Archive for October 9th, 2008
Obama to amend report on $800,000 in spending:
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat’s campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.
An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. — a subsidiary of ACORN — worked in “get-out-the-vote” projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary.
FEC spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger said it is not unusual for campaigns to amend reports, even regarding large sums of money.
But, said Blair Latoff, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee: “Barack Obama’s failure to accurately report his campaign’s financial records is an incredibly suspicious situation that appears to be an attempt to hide his campaign’s interaction with a left-wing organization previously convicted of voter fraud. For a candidate who claims to be practicing ‘new’ politics, his FEC reports look an awful lot like the ‘old-style’ Chicago politics of yesterday.”
October 9th, 2008
(Indianapolis, Indiana) As Barack Obama began to address the Thousands on hand to hear him speak, a gentleman began to disrupt Obama. Obama stopped speaking at one point to ask what was going on. After the heckler was forcably removed, Obama retorted with, ” Now, where was I…” The crowd laughed and he continued.
Do not disagree with the messiah. Yep, this is what it will be like if THAT ONE is elected. A police state.
October 9th, 2008
From Townhall.com:
Would you classify someone who said he would probably vote for Obama as an “uncommitted” voter?
No? Ah, well. Then you must not be the person who selected “uncommitted” voters for the presidential town hall on Tuesday.
Here is what Oliver Clark, the man who asked the first question about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, posted on his Facebook page today:
CLARK: So the Sunday before last, I received a call from the Gallop Poll. They asked a few questions regarding my choice in the Presidential election. They asked who I would vote for. I said most likely I would be voting for Barack Obama. They followed with, “is there any chance that you would change your mind“? I said “Of course anything is possible.” They then asked me as an uncommitted voter would I like to participate in the Town hall debate. I said “Of course!”
MSNBC’s First Read found this, but they didn’t highlight the part where Clark said he was essentially supporting Obama and then was picked. They decided to flag this part where Mr.Clark speculates McCain is racist because McCain suggested the American public may not be familiar with how exactly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked.
CLARK: In defense of the Senator from Arizona I would say he is an older guy, and may have made an underestimation of my age. Honest mistake. However, it could be because I am a young African-American male. Whatever the case may be it was somewhat condescending regardless of my age to make an assumption regarding whether I was knowledgeable about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
MSNBC didn’t go with the obvious story about bias, they’re running away with the raaaaaaaaaacist charge. Sort of sums up the entire race so far, doesn’t it?
October 9th, 2008
Chief Executive magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.
“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.”
For several months during this presidential election year, Chief Executive has conducted specialized polling of CEOs’ attitudes on issues affecting national policy and the economy. During this period CEOs were first asked what policies and approaches would work best for business, energy policy and job creation. Subsequently, they were asked which presidential candidate’s policies were best aligned with these prescriptions for growth.
Barack Obama’s overall plan received a barely passing C- with four out of eight policy areas receiving D grades.
I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.
In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.
“Overall, many CEOs are concerned about the future of the U.S. economy and its ability to compete in the global market, but they look to John McCain and hope that this self-described political maverick may yet shake up established thinking and not give into to the tired policies of the past,” concluded Kopko.
October 9th, 2008
From Politicallydrunk:
Yesterday, we disclosed 2 documents, a archived press release from the New Party in 1996 and an archived Populist Progressive article, both confirming Barack Obama’s membership in the Socialist Affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America. On Wednesday, I went hunting for additional sources…
1996 Election Update From The Columbus Free Post
“The first NP member heads to Congress, as Danny Davis wins an overwhelming 85% victory yesterday (he got a higher percentage of the vote in that district than the President). NP member and State Senate candidate Barack Obama won uncontested. Interestingly, it appears that the local Democratic machine is trying to distance itself from our folks.”
Link To Columbus Free Post Article
This revelation has left many people wondering how this could be since Obama ran under the Democratic Party banner during the 1996 Election. As a result, we want to shed insider light on how the New Party planned their takeover of the Democratic Party.
From The Happy Birthday Update Published By The New Party in 1997:
” the New Party would remain independent of the Democratic Party — but without undermining the Democrats. The New Party’s program for a new majority would, as Todd Gutlin puts it, center around an “old fashioned” concern for issues like living wages.
…the New Party’s founders suggest, the left needs an organization that straddles the inside-outside fence. If the U.S. left is ever to make a meaningful decision on the third-party-vs.-Dems question, they propose, it must first take on the task of grassroots power-building.
Thus, most of the New Party’s work has been in local politics, where its candidates need no party label — just the activist energy it takes to win office. The party’s strategy has been to build political organizations in a few targeted cities, working closely with labor and community organizations. Chapters run candidates only where they have a real chance of winning, combine campaign work with organizing and education, and refuse to spoil elections by stealing votes from the better of two major party candidates.
But to grow past the local level, something more is needed…
…Until major changes in the legal structure of the U.S. politics happen, we’re stuck with a two-party system, and progressives — if they want to win many elections — will have to run, and vote, Democrat.
But without fusion, the New Party is not likely to have the capacity to swing higher level elections any time soon, inside or outside the Democratic Party. For now the New Party is nothing more — and nothing less — than a network of local labor-community political organizations. These organizations can, from time to time, move their political muscle and know-how into Democratic primaries to back progressive candidates for state legislature and even Congress, but do not have the size or clout to field their own candidates for the Senate, the Governor’s office, or the White House.”
Full Article Here
Now you’re beginning to understand how Obama, The New Party and ACORN have hijacked the Democratic Party. Here is more, a tell all article published by a New Party Member in Missoula, Montana in 1997:
“As our party(ies) grow, and build a strong base of support, we should move up in electoral space to higher level offices…
…Chapters generally require endorsed candidates to sign a contract, with requirements that they be NP members, identify as such, support the NP principles and program, and work to build NP chapters…
…For the New Party, whether progressives should run as Democrats is a tactical, not ideological, question…
…We rely on the good judgment of our local organizers and leadership to determine whether candidates should run as independents or inside Democratic primaries, or as fusion challengers. Regardless of whether our candidates run as “non-partisan” (in fact, the vast majority of our candidates, as we’re generally running in local elections which are usually non-partisan), “New Party Democrats” (inside Dem Primaries), or independents, they all are New Party members, identify as such, and work to help build local independent political power…”
Link to article here
Now you’re starting to see the light of how dangerous this organization is, how it has hijacked the Democratic Party, and how similar their goals for achieving electoral success are to another 80 years old Socialist Organization that used the same bottom-up populist approach to overthrowing a democratic government. Can anyone guess what National Socialist Organization that was?
October 9th, 2008
From Hillbuzz:
Tonight we talked to someone who works in the federal courts here in Chicago.
The buzz in those corridors is that federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been leading a team of FBI investigators in 10 states working on a RICO case.
Today, it was announced that ACORN is being investigated in 10 states.
That’s one Hell of a coincidence.
We asked why Fitzgerald would be involved in this, because he’s the prosecutor on the Tony Rezko case and we aren’t aware of ACORN being investigated in Illinois.
We were told that ACORN was investigated in Illinois years ago, and it was a Fitzgerald case then. This means ACORN’s activities today, involving a conspiracy to commit multi-state voter fraud on SoetorObama’s behalf, are an extension of that previous ACORN case.
Our source in federal courts said, “Any crime that involves more than two people and is carried out across state lines qualifies as a corrupt organization. The fact that those “Goodwill” donations were made in Texas and received at Obama headquarters in Chicago or Washington means it qualifies for RICO.”
The “Goodwill donations” referred to above are the $228 million in undocumented, unverified campaign contributions the SoetorObama camp has received — which the McCain campaigned filed a complaint to the FEC on this past Monday.
We’ve also heard that the Clinton campaign filed complaints to the FBI and other federal agencies over SoetorObama’s fraud in the Iowa, Texas and other caucuses: voter intimidation, registration fraud, and other illegal activities.
The last thing we were told tonight in regards to all of this was that “the meme here is a tying together of all these various threads. That’s what you will see in the last weeks of the campaign: all things being tied together”.
If everything rumored here is true, it looks like David Axelrod, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, SoetorObama himself, and possibly even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were all involved, together, in massive RICO violations, and thus federal fraud, if the DNC and party leadership knew what the SoetorObama campaign and ACORN were up to and allowed it to proceed. Knowledge of federal crimes being committed makes all parties accessories to those crimes — and part of the conspiracy to defraud the public.
THAT would certainly be one Hell of a shock tomorrow morning.
October 9th, 2008
