor names linked to credit card contributions, OFA appears not to be consistently following this practice.”
Even more troubling than these cases appearing in the Obama campaign’s itemized contributions is the $270 million that the campaign has taken from undisclosed sources.
“The RNC believes that widespread illegalities may exist among these un-itemized contributions and requests that the Commission immediately investigate both itemized and un-itemized contributions in both the OFA primary and general election periods to ensure a fair and open election.
“The American people deserve to know the origin of the over $600 million that may help elect a President of the United States,” the complaint concludes.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:40 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
The Republican National Committee on Thursday supplemented its Oct. 6 complaint to the Federal Election Committee and — citing new revelations by Newsmax and other news organizations — called on the FEC to “immediately conduct a full audit” of the Obama campaign accounts.
The RNC complaint asserts that the Obama campaign had demonstrated a “lack of compliance with the law” because of its acceptance of prohibited donations from foreign nationals, excessive contributions from individuals, and donations from unknown sources.
At the same time, RNC officials said they recognize that the FEC has “no authority” to freeze campaign accounts or to take other actions that would actually prevent the Obama campaign from spending money illegally obtained from foreign nationals to influence the U.S. presidential election.
“The system isn’t designed for actors who are going to ignore the law,” RNC chief legal counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
A Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign’s campaign finance disclosures found 60,000 donations in unrounded amounts that fundraising experts said clearly suggested were “foreign currency transactions” translated into U.S. dollars.
The Obama campaign claims that many of these donations were purchases of T-shirts from the Obama store. However, when asked by Newsmax to provide an accounting for receipts and expenditures of the Obama store, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt could only name a single supplier who sold merchandise worth less than $500,000, according to campaign records.
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Donations Enshrouded in Mystery."]
RNC chief counsel Sean Caircross commended Newsmax for reporting that helped to break open the secretive fundraising schemes used by the Obama campaign.
“The Newsmax articles constitute some of the exhibits to our original complaint,” he said. “We commend Newsmax and other media organizations who are doing a good job in looking into what seems to be a rather large issue for the Obama campaign.”
Reporting by Newsmax and others of fictitious donors such as “Family Guy” and “King Kong” made it “clear that the Obama For America campaign is operating outside of the law,” Cairncross said.
“The complete and total lack of any control mechanisms within the Obama campaign’s fundraising operation has undermined any confidence in their ability to curtail excessive, foreign, and fraudulent contributions and demands immediate attention from the Federal Election Commission (FEC),” he added.
The RNC now believes that the Obama campaign violated federal election law by “accepting contributions resulting from third party fraud, and possibly accepting contributions made in the name of another,” the complaint asserts.
Such contributions — made in the name of “Saddam Hussein,” “Osama bin Laden,” “OJ Simpson” and others — are the only violation of federal election law that carries a criminal penalty, RNC sources and outside campaign finance lawyers said.
While the Obama campaign has said repeatedly that they have procedures in place to screen out possible illegal donations, the spate of news reporting to the contrary shows that they have failed, the latest RNC complaint asserts.
“Developing a large donor base and raising enormous sums of money” — excuses commonly cited by the Obama campaign for the influx of illegal donations — “is not an excuse for ignoring the law.”
While the Obama campaign claims that it has “bent over backward” to root out illegal contributions, it has ignored contributions that were explicitly made by foreign nationals, the complaint says, citing an August 2008 report from the Associated Press.
The AP report identified Australian citizen Richard Watters, who contributed $1,000 to the Obama campaign via the Internet “by entering a fake U.S. passport number and checking a box stating that he was a U.S. citizen living abroad.”
In another case, a Canadian donor named Tom Sanderson gave $500 to the Obama campaign via the Internet, and included a note in one of the address fields stating, “I am not a (sic) American citizen!”
“From the moment it was made, the Sanderson contribution was clear on its face that it was coming to a foreign national,” the RNC complaint states.
Given that the Obama campaign couldn’t detect such an obvious violation of law, “it is unsurprising that (Obama for America) was also unable to detect contributions from unknown sources with blatantly fictitious names,” the complaint says.
The RNC complaint cites the “now infamous” cases of “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro,” which Newsmax helped to expose.
[Editor's Note: See "Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign."]
The New York Times exposed contributions from other fictitious donors such as “Test Person,” residing in “Some Place, Utah,” and “Jockim Alberton,” residing at a fictional address in Wilmington, Delaware. They also cited donors giving the names “Derty West” and “Derty Poiuuy,” both residing in “rewq, ME.”
The Los Angeles Times found a series of contributions from “Mong Kong” that gave a nonexistent address. The Obama campaign said they were unaware of the illegality of these contributions until the press reports appeared.
Other contributions were comprised of randomly selected letters. The Obama campaign took 37 separate donations of $10 each from “Jgtj Jfggijfgi,” $7,497.59 from “Dahsudhu Hdusahfd,” and $11,900 from “Uadhshgu Hduadh.”
The RNC says it believes that while some of the contributors using fictitious names may have done so “in order to remain anonymous… Many of them may have been using fictitious names to skirt the law,” since their contributions were “far more than the $4,300 legal limit.”
Not only has the Obama campaign “accepted contributions from unknown sources, but it also may have accepted contributions made in the name of another,” the RNC said.
“A Newsmax investigation reports the existence of a growing trend to purchase disposable “gift” credit cards to make donations,” the complaint says, citing a report that appeared earlier this week.
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Turns Blind Eye to Credit Card Donation Fraud."]
“These 'gift' credit cards can only be tracked by the numbers, so there is no way of knowing who made the contribution,” the complaint states.
A Newsmax informant said he had made a series of $5 donations in less than an hour, each time using “a different name and address, all of which were obviously fictitious and some even including foreign addresses,” the RNC complaint states.
Among the fictitious donors were “Daffy Duck,” “Bart Simpson,” and “Raela Odinga.”
In addition, the RNC cited several media reports that said both personal and corporate credit cards had been charged with unauthorized contributions to the Obama campaign.
Ms. Patricia Phillips, a Virginia resident who also is a candidate for the State Senate, discovered a $5 charge on her corporate credit card statement for a contribution to the Obama campaign.
“Ms. Phillip’s situation is troublesome for two primary reasons,” the RNC complaint states. “First, OFA accepted a contribution from a corporate credit card,” which is illegal. “Second, OFA accepted a contribution that was fraudulently made.”
The Washington Post uncovered that donation, as well as a $2,300 contribution made to OFA that was charged to the credit card of Steve and Rachel Larman of Missouri without the couple’s knowledge.
As Republicans, they were surprised to receive their credit card statement and discover the donation to the Obama campaign.
The RNC complaint noted that, by all appearances, the Obama campaign had disabled standard security features on its fundraising website.
“For example, online merchants usually match the cardholders’ provided name and address to the credit card number to protect against fraud,” the RNC noted. But “given the high number of fictitious contributor names linked to credit card contributions, OFA appears not to be consistently following this practice.”
Even more troubling than these cases appearing in the Obama campaign’s itemized contributions is the $270 million that the campaign has taken from undisclosed sources.
“The RNC believes that widespread illegalities may exist among these un-itemized contributions and requests that the Commission immediately investigate both itemized and un-itemized contributions in both the OFA primary and general election periods to ensure a fair and open election.
“The American people deserve to know the origin of the over $600 million that may help elect a President of the United States,” the complaint concludes.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
LISTEN UP FOLKS
The mark of a profound person is the ability to foresee consequences before one acts'
This is an e-mail from B.Gen James Cash, USAF, who has written some very good articles on the subject. Here he recommends someone else's e-mail that impressed him, and scared him.
General Cash Wrote:
Occasionally, I receive an email that I agree with so totally I want to pass to everyone on my list. This is one of those emails. I have approval from the writer to forward the attached, and feel free to post it on your websites, or forward to friends. The election of Obama as President of the United States will mark the apex, and beginning downslide of this Republic. The only question is the rate at which the downfall will occur.
The writer of this essay is Jerry Molen. Jerry is a great friend and an Academy Award winning Hollywood Producer. He did Jurassic Park , Hook, Rainman, and many more class movies. He won he Academy Award for Schindler's List. Jerry is one of the very few clear thinking conservatives that I know from Hollywood . We need to get this out to as many as possible to include liberal Democrats.. We are about to make the Mother-of-All-Mistakes, because the Republican Party gave us no reliable alternative. In my opinion, if the conservative movement does not rally behind the only alternative left to us, this country will become a true Socialist State within the next two Presidential terms. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the most grave situation this nation has faced in my lifetime.
Jim Cash B/G, USAF, Ret.
Jerry Molen wrote:
'Election woes defined by prose.....'
We just experienced an overhyped, positively outrageous primary election season that has left me cold and wondering where the heads of our citizens are hiding out. Must be someplace where the sun doesn't get to very often.
At one time in my life I was a determined, dedicated and ever loyal registered Democrat. Then something happened (Lyndon Baines Johnson) that turned my life around and gave me much pause as to the veracity of a party that dwelt on and fed off of the most unfortunate among us. Some of those unfortunates were in their positions in life by way of their own choosing and others were there by circumstance But always, always with a door open to them to reach for new heights, achieve new goals, change their lives for the better. And also, always ever present were the bottom feeders doing everything they could to take advantage of those who had not or have not seen the light of better days and times nor realizing they were in fact the masters of their own destiny. They had come to believe that they were dependent on those in power in Washington and that they would look out for them and take care of their every need. They are still waiting and expecting all those promised freebies.
Most people aren't even aware that the Democrats ruled Washington for over 40 years. It wasn't until 1994 when the so called Gingrich Revolution changed that for a short period of time. Nor do people realize that it was the Dem's that created the failed policies of the many entitlement programs that are falling apart right before our eyes. Please do not think I find the Republicans blameless in all this. They too, suffer from ego inflation and greed motivators built into the system. It's just that the past few months I've listened to the rantings and railings of the left in America calling for more giveaways and better ways to obtain the proverbial 'free lunch'.
I think that to sum up my feelings and why I am so set apart from those within the circles of political power and influence can be illustrated best by a quote by noted basketball legend and talk show co-host Charles Barkley:
'Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty years...and they are still poor'.
And now with the election results comes the promises of 'change'. 'Change we can believe in.' 'Change for the future'. When in fact if you really, I mean REALLY listen to what the new MESSIAH is asking for is not 'change of policy' or 'change for the better'. He is warning all of us that he wants our change all right, 'loose change', pocket change', social change and political change......So people wake up. For if you don't the change you get may not be the change you were expecting or the change you wanted.
To close my screed, I want to leave you with some JM predictions in the event the junior Senator from Illinois becomes President and especially if the House and Senate are veto proof.
1). Strict new gun laws will be enacted even though he promised he would not.
2). The phrase 'In God We Trust' will be removed from all currency.
3). He will back away from his pledge to Israel and leave them to the wolves of Islam.
4). Hillary Clinton will be named to the Supreme Court.
5). Tax rates will return to their highest levels in 30 years.
6). The capital gains tax will be at least double current levels.
7). Retired Army General Wesley Clark will be named Secretary of Defense.
8). The borders will be 'basically open' to all comers. Especially those from the Middle East and South America ..
9). Amnesty will be granted to all illegals now in the U.S regardless of status or even gang members (MS-13). and
10). The war in Iraq will be brought to an abrupt end and the results will be tragic and the consequences to our military will be devastating.
I realize that my predictions may not sit too well with some people and the best we could all hope for is that I am totally wrong. Any bets?
Jerry Molen
If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone....
YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
It is Time for Americans to Speak up!
This is an e-mail from B.Gen James Cash, USAF, who has written some very good articles on the subject. Here he recommends someone else's e-mail that impressed him, and scared him.
General Cash Wrote:
Occasionally, I receive an email that I agree with so totally I want to pass to everyone on my list. This is one of those emails. I have approval from the writer to forward the attached, and feel free to post it on your websites, or forward to friends. The election of Obama as President of the United States will mark the apex, and beginning downslide of this Republic. The only question is the rate at which the downfall will occur.
The writer of this essay is Jerry Molen. Jerry is a great friend and an Academy Award winning Hollywood Producer. He did Jurassic Park , Hook, Rainman, and many more class movies. He won he Academy Award for Schindler's List. Jerry is one of the very few clear thinking conservatives that I know from Hollywood . We need to get this out to as many as possible to include liberal Democrats.. We are about to make the Mother-of-All-Mistakes, because the Republican Party gave us no reliable alternative. In my opinion, if the conservative movement does not rally behind the only alternative left to us, this country will become a true Socialist State within the next two Presidential terms. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the most grave situation this nation has faced in my lifetime.
Jim Cash B/G, USAF, Ret.
Jerry Molen wrote:
'Election woes defined by prose.....'
We just experienced an overhyped, positively outrageous primary election season that has left me cold and wondering where the heads of our citizens are hiding out. Must be someplace where the sun doesn't get to very often.
At one time in my life I was a determined, dedicated and ever loyal registered Democrat. Then something happened (Lyndon Baines Johnson) that turned my life around and gave me much pause as to the veracity of a party that dwelt on and fed off of the most unfortunate among us. Some of those unfortunates were in their positions in life by way of their own choosing and others were there by circumstance But always, always with a door open to them to reach for new heights, achieve new goals, change their lives for the better. And also, always ever present were the bottom feeders doing everything they could to take advantage of those who had not or have not seen the light of better days and times nor realizing they were in fact the masters of their own destiny. They had come to believe that they were dependent on those in power in Washington and that they would look out for them and take care of their every need. They are still waiting and expecting all those promised freebies.
Most people aren't even aware that the Democrats ruled Washington for over 40 years. It wasn't until 1994 when the so called Gingrich Revolution changed that for a short period of time. Nor do people realize that it was the Dem's that created the failed policies of the many entitlement programs that are falling apart right before our eyes. Please do not think I find the Republicans blameless in all this. They too, suffer from ego inflation and greed motivators built into the system. It's just that the past few months I've listened to the rantings and railings of the left in America calling for more giveaways and better ways to obtain the proverbial 'free lunch'.
I think that to sum up my feelings and why I am so set apart from those within the circles of political power and influence can be illustrated best by a quote by noted basketball legend and talk show co-host Charles Barkley:
'Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty years...and they are still poor'.
And now with the election results comes the promises of 'change'. 'Change we can believe in.' 'Change for the future'. When in fact if you really, I mean REALLY listen to what the new MESSIAH is asking for is not 'change of policy' or 'change for the better'. He is warning all of us that he wants our change all right, 'loose change', pocket change', social change and political change......So people wake up. For if you don't the change you get may not be the change you were expecting or the change you wanted.
To close my screed, I want to leave you with some JM predictions in the event the junior Senator from Illinois becomes President and especially if the House and Senate are veto proof.
1). Strict new gun laws will be enacted even though he promised he would not.
2). The phrase 'In God We Trust' will be removed from all currency.
3). He will back away from his pledge to Israel and leave them to the wolves of Islam.
4). Hillary Clinton will be named to the Supreme Court.
5). Tax rates will return to their highest levels in 30 years.
6). The capital gains tax will be at least double current levels.
7). Retired Army General Wesley Clark will be named Secretary of Defense.
8). The borders will be 'basically open' to all comers. Especially those from the Middle East and South America ..
9). Amnesty will be granted to all illegals now in the U.S regardless of status or even gang members (MS-13). and
10). The war in Iraq will be brought to an abrupt end and the results will be tragic and the consequences to our military will be devastating.
I realize that my predictions may not sit too well with some people and the best we could all hope for is that I am totally wrong. Any bets?
Jerry Molen
If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone....
YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
It is Time for Americans to Speak up!
;: :: The economic mess
>
> ;: :: The economic mess
>
>
>
>
>
> I am sounding an alarm! For the life of me, I cannot figure
>out why this is not being discussed on the media or why conservatives are
>not making their case: IT IS SO IMPORTANT!!!!! The following is a
>condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining
>"What Caused the Loan Crisis":
>
> 1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act
>into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to
>those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would
>improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of
>crime, investment, jobs, etc.
>
> Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
>
> How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing
>market? Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.
>
> 1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the
>danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the
>public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding
>few.
>
> 1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's
>rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into
>semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic
>voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political
>allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse
>of Freddie and Fannie.
>
> 1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National
>Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never
>intended.
>
> 1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to
>Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the
>rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy
>quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating.
>The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be
>made on the basis of race and little else.
>
> 1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew
>Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie
>and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep.
>Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by
>easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to
>back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower
>rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
>
> With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into
>poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and
>no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and
>Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats.
>384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over
>$200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During
>the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as musch as $182
>Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor
>borrowers as claimed.
>
> Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new
>homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority
>homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
>
> 1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed
>at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year
>but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key
>congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take
>place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we
>manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a
>former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to
>investors in 1999.
>
> 2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to
>Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus
>as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew
>how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a
>contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie
>spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton
>era for reform.
>
> 2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to
>Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially
>Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and
>were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
>
> 2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most
>significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the
>savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by
>Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their
>bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.
>
> 2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are
>placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with
>two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress
>does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the
>enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market,
>the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid
>accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to
>carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.
>
> 2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of
>the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive
>suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working
>with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As
>the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major
>losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.
>
> 2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths,
>Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats'
>talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans
>are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated
>by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's
>why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!
>
> If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen
>to your lawmakers own words. They are condeming!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related#
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY#
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related#
>
> Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of
>Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or
>investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel,
>defending their activities for several years.
>
> Please share this with everyone you know. Send it. Print it.
>Talk about it. America needs to know!!!
>
> ;: :: The economic mess
>
>
>
>
>
> I am sounding an alarm! For the life of me, I cannot figure
>out why this is not being discussed on the media or why conservatives are
>not making their case: IT IS SO IMPORTANT!!!!! The following is a
>condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining
>"What Caused the Loan Crisis":
>
> 1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act
>into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to
>those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would
>improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of
>crime, investment, jobs, etc.
>
> Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
>
> How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing
>market? Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.
>
> 1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the
>danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the
>public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding
>few.
>
> 1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's
>rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into
>semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic
>voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political
>allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse
>of Freddie and Fannie.
>
> 1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National
>Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never
>intended.
>
> 1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to
>Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the
>rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy
>quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating.
>The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be
>made on the basis of race and little else.
>
> 1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew
>Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie
>and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep.
>Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by
>easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to
>back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower
>rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
>
> With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into
>poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and
>no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and
>Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats.
>384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over
>$200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During
>the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as musch as $182
>Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor
>borrowers as claimed.
>
> Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new
>homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority
>homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
>
> 1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed
>at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year
>but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key
>congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take
>place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we
>manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a
>former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to
>investors in 1999.
>
> 2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to
>Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus
>as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew
>how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a
>contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie
>spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton
>era for reform.
>
> 2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to
>Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially
>Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and
>were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
>
> 2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most
>significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the
>savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by
>Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their
>bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.
>
> 2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are
>placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with
>two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress
>does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the
>enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market,
>the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid
>accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to
>carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.
>
> 2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of
>the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive
>suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working
>with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As
>the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major
>losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.
>
> 2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths,
>Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats'
>talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans
>are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated
>by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's
>why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!
>
> If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen
>to your lawmakers own words. They are condeming!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related#
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY#
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related#
>
> Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of
>Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or
>investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel,
>defending their activities for several years.
>
> Please share this with everyone you know. Send it. Print it.
>Talk about it. America needs to know!!!
>
Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Candidate Ever
THUS GUY HAS HIDDEN MORE THAN CAN POSSIIIIBLY BE IMAGINED AND THIS IS HOW SOCIALIST WORK, IN THE DARK SHADOWS THE PLOTS THICKEN AND THEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN YOU ARE A PART OF THE OPPRESSED, AND WONDER HOW IT HAPPENED. IT HAPPENED BECAUSE FOLKS WERE P..... AT THE WRONG MAN.
Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Candidate Ever
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:58 PM
By: David A. Patten
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign says his campaign will bring a new level of honesty and transparency to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending.
But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama’s record for openness gets an "F" grade.
During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being “one of the most secretive administrations in our history” and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Ironically, Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president, continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing, and background -- leaving many voters to cast ballots based on incomplete information.
And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day looms, fueled in part by his own campaign’s refusal to make relevant documents available.
And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make “full disclosure” is strangely quiet about Obama’s stonewalling.
A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama’s public and private life continued to be shielded from the public.
Among the examples:
Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.
Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. “It could have been thrown out,” Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. “I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”
Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But he has not released billing records that would prove this assertion.
Obama won’t release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.
Obama’s campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)
Obama’s college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama’s senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News “We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University.”
The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.
Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama’s unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. “Obama listed every client of the firm,” Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.
Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.
Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain’s, on a public database.
On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or issues. And in some cases, it has done so.
When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered, the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama’s birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser).
Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his campaign.
Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information that opposition researchers could use against them.
But Politico.com notes that the Obama’s failure to share documents is “part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous.”
The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces candidates to release sought after documents. But the press has largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.
Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Candidate Ever
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:58 PM
By: David A. Patten
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign says his campaign will bring a new level of honesty and transparency to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending.
But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama’s record for openness gets an "F" grade.
During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being “one of the most secretive administrations in our history” and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Ironically, Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president, continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing, and background -- leaving many voters to cast ballots based on incomplete information.
And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day looms, fueled in part by his own campaign’s refusal to make relevant documents available.
And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make “full disclosure” is strangely quiet about Obama’s stonewalling.
A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama’s public and private life continued to be shielded from the public.
Among the examples:
Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.
Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. “It could have been thrown out,” Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. “I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”
Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But he has not released billing records that would prove this assertion.
Obama won’t release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.
Obama’s campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)
Obama’s college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama’s senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News “We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University.”
The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.
Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama’s unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. “Obama listed every client of the firm,” Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.
Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.
Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain’s, on a public database.
On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or issues. And in some cases, it has done so.
When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered, the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama’s birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser).
Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his campaign.
Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information that opposition researchers could use against them.
But Politico.com notes that the Obama’s failure to share documents is “part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous.”
The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces candidates to release sought after documents. But the press has largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.
Biden's Warning
THIS ARTICLE DESERVES A SECOND RUN IN CASE SOME OF THE NON-BELIEVERS MISSED IT.
Biden's Warning
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Campaign '08: Like many others, we took it as another gaffe when Joe Biden said he expected Barack Obama to be "tested" shortly after taking office. But when he repeated it, we wondered: What's he trying to tell us?
Glib, voluble and unscripted, Sen. Biden is liable to say anything on a given day. That's why it pays to listen carefully to what he repeats — because it's obviously something he's thought about.
"Mark my words," Biden said in San Francisco last Saturday. "With the next, first six months of this administration, if we win, they're going to — we're going to face a major international challenge. Because they're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him."
Then, the very next day in Seattle, he said: "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy . . . Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the metttle of this guy."
And just what would a "generated crisis" be? Could it be as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said Wednesday — that "leaders around the world see Obama as soft, untested and weak, and they will react accordingly?"
If so, Biden is right: Some aspiring latter-day Nikita Khrushchev, Fidel Castro or Ho Chi Minh will no doubt test our new commander in chief.
But there's another angle to this, based on what Biden the senator knows — that Obama's defense policies, once it's obvious how they'll undermine us, are likely to be very, very unpopular. In this case, Biden may be calling on his party's hard, pacifist core — Moveon.org, Code Pink and the like — to stand by their man.
He'll need their support. Like Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, Obama's policies often sound good on the surface, but will in fact materially weaken America's ability to defend herself. That's not just our opinion, mind you; it's straight from the horse's mouth. [Watch Video]
"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," Obama told the pacifist Caucus for Priorities last year. "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems."
Pretty sweeping. That means no more missile defense — although in recent tests in the Pacific and elsewhere, the system has shown itself to be a formidable potential shield against enemy attack.
But it didn't end there. "I will not develop nuclear weapons," he also promised Caucus for Priorities, vowing to seek "deep cuts" in our own arsenal, unilaterally disabling our nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.
On the diplomatic front, Obama has pledged to talk to the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Chavez "without preconditions." But who knows what he'll give up once he sits down to talk?
Obama has vowed to pull out of Iraq soon after taking office — undercutting the hard-won victory now shaping up there, as the U.S. prepares a careful, phased withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2012.
Such policies will create a vacuum that our foes will be only too happy to exploit.
In response to seeing a weakling in the White House, will Russia do something rash in Eastern Europe, like invade Ukraine? Will South Korea develop a bomb, knowing the U.S. won't stop it? Will Iran attack Israel, as it has promised, thinking America has become a paper tiger? We don't know, but maybe Joe Biden does.
Biden's Warning
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Campaign '08: Like many others, we took it as another gaffe when Joe Biden said he expected Barack Obama to be "tested" shortly after taking office. But when he repeated it, we wondered: What's he trying to tell us?
Glib, voluble and unscripted, Sen. Biden is liable to say anything on a given day. That's why it pays to listen carefully to what he repeats — because it's obviously something he's thought about.
"Mark my words," Biden said in San Francisco last Saturday. "With the next, first six months of this administration, if we win, they're going to — we're going to face a major international challenge. Because they're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him."
Then, the very next day in Seattle, he said: "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy . . . Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the metttle of this guy."
And just what would a "generated crisis" be? Could it be as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said Wednesday — that "leaders around the world see Obama as soft, untested and weak, and they will react accordingly?"
If so, Biden is right: Some aspiring latter-day Nikita Khrushchev, Fidel Castro or Ho Chi Minh will no doubt test our new commander in chief.
But there's another angle to this, based on what Biden the senator knows — that Obama's defense policies, once it's obvious how they'll undermine us, are likely to be very, very unpopular. In this case, Biden may be calling on his party's hard, pacifist core — Moveon.org, Code Pink and the like — to stand by their man.
He'll need their support. Like Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, Obama's policies often sound good on the surface, but will in fact materially weaken America's ability to defend herself. That's not just our opinion, mind you; it's straight from the horse's mouth. [Watch Video]
"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," Obama told the pacifist Caucus for Priorities last year. "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems."
Pretty sweeping. That means no more missile defense — although in recent tests in the Pacific and elsewhere, the system has shown itself to be a formidable potential shield against enemy attack.
But it didn't end there. "I will not develop nuclear weapons," he also promised Caucus for Priorities, vowing to seek "deep cuts" in our own arsenal, unilaterally disabling our nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.
On the diplomatic front, Obama has pledged to talk to the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Chavez "without preconditions." But who knows what he'll give up once he sits down to talk?
Obama has vowed to pull out of Iraq soon after taking office — undercutting the hard-won victory now shaping up there, as the U.S. prepares a careful, phased withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2012.
Such policies will create a vacuum that our foes will be only too happy to exploit.
In response to seeing a weakling in the White House, will Russia do something rash in Eastern Europe, like invade Ukraine? Will South Korea develop a bomb, knowing the U.S. won't stop it? Will Iran attack Israel, as it has promised, thinking America has become a paper tiger? We don't know, but maybe Joe Biden does.
October 24, 2008
Communist Manifesto and Mein Kamph.
THIS WAS SENT BY A CONSTANT READER AND CONTRIBUTOR. THIS ARTICLE IS OF IMPORTANCE AS IT REMINDS USE THE EFFECTS OF A CONGRESS OUT OF CONTROL AND NOT IN TUNE WITH THE FOLKS. EACH OF THE PARTIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEMISE OF THE CONTROLS THAT WERE IN PLACE TO ASSURE THAT LOANS (INCLUDING THE PAYDAY LOAN) WERE EQUITABLE AND THE PERSON GETTING SAID LOAN WOULD NOT GO DOWN THE TUBES WITH OVERBURDEN. SO MUCH FOR CLINTON, CARTER, THAT A..H... BARNEY FRANK AND THE REST TO THE TRIBE THAT NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED F O R E V E R.
Democrats are playing right out of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kamph.
Written by Jerry Teasley of Pine Mountain , GA former Banker
Most of my friends know, I have tried to stop thinking, but I can't help it
in the wake of all the recent economic news.
My banking career started in 1970 and ended in 1993, but I still keep close ties to the industry. During my banking years I did learn one or two things along the way. The problem with our economy today is from a liberal thinking congress, senators, and presidents, as well as greed and dishonesty. When you put these together it spells disaster in any area of our life.
Ask any banker (just walk in and ask one that has been there for 15 or 20
years) and they will tell you these are the FACTS:
Under Jimmy Carter we received the Community Reinvestment act. This
law says banks have to make loans in low income areas and it has forced many lending institutions to seek to make loans to people in areas that lenders would not normally go because of the risk and low property values. (Sub Prime Loans). This was in 1977. In 1980 President Carter and a Democratic controlled congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act-- The law also removed the power of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation to set the interest rates of savings accounts. A Sad fact is we are all still feeling the effects of his policies and decisions 30 years later.
Then in 1995, Bill Clinton, (in between interns) made changes to the
Community Reinvestment Act, that forced an increase in the number of loans to these people and the aggregate dollar amounts loaned.-- Larger loans to people with less income in areas where the collateral value would go down instead of up. (Clinton should have had his mind on the long range effects of this instead of Monica and a good cigar.) This was in response to pressure from 'community organizer.' Can you think of a former Community organizer running for president? Hint - he's a Democrat
In 1999 Mr. Clinton signed to repeal the Glass-Steagall act which
had protected taxpayers since the Great Depression.
In 2003 President Bush tried to propose a change in regulatory
control over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and place both companies under the control of the Department of the Treasury, but was voted down by the liberal democrats led by Barney Frank. Remember the name Barney Frank, he is one of Obama's top two economic advisors/ /the other is Jim Johnson who was the head of Freddie Mac and walked away with $24,000,000.
Now, Mr. Obama and his liberal cronies are spinning the facts so you
will believe that all our financial problems are because of Bush's failed
economic policy. However, OBAMA'S two MOST TRUSTED ECONOMIC ADVISERS TO HIS CAMPAIGN are the very people that were in control of Freddie Mac - Jim Johnson $24,000,000 and Fannie Mae - (Franklin Raines $90,000,000 in 6 years).
In addition, since 1989 their have been several politicians who have
received campaign donations and kick backs from these two failed
institutions. The #1 recipient is Senator Chris Dodd-D RI and the runner
up is none other than Senator Barrack Obama who received the second
largest amount of donations (over $500,000) which is phenomenal
because he has only been in the Senate for 3 years.
When Enron went belly up, we demanded Senate hearings and investigations. Why aren't the Democrats demanding the same with these companies?
But, oh yeah, I forgot. It is Bush's fault! (Yeah, Right, Sure it is).
Just ask a Banker.
Democrats are playing right out of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kamph.
Written by Jerry Teasley of Pine Mountain , GA former Banker
Most of my friends know, I have tried to stop thinking, but I can't help it
in the wake of all the recent economic news.
My banking career started in 1970 and ended in 1993, but I still keep close ties to the industry. During my banking years I did learn one or two things along the way. The problem with our economy today is from a liberal thinking congress, senators, and presidents, as well as greed and dishonesty. When you put these together it spells disaster in any area of our life.
Ask any banker (just walk in and ask one that has been there for 15 or 20
years) and they will tell you these are the FACTS:
Under Jimmy Carter we received the Community Reinvestment act. This
law says banks have to make loans in low income areas and it has forced many lending institutions to seek to make loans to people in areas that lenders would not normally go because of the risk and low property values. (Sub Prime Loans). This was in 1977. In 1980 President Carter and a Democratic controlled congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act-- The law also removed the power of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation to set the interest rates of savings accounts. A Sad fact is we are all still feeling the effects of his policies and decisions 30 years later.
Then in 1995, Bill Clinton, (in between interns) made changes to the
Community Reinvestment Act, that forced an increase in the number of loans to these people and the aggregate dollar amounts loaned.-- Larger loans to people with less income in areas where the collateral value would go down instead of up. (Clinton should have had his mind on the long range effects of this instead of Monica and a good cigar.) This was in response to pressure from 'community organizer.' Can you think of a former Community organizer running for president? Hint - he's a Democrat
In 1999 Mr. Clinton signed to repeal the Glass-Steagall act which
had protected taxpayers since the Great Depression.
In 2003 President Bush tried to propose a change in regulatory
control over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and place both companies under the control of the Department of the Treasury, but was voted down by the liberal democrats led by Barney Frank. Remember the name Barney Frank, he is one of Obama's top two economic advisors/ /the other is Jim Johnson who was the head of Freddie Mac and walked away with $24,000,000.
Now, Mr. Obama and his liberal cronies are spinning the facts so you
will believe that all our financial problems are because of Bush's failed
economic policy. However, OBAMA'S two MOST TRUSTED ECONOMIC ADVISERS TO HIS CAMPAIGN are the very people that were in control of Freddie Mac - Jim Johnson $24,000,000 and Fannie Mae - (Franklin Raines $90,000,000 in 6 years).
In addition, since 1989 their have been several politicians who have
received campaign donations and kick backs from these two failed
institutions. The #1 recipient is Senator Chris Dodd-D RI and the runner
up is none other than Senator Barrack Obama who received the second
largest amount of donations (over $500,000) which is phenomenal
because he has only been in the Senate for 3 years.
When Enron went belly up, we demanded Senate hearings and investigations. Why aren't the Democrats demanding the same with these companies?
But, oh yeah, I forgot. It is Bush's fault! (Yeah, Right, Sure it is).
Just ask a Banker.
Obama's Money Won't Be Deciding Factor
Obama's Money Won't Be Deciding Factor
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:53 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Obama sent shock waves through political circles when he announced on Monday that he had amassed $150 million in campaign contributions in September, giving him upwards of $600 million for his campaign.
While his fundraising makes a mockery of McCain's paltry $100 million in taxpayer funded campaign money, the real advantage to Obama in the election is not likely to be decisive.
Obama is, of course, still the front-runner. But McCain is closing hard as the race enters its second to last week.
If Obama ultimately wins, it will have a lot more to do with the Dow Jones than with his level of campaign funding. Even if we assume his October funding brings him to even more dizzying heights, the realities of modern politics will limit the advantage that will accrue to his campaign.
McCain is, of course, funded not just by federal matching funds, but also by direct contributions to the Republican Party and to various independent expenditures, such as www.NationalRepublicanTrust.com. Obama and the Democratic Party will still out raise McCain, federal funds, and the Republican Party, likely by a 2-1 margin. There is, of course, still time for supporters of each candidate to redress or change that ratio.
But on television, where it counts, Obama will probably have no better than a 60-40 advantage over McCain. Much of the good television time in swing states has been purchased months ago.
Extra money can help a campaign run one-minute ads, as opposed to 30-second spots, and can make half-hour or full-hour infomercials possible, but the advantage of these extravagances is not proportionate to their cost.
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he does not have anything new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that half don't pay any taxes to begin with and the "tax cut" is really just a welfare check).
McCain's advertising is powering a bold new message, inspired by Joe the plumber: Obama will use the tax code to redistribute wealth.
The social populist backlash against his proposals is closing the lead that Obama opened up as a result of the financial crisis. With things calmer on Wall Street (our fingers tremble as we write this), voters have two weeks to ponder what the onset of a socialist presidency would mean for Americans.
McCain has enough money to punch his message through. It will not get drowned by a sea of Obama media. But McCain's supporters must realize that this race is far from over. There is a realistic chance that he can win. And if there was ever a time for his supporters to open up their checkbooks, it is now.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:53 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Obama sent shock waves through political circles when he announced on Monday that he had amassed $150 million in campaign contributions in September, giving him upwards of $600 million for his campaign.
While his fundraising makes a mockery of McCain's paltry $100 million in taxpayer funded campaign money, the real advantage to Obama in the election is not likely to be decisive.
Obama is, of course, still the front-runner. But McCain is closing hard as the race enters its second to last week.
If Obama ultimately wins, it will have a lot more to do with the Dow Jones than with his level of campaign funding. Even if we assume his October funding brings him to even more dizzying heights, the realities of modern politics will limit the advantage that will accrue to his campaign.
McCain is, of course, funded not just by federal matching funds, but also by direct contributions to the Republican Party and to various independent expenditures, such as www.NationalRepublicanTrust.com. Obama and the Democratic Party will still out raise McCain, federal funds, and the Republican Party, likely by a 2-1 margin. There is, of course, still time for supporters of each candidate to redress or change that ratio.
But on television, where it counts, Obama will probably have no better than a 60-40 advantage over McCain. Much of the good television time in swing states has been purchased months ago.
Extra money can help a campaign run one-minute ads, as opposed to 30-second spots, and can make half-hour or full-hour infomercials possible, but the advantage of these extravagances is not proportionate to their cost.
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he does not have anything new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that half don't pay any taxes to begin with and the "tax cut" is really just a welfare check).
McCain's advertising is powering a bold new message, inspired by Joe the plumber: Obama will use the tax code to redistribute wealth.
The social populist backlash against his proposals is closing the lead that Obama opened up as a result of the financial crisis. With things calmer on Wall Street (our fingers tremble as we write this), voters have two weeks to ponder what the onset of a socialist presidency would mean for Americans.
McCain has enough money to punch his message through. It will not get drowned by a sea of Obama media. But McCain's supporters must realize that this race is far from over. There is a realistic chance that he can win. And if there was ever a time for his supporters to open up their checkbooks, it is now.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get Citizenship
THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT IF THIS SOCIALIST BECOMES
PRESIDENT, YOU CAN EXPECT THE EXODUS OF MEXICO TO THE US, TAXES OUT OF SIGHT, AND THE PASSING OF A ONCE STRONG NATION INTO THE ASHES OF OBLIVION. DAA
Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get Citizenship
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:18 PM
By: David A. Patten
A Barack Obama administration would be a “nation killer” if Democrats attain a “supermajority” in the Senate, a leading conservative figure on immigration warned Tuesday.
Obama also has said he wants to make the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. citizens as soon as he can — an amnesty program that would make them legally entitled to full government benefits, including Social Security and health care.
William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), says Obama’s plan would make it politically impossible to secure America’s borders. He describes Obama and a new Democratic Congress as a “worst-case scenario” for border and immigration security.
“I would paint that scenario as a nation killer,” Gheen, a former campaign consultant and an outspoken advocate for stronger border control policies, tells Newsmax. “I would expect amnesty to pass within a year. That means in the next presidential election, you will have a new voting bloc of 15 million illegal aliens who turn into voters.
“And that voting bloc,” he says, “especially in the Southwest United States, would be enough to take full control of most city, state, and county governments, thus destroying any future hopes for immigration enforcement or border security.”
Although GOP nominee John McCain has rarely confronted Obama during the campaign over immigration — presumably to avoid alienating Hispanic voters — Obama’s record reflects a clear focus on expanding entitlements to undocumented workers.
As a state senator in Illinois, for example, Obama co-sponsored that state’s version of the DREAM Act, which allowed youngsters in the country illegally to receive in-state tuition. He later supported similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
During a September campaign swing, Obama told the North Carolina Public Radio station WUNC that the children of illegal immigrants should have an opportunity to attend community colleges.
“For us to deny them access to community college, even though they’ve never lived in Mexico, as least as far as they can tell, is to deny that this is how we’ve always built this country up,” Obama said.
According to the NewsObserver.com, the McCain campaign reacted to Obama’s remark by issuing the statement: “John McCain does not support amnesty or benefits for undocumented immigrants. He has consistently opposed giving amnesty or public benefits to undocumented immigrants.”
Obama, who tends to dismiss discussion of his pro-immigration positions as politically motivated “distractions,” has demonstrated no such reticence to expand entitlements for illegals. Specifically:
Obama’s plan for universal health care would include coverage for illegal immigrants, according to political strategist and Newsmax columnist Dick Morris. Morris has warned that covering illegals “adds dramatically” to the cost of universal health care.
In March, Obama voted to table a Senate amendment that would support the withdrawal of federal assistance “to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists.” McCain did not cast a vote.
Obama supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation that was defeated in 2006. Since then, McCain has taken the position that securing the borders must precede immigration reform. Obama continues to support a process to “bring people out of the shadows” and eventually obtain legal status (at which point they would be eligible for the federally mandated benefits available to anyone, such as Social Security). Obama also calls for enhanced border security.
The Democratic candidate for president supports, in principle, providing state-funded welfare benefits to legal immigrants. While a state senator, Obama supported allocating state funds to provide Medicaid coverage to some legal immigrants, according to OnTheIssues.org.
Obama has supported increasing the number of work visas issued each year, such as the H1-B visa, especially for applicants with specialized skills. According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama co-sponsored, along with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a bill that would provide federal funding to help states provide health care and education to non-U.S. citizens.
Obama strongly supports encouraging American children to become bilingual and, at one point in the campaign, appeared to suggest it should be mandatory. In June, he voted against a Senate provision that would declare English the national language of the United States. McCain voted for it.
Edward I. Nelson, the chairman of the nonprofit U.S. Border Control organization, warns that “Welfare and in-state tuition are powerful inducements to illegal immigration, as are free medical benefits.”
Nelson says his organization has awarded both Obama and McCain an “F” on their immigration and border control policies.
Gheen says Obama and McCain both would ultimately favor amnesty for illegals, albeit differently.
“Obama would give in-state tuition and driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, then make them legal,” Gheen says. “McCain would make them legal, and then give them in-state tuition and driver’s licenses.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
PRESIDENT, YOU CAN EXPECT THE EXODUS OF MEXICO TO THE US, TAXES OUT OF SIGHT, AND THE PASSING OF A ONCE STRONG NATION INTO THE ASHES OF OBLIVION. DAA
Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get Citizenship
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:18 PM
By: David A. Patten
A Barack Obama administration would be a “nation killer” if Democrats attain a “supermajority” in the Senate, a leading conservative figure on immigration warned Tuesday.
Obama also has said he wants to make the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. citizens as soon as he can — an amnesty program that would make them legally entitled to full government benefits, including Social Security and health care.
William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), says Obama’s plan would make it politically impossible to secure America’s borders. He describes Obama and a new Democratic Congress as a “worst-case scenario” for border and immigration security.
“I would paint that scenario as a nation killer,” Gheen, a former campaign consultant and an outspoken advocate for stronger border control policies, tells Newsmax. “I would expect amnesty to pass within a year. That means in the next presidential election, you will have a new voting bloc of 15 million illegal aliens who turn into voters.
“And that voting bloc,” he says, “especially in the Southwest United States, would be enough to take full control of most city, state, and county governments, thus destroying any future hopes for immigration enforcement or border security.”
Although GOP nominee John McCain has rarely confronted Obama during the campaign over immigration — presumably to avoid alienating Hispanic voters — Obama’s record reflects a clear focus on expanding entitlements to undocumented workers.
As a state senator in Illinois, for example, Obama co-sponsored that state’s version of the DREAM Act, which allowed youngsters in the country illegally to receive in-state tuition. He later supported similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
During a September campaign swing, Obama told the North Carolina Public Radio station WUNC that the children of illegal immigrants should have an opportunity to attend community colleges.
“For us to deny them access to community college, even though they’ve never lived in Mexico, as least as far as they can tell, is to deny that this is how we’ve always built this country up,” Obama said.
According to the NewsObserver.com, the McCain campaign reacted to Obama’s remark by issuing the statement: “John McCain does not support amnesty or benefits for undocumented immigrants. He has consistently opposed giving amnesty or public benefits to undocumented immigrants.”
Obama, who tends to dismiss discussion of his pro-immigration positions as politically motivated “distractions,” has demonstrated no such reticence to expand entitlements for illegals. Specifically:
Obama’s plan for universal health care would include coverage for illegal immigrants, according to political strategist and Newsmax columnist Dick Morris. Morris has warned that covering illegals “adds dramatically” to the cost of universal health care.
In March, Obama voted to table a Senate amendment that would support the withdrawal of federal assistance “to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists.” McCain did not cast a vote.
Obama supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation that was defeated in 2006. Since then, McCain has taken the position that securing the borders must precede immigration reform. Obama continues to support a process to “bring people out of the shadows” and eventually obtain legal status (at which point they would be eligible for the federally mandated benefits available to anyone, such as Social Security). Obama also calls for enhanced border security.
The Democratic candidate for president supports, in principle, providing state-funded welfare benefits to legal immigrants. While a state senator, Obama supported allocating state funds to provide Medicaid coverage to some legal immigrants, according to OnTheIssues.org.
Obama has supported increasing the number of work visas issued each year, such as the H1-B visa, especially for applicants with specialized skills. According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama co-sponsored, along with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a bill that would provide federal funding to help states provide health care and education to non-U.S. citizens.
Obama strongly supports encouraging American children to become bilingual and, at one point in the campaign, appeared to suggest it should be mandatory. In June, he voted against a Senate provision that would declare English the national language of the United States. McCain voted for it.
Edward I. Nelson, the chairman of the nonprofit U.S. Border Control organization, warns that “Welfare and in-state tuition are powerful inducements to illegal immigration, as are free medical benefits.”
Nelson says his organization has awarded both Obama and McCain an “F” on their immigration and border control policies.
Gheen says Obama and McCain both would ultimately favor amnesty for illegals, albeit differently.
“Obama would give in-state tuition and driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, then make them legal,” Gheen says. “McCain would make them legal, and then give them in-state tuition and driver’s licenses.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud
Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:01 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?
All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.
The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous “gift” cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.
An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign’s finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.
Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.
Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose.
The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. Reportedly, during the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign “turned off” many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address.
Typically, card merchants require a cardholder’s name to match critical personal details, such as an address or, at the least, a ZIP code.
Though in recent months the Obama campaign has tightened up security and restored some of the security features used by merchants to weed out fraud, it still has left open easy ways for potential credit card fraud, including techniques similar to those employed by terrorists and drug traffickers to launder illicit funds.
For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” participated in Obama’s latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign’s Web site.
Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the “State of Nevada” and his occupation as “convict.” The donor used a disposable “gift” credit card to make the donation.
The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to “match” his contribution.
Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name “Raela Odinga” also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card.
The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama’s through a maternal uncle.
Obama donor “Raela Odinga” listed his address as “2007 Stolen Election Passage” in “Nairobi, KY.” This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign.
A few minutes earlier, “Daffy Duck” gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as “124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif.”
But just as with Odinga’s address, the “Wacky Way” address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card.
Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were:
Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews Alley, Gaza, GA.
King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street, Capitol Heights, Md.
Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity.
Calling himself “Bart Simpson,” the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama’s campaign finance irregularities “with great interest,” and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards — “you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket.”
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules."]
“I tried it myself a few days ago,” he said. “I’m attaching for you proof of the contributions I made in the names of Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga, and Family Guy.
“What this means is that the Obama campaign does no verification of the name of the contributor. With a normal credit card, this wouldn’t wor[k], but with these disposable debit cards, no problem!
“This needs to be exposed,” he said.
The tipster attached the confirmation pages from the Obama Web site showing the names of the donors, and in some cases, the names of other Obama donors who had agreed to “match” their contributions.
None of the matching donors’ names appears in the Obama campaign’s public disclosures to the FEC.
Other donors with clearly fictitious names revealed previously by Newsmax, The Los Angeles Times, and blogger Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) include “Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari USA,” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”
Five major companies process the bulk of all credit card transactions made in the United States, industry insiders tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over $2 million to process its online transactions.
“We never discuss our relationships with any of our merchants, or customers we work with,” James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax.
Newsmax asked whether Chase Paymentech had any security feature that would allow it to identify individuals making contributions using gift cards, but Wester declined to comment.
But other industry analysts, who asked not to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Newsmax that processors could track gift cards and debit cards “only by the numbers on the cards.”
“There are no names associated with these cards, so as a processor, you have no way of knowing who made the transaction,” one industry analyst said.
Anyone can go into a supermarket or a Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards with cash, so there is no trace of the transaction, he added.
“It’s like walk-around money. They could be handing these things out as perks” to newly registered voters or others, “and there’s no way of tracing who is using them.”
Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of experience in campaign finance law, said that such contributions were clearly illegal.
“Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty,” he told Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
The Obama campaign has paid Synetech Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va., close to $2 million to compile all of the campaign contribution data from online contributors, bundlers, telemarketers, campaign events, and direct-mail campaigns, and process it for submission to the FEC.
The sheer scope of the Obama fundraising juggernaut was “never contemplated by the FEC,” a company official told Newsmax, asking not to be quoted by name.
“It’s a lot of data. You’re talking 7 million contributions,” he said.
The campaign itself is responsible for screening out fraudulent donors, not Synetech, he said. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years, and this is as well-managed as any [campaign]. It’s just huge. When it’s this big, any little thing becomes something more than it is.”
One of the biggest problems the campaign faces is fraud, he said. “It’s a colossal problem. They’re paying the campaign with other people’s money.”
Individuals such as “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will” who made hundreds of contributions to the campaign in excess of the legal limits were not working for the campaign, but for themselves, he insisted.
“It’s all fraud. They do it for kicks. Or they’re testing the cards. The campaign doesn’t want this. Why on earth do they want to have all these messy little transactions? It’s a colossal pain.”
However, the campaign itself has solicited these “messy little transactions” in numerous e-mails to supporters.
For instance, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe sent an e-mail to supporters, asking them to “make a donation of $5 or more before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, and you could go backstage with Barack.”
Since them, the campaign has run several small donation drives, claiming to “match” donations of $5, $10, or $25 with an equal amount for a previous donor.
Newsmax put a series of questions to the Obama campaign more than a week ago in preparation for this article, such as whether its Internet contribution system automatically matches donors' names and addresses to their credit card numbers, as is common industry practice with online stores.
Newsmax also asked if the campaign uses a similar security screen to match a donor’s name and address to the card number when the donor uses a debit card or a gift card.
Despite multiple requests from Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to comment for this story.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:01 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?
All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.
The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous “gift” cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.
An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign’s finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.
Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.
Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose.
The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. Reportedly, during the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign “turned off” many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address.
Typically, card merchants require a cardholder’s name to match critical personal details, such as an address or, at the least, a ZIP code.
Though in recent months the Obama campaign has tightened up security and restored some of the security features used by merchants to weed out fraud, it still has left open easy ways for potential credit card fraud, including techniques similar to those employed by terrorists and drug traffickers to launder illicit funds.
For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” participated in Obama’s latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign’s Web site.
Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the “State of Nevada” and his occupation as “convict.” The donor used a disposable “gift” credit card to make the donation.
The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to “match” his contribution.
Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name “Raela Odinga” also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card.
The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama’s through a maternal uncle.
Obama donor “Raela Odinga” listed his address as “2007 Stolen Election Passage” in “Nairobi, KY.” This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign.
A few minutes earlier, “Daffy Duck” gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as “124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif.”
But just as with Odinga’s address, the “Wacky Way” address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card.
Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were:
Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews Alley, Gaza, GA.
King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street, Capitol Heights, Md.
Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity.
Calling himself “Bart Simpson,” the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama’s campaign finance irregularities “with great interest,” and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards — “you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket.”
[Editor's Note: See "Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules."]
“I tried it myself a few days ago,” he said. “I’m attaching for you proof of the contributions I made in the names of Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga, and Family Guy.
“What this means is that the Obama campaign does no verification of the name of the contributor. With a normal credit card, this wouldn’t wor[k], but with these disposable debit cards, no problem!
“This needs to be exposed,” he said.
The tipster attached the confirmation pages from the Obama Web site showing the names of the donors, and in some cases, the names of other Obama donors who had agreed to “match” their contributions.
None of the matching donors’ names appears in the Obama campaign’s public disclosures to the FEC.
Other donors with clearly fictitious names revealed previously by Newsmax, The Los Angeles Times, and blogger Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) include “Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari USA,” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”
Five major companies process the bulk of all credit card transactions made in the United States, industry insiders tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over $2 million to process its online transactions.
“We never discuss our relationships with any of our merchants, or customers we work with,” James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax.
Newsmax asked whether Chase Paymentech had any security feature that would allow it to identify individuals making contributions using gift cards, but Wester declined to comment.
But other industry analysts, who asked not to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Newsmax that processors could track gift cards and debit cards “only by the numbers on the cards.”
“There are no names associated with these cards, so as a processor, you have no way of knowing who made the transaction,” one industry analyst said.
Anyone can go into a supermarket or a Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards with cash, so there is no trace of the transaction, he added.
“It’s like walk-around money. They could be handing these things out as perks” to newly registered voters or others, “and there’s no way of tracing who is using them.”
Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of experience in campaign finance law, said that such contributions were clearly illegal.
“Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty,” he told Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
The Obama campaign has paid Synetech Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va., close to $2 million to compile all of the campaign contribution data from online contributors, bundlers, telemarketers, campaign events, and direct-mail campaigns, and process it for submission to the FEC.
The sheer scope of the Obama fundraising juggernaut was “never contemplated by the FEC,” a company official told Newsmax, asking not to be quoted by name.
“It’s a lot of data. You’re talking 7 million contributions,” he said.
The campaign itself is responsible for screening out fraudulent donors, not Synetech, he said. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years, and this is as well-managed as any [campaign]. It’s just huge. When it’s this big, any little thing becomes something more than it is.”
One of the biggest problems the campaign faces is fraud, he said. “It’s a colossal problem. They’re paying the campaign with other people’s money.”
Individuals such as “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will” who made hundreds of contributions to the campaign in excess of the legal limits were not working for the campaign, but for themselves, he insisted.
“It’s all fraud. They do it for kicks. Or they’re testing the cards. The campaign doesn’t want this. Why on earth do they want to have all these messy little transactions? It’s a colossal pain.”
However, the campaign itself has solicited these “messy little transactions” in numerous e-mails to supporters.
For instance, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe sent an e-mail to supporters, asking them to “make a donation of $5 or more before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, and you could go backstage with Barack.”
Since them, the campaign has run several small donation drives, claiming to “match” donations of $5, $10, or $25 with an equal amount for a previous donor.
Newsmax put a series of questions to the Obama campaign more than a week ago in preparation for this article, such as whether its Internet contribution system automatically matches donors' names and addresses to their credit card numbers, as is common industry practice with online stores.
Newsmax also asked if the campaign uses a similar security screen to match a donor’s name and address to the card number when the donor uses a debit card or a gift card.
Despite multiple requests from Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to comment for this story.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
No Time for Obama's on-the-Job Training
No Time for Obama's on-the-Job Training
Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:45 AM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
The media’s almost universal opinion that Sen. Joe Biden simply made just another one of his gaffes when he warned that the election of the untested Barack Obama would inevitably result in a global crisis where our enemies take measure of the man by confronting him and America with a challenge was dead wrong.
It was no gaffe; it was a clear warning that Obama will not only be tested, but also that he will not be up to the challenge and will need help in dealing with something he cannot deal with on his own.
I cannot remember a more frightening scenario, especially since it came from Obama’s own running mate and not John McCain or the Republican Party. I have no doubt Biden was sincere in alerting the nation to a very real threat to our national security — the prospect of a totally inexperienced and naive Barack Obama being confronted by an enemy he would rather talk with.
That the nation isn’t alarmed by this prospect, which Biden guaranteed would surely come about, is simply bizarre.
Here in a post-9/11 world, when America’s foes have proven they’ll stop at nothing to bring America down to our knees, if the polls are correct, voters are on the verge of electing a man to the presidency whose very election will light the spark of an international crisis in a nuclear age.
This is an unprecedented situation, but it’s not the first time the voters have chosen a president who lacked the bona fides required in a leader facing an international threat and a determined enemy.
Unlike Barack Obama, however, John Kennedy had been tested when in harm’s way during World War II, and had shown himself capable of acting with both courage and initiative.
Moreover, he had been a firsthand witness at momentous events during his father’s ambassadorship to war-torn Britain and had even written a book, “Why England Slept,” about the crisis England faced because they failed to recognize the threat Hitler posed to their very existence.
Yet, even with his experience evident when he won election in 1960, the Soviet Union thought he not only should be tested but was convinced he would fail the test.
As a result America found itself facing a nuclear war with the Soviets after Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev met with JFK, saw what he judged to be his weakness, and confronted America with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was only after JFK promised to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey and pledged to halt all efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that Khrushchev agreed to take his missiles out of Cuba.
We cannot afford another such crisis, yet if Joe Biden is correct, that’s exactly what will happen if Barack Obama wins the presidency on Nov. 4. He’s guaranteed it.
We can expect that the challenge to Obama to come from Iran which has already observed him promising to sit down with their leaders without preconditions, thus to meet with them as equals.
Iran has already shown how they react to U.S. presidents who show signs of weakness. They saw weakness in Jimmy Carter, and they seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days.
When my father won election in 1980, Iran had no need to test him; they had already taken his measure and he scared the daylights out of them. As a result, minutes after he took the oath of office the Iranians released the hostages.
A soon-to-be nuclear power, Iran is certain to test what they see as a politician with absolutely no experience. And given his demonstrated willingness to greet hostility with mere words eloquently spoken, we an expect Iran to risk a global crisis by facing him with a direct challenge to his leadership, probably by rattling their nuclear sword.
We had better heed Joe Biden’s warning and vote against an untested politician from Chicago’s rowdy and corrupt political machine.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:45 AM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
The media’s almost universal opinion that Sen. Joe Biden simply made just another one of his gaffes when he warned that the election of the untested Barack Obama would inevitably result in a global crisis where our enemies take measure of the man by confronting him and America with a challenge was dead wrong.
It was no gaffe; it was a clear warning that Obama will not only be tested, but also that he will not be up to the challenge and will need help in dealing with something he cannot deal with on his own.
I cannot remember a more frightening scenario, especially since it came from Obama’s own running mate and not John McCain or the Republican Party. I have no doubt Biden was sincere in alerting the nation to a very real threat to our national security — the prospect of a totally inexperienced and naive Barack Obama being confronted by an enemy he would rather talk with.
That the nation isn’t alarmed by this prospect, which Biden guaranteed would surely come about, is simply bizarre.
Here in a post-9/11 world, when America’s foes have proven they’ll stop at nothing to bring America down to our knees, if the polls are correct, voters are on the verge of electing a man to the presidency whose very election will light the spark of an international crisis in a nuclear age.
This is an unprecedented situation, but it’s not the first time the voters have chosen a president who lacked the bona fides required in a leader facing an international threat and a determined enemy.
Unlike Barack Obama, however, John Kennedy had been tested when in harm’s way during World War II, and had shown himself capable of acting with both courage and initiative.
Moreover, he had been a firsthand witness at momentous events during his father’s ambassadorship to war-torn Britain and had even written a book, “Why England Slept,” about the crisis England faced because they failed to recognize the threat Hitler posed to their very existence.
Yet, even with his experience evident when he won election in 1960, the Soviet Union thought he not only should be tested but was convinced he would fail the test.
As a result America found itself facing a nuclear war with the Soviets after Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev met with JFK, saw what he judged to be his weakness, and confronted America with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was only after JFK promised to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey and pledged to halt all efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that Khrushchev agreed to take his missiles out of Cuba.
We cannot afford another such crisis, yet if Joe Biden is correct, that’s exactly what will happen if Barack Obama wins the presidency on Nov. 4. He’s guaranteed it.
We can expect that the challenge to Obama to come from Iran which has already observed him promising to sit down with their leaders without preconditions, thus to meet with them as equals.
Iran has already shown how they react to U.S. presidents who show signs of weakness. They saw weakness in Jimmy Carter, and they seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days.
When my father won election in 1980, Iran had no need to test him; they had already taken his measure and he scared the daylights out of them. As a result, minutes after he took the oath of office the Iranians released the hostages.
A soon-to-be nuclear power, Iran is certain to test what they see as a politician with absolutely no experience. And given his demonstrated willingness to greet hostility with mere words eloquently spoken, we an expect Iran to risk a global crisis by facing him with a direct challenge to his leadership, probably by rattling their nuclear sword.
We had better heed Joe Biden’s warning and vote against an untested politician from Chicago’s rowdy and corrupt political machine.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Don't Count McCain Out
Don't Count McCain Out
Friday, October 24, 2008 8:35 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
This weekend will be the last chance McCain has to get back into this race. To understand why, let’s briefly recap what's happened since the conventions.
McCain left the back-to-back conventions with a lead for the first time in the presidential race. His strength was fueled by his designation of Sarah Palin and the enthusiasm she aroused in the Republican base.
The Democrats, caught off guard, attacked her viciously, which only reinforced the perception of a woman being victimized by a sexist left.
Then McCain lost the first two debates. Regardless of what observers think happened (we thought he lost the first and won the second), the fact is that his poll numbers deteriorated after each performance.
The financial crisis extinguished any lead McCain may have had, exacerbated by what must be seen, in hindsight, as the biggest mistake of his campaign — his decision to "suspend" his campaign and return to Washington to work on the bailout.
McCain's subsequent docile support for the package, earmarks and all, destroyed the perception he had carefully built during his convention and subsequently of independence from Bush and of a populist antipathy to greedy Wall Street barons.
As a result of the debates, the crisis, and McCain's ineptitude, Obama surged to a lead of 7-9 points around Oct. 13.
Then, amazingly, McCain won the third debate.
Using a populist appeal and fighting hard, he echoed the complaints of Joe the plumber against Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around." From Wednesday, Oct. 15 through Saturday, Oct. 18, McCain sliced the Obama lead to 5 points — an average of all the polling.
But the effect of the debate began to wear off on Sunday, Oct. 19 and McCain began to fall back again. By now, Obama has an average lead of 7.2 points, according to realclearpolitics.com. (The AP poll showing a dead heat is the only one to show such data, unfortunately.)
Much of Obama's rise this week has been due to his domination of the paid advertising. With his coffers swollen by $150 million raised in September, he can buy any available advertising time. But McCain has considerable resources at his disposal as well.
For the week that started this past Tuesday, Oct. 21, McCain is running about four ads to every five that Obama airs in swing states. Technically, McCain is airing about 2,500 household rating points per week as against Obama's 3,300. One household rating point means that 1 percent of the households are watching the ad.
So 2,500 points in a given week suggests that each household is seeing about 25 ads per week, or about four each day. While Obama is spending more money, the difference between seeing four McCain ads and five Obama spots each day is not significant.
Beginning on Monday of this week, McCain began running an attack ad specifically aimed at the issues first raised by Joe the plumber. Showing footage of his chat with Obama, the McCain ad hammers home the tax issue, noting that Obama's so-called tax cut for 100 million Americans is really a welfare check for the half of them who pay no taxes.
The ad is hard-hitting and effective. More importantly, it is running in the clear without other McCain media to clutter up the message.
So McCain has his best ad on his best issue with as close to financial parity with Obama as he is likely to get. If, in these circumstances, he cannot gain ground during the next few days, the race will be functionally over. But if the Republicans can get traction, it could become a competitive contest again.
Godspeed John McCain.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Friday, October 24, 2008 8:35 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
This weekend will be the last chance McCain has to get back into this race. To understand why, let’s briefly recap what's happened since the conventions.
McCain left the back-to-back conventions with a lead for the first time in the presidential race. His strength was fueled by his designation of Sarah Palin and the enthusiasm she aroused in the Republican base.
The Democrats, caught off guard, attacked her viciously, which only reinforced the perception of a woman being victimized by a sexist left.
Then McCain lost the first two debates. Regardless of what observers think happened (we thought he lost the first and won the second), the fact is that his poll numbers deteriorated after each performance.
The financial crisis extinguished any lead McCain may have had, exacerbated by what must be seen, in hindsight, as the biggest mistake of his campaign — his decision to "suspend" his campaign and return to Washington to work on the bailout.
McCain's subsequent docile support for the package, earmarks and all, destroyed the perception he had carefully built during his convention and subsequently of independence from Bush and of a populist antipathy to greedy Wall Street barons.
As a result of the debates, the crisis, and McCain's ineptitude, Obama surged to a lead of 7-9 points around Oct. 13.
Then, amazingly, McCain won the third debate.
Using a populist appeal and fighting hard, he echoed the complaints of Joe the plumber against Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around." From Wednesday, Oct. 15 through Saturday, Oct. 18, McCain sliced the Obama lead to 5 points — an average of all the polling.
But the effect of the debate began to wear off on Sunday, Oct. 19 and McCain began to fall back again. By now, Obama has an average lead of 7.2 points, according to realclearpolitics.com. (The AP poll showing a dead heat is the only one to show such data, unfortunately.)
Much of Obama's rise this week has been due to his domination of the paid advertising. With his coffers swollen by $150 million raised in September, he can buy any available advertising time. But McCain has considerable resources at his disposal as well.
For the week that started this past Tuesday, Oct. 21, McCain is running about four ads to every five that Obama airs in swing states. Technically, McCain is airing about 2,500 household rating points per week as against Obama's 3,300. One household rating point means that 1 percent of the households are watching the ad.
So 2,500 points in a given week suggests that each household is seeing about 25 ads per week, or about four each day. While Obama is spending more money, the difference between seeing four McCain ads and five Obama spots each day is not significant.
Beginning on Monday of this week, McCain began running an attack ad specifically aimed at the issues first raised by Joe the plumber. Showing footage of his chat with Obama, the McCain ad hammers home the tax issue, noting that Obama's so-called tax cut for 100 million Americans is really a welfare check for the half of them who pay no taxes.
The ad is hard-hitting and effective. More importantly, it is running in the clear without other McCain media to clutter up the message.
So McCain has his best ad on his best issue with as close to financial parity with Obama as he is likely to get. If, in these circumstances, he cannot gain ground during the next few days, the race will be functionally over. But if the Republicans can get traction, it could become a competitive contest again.
Godspeed John McCain.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
October 22, 2008
Marxism's Rebirth?
Marxism's Rebirth?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: America's Communist Party is giddy over current political events, saying its movement has reached a "turning point." There's no mystery why. Their candidate is the White House front-runner.
Part of the Communist Party USA's glee can be attributed to the current economic turmoil. The radicals who make up its membership have long rooted for capitalism to fail.
But it can't be denied that the popularity of Barack Obama, the most far-left candidate to run for president as the nominee of a major party, is a big part of the Communist Party resurgence.
In an article chronicling that revival, Agence France-Presse makes sure that it mentions that "the Communist Party does not endorse Democrat Barack Obama." The fact is, the party does not officially endorse candidates.
Members of its staff, however, are upfront with their support. The AFP story notes that "many" of the workers at the party headquarters in Manhattan wear Obama's image on lapel buttons.
Not enough of a link? How about the party's Aug. 15 Web site editorial that talks of Obama's "transformative candidacy" as one "that would advance progressive politics for the long term."
Obama's election, the editorial continues, will boost "The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path" and "shift the ground for successful struggles going forward."
"None of the people's struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if (John) McCain wins in November," says the editorial, listing issues that sound a lot like the concerns of the Democratic Party's platform.
The Communist Party's dedication to Obama is not new. During the primary season in March, the party noted in a news release that the Obama "campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change."
While America's communists are beaming over the prospect of an Obama presidency, the Illinois senator's biggest fans in Europe — judging by the rock star treatment he got when he spoke in Berlin in July — are moving back to Karl Marx. The media report that sales of "Das Kapital" are on the upswing in Germany.
Again, economic concerns are driving people to desperation. But considering Berlin's warm welcome for Obama, it's easy to make a clear argument that the momentum of his campaign, with all its leftist language and Marxist principles — most recently, Obama's admission that he wants to "spread the wealth" — has inspired Germans to return to Marx.
Voters need to remember on Nov. 4 that when Marx's books are selling well and communists are happy, we are headed for trouble.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: America's Communist Party is giddy over current political events, saying its movement has reached a "turning point." There's no mystery why. Their candidate is the White House front-runner.
Part of the Communist Party USA's glee can be attributed to the current economic turmoil. The radicals who make up its membership have long rooted for capitalism to fail.
But it can't be denied that the popularity of Barack Obama, the most far-left candidate to run for president as the nominee of a major party, is a big part of the Communist Party resurgence.
In an article chronicling that revival, Agence France-Presse makes sure that it mentions that "the Communist Party does not endorse Democrat Barack Obama." The fact is, the party does not officially endorse candidates.
Members of its staff, however, are upfront with their support. The AFP story notes that "many" of the workers at the party headquarters in Manhattan wear Obama's image on lapel buttons.
Not enough of a link? How about the party's Aug. 15 Web site editorial that talks of Obama's "transformative candidacy" as one "that would advance progressive politics for the long term."
Obama's election, the editorial continues, will boost "The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path" and "shift the ground for successful struggles going forward."
"None of the people's struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if (John) McCain wins in November," says the editorial, listing issues that sound a lot like the concerns of the Democratic Party's platform.
The Communist Party's dedication to Obama is not new. During the primary season in March, the party noted in a news release that the Obama "campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change."
While America's communists are beaming over the prospect of an Obama presidency, the Illinois senator's biggest fans in Europe — judging by the rock star treatment he got when he spoke in Berlin in July — are moving back to Karl Marx. The media report that sales of "Das Kapital" are on the upswing in Germany.
Again, economic concerns are driving people to desperation. But considering Berlin's warm welcome for Obama, it's easy to make a clear argument that the momentum of his campaign, with all its leftist language and Marxist principles — most recently, Obama's admission that he wants to "spread the wealth" — has inspired Germans to return to Marx.
Voters need to remember on Nov. 4 that when Marx's books are selling well and communists are happy, we are headed for trouble.
One Day, One Vote
One Day, One Vote
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Voter Fraud: Remember "Election Day," when you actually had to show up on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and prove who you were? Making it easier to vote made it easier to cheat.
It's a sad day when a court has to order a state's top election official to take steps to fight massive and orchestrated vote fraud. The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has done just that by ordering Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, to use other government records to check the thousands of new voters registered by ACORN and others for registration fraud. She must also notify local election officials when fraud is discovered.
Ohio is one of those states employing gimmicks to increase voter "turnout," in this case inviting voters to vote as early as Sept. 30. They can register and vote on the same day if they do so by Oct 6.
What it has increased is voter fraud, inviting activist groups to inundate election boards with bogus and multiple registrations that bog down the system.
This November may make us long for the good old days of hanging chads.
You used to have to provide as much identification to vote as you do to get a library card. Now in some jurisdictions you can show up with an old electricity or phone bill, not necessarily your own. In at least one state, voter "turnout" is an anachronism and you don't have to show up at all. Oregon has done away with polling places entirely. All voting there is by mail.
Registering in person with a photo ID or getting to the polling place once a year is not too much to ask of voters who can get to work or school every day or to the grocery store once a week.
They can get their backsides off the couch to attend rock concerts and sporting events, so why not the local polling place? If it's still too hard, make Election Day a national holiday.
Some voters have legitimate reasons, such as illness or travel, for not showing up, and they should be accommodated. But laziness is not a legitimate reason. Political scientist John Foster of the American Enterprise Institute reports that in 1980 only 4 million ballots were cast before Election Day. In 2004 it was 27 million.
Since Bill Clinton signed the Motor Voter Act, registering to vote in many states has been as complicated as just showing up on Election Day. Eight of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists, including Mohammed Atta, could have registered to vote in Florida and Virginia while planning their attacks.
Efforts to ensure ballot integrity, to have our elections as honest as the Iraqi elections where millions proudly held up purple fingers, have met with resistance from liberals and Democrats. They claim that verifying identity is racist and an attempt to intimidate the poor and minorities.
Photo IDs are already required for a host of activities from applying for Social Security to getting food stamps and cashing checks at the bank. In Georgia, photo IDs are made available to residents who don't have driver's licenses.
Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to purge up to 30,000 ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new, and often fraudulent, registrations in this critical swing state.
Lazy voters are likely to be uninvolved and uninformed voters. Voters who make an effort to vote usually also make an effort to understand the issues and candidates' positions on them. Do we really need vans going around picking up the homeless, and is it really unfair if we don't?
Repeal gimmicky voting laws. If you have to present an ID to rent a video, why should it not be required to vote? If you can't make it to the polls on Election Day, too bad. The only people disenfranchised by photo ID requirements and a single day to vote would be terrorists, dogs, the deceased and people named Jive Turkey.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Voter Fraud: Remember "Election Day," when you actually had to show up on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and prove who you were? Making it easier to vote made it easier to cheat.
It's a sad day when a court has to order a state's top election official to take steps to fight massive and orchestrated vote fraud. The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has done just that by ordering Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, to use other government records to check the thousands of new voters registered by ACORN and others for registration fraud. She must also notify local election officials when fraud is discovered.
Ohio is one of those states employing gimmicks to increase voter "turnout," in this case inviting voters to vote as early as Sept. 30. They can register and vote on the same day if they do so by Oct 6.
What it has increased is voter fraud, inviting activist groups to inundate election boards with bogus and multiple registrations that bog down the system.
This November may make us long for the good old days of hanging chads.
You used to have to provide as much identification to vote as you do to get a library card. Now in some jurisdictions you can show up with an old electricity or phone bill, not necessarily your own. In at least one state, voter "turnout" is an anachronism and you don't have to show up at all. Oregon has done away with polling places entirely. All voting there is by mail.
Registering in person with a photo ID or getting to the polling place once a year is not too much to ask of voters who can get to work or school every day or to the grocery store once a week.
They can get their backsides off the couch to attend rock concerts and sporting events, so why not the local polling place? If it's still too hard, make Election Day a national holiday.
Some voters have legitimate reasons, such as illness or travel, for not showing up, and they should be accommodated. But laziness is not a legitimate reason. Political scientist John Foster of the American Enterprise Institute reports that in 1980 only 4 million ballots were cast before Election Day. In 2004 it was 27 million.
Since Bill Clinton signed the Motor Voter Act, registering to vote in many states has been as complicated as just showing up on Election Day. Eight of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists, including Mohammed Atta, could have registered to vote in Florida and Virginia while planning their attacks.
Efforts to ensure ballot integrity, to have our elections as honest as the Iraqi elections where millions proudly held up purple fingers, have met with resistance from liberals and Democrats. They claim that verifying identity is racist and an attempt to intimidate the poor and minorities.
Photo IDs are already required for a host of activities from applying for Social Security to getting food stamps and cashing checks at the bank. In Georgia, photo IDs are made available to residents who don't have driver's licenses.
Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to purge up to 30,000 ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new, and often fraudulent, registrations in this critical swing state.
Lazy voters are likely to be uninvolved and uninformed voters. Voters who make an effort to vote usually also make an effort to understand the issues and candidates' positions on them. Do we really need vans going around picking up the homeless, and is it really unfair if we don't?
Repeal gimmicky voting laws. If you have to present an ID to rent a video, why should it not be required to vote? If you can't make it to the polls on Election Day, too bad. The only people disenfranchised by photo ID requirements and a single day to vote would be terrorists, dogs, the deceased and people named Jive Turkey.
Obama Campaign Tries to Soften Biden’s Warning
Obama Campaign Tries to Soften Biden’s Warning -- About Obama
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden holds up a baseball jersey with his name on it during a campaign rally at Cheney Stadium in Tacoma, Wash. Sunday, Oct. 19, 2008. (AP Photo/John Froschauer)(CNSNews.com) – On Sunday, Sen. Joe Biden warned that Barack Obama will be tested by an “international crisis” if he’s elected president.
By Tuesday, the Obama campaign was in damage-control mode, sending out surrogates to explain what Obama’s running mate really meant.
Former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, appearing on Fox & Friends Tuesday, tried to minimize Biden’s latest blurt by invoking Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama:
“Well, look, I don’t think anybody in America will be surprised at the notion that the world is going to throw some tests at our next president,” Kaine said. “The next president, whoever it is, is going to face major challenges of national security.”
Kaine noted that Colin Powell, in endorsing Obama on Sunday, had commented on Obama’s “calm and steady judgment.”
What Biden said at a Seattle-area fundraiser on Sunday is raising eyebrows, however:
"Mark my words," Biden was quoted as saying. “It will be not six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember, I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said: Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Biden offered “at least four or five scenarios,” including those involving the Middle East, Pakistan-Afghanistan, and Russia.
"And he's gonna need help,” Biden said about Obama. “And the kind of help he's gonna need is…we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're going to win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride.”
Biden, invoking his own foreign policy experience, said he wasn’t being “falsely humble.” He said said Obama “gets it,” but Biden also said he expects second-guessing as Obama’s presidential term progresses:
“But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."
According ABC News, Biden spoke for about 15 minutes, then noticed who was standing in the back of the ballroom: "I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.
“Sen. Biden was just stating the obvious, which is the world is going to throw some challenges at this nation and at the next president. We gotta have somebody who can deal with them,” Kaine said on Tuesday.
According to most opinion polls, Sen. John McCain trumps Obama when it comes to national security issues.
That makes it particularly surprising that Biden would raise an issue on his which boss is perceived as relatively inexperienced and weak raises – just two weeks before the election.
‘Obama won’t have the right response’
Sen. John McCain worked Biden’s comments into a speech in Belton, Missouri, on Monday:
“The next President won't have time to get used to the office,” McCain said. “We face many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. Just last night, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America's new President. We don't want a President who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain said.
“What is more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn't be apparent Senator Obama would have the right response.
“Forget apparent. Senator Obama won't have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan. He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world's worst dictators. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 13 Comments 1 2 3 Next Loading...
mec at 08:30 AM - October 22, 2008
Nobody seems to have noticed, but the outside world is already showing Obama and the people's democratic party who is boss. The Russian move into Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico shows that the United States is no longer a world power. Al Queda and Hamas are already doing victory dances. The United States was a great nation when it had a national will and ideals based on liberty and justice for all. Nothing lasts forever though. The Empires of Europe and the first Soviet Empire all crashed during the 20th Century. The Reich of A Thousand Years, lasted less than 20 and the Soviet Union lasted a single, not extraordianarily long life span. It would be interesting to see what will replace in the next few months and years.
bellez at 11:07 PM - October 21, 2008
I say give him 5-6 speaking engagements everyday. I beleive Obama picked him on purpose so that we think he is an idiot. I have tried to research everything, I honestly believe Obama is planning to turn Israel loose. He keeps saying he will make sure they have what they need, not we will defend them at every chance like Mccain. Our country will be destroyed by God if we let this radical in the oval office.. I absolutley believe Jesse Jackson. Obama states in his own books he listened and went to Markist speakers and writers he found more comfort there. "I will side with the Muslims if trouble arises" His words.. He already have Obama youth camps that chant "We are the Alpha and the Omega" the beginning and the end..Gods words to discribe himself.. Go look up Saul Alinsky..focus on MIDDLE CLASS..Take your target and hammer hammer and make him insecure..""ERATIC..ERATIC..ERATIC.. Just read Alinsky's first page..he taught Hillary and Bill. Marxism.Radical..Black Theology..Mind Control
rkeyo at 09:36 PM - October 21, 2008
Biden is a subprime moron.On the other hand, he has done a great deal to damage Obummer's campaign. However, I think he's sort of right, that a whole lot of nations will see Obummer as an Islamic quisling, and will "test" him. Unfortunately, we know how he will react when Iran, Russia, and Venezuela collude to raise the cost of oil: he will do nothing, and the price of gasoline will hit $10.00 a gallon. For starters...
orator at 06:29 PM - October 21, 2008
Yeah, he's gonna need a lot of help, but he isn't going to get any from you, Joe. And he's no JFK, either, despite his efforts to link himself with the former President. You two remind me of the three Stooges, except that there are only two of you. Who is the one that pokes his finger in the other's eyes? I would prefer you both get your ball-peen hammer out and start clonking one another on the head. Nah, a two-by-four would be a lot better.
hfrzz002 at 05:51 PM - October 21, 2008
We as a nation cannot feel safe with a party that will do away with The Patriot Act,cut our defense spending,give prisoners of war a civil trial.Obama is a pacifist, when we NEED STRONG LEADSRSHIP!!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden holds up a baseball jersey with his name on it during a campaign rally at Cheney Stadium in Tacoma, Wash. Sunday, Oct. 19, 2008. (AP Photo/John Froschauer)(CNSNews.com) – On Sunday, Sen. Joe Biden warned that Barack Obama will be tested by an “international crisis” if he’s elected president.
By Tuesday, the Obama campaign was in damage-control mode, sending out surrogates to explain what Obama’s running mate really meant.
Former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, appearing on Fox & Friends Tuesday, tried to minimize Biden’s latest blurt by invoking Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama:
“Well, look, I don’t think anybody in America will be surprised at the notion that the world is going to throw some tests at our next president,” Kaine said. “The next president, whoever it is, is going to face major challenges of national security.”
Kaine noted that Colin Powell, in endorsing Obama on Sunday, had commented on Obama’s “calm and steady judgment.”
What Biden said at a Seattle-area fundraiser on Sunday is raising eyebrows, however:
"Mark my words," Biden was quoted as saying. “It will be not six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember, I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said: Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Biden offered “at least four or five scenarios,” including those involving the Middle East, Pakistan-Afghanistan, and Russia.
"And he's gonna need help,” Biden said about Obama. “And the kind of help he's gonna need is…we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're going to win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride.”
Biden, invoking his own foreign policy experience, said he wasn’t being “falsely humble.” He said said Obama “gets it,” but Biden also said he expects second-guessing as Obama’s presidential term progresses:
“But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."
According ABC News, Biden spoke for about 15 minutes, then noticed who was standing in the back of the ballroom: "I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.
“Sen. Biden was just stating the obvious, which is the world is going to throw some challenges at this nation and at the next president. We gotta have somebody who can deal with them,” Kaine said on Tuesday.
According to most opinion polls, Sen. John McCain trumps Obama when it comes to national security issues.
That makes it particularly surprising that Biden would raise an issue on his which boss is perceived as relatively inexperienced and weak raises – just two weeks before the election.
‘Obama won’t have the right response’
Sen. John McCain worked Biden’s comments into a speech in Belton, Missouri, on Monday:
“The next President won't have time to get used to the office,” McCain said. “We face many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. Just last night, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America's new President. We don't want a President who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain said.
“What is more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn't be apparent Senator Obama would have the right response.
“Forget apparent. Senator Obama won't have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan. He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world's worst dictators. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 13 Comments 1 2 3 Next Loading...
mec at 08:30 AM - October 22, 2008
Nobody seems to have noticed, but the outside world is already showing Obama and the people's democratic party who is boss. The Russian move into Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico shows that the United States is no longer a world power. Al Queda and Hamas are already doing victory dances. The United States was a great nation when it had a national will and ideals based on liberty and justice for all. Nothing lasts forever though. The Empires of Europe and the first Soviet Empire all crashed during the 20th Century. The Reich of A Thousand Years, lasted less than 20 and the Soviet Union lasted a single, not extraordianarily long life span. It would be interesting to see what will replace in the next few months and years.
bellez at 11:07 PM - October 21, 2008
I say give him 5-6 speaking engagements everyday. I beleive Obama picked him on purpose so that we think he is an idiot. I have tried to research everything, I honestly believe Obama is planning to turn Israel loose. He keeps saying he will make sure they have what they need, not we will defend them at every chance like Mccain. Our country will be destroyed by God if we let this radical in the oval office.. I absolutley believe Jesse Jackson. Obama states in his own books he listened and went to Markist speakers and writers he found more comfort there. "I will side with the Muslims if trouble arises" His words.. He already have Obama youth camps that chant "We are the Alpha and the Omega" the beginning and the end..Gods words to discribe himself.. Go look up Saul Alinsky..focus on MIDDLE CLASS..Take your target and hammer hammer and make him insecure..""ERATIC..ERATIC..ERATIC.. Just read Alinsky's first page..he taught Hillary and Bill. Marxism.Radical..Black Theology..Mind Control
rkeyo at 09:36 PM - October 21, 2008
Biden is a subprime moron.On the other hand, he has done a great deal to damage Obummer's campaign. However, I think he's sort of right, that a whole lot of nations will see Obummer as an Islamic quisling, and will "test" him. Unfortunately, we know how he will react when Iran, Russia, and Venezuela collude to raise the cost of oil: he will do nothing, and the price of gasoline will hit $10.00 a gallon. For starters...
orator at 06:29 PM - October 21, 2008
Yeah, he's gonna need a lot of help, but he isn't going to get any from you, Joe. And he's no JFK, either, despite his efforts to link himself with the former President. You two remind me of the three Stooges, except that there are only two of you. Who is the one that pokes his finger in the other's eyes? I would prefer you both get your ball-peen hammer out and start clonking one another on the head. Nah, a two-by-four would be a lot better.
hfrzz002 at 05:51 PM - October 21, 2008
We as a nation cannot feel safe with a party that will do away with The Patriot Act,cut our defense spending,give prisoners of war a civil trial.Obama is a pacifist, when we NEED STRONG LEADSRSHIP!!
'Joe the Plumber' Presents Winning Strategy for McCain
'Joe the Plumber' Presents Winning Strategy for McCain
Monday, October 20, 2008 4:45 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Ronald Reagan's most important contribution to the American political dialogue was his ability to move the tax issue from an economic-populist issue into a populist, blue-collar one.
Under George W. Bush, however, the issue has switched back to one of class warfare, as increasing numbers of Americans have paid no taxes at all, and the rates on those who did pay taxes fell. Now, a chance encounter with "Joe the plumber" has afforded the Republicans the chance to use taxes as a blue-collar issue.
The opening Joe provided and John McCain skillfully exploited in the third presidential debate gives the GOP ticket its first long shot at victory since McCain punted on the terrible, pork-laden, corporate-giveaway "rescue" bill Congress passed and Bush signed.
Obama's tax plans and spending programs have emerged as the key point of difference between the campaigns. And the Democrat's comment to Joe that he saw his tax policy as a "way to spread the wealth around" underscores the motive behind his program: to redistribute income. Obama might as well have told Joe, "I want to take the hard earned money you make fixing pipes and give it to other people."
If the Republican Party concentrates its fire on the tax issue and the redistributionist impulse behind Obama's plans, it can close the Democratic lead point by point, day by day, until the election. McCain's campaign must resist the temptation to take random shots on other issues and zero in on the tax-and-spend issue, stressing how taxes penalize those who work hard and live right.
In fact, the rich are paying vastly more in taxes than they ever have. "Reality Check: The Unreported Good News About America," by Dennis Keegan and David West, points out that the percentage of income-tax revenues paid by the top percent of the population has almost doubled in the last 20 years; it now pays 40 percent of all income tax. (The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent.)
Despite the lower rates, the rich are paying more in taxes because they are earning more and more. In the last eight years, real, after-inflation income growth for the top 10 percent of the population has been more than 45 percent.
Essentially, the tax debate comes down to economic populism versus social populism. The Democratic economic populists rail against the rich and demand that they pay more in taxes.
The Republican social populists decry the notion of income redistribution as rewarding failure and penalizing hard work. Until Joe, the economic-populist polarity dominated the presidential race to the detriment of the Republicans. But now Joe has brought the social-populist argument back to life.
Because there always are, there will doubtless be those who see the social-populist approach as a code word for racism, especially because it is directed against the proposals of an African-American candidate. But the dichotomy that social populism exploits is one that separates the most productive members of our work force from the others, in the spirit of Joe the plumber. Race is quite beside the point.
The question is whether McCain has the discipline to pursue the tax issue doggedly for the rest of the campaign. The other targets — from Bill Ayers to ACORN — are so tempting but ultimately appeal to the Republican base and few others. But taxes hit us all.
The core difference between the American working class and its European equivalents is that Europeans are inclined to vote based on their current condition while Americans base their decisions more on their goals and objectives for the future. Americans assume upward mobility while Europeans do not. Each nation's workers are correct in their assessments.
Despite the widening gap between the richest 20 percent and the poorest in the United States, the economic chart is constantly churning. People are always moving out of the bottom fifth and up the scale, their places at the bottom of the ladder yielding to new arrivals, usually from abroad.
So Americans are right to vote their dreams. Obama's European socialist tendency to sabotage growth in the interests of "fairness" merely serves to convert an American model that works into a European one that does not.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Monday, October 20, 2008 4:45 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Ronald Reagan's most important contribution to the American political dialogue was his ability to move the tax issue from an economic-populist issue into a populist, blue-collar one.
Under George W. Bush, however, the issue has switched back to one of class warfare, as increasing numbers of Americans have paid no taxes at all, and the rates on those who did pay taxes fell. Now, a chance encounter with "Joe the plumber" has afforded the Republicans the chance to use taxes as a blue-collar issue.
The opening Joe provided and John McCain skillfully exploited in the third presidential debate gives the GOP ticket its first long shot at victory since McCain punted on the terrible, pork-laden, corporate-giveaway "rescue" bill Congress passed and Bush signed.
Obama's tax plans and spending programs have emerged as the key point of difference between the campaigns. And the Democrat's comment to Joe that he saw his tax policy as a "way to spread the wealth around" underscores the motive behind his program: to redistribute income. Obama might as well have told Joe, "I want to take the hard earned money you make fixing pipes and give it to other people."
If the Republican Party concentrates its fire on the tax issue and the redistributionist impulse behind Obama's plans, it can close the Democratic lead point by point, day by day, until the election. McCain's campaign must resist the temptation to take random shots on other issues and zero in on the tax-and-spend issue, stressing how taxes penalize those who work hard and live right.
In fact, the rich are paying vastly more in taxes than they ever have. "Reality Check: The Unreported Good News About America," by Dennis Keegan and David West, points out that the percentage of income-tax revenues paid by the top percent of the population has almost doubled in the last 20 years; it now pays 40 percent of all income tax. (The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent.)
Despite the lower rates, the rich are paying more in taxes because they are earning more and more. In the last eight years, real, after-inflation income growth for the top 10 percent of the population has been more than 45 percent.
Essentially, the tax debate comes down to economic populism versus social populism. The Democratic economic populists rail against the rich and demand that they pay more in taxes.
The Republican social populists decry the notion of income redistribution as rewarding failure and penalizing hard work. Until Joe, the economic-populist polarity dominated the presidential race to the detriment of the Republicans. But now Joe has brought the social-populist argument back to life.
Because there always are, there will doubtless be those who see the social-populist approach as a code word for racism, especially because it is directed against the proposals of an African-American candidate. But the dichotomy that social populism exploits is one that separates the most productive members of our work force from the others, in the spirit of Joe the plumber. Race is quite beside the point.
The question is whether McCain has the discipline to pursue the tax issue doggedly for the rest of the campaign. The other targets — from Bill Ayers to ACORN — are so tempting but ultimately appeal to the Republican base and few others. But taxes hit us all.
The core difference between the American working class and its European equivalents is that Europeans are inclined to vote based on their current condition while Americans base their decisions more on their goals and objectives for the future. Americans assume upward mobility while Europeans do not. Each nation's workers are correct in their assessments.
Despite the widening gap between the richest 20 percent and the poorest in the United States, the economic chart is constantly churning. People are always moving out of the bottom fifth and up the scale, their places at the bottom of the ladder yielding to new arrivals, usually from abroad.
So Americans are right to vote their dreams. Obama's European socialist tendency to sabotage growth in the interests of "fairness" merely serves to convert an American model that works into a European one that does not.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Obama's Money Won't Be Deciding Factor
Obama's Money Won't Be Deciding Factor
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:53 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Obama sent shock waves through political circles when he announced on Monday that he had amassed $150 million in campaign contributions in September, giving him upwards of $600 million for his campaign.
While his fundraising makes a mockery of McCain's paltry $100 million in taxpayer funded campaign money, the real advantage to Obama in the election is not likely to be decisive.
Obama is, of course, still the front-runner. But McCain is closing hard as the race enters its second to last week.
If Obama ultimately wins, it will have a lot more to do with the Dow Jones than with his level of campaign funding. Even if we assume his October funding brings him to even more dizzying heights, the realities of modern politics will limit the advantage that will accrue to his campaign.
McCain is, of course, funded not just by federal matching funds, but also by direct contributions to the Republican Party and to various independent expenditures, such as www.NationalRepublicanTrust.com. Obama and the Democratic Party will still out raise McCain, federal funds, and the Republican Party, likely by a 2-1 margin. There is, of course, still time for supporters of each candidate to redress or change that ratio.
But on television, where it counts, Obama will probably have no better than a 60-40 advantage over McCain. Much of the good television time in swing states has been purchased months ago.
Extra money can help a campaign run one-minute ads, as opposed to 30-second spots, and can make half-hour or full-hour infomercials possible, but the advantage of these extravagances is not proportionate to their cost.
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he does not have anything new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that half don't pay any taxes to begin with and the "tax cut" is really just a welfare check).
McCain's advertising is powering a bold new message, inspired by Joe the plumber: Obama will use the tax code to redistribute wealth.
The social populist backlash against his proposals is closing the lead that Obama opened up as a result of the financial crisis. With things calmer on Wall Street (our fingers tremble as we write this), voters have two weeks to ponder what the onset of a socialist presidency would mean for Americans.
McCain has enough money to punch his message through. It will not get drowned by a sea of Obama media. But McCain's supporters must realize that this race is far from over. There is a realistic chance that he can win. And if there was ever a time for his supporters to open up their checkbooks, it is now.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:53 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Obama sent shock waves through political circles when he announced on Monday that he had amassed $150 million in campaign contributions in September, giving him upwards of $600 million for his campaign.
While his fundraising makes a mockery of McCain's paltry $100 million in taxpayer funded campaign money, the real advantage to Obama in the election is not likely to be decisive.
Obama is, of course, still the front-runner. But McCain is closing hard as the race enters its second to last week.
If Obama ultimately wins, it will have a lot more to do with the Dow Jones than with his level of campaign funding. Even if we assume his October funding brings him to even more dizzying heights, the realities of modern politics will limit the advantage that will accrue to his campaign.
McCain is, of course, funded not just by federal matching funds, but also by direct contributions to the Republican Party and to various independent expenditures, such as www.NationalRepublicanTrust.com. Obama and the Democratic Party will still out raise McCain, federal funds, and the Republican Party, likely by a 2-1 margin. There is, of course, still time for supporters of each candidate to redress or change that ratio.
But on television, where it counts, Obama will probably have no better than a 60-40 advantage over McCain. Much of the good television time in swing states has been purchased months ago.
Extra money can help a campaign run one-minute ads, as opposed to 30-second spots, and can make half-hour or full-hour infomercials possible, but the advantage of these extravagances is not proportionate to their cost.
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he does not have anything new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that half don't pay any taxes to begin with and the "tax cut" is really just a welfare check).
McCain's advertising is powering a bold new message, inspired by Joe the plumber: Obama will use the tax code to redistribute wealth.
The social populist backlash against his proposals is closing the lead that Obama opened up as a result of the financial crisis. With things calmer on Wall Street (our fingers tremble as we write this), voters have two weeks to ponder what the onset of a socialist presidency would mean for Americans.
McCain has enough money to punch his message through. It will not get drowned by a sea of Obama media. But McCain's supporters must realize that this race is far from over. There is a realistic chance that he can win. And if there was ever a time for his supporters to open up their checkbooks, it is now.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA
SENT BY A READER WITH DUE CONCERN ABOUT OBAMA. THANKS BILL.
This election has the potential of changiing America for MANY
years to come with dire consequences for all of us, our children
and grandchildren.
It may speed up the "Fall of the U.S.A.
I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS but if you read just one more thing between now and next month's election, I urge you to read the following editorial.
I do not know who 'Michael Masters' is or what he does, but he does write well.
To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'They cling to their guns and religion.' 'They will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
The drain to America ' s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans wh o voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.
Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you.
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
Michael Master
McLean, Virginia
This election has the potential of changiing America for MANY
years to come with dire consequences for all of us, our children
and grandchildren.
It may speed up the "Fall of the U.S.A.
I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS but if you read just one more thing between now and next month's election, I urge you to read the following editorial.
I do not know who 'Michael Masters' is or what he does, but he does write well.
To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'They cling to their guns and religion.' 'They will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
The drain to America ' s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans wh o voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.
Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you.
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
Michael Master
McLean, Virginia
October 21, 2008
More on Obama - FYI. a liar is a liar always.
THIS ALERT FROM A CONSISTANT READER AND CONTRIBUTOR, THANKS GEORGIA
Subject: More on Obama - FYI
TERRY ANDERSON, A BLACK LOS ANGELES TALK RADIO HOST, WENT DOWN A LIST OF THINGS SENATOR OBAMA HAS SAID THAT AREN'T EXACTLY CORRECT.
Obama's Not Quite Exactly:
1..) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya .. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers ! have bur ned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in Islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could ever speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTL! Y, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 PRESENT or NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your mis-vote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish!
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear d! onor, Ex elon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel ..
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbyists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
39.) My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the Russian army did the liberating.
So, who EXACTLY is this Obama guy and what is he trying to sell us?
Please get to work now...not enough of your loved ones and friends know about this.
Subject: More on Obama - FYI
TERRY ANDERSON, A BLACK LOS ANGELES TALK RADIO HOST, WENT DOWN A LIST OF THINGS SENATOR OBAMA HAS SAID THAT AREN'T EXACTLY CORRECT.
Obama's Not Quite Exactly:
1..) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya .. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers ! have bur ned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in Islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could ever speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTL! Y, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 PRESENT or NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your mis-vote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish!
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear d! onor, Ex elon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel ..
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbyists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
39.) My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the Russian army did the liberating.
So, who EXACTLY is this Obama guy and what is he trying to sell us?
Please get to work now...not enough of your loved ones and friends know about this.
October 20, 2008
A Real Rescue
A Real Rescue
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama admitted to a Toledo plumber that he would raise his taxes to "spread the wealth around." John McCain has a better idea: Cut taxes to generate new wealth and more jobs.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama can't just support a simple cut in capital gains taxes; it has to be a reduction so narrow that it's a stretch to call it a tax cut. Excluding most investment, it would have little if any economic stimulus effect that would produce new jobs.
Disingenuously talking about cutting capital gains taxes, of course, makes the silver-tongued socialist sound pro-business, but the proposal won't help anyone in need of a job in coming years.
Neither will the other items of Sen. Obama's "Promotional Rescue" (with apologies to the Rolling Stones). They include a government-imposed moratorium on home foreclosures, limited 401(k) withdrawals without penalty, and a Washington bailout for big-spending state and local governments.
And when the radical Southside Chicago community organizer promises to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, he really means welfare disguised as tax credits for the large sector of people not even paying income taxes — negating their payroll tax liability as well in many cases.
When millions more Americans pay zero taxes, it means millions with zero interest in any future tax cuts — a formula for long-term liberal Democratic political ascendancy.
John McCain, on the other hand, this week countered Obama with tax cuts that really are tax cuts. For the next two years, he would slice the capital gains tax in half. He would also quintuple the capital loss offset against ordinary income, raising it to $15,000.
He would lower the tax rate on IRA and 401(k) withdrawals for nearly 9 million seniors to 10% for the first $50,000 withdrawn per year. And his plan features an expanded federal guarantee to all savings account holdings for six months.
Sen. McCain understands what was explained with simple eloquence by Ronald Reagan on election night in November of 1980.
"I aim to try and tap that great American spirit that opened up this completely undeveloped continent from coast to coast and made it a great nation," he said at his victory celebration.
That spirit, Reagan continued, "survived several wars, survived a Great Depression, and we'll survive the problems we face right now."
Nothing could be further removed from that American spirit of which the greatest president of the 20th century spoke than the Marxist-like envy-mongering that is the soul of the Obama campaign. Churchill called socialism "the gospel of envy," and everywhere Obama goes, he preaches it, vilifying corporations as a class enemy and decrying "trickle down," his epithet for tax cuts.
McCain's plan to cut the capital gains tax in half would unlock a fortune in wealth, allowing it to be reinvested in businesses with the most potential for innovation and job growth.
That's a real rescue for millions of Americans — like that Toledo plumber who spoke truth to power when Obama came calling.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama admitted to a Toledo plumber that he would raise his taxes to "spread the wealth around." John McCain has a better idea: Cut taxes to generate new wealth and more jobs.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama can't just support a simple cut in capital gains taxes; it has to be a reduction so narrow that it's a stretch to call it a tax cut. Excluding most investment, it would have little if any economic stimulus effect that would produce new jobs.
Disingenuously talking about cutting capital gains taxes, of course, makes the silver-tongued socialist sound pro-business, but the proposal won't help anyone in need of a job in coming years.
Neither will the other items of Sen. Obama's "Promotional Rescue" (with apologies to the Rolling Stones). They include a government-imposed moratorium on home foreclosures, limited 401(k) withdrawals without penalty, and a Washington bailout for big-spending state and local governments.
And when the radical Southside Chicago community organizer promises to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, he really means welfare disguised as tax credits for the large sector of people not even paying income taxes — negating their payroll tax liability as well in many cases.
When millions more Americans pay zero taxes, it means millions with zero interest in any future tax cuts — a formula for long-term liberal Democratic political ascendancy.
John McCain, on the other hand, this week countered Obama with tax cuts that really are tax cuts. For the next two years, he would slice the capital gains tax in half. He would also quintuple the capital loss offset against ordinary income, raising it to $15,000.
He would lower the tax rate on IRA and 401(k) withdrawals for nearly 9 million seniors to 10% for the first $50,000 withdrawn per year. And his plan features an expanded federal guarantee to all savings account holdings for six months.
Sen. McCain understands what was explained with simple eloquence by Ronald Reagan on election night in November of 1980.
"I aim to try and tap that great American spirit that opened up this completely undeveloped continent from coast to coast and made it a great nation," he said at his victory celebration.
That spirit, Reagan continued, "survived several wars, survived a Great Depression, and we'll survive the problems we face right now."
Nothing could be further removed from that American spirit of which the greatest president of the 20th century spoke than the Marxist-like envy-mongering that is the soul of the Obama campaign. Churchill called socialism "the gospel of envy," and everywhere Obama goes, he preaches it, vilifying corporations as a class enemy and decrying "trickle down," his epithet for tax cuts.
McCain's plan to cut the capital gains tax in half would unlock a fortune in wealth, allowing it to be reinvested in businesses with the most potential for innovation and job growth.
That's a real rescue for millions of Americans — like that Toledo plumber who spoke truth to power when Obama came calling.
Obamacorn
Obamacorn
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 13, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama lies about his ACORN past while agreeing to let the group shape the policies of his administration. He hopes his community organizer pals will help him make America "less mean-spirited."
As far back as Harvard Law School, Obama dreamed of transforming America in the image of community organizations such as ACORN with whom and for whom he trained.
In the May 3, 1990, edition of Chicago's Daily Herald newspaper, there's an article in which Obama, while attending Harvard Law School, gives his skewed view of American society and his plans for it. "I'm interested in organizations, not movements," the young Obama said, "because movements dissipate but organizations don't."
Through these organizations, Obama hoped that "more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we're going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous."
Less mean-spirited? Apparently wife Michelle isn't the only one who thinks America is mean and should be more generous with other people's money. "I hope to be part of a transformation of this country," Obama also said in 1990.
Of course, Obama denies being a trainer for ACORN and its staff of community rabble-rousers now engaged in massive countrywide vote fraud to elect the man who helped lead their effort to force banks to issue loans to people who could not afford them.
Obama's Web site proclaims, "Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity." Then how is it that Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes sang Obama's praises for his work for ACORN in his article, "Case Study: Chicago — The Barack Obama Campaign," which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004?
Foulkes said ACORN first recognized Obama's talents as a community organizer when he was organizing on Chicago's far south side with the Developing Communities Project.
Foulkes wrote: "When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act . . . . Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar . . . and we won."
Then Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar balked at implementing the new federal "Motor Voter" law out of concern that allowing people to register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud. We wonder where he got that idea.
Foulkes says that "Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Mosely Braun to win the Senate that year. Project Vote delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them)."
ACORN was so impressed with Obama's work with and for ACORN that, according to Foulkes, "Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office."
Last November, Obama told the group, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran (the) Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."
Obama appreciates ACORN's work so much, and vice versa, that Obama last December promised to implement ACORN's agenda as president. On Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum organized by Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change. When asked if Obama would sit down with community organizers in the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama said, "Yes, but let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda."
Obama pledged before leaders of community organizing groups including Gamaliel and ACORN: "We're gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."
That's what we were afraid of.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 13, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama lies about his ACORN past while agreeing to let the group shape the policies of his administration. He hopes his community organizer pals will help him make America "less mean-spirited."
As far back as Harvard Law School, Obama dreamed of transforming America in the image of community organizations such as ACORN with whom and for whom he trained.
In the May 3, 1990, edition of Chicago's Daily Herald newspaper, there's an article in which Obama, while attending Harvard Law School, gives his skewed view of American society and his plans for it. "I'm interested in organizations, not movements," the young Obama said, "because movements dissipate but organizations don't."
Through these organizations, Obama hoped that "more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we're going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous."
Less mean-spirited? Apparently wife Michelle isn't the only one who thinks America is mean and should be more generous with other people's money. "I hope to be part of a transformation of this country," Obama also said in 1990.
Of course, Obama denies being a trainer for ACORN and its staff of community rabble-rousers now engaged in massive countrywide vote fraud to elect the man who helped lead their effort to force banks to issue loans to people who could not afford them.
Obama's Web site proclaims, "Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity." Then how is it that Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes sang Obama's praises for his work for ACORN in his article, "Case Study: Chicago — The Barack Obama Campaign," which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004?
Foulkes said ACORN first recognized Obama's talents as a community organizer when he was organizing on Chicago's far south side with the Developing Communities Project.
Foulkes wrote: "When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act . . . . Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar . . . and we won."
Then Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar balked at implementing the new federal "Motor Voter" law out of concern that allowing people to register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud. We wonder where he got that idea.
Foulkes says that "Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Mosely Braun to win the Senate that year. Project Vote delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them)."
ACORN was so impressed with Obama's work with and for ACORN that, according to Foulkes, "Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office."
Last November, Obama told the group, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran (the) Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."
Obama appreciates ACORN's work so much, and vice versa, that Obama last December promised to implement ACORN's agenda as president. On Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum organized by Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change. When asked if Obama would sit down with community organizers in the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama said, "Yes, but let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda."
Obama pledged before leaders of community organizing groups including Gamaliel and ACORN: "We're gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."
That's what we were afraid of.
October 19, 2008
this is why I cannot vote for you.......
I am fully 100% behind the reasons for not voting for a democrat - be it Obama or any other democrat. And, the reasons, as this man says, are not racist at all!!
Subject: Fw: this is why I cannot vote for you.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a letter by a person who tells Obama why he won't support him. It's a well-written letter with not an ounce of hate or meanness. I think both pro and anti folks will find this interesting.
Please take the time to read this....it is put very well.... it doesn't appear to contain any 'lies' or false info.
Dear Mr. Obama,
It is August 30, 2008. My name is Mark Gregg. I am a 50 something conservative white male. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention. I am respectfully providing you with seven simple reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers and Louis Farakan are trying to portray you.
1. I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska 's quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of 'change', but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?
2. You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation. I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help. I married a 'minority' girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand. However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country. Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended ivy league universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes. This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don't want her representing me to the rest of the world.
3. You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me. I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill: 'We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.' If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi , Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch.
4. During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: 'Above your pay grade?' Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond? I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people.
5. If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy. I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'
6. You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents' approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me.
7. My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters. I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood , the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do. The way that I see it, when the devil is for you, we should question whether or not we should be against you.
In closing, I just want you to know that you scare me. I cannot vote for you. It is not because of your skin color. It is because of these items and many, many others like them. Do not claim that my dislike for you is race based. It is because I do not feel you have the best interests of this nation at heart.
Respectfully,
Mark A. Gregg
(P.S., no mention is made of the birth records, school records, etc. which are not produced for review, nor is any mention made of Obama's questionable associations.)
Subject: Fw: this is why I cannot vote for you.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a letter by a person who tells Obama why he won't support him. It's a well-written letter with not an ounce of hate or meanness. I think both pro and anti folks will find this interesting.
Please take the time to read this....it is put very well.... it doesn't appear to contain any 'lies' or false info.
Dear Mr. Obama,
It is August 30, 2008. My name is Mark Gregg. I am a 50 something conservative white male. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention. I am respectfully providing you with seven simple reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers and Louis Farakan are trying to portray you.
1. I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska 's quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of 'change', but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?
2. You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation. I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help. I married a 'minority' girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand. However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country. Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended ivy league universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes. This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don't want her representing me to the rest of the world.
3. You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me. I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill: 'We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.' If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi , Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch.
4. During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: 'Above your pay grade?' Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond? I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people.
5. If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy. I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'
6. You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents' approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me.
7. My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters. I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood , the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do. The way that I see it, when the devil is for you, we should question whether or not we should be against you.
In closing, I just want you to know that you scare me. I cannot vote for you. It is not because of your skin color. It is because of these items and many, many others like them. Do not claim that my dislike for you is race based. It is because I do not feel you have the best interests of this nation at heart.
Respectfully,
Mark A. Gregg
(P.S., no mention is made of the birth records, school records, etc. which are not produced for review, nor is any mention made of Obama's questionable associations.)