1926: Eight year old Stanley Dunham discovers his mother’s body after she has committed suicide. Stanley ‘s father then abandons the traumatized boy, leaving Stanley in the care of his maternal grandparents in El Dorado , Kansas .
(Dramatization) Stanley is psychologically devastated by suicide & abandonment!
(Dramatization) The hurt little boy grows into an angry and unstable young man.
(Dramatization) Stanley spends time as a rail hopping drifter.
Psycho Stanley fathers a girl – names her Stanley !!!
Just before leaving to fight in World War II in 1942, Stanley impregnates Madelyn. A girl is born on November 29, 1942. Because Stanley wanted a son, he names the girl after himself – Stanley Dunham! (Middle name of Ann)
What kind of a psycho names his daughter Stanley?
StanleyAnn Dunham endures childhood trauma.
After the war, the Dunhams bounce around the country for 15 years – moving to California, back to Kansas, to Seattle, WA, to Mercer Island, WA, and finally to Hawaii. Stanley is teased about her boyish name at every new school she attends. The instability of constantly moving, the teasing/bullying over her strange name, and the constant reminder that her father wanted a boy – will combine to turn young Stanley Ann into a traumatized psycho like her father.
(Dramatization) A girl named Stanley is teased about her boyish name.
Frank Marshall Davis (right) had a passion for photography and pornography..
Ann is impregnanted by one of two Black Communist.
1960: Still a 17 year old college freshman, Ann becomes pregnant. She claims that a Kenyan Marxist named Barack Obama (who she met in a Russian language class) is the father. Obama is a drunk who, apparently unbeknownst to Dunham at the time, has his own wife and kids back in Kenya.It has since become apparent that Ann was also having sexual relations with another black man during this time – the admitted Communist Frank Marshall Davis (more on him later).
Obama looks nothing like his Kenyan father, but resembles Frank Marshall Davis very much!
Barack Obama Jr. is abandoned by his Kenyan father.
Less than four years into the unlikely marriage, Ann divorces the drunken Kenyan bigamist. Barack Sr. returns to Africa in 1964. Little “Barry” experiences his first abandonment. Barry will briefly see hisalleged father again in 1968, when he is about eight years old, only to have to say goodbye to him. Barack Sr. will later be killed in a drunk driving accident in 1982.
Little Barry’s fragile psyche was doomed from the start.
The reunion with the father figure he longed for was very brief.
Ann remarries an Indonesian man and settles there.
In 1965, Ann marries Lolo Soetero. She, Lolo, and little Barry settle in Indonesia . (Ann and Lolo will divorce in 1980)
Stanley Ann has a baby girl with her new husband.
Ann hires a transvestite to be Barry’s nanny!
Already a full fledged feminist Marxist, Ann Soetero hires ‘Evie”, (a known a transexual / transvestite!)to care for young Barry. In 2012, it was revealed that Nanny Evie is now a broke homosexual prostitute.
Old lady/man Evie holds up a photo of his / her flaming younger self
Desperate and destitute, old Evie survives by prostitution. Obama won’t lift a finger to help!
Ann has a baby girl, then dumps Barry on her parents in Hawaii .
Little Barry is again traumatized by the pain of rejection. After having a daughter with Lolo, psycho Ann ships 10 year old Barry off to Hawaii to be raised by his grandfather.
Barry’s little psyche is sent from the frying pan into the fire!
Grandpa introduces Barry to a Black Communist bi-sexual.
Grandpa Dunham is friends with the Communist bi-sexual Frank Marshall Davis. Davis will become a mentor to young Barry. It was Davis, an avid photographer, who took the nude photographs of young Ann Dunham. Davis tells of his sexual deviance in a book entitled “Sex Rebel Black“, (written under the pen name of Bob Greene) In lurid detail, he describes 3-way sex sessions between himself, his wife, and a young girl named “Ann.”
Davis wrote the filthy “Sex Rebel Black” in 1968.
The dirty old Communist will finish corrupting little Barry.
Teenage Barry is lazy student and a heavy drug user.
By the end of High School, generations of family dysfunction and painful rejection will have already shaped the man that Obama will become. By his own adult admission, Obama wastes his High School years as a heavy pot smoker and a mediocre student.
A self described “lazy student”, Obama has a passion for smoking marijuana.. (later on cocaine)
Barack Obama moves onto cocaine and homosexuality.
After High School, Obama is a mediocre college student at Occidental College in California . His drug use continues and it appears that he has embraced the homosexual lifestyle.
1980’s: Obama and his homosexual Pakistani “lover” holding hands.
1980’s: Young Obama is plugged into the Globalist-Communist Presidential Pipeline.
At some point during the 1980’s, Frank Marshall Davis, and others above him, plug “Barack Obama Jr.” into the subversive network of Professor William Ayers. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, are former FBI fugitives and founders of the Communist/Terrorist Weather Underground. The pyscho Obama is to be decorated with phony Ivy League degrees and groomed to be “the first Black President.”
Obama began his first political campaign in the Chicagoliving room of Ayers (l) and Dohrn (r)!
Ageing hippie communists Ayers and Dohrn are still very active in politics today.
1990’s: Communist “Reverend Wright” finds a “beard” to hide Obama’s homosexuality.
No one in their right mind would marry such an angry woman! So Reverend Wright gave her to Obama.
Obama and the America hating Reverend go way back!
Reverend Wright with the Communist Bill Ayers
CONCLUSION / DIAGNOSIS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Superman persona is the mind’s way of hiding the worthless being within.
Barack Obama is the product of generations of severe psychological dysfunction. The neurotic manifestations rooted in both sides of his family tree include – suicide, abandonment of children, multiple relocations, polygamy, rejection, bullying, drug & alchohol abuse, homosexuality, transexualism, and communist subversion.
To cope with the pain and low self esteem of childhood trauma, the ego creates a false Superman. We clearly see the Narcissitic Personality Disorder manifested in the anti social behavior of Grandpa Dunham (naming a daughter after himself, joining the Communist Party), Stanley Ann Dunham (posing for pornographic photos, having sex with older black men, dumping her child), Barack Sr. (secretly keeping two families at the same time, driving drunk), Nanny Evie (dressing up as a woman, engaging in homosexual prostitution)Frank Marshall Davis (joining the Communist Party, boasting of sexual perversion).
This is why Obama himself is so arrogant, so conceited, so callous, so sensitive to criticism, so dishonest, so immoral, so vindictive, so cold, so cruel, and so dangerous. Like the Frankenstein monster of Mary Shelley’s classic novel, Obama is seething with rage at the society which he blames for he pain of his dysfunctional childhood. Apart altogether from his flawed Marxist ideology and his manifest incompetance, OBAMA IS RUTHLESS ….. the perfect man to lead a nation of dumbed down, degenerate sheep, many of whom are themselves Narcissistic pyschopaths.
— This message may contain copyrighted material which is being made available for research of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, social justice issues, etc., and constitutes a “fair use” of such copyrighted material per section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this message is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research/educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
President Obama once again called out his “troops” to rally for the 2010 election. Calling on”young people, African-Americans,Latinos, and women who powered our victory”(2008) to ” stand to gether again”, he tryed to light some kind of fire under those who gave him his presidency.
Using a back drop sentiment against the Arizona initiative to curb illegal immigration and a wave of drug violence, the president was a bit low key but once again in campaign mode. This latest speech was directly aimed at anyone who did not vote for him and those who are vehemently against him as much as it was to energize part of a wavering base. Read the full story
A confrontation happened last week between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Cambridge cops. Cambridge cops were condemned last night by President Barack Obama for acting “stupidly” in arresting the African-American scholar (who happens to be a personal friend of Brack Obama).
Cops responded to Gates’s house after neighbor Lucia Whalen reported spotting “two black males with backpacks” trying to gain entry to the home (Gates, returning home from a trip overseas, and his driver were contending with a stuck front door). The Cambridge Police Department reports, authored by Sergeant James Crowley and Officer James Figueroa, quote an incensed Gates yelling, “This is what happens to black men in America!,” and, when asked by Crowley to speak with him outside the residence, Gates replied, “ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside.” A disorderly conduct rap was filed against Gates, but quickly dropped by prosecutors. Gates is reportedly considering legal action against the Cambridge police.
The police officer at the center of a national racial firestorm triggered by President Barack Obama told an interviewer Thursday that he had nothing to apologize for in the arrest of a black Harvard scholar, and that the president he didn’t vote for should have considered his words more carefully.
“The apology won’t come from me,” Sgt. James Crowley told Carl Stevens of WBZ News Radio in Boston. “I’ve done nothing wrong.”
A well-regarded officer who is an expert on racial profiling, Crowley responded to a call at the Cambridge home of Henry Louis Gates Jr. last week to investigate a report of a burglary. Confronting Gates and another man who appeared to have forced open the door of the home, Crowley asked Gates to show him identification.
Gates initially refused and accused Crowley of racism. The professor, a close friend of Harvard alumnus Barack Obama, was charged with disorderly conduct. The charge was dropped Tuesday, and Gates has since demanded an apology from Crowley.
In a four-minute interview outside his home, Crowley revealed that:
Gates escalated the situation by yelling and refusing to calm down, calling Crowley a racist, and referring to his mother.
He was the police officer who tried to save the life of former Boston Celtics player Reggie Lewis, a black man, who collapsed and died during an off-season workout at Brandeis University. Crowley said he still is very shaken because of that event.
Crowley said he didn’t vote for Obama but supports the president 110 percent. He also suggested that the president was siding with his friend Gates, and he probably would have done the same in a similar situation.
Though he said he would do everything exactly the same way again, Crowley did express regret at the media attention and pressure the event has brought on his friends and family.
“I acted appropriately. Mr. Gates was given plenty of opportunity to stop what he was doing,” Crowley said. “He didn’t. He acted very irrational, and he controlled the outcome of that event.”
“There was a lot of yelling. There was references to my mother,” Crowley said. “Something you wouldn’t expect from anybody who should be grateful you’re there investigating the report of a crime in progress, let alone a Harvard University professor.”
The reporter then referred to the death of Lewis, explaining that he worked the scene that night when Crowley tried to save the player’s life.
“I was a police officer at Brandeis University at the time and I was responding to a medical call and had the unfortunate experience of trying to revive somebody who was probably already gone,” Crowley said. “It was very tough emotionally dealing with that as well.”
The reporter than asked him to respond to those who allege that he is a racist.
“It almost doesn’t warrant a comment. My friends, my family my colleagues — those people whose opinions mean the most to me — they know who I am, they know what I am and what I am not. It’s an unfortunate thing that the professor and other people even mentioned that.”
Asked what he thought of the president’s comments, Crowley immediately replied, “I didn’t vote for him,” and then smiled.
“When he said the Cambridge police acted stupidly, he was talking about you,” the interviewer said. “What was your reaction to that?”
“My only reaction, somebody had told me what he said. I didn’t hear the press conference but I did listen afterwards and I support the president of the United States 110 percent. I think he’s way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts as he himself stated before making that comment so again, I don’t know what to say about that. I guess a friend of mine would support my position too.”
Asked whether he is able to do his job, Crowley responded: “Sure. I absolutely will. This will not distract me from doing what it is I do. And if a similar call came in tomorrow, I wouldn’t shy away from responding and I’d do what I have to do.”
Asked whether he should have done anything differently, Crowley responded bluntly: “No.”
The Police Report describes the incident in detail (click an image below, then click it again to read it in detail):
Hugo Chavez’s coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation’s constitution.
Honduran patriots need to hold their ground against international pressure by Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and, of course, Hugo Chavez himself to return Zelaya to office.
Here’s a video essay of the official chronology of events leading up to the political changes in Honduras:
President Barack Obama has signed an executive order presidential determination allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to resettle in the United States. Sure, what can go wrong when we allow hundreds of thousands of people who have been, as Mark Steyn memorably described, "marinated" in a "sick death cult," who voted for Hamas, and 55% of whom support suicide bombings live here and at the American taxpayers’ expense:
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
The "presidential determination" which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.
President Obama’s decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by "the urgent refugee and migration needs" of the "victims."
Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
Let’s review some of Barack Obama’s most recent actions since he was inaugurated a little more than two weeks ago:
His first call to any head of state as president was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
His first one on one interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
He ordered all overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and 9/11.
Today we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to and live in the US at American taxpayer expense.
This story is getting a lot of additional merit once again. Obama’s campaign might be crumbling after this becomes more main stream. A lot of additional information has been surfacing regarding Obama’s United States Constitutional qualifications asking why is he not releasing his medical records, birth certificate and other pertinent information to the courts.
When John McCain was asked to provide his medical records, birth certificate (because he was born in Panama – on a United States Military Base) he did so immediately. When Barack Obama was asked to provide this information, he immediately ‘lawyered up’ and is holding this information back.
Molotov Mitchell interviews the Democrat plaintiff in a stunning federal case against Barack Obama. The case is nothing short of electrifying, but the mainstream media is doing its best to keep Americans in the dark. If Obama’s innocent, then why isn’t he cooperating with the court and explain this? Why is his campaign keeping this silent?
Philip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit–just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver–for the health of the Democratic Party.
‘I filed this action at this time,’ Berg stated, ‘to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated’.
Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator’s background, and in today’s lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls ‘dual loyalties’ due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.
Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator’s use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of ‘multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries’ remains on the table.
In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, ‘apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight.’ As Sen. Obama’s own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham–Obama’s mother–gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama’s birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals–Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital–in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple ‘registry of birth’ records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.
Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a ‘natural born’ citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed ‘natural born,’ that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama’s registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name ‘Barry Soetoro’ and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.
The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama’s half-sister.
‘Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama’s lies and obfuscations,’ Berg stated. ‘If the DNC officers … had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws.’
UPDATE 1: According to Michelle Obama, the fix is already in
Like editors the world over used to admonish reporters at deadline: ”Your lead is buried down copy”, the lead in African Press International’s (API’s) ”Mrs. Obama decides enough is enough” comes well down copy:
”My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his step father. ” (Emphasis added).
In other words, according to the overzealous, you’re-all-racists wife of candidate for presidency Barack Hussein Obama, the fix is already in.
The candidate’s wife treated the Norway-based API as if it was already under the command of a Barack and Michelle-run White House.
With an arrogance that can only be described as stunning, Michelle Obama said API would earn an invite to hubby’s upcoming inauguration ceremony when he will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year, if only they wrote a “good” story.
In a good old fashioned hissy fit, Michelle Obama had picked up the phone to accuse API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, saying she had decided to call API because of what she termed, API’s help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man’s name. She made plain her hopes that the African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with.
‘When API told her that our online news media was only replaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs. Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: ”African Press International is supposed to support Africans and (the) African-American view, and she went (on) to state that, ”It is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband.” (africanpress, Oct. 15, 2008). ”There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his step father, The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that my husband loves this country and his adoption has never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner , (emphasis added) says Michelle Obama on telefon (sic) to API.”
The person on the other end of the telephone line indicated concern for ‘the American man Dr. Corsi, who was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi.
When API asked Mrs. Obama to comment on why Dr. Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya’s Prime Minister Mr. Raila Odinga was involved in Dr. Corsi’s arrest, she got irritated and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency.
When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.
On Farakhan and his ministry, Mrs. Obama told API that it was unfortunate that Mr. Farrakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections (sic) was over. That was not wholehearted support but one that was calculated to convince the American people that my husband will support the growth of Muslim faith if he became the president, adding ‘even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. ”Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?’” Mrs. Obama asked.
UPDATE 2: Telephone recordings of Michelle Obama’s call is now being cleared for release
Plaintiff Philip J. Berg alleged in a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvaniathat Defendant Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status.
A lawsuit has been filed with the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court requiring Mr. Obama to produce documents to prove he is constitutionally qualified to run for President. So far Mr. Obama has refused to produce the documents and is trying to fight the court order to produce the documents. Any American should be able to prove citizenship in less than a day. Why can’t Mr. Obama?
A constitutional crisis will rip our country apart. If this is not cleared up now we will have a crisis. If you care at all about America you must call for Mr. Obama to produce the documents and prove that he is eligible to be President. Thousands of people have already signed a petitionasking their representatives to push this matter.
Please call on Mr. Obama to produce the documents to prove his constitutional qualifications.
UPDATE 3: Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit (NewsMax)
October 24th, 2008
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.
UPDATE 5: Obama’s Trip to Hawaii to ‘Visit Grandma’ is really to fight the suit
October 29th, 2008
Andy Martinrecently filed suit in Hawaii demanding that the State turn over Obama’s Birth Certificate, His claim is that Obama is really in Hawaii to fight the suit.
Source Israel Insider”Barack H. Obama II has suspended his involvement in his campaign for at least two days to go to Hawaii, purportedly to visit his ailing grandmother.
But the sudden trip to the 50th state coincides with an aggressive campaign by Obama nemesis Andy Martin to legally compel Hawaiian authorities to release birth records that Obama has refused to make public. And, in a separate Federal Circuit Court case filed by Philip Berg in Pennsylvania to force Obama and the Democratic National Committee to prove that the candidate is in fact a ”natural born citizen,” Obama and the DNC have failed to respond within a federally-mandated 30 day period, opening the door to a procedural argument that failure to respond represents an admission of the plaintiff’s claims that the Democratic nominee is a Kenyan and/or Indonesian citizen, but not a ”natural born” citizen of the United States.
The sudden Obama decision to visit Hawaii has triggered broad skepticism, coming as it does in the critical last two week of the close election campaign. Obama’s 85-year-old maternal grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was first brought into the campaign when he sought to show that she, as a ”typical white woman”, held what the candidate claimed were racist fears of aggressive black men. He brought her up in the context of saying that he could not disown her — despite her alleged racism — any more than he could disown his pastor of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright. Obama visited her only very briefly during his summer vacation in Hawaii, and he didn’t visit her when she was in a Honolulu hospital last week. There is no indication that her condition is life-threatening.
But Andy Martin, an anti-Obama columnist, says the real reason for Obama’s emergency trip is to stop his own pursuit of birth records, including an emergency writ to the Hawaii Supreme Court to request expedited handling after a previous filing to demand that the State’s Department of Health release the records. ”Obama did not pay any attention to his grandmother until I showed up in Honolulu,” he wrote in an email. ”Suddenly she is the center of his attention. She is so central to his campaign that he has suspended it! But when Obama was here last summer he only visited his grandmother for an hour. One hour! Now he suspends his campaign for her?”
The Berg-initiated legal action is also pressing the Obama campaign. On September 15, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the Illinois senator is ineligible, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with a request for admission, which, on October 6, Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged getting but then attempted to persuade the court to stay discovery and to dismiss the suit. However, Federal Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done so.
Therefore, this morning, Berg is filing two motions in district court in Philadelphia: a motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and a motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted. Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is ”damning.”
”They did not file answers or objections or anything else to the request for admissions we served upon them on September 15,” Berg said. ”They knew the admissions were due. They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. Here, they did nothing.”
The admissions that Berg asserts Barack Obama and the DNC have, at least procedurally, admitted to, include the following:
-Admit you were born in Kenya .
-Admit you are a Kenya ”natural born” citizen.
-Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii .
-Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
-Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombasa , Kenya .
-Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
-Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website ”Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
-Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
-Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia .
-Admit you were not born in Hawaii .
-Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia .
-Admit you never took the ”Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
-Admit you are not a ”natural born” United States citizen.
-Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a ”natural born” United States Citizen.
-Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a ”natural born” United States citizen.
-Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
It is not at all clear that the actions by Berg in Federal court and Martin in Hawaii will be ruled on before the election, but both men have vowed to pursue their cases even after the election if necessary. Berg has said that he would drop his case if Obama simply provides documentary proof of his birth, but to date the candidate has not done so, instead releasing only images of a purported ”certification of live birth” to the partisan Daily Kos blog and the sympathetic FactCheck web site.
UPDATE 6: Obama’s “Official” Birth Certificate Finally Found (Funny)
November 4th, 2008
Obama’s grandmother claims to have been present when the Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, making him ineligible to serve as President. But even if Obama is elected, we may yet avoid a Constitutional crisis. His genuine Hawaiian birth certificate has at last been released:
UPDATE 7: Obama’s Travel to Pakistan in 1981
June 5th, 2009
While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, I believe the American people deserve an answer and I believe the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
How did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.
It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities:
He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
He traveled with a British passport, or
He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008.. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
Count me in as one of those inquiring minds who’d at least like to know the answers to these easily answered (by Obama) questions.
”A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and RashidKhalidi ,” said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, citing Obama’s friendship with Khalidi , who is now a professor at Columbia University.
The LA Times has video of Barack Obama toasting and praising Jew-hating PLO operative (and Yasser Arafat henchman) Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 event. The LA Times is refusing to release the video.
Ben Smith at The Politico is puzzled by the Times’ decision, saying that Politico would have made it public.
The paper hasn’t explained its unwillingness to release the video, and Peter Wallsten, who found the tape and wrote about it, declined to discuss it with me last night. He forwarded an e-mail that the paper has sent readers who have complained as conservative blogs raise the issue.
”Over six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light,” wrote the readers’ representative, Jamie Gold.
L.A. Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan wouldn’t discuss the decision not to release the tape in detail.
”When we reported on the tape six months ago, that was our full report,” she said, and asked, ”Does Politico release unpublished information?”
The answer to that question is yes — Politico and most news outlets constantly make available videos and documents, after describing them in part, which is why the Times’ decision not to release the video is puzzling. My instinct, and many reporters’, is to share as much source material as possible.
The Times is now claiming that they can’t release the Khalidi tape because they promised their source they wouldn’t. Which just raises more questions. What’s on that tape that the Times’ source doesn’t want the public at large to see?
And on top of all of this, who could imagine the Times sitting on a similarly inconvenient video for John McCain? Can anyone imagine the Times letting the wishes of some source get in the way of releasing a video that could damage John McCain? Or Sarah Palin? Of course not.
Khalidi directed the official Palestinian press agency WAFA during the heyday of PLO terrorism. If possible, he has become even more radicalized: now he teaches on the Middle East faculty at Columbia, which makes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look like Bebe Netanyahu. Like other radicals, he is fond of accusing Israel of running an ”apartheid system.” This should give Jews a hint as to where our foreign policy would go under President Obamination.
On the tape, Obama refers to the intimate dinners he had with Khalidi and his wife Mona, as the terrorist propagandist was leaving Chicago for Columbia:
It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid ‘s dinner table … [but around] this entire world.
Obama met Khalidi when the latter was a Middle Eastern Studies professor at the University of Chicago. Khalidi and young Barack became fast friends and, in 2000, he hosted a successful fundraiserfor the Illinois senator. Soon thereafter, Obama served alongside Khalidi–and also Bill Ayers–as a paid director on the board of the Woods Fund, an Illinois-based nonprofit organization which claims to provide help to the have-nots. In 2001 and 2002, while Obama was on the board, the Woods Fund provided a pair of grants totaling $75,000 to the Arab-American Action Network, a controversial group which views Israel as racist and mourns its very establishment. The grants proved to be about 20 percent of the AAAN’s grant income for the two years.
Khalidi helped to establish the AAAN, and his wife serves as president of the group. Over the years, he has had plenty of disparaging things to say about Israel, has supported Palestinian acts of terrorism, and is said to have worked for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was actively involved in terrorism and deemed by the U.S. Department of State to be a terrorist organization.
Racists, sexists, anti-Americans. Domestic terrorists, foreign terrorists, terrorist sympathizers and corrupt businessmen. These are the people that Barack Obama counts as friends, as supporters, as mentors, as co-workers.
With a potential president with friends like these, who needs enemies?What favors will he owe these terrorists?
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton’s Camp Releases Video to LA Times
With some inside sources informing us, ”we can assure you with almost 100% certainty that the person who allegedly supplied the tape to the LA Times was Hillary Clinton.” It makes a lot of sense from several vantage points. She does not need the reward money, therefore no takers. And, the LA Times disclosed the contents of the tape approximately 6 weeks prior to Hillary Clinton conceding the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama which took place in the first week of June 2008. The Clinton campaign was desperate at the time, consequently the information of the contents surfaced. She was feeling the waters and based upon the media and voters reaction, she decided not to do anything more at the time.
Hillary Clinton anticipated using this tape to win the Democratic nomination, however due to a number of different variables, it was never used. Besides it would appear racist, and the race card would be used against her. With Hillary Clinton the alleged owner of the videotape is enough reason why the LA Times will never release the videotape. It will open up an entire can of worms.
And do not forget the political muscle that the Obama campaign is employing against the LA Times. They recently used their muscle against the radio station that interviewed Biden.
This is a moment we may look back on for the rest of our lives, a moment to make a difference in our nation’s direction. Please help us start a grassroots fire on the internet by sending this video to everyone you know. LINK HERE
Multiple documents have been uncovered regarding the Political Manifesto of the Weather Underground. Zombietime has uncovered and posted multiple documents from the book ”Prairie Fire”, co-authored by ”Billy Ayres .”
This is not just a guy who was against the war; this is a guy who wanted to start an armed Communist revolution in America because he was for the other guys in the war. He wanted our soldiers to die in Vietnam, and our people to die in the streets of America.
As promised above, this is the Rev. Wright tape for Ayres. Here’s what he (and Bernardine Dohrn, Jeff Jones and Celia Sojourn) wrote in Prairie Fire:
Our final goal is the destruction of imperialism, the seizure of power, and the creation of socialism. Our strategy for this stage of the struggle is to organize the oppressed people of the imperial nation itself to join with the colonies in the attack on imperialism. This process of attacking and weakening imperialism involves the defeat of all kinds of national chauvinism and arrogance; this is a precondition to our fight for socialism.
Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit. Socialism means control of the productive forces for the good of the whole community instead of the few who live on hilltops and in mansions.
We need to battle for a correct ideology and win people over. In this way we create the conditions for the development of a successful revolutionary movement and party. We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society.
PRAIRIE FIRE is based on a belief that the duty of a revolutionary is to make the revolution. This is not an abstraction. It means that revolutionaries must make a profound commitment to the future of humanity, apply our limited knowledge and experience to understand an ever-changing situation, organize the masses of people and build the fight. It means that struggle and risk and hard work and adversity will become our way of life, that the only certainty will be constant change, that the only possibilities are victory or death.
And for use particularly in Florida and New York being Jewish, looks what’s in store for you:
To better understand what the Weather Underground had in store for everyone who opposed them (once they took over the US Government). Ayres planned on ”re-education camps” for the 25,000,000 ”die hard” capitalist to either conform or be killed. An undercover FBI agent tells of his role in trying to bring down this organization.
A Quote from the undercover FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, "I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people. And they were dead serious. "
We have to ask ourselves, though: Most of us were nuts once, too. Maybe not this nuts, but still nuts. So couldn’t Ayres change like we changed? Yes he could have, but no, he didn’t.
You have to wonder how many ‘favors’ will be collected upon if Obama becomes president. How many people with a Marxist / Socialist / Communist view will Obama appoint to very influential positions? What will all the Rezko types out there want in exchange for helping Obama become how he is today and helping him become the political figure that he is?
Voter Fraud is now a key tactic to garner Obama the win. Nope, not voter registration fraud, but actual fraud.
Apparently, some college students involved in the natorious "Vote From Home" have committed fraud by not actually being residents of Ohio and voted in Ohio’s early voting process. The Ohio law clearly states that you can not vote if you are there for a short time, on vaction or there temporarily for work. There’s a group of young people who rented a house with the sole purpose of engaging in voter fraud. This is just one case of many happening in Ohio.
Is McCain the new Black? Black voters questioned on the street:
What happens when you question people who say they’re going to vote for Obama and ask them how they support his policies when you swap Obama’s policies with McCain’s?
It’s the voters responsibility to understand where each candidate stands on the issues, but voting for someone just because they’re of a certain color is extremely wrong.
These people were not tricked by clever questioning. The interviewer made an effort to be straightforward in how he posed the questions. So the Obama camp cannot complain about these interviews.
As the video below indicates, a lot of dumb people are going to cast their votes but here’s the problem I have; Are those folks dumb because they’re not capable of critical thought or is it because they’re not given the information they need to make an informed decision? I would assert that it’s the latter.
It starts with the public schools. Civics classes are all but non existent. The history taught is of the revisionist variety. (Case in point; My 11th grade social studies text asserted that 17th century sailors used their own urine to brush their teeth. It was a falt out lie. Columbus didn’t piss into a cup so he could put his Oral-B to good use.) If we’re going to change things, we’ve got to start with the schools…
Obama Tells Over-Taxed Plumber He Wants More Taxes to Redistribute Wealth
Scroll to the bottom to see the UPDATE …
Amazing as this is, Obama is caught on video telling a plumber that his business will be stifled because he wants to tax his business more and redistribute his profits to 40% of the Americans who do not pay taxes.
Keep in mind, this plumber — if having to pay more taxes — will kindly pass those new taxes down to the people that need his services… Thus, regardless if you’re not going to be hit by a tax increase, you’ll be paying more for goods and services going forward.
Truly amazing, the video tells all. Goodbye capitalism, hello socialism! There’s a pattern here.
Cavuto interviews the plumber, Joe Wurzelbacher:
Today, Obama goes after ‘Joe the Plumber’ and small business by mocking him at a campaign rally while fellow Obama supporters laugh and giggle.. mocking small business and entrepreneurs. We at MediaCircus.com deeply feel sorry for Joe and what the Liberal media is putting him through now.
John McCain is Fightin’ for the Working Man… (or woman ).
[tags]barack obama, tax plan, redistribution of wealth, socialism, USSR[/tags]
This came in to us in the form of a U Report message. I do not know the writer.
This election has everyone worried with so many things to consider. DONOTCHANGE
About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama". I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.
I started looking into Obama’s life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies.
"Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan . During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate’s family, then off to Africa to visit his father’s family. My question – Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack – not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It’s not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo, Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko’s firm. Rezko was one of Obama’s first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in the Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans – Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko’s wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama’s new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama’s boss. She is now Obama’s chief adviser and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley adviser to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas ", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama’s visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said,"My Muslim faith ". When questioned, "he make a mistake". Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question – If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven’t all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear – "Beware of the enemy from within"!!!
UPDATE: OBAMA’S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
New York Times Editorial By MAUREEN DOWD
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama’s campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama’s internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can’t be broken and no ethics that prevail. Obama’s internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites. Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were mo r e than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were ‘programmed’ by a very sophisticated user. While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia , Iran , and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges. It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws. It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also fo und the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.
This is a shocking revelation.
We have been concerned about the legality of ‘bundling’ contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem. I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so. If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaign’s internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.
So we know that fake people are registering to vote, via the AP :
The stories are almost comical: Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, registered to vote on Nov. 4. The entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, signed up to go the polls — in Nevada.
We know that sometimes, fake people vote fraudulently (note that it was by absentee. Hard to vote as Mickey Mouse in person, but it is really easy by absentee):
Republicans released details for 10 of those votes. The registration cards that were filled out had no social security numbers, drivers license numbers or birthdates for the voters.
Two thoughts. The first is that there should be accountability for this. Barack Obama raised $150m last month, and only half of that money is disclosed. Now, I seriously doubt that Obama’s campaign is engaged in fraud. But they seem uninterested in identifying it.
They should, like the McCain campaign, put all that information online, regardless of how much was given, including all the information about address, employer, etc. It’s not that hard. They have the technology to do it. When he is getting $75m in a month from sources that are not publically identified, that’s a problem. In theory, these are all different people, but given the possibility for fraud (temporary credit card numbers can make it even harder to check), this does create yet another kind of crisis of legitimacy surrounding this election.
Second, Obama has destroyed the public financing system, handing conservatives a win on the policy, even if a substantial loss on the politics. Democrats said Republicans would do it, but they did. This is a good thing, long-term , and it should be replaced by full-disclosure of contributions within 24 hours of receipt of the donation. The easiest thing in the world with today’s technology. And it would allow individuals, groups, and the press to address the legitimacy issues in Obama’s donations (and others in the future).
From OneNewsNow.com – A leading critic of Islam isn’t surprised there has been virtually no coverage or action taken against a Muslim group that has been running an illegal ‘get out the vote’ campaign in swing-state mosques.
The group, Muslim Americans for Obama [MAFO], insists that all of its voter registration activity is non-partisan, despite the fact that its mission statement says it was launched in August 2008 "to provide a vehicle for Muslim-American supporters of Barack Obama to organize and mobilize our fellow citizens to get out the vote to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States."
Continuing, the group’s website states: ‘Although there is only a short period of time until the election…, there is much work to be done for supporters of Barack Obama’s candidacy. [MAFO] was formed to offer a vehicle for Muslim-Americans to mobilize quickly and effectively so that our community turns out in great numbers for Barack Obama on Election Day.’
The ‘get out the vote’ events are scheduled at mosques in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Ohio.
Robert Spencer is director of Jihad Watch , a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He argues MAFO may be skirting the law.
‘When they are running these voter registration drives at mosques, really it’s essentially illegal because they are clearly trying to get people to vote for Obama — and that’s in violation of their tax-exempt status,’ Spencer charges. ‘So this is a group that is crossing the line and ought to be disciplined as such.’
The Jihad Watch leader, however, figures that is not likely to happen. ‘…I kind of doubt that they will be [disciplined], given the politically correct atmosphere nowadays,’ he says. ‘I wouldn’t be the least surprised if no action is taken against them.’
Spencer contends that if a group called ‘Christians for John McCain’ claimed to be non-partisan and ran a registration drive in churches, it would be all over the media and create a huge scandal and embarrassment for the McCain campaign.
Just who was telling the truth? We’ve referenced at least 14 issues between the candidates and back it up with facts. After the Palin / Biden debate last night, we decided to organize a fact checking session to identify what the real facts are – What each party represents and an analysis of each of the 14 blatant facts that were completely wrong are brought into the light.
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY. [Link to the votes HERE]
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it. [True and we posted the video]
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.” [True – was well reported and Democrats votes against drilling and other energy production are well documented – Biden rips Bush on energy by JEFF MONTGOMERY • The News Journal • July 15, 2008]
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage. [Link to the votes HERE.]
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate. [True and we posted the video and wrote an article about it]
6. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times. [Procedural votes can get pretty convoluted so this one is hard to say either way but here is the link to McCain’s energy plan and we suggest that people just read it for themselves and make a decision]
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false.
[McCain is right about this one, the New York Times started this nonsensesaying that if people use the McCain tax credit plan to get health insurance over their employers insurance plan, the employers may just decide to give the money they would have spent on insurance to the employee. If the employee gets a raise as a result he will pay more in taxes. DUH… if you get a raise you should expect to pay taxes on the raise.. but that doesn’t mean that your health insurance benefits are taxed…. HERE is the link to McCain’s health plan.]
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.
[McCain is right about this one as well. The tax plan on energy companies in Alaska is NOT a windfall profits tax, it is a graduated energy tax based on the price of a barrel of oil. The tax on a barrel of oil in Alaska is 22.5% and the tax goes up by 0.2% per dollar over $52.00 a barrel. So at $100 a barrel that is a 9.6% extra tax per barrel, hardly the profit killing windfall profits tax that Hillary and Obama have supported.]
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
[True – This was media spin from a San-Francisco paper. The General said he wanted more troops but wanted an implementation that was slightly different than the Iraq-Surge plan, so I guess you could call it the Afghan surge plan – LINK]
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
[The law that Obama claims did this, was passed 90-8 by the Senate and Biden voted for it.] Factcheck.org:
The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.]
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right. [Everyone knows this, when McCain first started asking for the surge many Republicans and Donald Rumsfeld opposed McCain, so McCain demanded that Rumsfeld resign. McCain was proved correct.]
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
[Democrats have no credibility when it comes to tax cuts, they talk about them in the campaign but when the bills show up in Congress almost everyone who pays federal income taxes ends up paying a higher rate. Just examining the attempts to raise taxes or repeal tax cuts over recent years, former Hillary supporter Donald Trump is right when he says that Democrats "taxing the rich" end up hitting lots of other people too. Al Gore’s middle class tax cut was so targeted that almost no one qualified for it and Bill Clinton’s middle class tax cut in 1993 was the largest tax increase in US history at the time and did not cut middle class taxes.
Obama called for a doubling of the Capital Gains Tax admitting that he knew it would lower government revenue when called on it in a primary debate saying that he was more interested in "fairness" instead of revenue. Capital Gains Tax directly affects the housing market.
Democrats also refuse to acknowledge the increases in government revenue that are often a result of tax rate decreases in spite of the fact that they are well documented.] 13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.” [Having looked at the legislation myself I am calling this as true]
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan. [True – and laughable. The top marginal tax rate under Reagan was 28%. The top rate is higher than that NOW, so how can the rate be the same as Reagan when for some groups the rate will go up? Ridiculous!]
An Analysis by Karl Rove:
[tags]barack obama, joe biden, sarah palin, debate, taxes, regulation, iraq, oil, alternative energy, health insurance, offshore drilling, troop funding, tax vote,ahmedinijad[/tags]
Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act which was a factor in causing the economic crisis (see HERE ) … well look at what some fellow bloggers have dug up while researching Obama’s legal career. Looks like a typical ACORN lawsuit to get banks to hand out bad loans.
In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?
It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed tons of these lawsuits and ALL of them allege racism.
We pulled the docket down, but here’s a brief for your summary:
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
THE seeds of today’s financial meltdown lie in the Community Reinvestment Act – a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.
CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA – and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions .
The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.
And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott’s way – ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN’s overall efforts.
UPDATE 2: Fox News gets on the story
UPDATE 3: CNS News Analysis
Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”
The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”
This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes, Richman said.
UPDATE 4: Obama Audio saying it was a Good Idea to give people loans that couldn’t afford them.
We told you before how Obama sued banks with so called “community organizers” to force the banks to give bad loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Well now we have the audio of Obama saying in 2007 that giving sub-prime loans to people who couldn’t afford them is a good idea.
UPDATE 5: So what really (no really ) cause this economic crisis?
A group of McCain-Palin supporters dare to march through the Upper West Side – and are met with hatred and rage for being infidels in the heart of liberal Mecca. Republicans are as out of place there as elephants at a donkey show. Area intellectuals jeer them well – just as they had been taught to do. FACT: The number of middle fingers in the "progressive" crowd is directly proportional to the number of PhD degrees in the ten-block radius
These useful intellectuals turn out to be not as peaceful, inclusive, and open-minded as they claim to be. Take a peek into the glorious progressive world they want us to live in – they display zero tolerance to the opposing viewpoint, yet they want to impose their rule over our lives. Fugedaboudit! Republicans should be lucky New York doesn’t have a Colosseum with lions.
Some of the occasional cheering passers-by are either out-of-towners, or foreigners – or could they actually be local Republicans who managed to survive the uncompromising "liberal" bullying? Say, what is a compromise between an open hand and the middle finger?
A bumpkin from flyover country might think that New Yorkers were booing al-Qaeda that’s bent on destroying their city. FACT: Islamic radicals would be more welcome on the Upper West Side than American patriots. The "liberals" always extend their sympathy for being bullied and rejected – not to American patriots, but to this country’s enemies.
"Liberal" elites believe that all ideologies are morally equal, except the one that supports capitalism and individual liberties – the only ideology that makes their lavish lifestyles possible. And so they’re driving it out of town, tarred and feathered. Republicans in New York: less equal than others.
When leftist politicians are promising you to bridge the divide, they are "selling you a bridge."
What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the A ssociation of C ommunity O rganizations for Reform N ow (ACORN ), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.
News Reports on ACORN Voter ID Fraud
This is a story we’ve largely missed. While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal ‘motor-voter’ bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn ‘leadership trainer’ is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.
An Anti-Capitalism Agenda
To understand the nature and extent of Acorn’s radicalism, an excellent place to begin is Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, ‘ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities.’ (For a shorter but helpful piece, try Steven Malanga’s ‘Acorn Squash.’)
Obama’s ACORN Association Exposed (Part 1)
Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s ‘New Left,’ with a ‘1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism’ to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of ‘one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.’ In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force ‘a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.’ Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities – until welfare reform began to turn the tide.
While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas – where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often ‘slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are.’ Acorn’s new goals are municipal ‘living wage’ laws targeting ‘big-box’ stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks – efforts styled as combating ‘predatory lending.’ Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive ‘donations’ that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.
Obama’s ACORN Association Exposed (Part 2)
According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward ‘undisguised authoritarian socialism.’ Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain ‘exit visas.’ ‘How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?’ asks Stern, adding, ‘This is the road to serfdom indeed.’
In Your Face
Acorn’s tactics are famously ‘in your face.’ Just think of Code Pink’s well-known operations (threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you’ll get the idea. Acorn protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and Acorn has burst into a closed city council meeting there. Acorn protestors in Baltimore disrupted a bankers’ dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protestors against the mayor’s home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports Acorn said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.
Acorn, however, defiantly touts its confrontational tactics. While Stern himself notes this, the point is driven home sharper still in an Acorn-friendly reply to Stern entitled ‘Enraging the Right.’ Written by academic/activists John Atlas and Peter Dreier, the reply’s avowed intent is to convince Acorn-friendly politicians, journalists, and funders not to desert the organization in the wake of Stern’s powerful critique. The stunning thing about this supposed rebuttal is that it confirms nearly everything Stern says. Do Atlas and Dreier object to Stern’s characterizations of Acorn’s radical plans – even his slippery-slope warnings about Acorn’s designs on basic freedom of movement? Nope. ‘Stern accurately outlines Acorn’s agenda,’ they say.
Do Atlas and Dreier dismiss Stern’s catalogue of Acorn’s disruptive and intentionally intimidating tactics as a set of regrettable exceptions to Acorn’s rule of civility? Not a chance. Atlas and Dreier are at pains to point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result. What really upsets Atlas and Dreier is that Stern misses the subtle national hand directing Acorn’s various local campaigns. This is radicalism unashamed.
But don’t let the disruptive tactics fool you. Acorn is a savvy and exceedingly effective political player. Stern says that Acorn’s key post-New Left innovation is its determination to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without. Stern calls this strategy a political version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Take Atlas and Dreier at their word: Acorn has an openly aggressive and intimidating side, but a sophisticated inside game, as well. Chicago’s Acorn leader, for example, won a seat on the Board of Aldermen as the candidate of a leftist ‘New Party.’
Obama Meets Acorn
What has Barack Obama got to do with all this? Plenty. Let’s begin with Obama’s pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago. Few people have a clear idea of just what a ‘community organizer’ does. A Los Angeles Times piece on Obama’s early Chicago days opens with the touching story of his efforts to build a partnership with Chicago’s ‘Friends of the Parks,’ so that parents in a blighted neighborhood could have an inviting spot for their kids to play. This is the image of Obama’s organizing we’re supposed to hold. It’s far from the whole story, however. As the L. A. Times puts it, ‘Obama’s task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement’ in their communities. Part of Obama’s work, it would appear, was to organize demonstrations, much in the mold of radical groups like Acorn.
Although the L. A. Times piece is generally positive, it does press Obama’s organizing tales on certain points. Some claim that Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, exaggerates his accomplishments in spearheading an asbestos cleanup at a low-income housing project. Obama, these critics say, denies due credit to Hazel Johnson, an activist who claims she was the one who actually discovered the asbestos problem and led the efforts to resolve it. Read carefully, the L. A. Times story leans toward confirming this complaint against Obama, yet the story’s emphasis is to affirm Obama’s important role in the battle. Speaking up in defense of Obama on the asbestos issue is Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago Acorn. Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.
And what exactly was Talbot’s work with Acorn? Talbot turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council (during a living-wage debate). While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session.
Reading the Herald article, you might think Acorn’s demonstrators had simply lost patience after being denied entry to the gallery at a packed meeting. Yet the full story points in a different direction. This was not an overreaction by frustrated followers who couldn’t get into a meeting (there were plenty of protestors already in the gallery), but almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call ‘direct action,’ orchestrated by Acorn’s Madeleine Talbot. As Talbot was led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct, she explicitly justified her actions in storming the meeting. This was the woman who first drew Obama into his alliance with Acorn, and whose staff Obama helped train.
Does that mean Obama himself schooled Acorn volunteers in disruptive ‘direct action?’ Not necessarily. The City Council storming took place in 1997, years after Obama’s early organizing days. And in general, Obama seems to have been part of Acorn’s ‘inside baseball’ strategy. As a national star from his law school days, Obama knew he had a political future, and would surely have been reluctant to violate the law. In his early organizing days, Obama used to tell the residents he organized that they’d be more effective in their protests if they controlled their anger. On the other hand, as he established and deepened his association with Acorn through the years, Obama had to know what the organization was all about. Moreover, in his early days, Obama was not exactly a stranger to the ‘direct action’ side of community organizing.
Consider the second charge against Obama raised by the L.A. Times backgrounder. On the stump today, Obama often says he helped prevent South Side Chicago blacks, Latinos, and whites from turning on each other after losing their jobs, but many of the community organizers interviewed by the L. A. Times say that Obama worked overwhelmingly with blacks.
To rebut this charge, Obama’s organizer friends tell the story of how he helped plan ‘actions’ that included mixed white, black, and Latino groups. For example, following Obama’s plan, one such group paid a ‘surprise visit’ to a meeting between local officials considering a landfill expansion. The protestors surrounded the meeting table while one activist made a statement chiding the officials, after which the protestors filed out. Presto! Obama is immunized from charges of having worked exclusively with blacks – but at the cost of granting us a peek at the not-so-warm-and-fuzzy side of his community organizing. Intimidation tactics are revealed, and Obama’s alliance with radical Acorn activists like Madeleine Talbot begins to make sense.
The extent of Obama’s ties to Acorn has not been recognized. We find some important details in an article in the journal Social Policy entitled, ‘Case Study: Chicago – The Barack Obama Campaign,’ by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader and a member of Acorn’s National Association Board. The odd thing about this article is that Foulkes is forced to protect the technically ‘non-partisan’ status of Acorn’s get-out-the-vote campaigns, even as he does everything in his power to give Acorn credit for helping its favorite son win the critical 2004 primary that secured Obama the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.
Before giving us a tour of Acorn’s pro-Obama but somehow ‘non-partisan’ election activities, Foulks treats us to a brief history of Obama’s ties to Acorn. While most press accounts imply that Obama just happened to be at the sort of public-interest law firm that would take Acorn’s ‘motor voter’ case, Foulkes claims that Acorn specifically sought out Obama’s representation in the motor voter case, remembering Obama from the days when he worked with Talbot. And while many reports speak of Obama’s post-law school role organizing ‘Project VOTE’ in 1992, Foulkes makes it clear that this project was undertaken in direct partnership with Acorn. Foulkes then stresses Obama’s yearly service as a key figure in Acorn’s leadership-training seminars.
At least a few news reports have briefly mentioned Obama’s role in training Acorn’s leaders, but none that I know of have said what Foulkes reports next: that Obama’s long service with Acorn led many members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama’s early political campaigns – his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000 (Foulkes confuses the dates of these two campaigns.) With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were ‘old friends,’ says Foulkes.
So along with the reservoir of political support that came to Obama through his close ties with Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and other Chicago black churches, Chicago Acorn appears to have played a major role in Obama’s political advance. Sure enough, a bit of digging into Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn’s signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as ‘the Senator from Acorn.’
Although it’s been noted in an important story by John Fund, and in a long Obama background piece in the New York Times, more attention needs to be paid to possible links between Obama and Acorn during the period of Obama’s service on the boards of two charitable foundations, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.
According to the New York Times, Obama’s memberships on those foundation boards, ‘allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants’ to various liberal organizations, including Chicago Acorn, ‘whose endorsement Obama sought and won in his State Senate race.’ As best as I can tell (and this needs to be checked out more fully), Acorn maintains both political and ‘non-partisan’ arms. Obama not only sought and received the endorsement of Acorn’s political arm in his local campaigns, he recently accepted Acorn’s endorsement for the presidency, in pursuit of which he reminded Acorn officials of his long-standing ties to the group.
Supposedly, Acorn’s political arm is segregated from its ‘non-partisan’ registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, but after reading Foulkes’ case study, this non-partisanship is exceedingly difficult to discern. As I understand, it would be illegal for Obama to sit on a foundation board and direct money to an organization that openly served as his key get-out-the-vote volunteers on Election Day. I’m not saying Obama crossed a legal line here: Based on Foulkes’ account, Acorn’s get-out-the-vote drive most likely observed the technicalities of ‘non-partisanship.’
Nevertheless, the possibilities suggested by a combined reading of the New York Times piece and the Foulkes article are disturbing. While keeping within the technicalities of the law, Obama may have been able to direct substantial foundation money to his organized political supporters. I offer no settled conclusion, but the matter certainly warrants further investigation and discussion. Obama is supposed to be the man who transcends partisanship. Has he instead used his post at an allegedly non-partisan foundation to direct money to a supposedly non-partisan group, in pursuit of what are in fact nakedly partisan and personal ends? I have no final answer, but the question needs to be pursued further.
In fact, the broader set of practices by which activist groups pursue intensely partisan ends under the guise of non-partisanship merits further scrutiny. Consider the 2006 report by Jonathan Bechtle, ‘Voter Turnout or Voter Fraud?’ which includes a discussion of the nexus between Project Vote and Acorn, a nexus where Obama himself once resided. According to Bechtle, ‘It’s clear that groups that claimed to be nonpartisan wanted a partisan outcome,’ and reading Foulkes’s case study of Acorn’s role in Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, one can’t help but agree.
Important as these questions of funding and partisanship are, the larger point is that Obama’s ties to Acorn – arguably the most politically radical large-scale activist group in the country – are wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non-partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn’s leaders in how to play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the political-insider strategy, yet it’s clear that he knew how to play the in-your-face ‘direct action’ game as well. And surely during his many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the group was all about.
The shame of it is that when the L. A. Times returned to Obama’s stomping grounds, it found the park he’d helped renovate reclaimed by drug dealers and thugs. The community organizer strategy may generate feel-good moments and best-selling books, but I suspect a Wal-Mart as the seed-bed of a larger shopping complex would have done far more to save the neighborhood where Obama worked to organize in the ‘progressive’ fashion. Unfortunately, Obama’s Acorn cronies have blocked that solution.
In any case, if you’re looking for the piece of the puzzle that confirms and explains Obama’s network of radical ties, gather your Acorns this spring. Or next winter, you may just be left watching the ‘President from Acorn’ at his feast.
By Stanley Kurtz
National Review Online
UPDATE: ACORN Offices Raided
UPDATE: ACORN Registers Mickey Mouse to Vote!
Here’s the Voter Registration application. ACORN has registered Mickey Mouse to vote — in Orlando, of course. Here’s the registration application. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny:
As reported by the St. Petersburg Times , it is ”stamped with the logo of the nonprofit group ACORN.”
What a coincidence: the Obama campaign furtively paid this same group $800,000 to get out the vote, presumably by using tactics ACORN activists were taught by Obama himself , who also took part in ACORN’s contribution to the subprime disaster by forcing banks to make loans based on skin color.
Even ACORN goons are probably smart enough to come up with more subtle names than Mickey Mouse or the lineup for the Dallas Cowboys . But why should they bother? It’s not like Obama will be taken to task for it. Just chalk it up to the Audacity of Arrogance.
Read Rick Moran ‘s latest to get an idea of what the blatant cheating Democrats have been indulging in could mean for the future of our democracy if the election is close — as it probably will be.
Lagging in the polls, Republican presidential candidate John McCain unleashed a blistering attack Monday on his Democratic rival, saying the race comes down to a simple question: “Country first or Obama first?”
In his first public appearance since Friday night’s debate, McCain said Democrat Barack Obama advocates tax-and-spend policies that “will deepen our recession,” and voted against funding for equipment needed by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“That is not putting the men and women of our military first,” he said.
McCain stressed his own record of opposing Republicans on key issues, and said, “When it comes time to reach across the aisle and work with members of both parties to get things done for the American people – my opponent can’t name a single occasion in which he fought against his party’s leadership to get something done for the country. That is not putting the interests of the country first.”
The speech was McCain’s first outside Washington since he announced abruptly last week he was suspending his campaign to concentrate on helping Congress agree on a bailout for the troubled financial industry. He drew heated criticism from Democrats who accused him of nearly derailing negotiations that were headed for success, and even some Republicans conceded privately he appeared impetuous and had not helped his own cause.
Recent polls also suggest Obama has regained a lead he held in the race before the Republican National Convention, where McCain’s choice of Palin energized conservatives and led to a short-term surge in his poll ratings.