piper17

It seems that Hillary Clinton was none to pleased by ACORN and Obama's methods in the Democrat primary process. I guess this was just a trial run for the November 2008 Election. RYAN, PHILLIPS, UTRECHT 5. MACKINNON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ’ Nonlawyer Partner 1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 293-1177 Facsimile (202) 293-3411 January 23, 2008 Jill Derby, Chair Nevada State Democratic Party 1210 South Valley View Road Suite 114 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Dear Chair Derby: I write on behalf of Hillary Clinton for President (”the Committee”) in regard to the January 19, 2008 Nevada Democ-ratic Caucus. The Committee is aware of a letter addressed to you today from the Obama for America campaign requesting an inquiry into the conduct of the caucuses. The Committee shares the Obama campaign’s concern that full participation in the democratic process may have been compromised by the substantial number of irregularities occurring at the caucuses, and we fully support a complete inquiry by the Nevada State Democratic Party (the ”Party”) into all caucus improprieties. This letter is not intended as a response to the Obama campaign’s letter. However, in the interest of a complete record, and in contrast to the alleged minor procedural problems noted by the Obama campaign, the Committee wishes to bring to your attention information we have received evidencing a premeditated and predesigned plan by the Obama campaign to engage in systematic corruption of the Party’s caucus procedures. Compounding this blatant distortion of the caucus rules was an egregious effort by the Obama campaign to manipulate the voter registration process in its own favor, thereby disenfranchising countless voters. Finally, the Committee has received a vast number of reliable reports of voter suppression and intimidation by the Obama campaign or its allies. The Committee had 30 phone lines on Saturday to receive calls in its Las Vegas offices. These lines rang continuously from early morning until well after the caucuses concluded with reports from people who were victimized and who observed irregularities. The phone lines were so over-whelmed that many callers resorted to calling individual Committee staff cell phones to report that they could not get through. The Committee also received many similar calls at its national headquarters. The Committee is confident that any investigation into the conduct of the caucuses will be thorough, fair and in the interest of insuring that future Party caucuses will be as open and democratic as possible. Systematic Corruption of the Party’s Caucus Procedures The Committee received substantially similar reports of improprieties of such a number as to leave no conclusion but that the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters engaged in a planned effort to subvert the Party’s caucus procedures to its advantage. For example: þ Preference cards were premarked for Obama. þ Clinton supporters were denied preference cards on the basis that none were left, while Obama supporters at the same caucus sites were given preference cards. þ Caucus chairs obviously supporting Obama: o Deliberately miscounted votes to favor Senator Obama. o Deliberately counted unregistered persons as Obama votes. o Deliberately counted young children as Obama votes. o Refused to accept preference cards from Clinton supporters who were at the caucus site by noon on the ground that the cards were not filled out fast enough. o Told Clinton supporters to leave prior to electing delegates. þ Clinton supporters who arrived late were turned away from the caucus, while late Obama supporters were admitted to the caucus. Manipulation of the Voter Registration Process Numerous reports received by the Committee demonstrate a concerted effort on the part of the Obama campaign and its supporters to prevent eligible voters supporting a candidate other than Senator Obama from caucusing. The Obama supporters complained of were acting in positions of authority at the caucus sites. Some of these reports are as follows: þ Obama supporters wrongly informed Clinton supporters that they were not allowed to participate in the caucus if their names were not on the voter rolls. However, Obama supporters whose names did not appear on the voter rolls were permitted to register at the caucus site. þ Obama supporters falsely informed Clinton supporters that no registration forms were available for them to register to vote at the caucus site. þ Obama supporters wrongly told Clinton supporters who were attempting to caucus at the wrong precinct that they could not caucus at that site, while simultaneously permitting Obama supporters at the wrong precinct to participate. þ Obama supporters were allowed to move to the front of the registration and sign-in line. Voter Suppression and Intimidation The Committee received a substantial number of disturbing reports from voters that they had been subject to harassment, intimidation or efforts to prevent them from voting. Some of the most egregious of these complaints are described below: þ Voters at at-large caucus sites were informed that those sites were for Obama supporters only. þ Clinton supporters at at-large caucus sites were told that their managers would be watching them while they caucused. þ Workers were informed that their supervisors kept lists of Clinton and Obama supporters, and were told that they could not caucus unless their name was on the list of Obama supporters. þ Many Clinton supporters were threatened with employment termination or other discipline if they caucused for Senator Clinton. þ Workers were required to sign a pledge card to support Obama if they wanted time off to participate in the caucus. þ Workers at one casino were offered a lavish lunch and permitted to attend and register to vote only if they agree to support Obama. The complaints summarized above represent only a small sample of the complaints received by the Committee. With respect to each of these complaints and many more, the Committee has the names and phone numbers of those reporting these incidents and the specific precinct numbers where the incidents occurred. Upon request the Committee will share these with the Party with appropriate safeguards to protect these individuals from reprisal. On the whole, these reports show a troubling effort by the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters to advance their own campaign at the expense of the right of all Nevada Democrats to participate in the democratic process in a free, fair and open manner. Senator Clinton and the Committee are wholly committed to ensuring that every eligible voter has his or her vote cast and counted. There is no place in the American electoral process for the types of voter suppression, intimidation and harassment systematically engaged in by the Obama campaign, its allies and supporters. Sincerely, Lyn Utrecht Counsel Hillary Clinton for President "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

This incident reminds me a lot of the Tawana Brawley case foisted on us by Al Sharpton, that pillar of the Democrat party and Obama supporter, and the Duke Lacrosse "rape" fiasco. Do you remember how the alleged perpetrators were tried and convicted without the benefit of a trial . These fake incidents were promoted by the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, a significant number of Duke University professors, and the MSM media who seemed to have forgotten the concept of "innocent until proved guilty" This seems to be just one dingbat acting on her own rather than a "vast left-wing conspiracy". "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Democratic vice president candidate Sen. Joe Biden has created a furor in the 2008 election with his implication to a crowd of deep-pocket donors that presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's lack of experience would create an appearance of weakness that would encourage opponents to challenge the United States. But he was only repeating what Obama himself said not that much earlier, as the presidential candidate was preparing to serve the first day of the Senate term he's now a little more than halfway through. According to news reports, Biden told the crowd of donors, "Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. "The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy," Biden said. "He's going to have to make some really tough – I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going to happen," Biden said. Obama himself had expressed the opinion that he wasn't qualified to run for the presidency after he was elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois in late 2004, less than four years ago. His statements have been preserved so far on a YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS- After his election victory, Obama was asked about why he had ruled out running for national office, president or vice president. "I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job," he responded. "And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there may be people comfortable doing that. I'm not one of those people," Obama said. Even some 800 days later, on Feb. 10, 2007, when he announced his presidential bid, in remarks published by the Washington Post as prepared for delivery, he admitted, "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington." Obama's lack of experience also came up during the Democratic primary, when Biden expressed worry that Obama's inexperience could cause difficulties. In another YouTube video, Biden warned that being president is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training and affirmed that he had described Obama as lacking the necessary experience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAaLEJwkh9c "I stand by the statement," he said. The GOP campaign of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin jumped on Biden's latest remarks immediately. "The next president won't have time to get used to the office," McCain said at a southern campaign stop. "We face many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. If Senator Obama is elected, Senator Biden said, we will have an international crisis to test America's new president. We don't want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars." Continued McCain, "What's more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn’t be apparent that Senator Obama would have the right response. Forget apparent. Senator Obama won’t have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign." The Obama campaign explained Biden simply was noting that presidents face challenges starting from day one. In a forum at the Christian Science Monitor, one participant said Biden is right, and "Obama looks weak to the rest of the world, which will start an international crisis." "McCain is strong and, like Ronald Reagan, would be respected," the participant continued. "Remember how our U.S. Embassy hostages were freed on Reagan's inauguration day after being held captive 444 days by Iran? They were held 444 days due to Jimmy Carter's weakness. Obama would be Jimmy Carter's 2nd term!" "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? By Orson Scott Card Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism. An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America: I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know. This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration. It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans. What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay. The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating. They end up worse off than before. This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them. Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.) Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending? I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate." Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed. As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury." These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party. Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout! What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame? Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing. If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was. But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican. If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama. If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis. There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.) If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression. Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper. But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to. If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate. Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned. Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing. Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months. So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means? Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for? You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles. That's where you are right now. It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there. If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices. Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door. You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way. This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion. If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie. If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard. You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

That was the same AN-2 that was at Connecticut Parachutists, Inc. many years ago. It was set up for military jumping with glass hole for spotting, O2 set up, jump door opened inward etc. Got to ride in it but couldn't jump it. The owner, a Capt. for Delta, finally gave up and sold it. I seem to recall that a photo or two of it being used for jumping appeared in Parachutist magazine back then. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

You mean like Tony Rezko and Barack Obama? "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Good work! Now, go back and read my previous posts. I made it clear that I was not accusing St. Pierre of anything. I said that I thought something was being "lost in translation"....and from your post, it is clear that I was right. Ten "Medals of Honor" and a member of the US military participating in the Dunkirk evacuation made the original story suspect. So, Mr. St. Pierre was a Canadian and serving in the Canadian Navy, not US forces, and received a Canadian (British?) award for valor. It seems it was a case of the typical media not getting their facts right; NOTHING new there! I mentioned "Stolen Valor" because it is an all too common problem these days. Now, if we assume that Francis is a naturalized citizen and entitled to vote in this country, then the actions of the GOP personnel in Montana was wrong and needs to be corrected IMMEDIATELY and these people should be investigated for possible civil rights violations..in my opinion. As a veteran of the US Army - 1967-1970, I was able to vote via absentee ballot and I am certainly sensitive to ANYONE'S attempt to discount US military personnel's votes. I also remember the attempts by the Democrat party to prevent the counting of absentee ballots of US military personnel in the election of 2000. Sound familiar? Again, good job on your research. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Further checking reveals that NO-ONE named St. Pierre won the Medal of Honor during WWII. The article quoted said "Medal of Honor" - not the Victoria Cross, Iron Cross, Croix de Guerre, or any other country's medal. It said "Medal of Honor" If you have served in the US military or are familiar with "the Medal" as it is sometimes referred, the name is unique to this award. If the writer meant to refer to other various awards for bravery/valor, why did the reporter use capital letters? Secondly, do you want to address the Dunkirk reference? If he was British, he would have been awarded the Victoria Cross (MOH equivalent) but that is not what was referenced in the article. The article also called the individual in question "legendary". Did you find any reference to him or his deeds anywhere else besides this article??? I was quite clear in my post that something may have been "lost in translation"...a polite way of saying that the reporter doesn't know of what he is writing. Are you familiar with the "Stolen Valor" federal law? "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Still avoiding the original subject, I see. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Ten "Medals of Honor"? "Saving allied troops at Dunkirk?" Now something seems a little strange here. First, I KNOW that no American serviceman, living or dead, ever was awarded the Medal of Honor (aka Congressional Medal of Honor) TEN times. Something is probably "lost in translation" here but this statement still makes me question the validity of this claim. Secondly, Dunkirk took place in World War II during the month of May 1940. The evacuation of Dunkirk involved primarily British troops as well as some French military personnel. The USA had not entered World War II at this point (remember 7 December 1941 and Pearl Harbor?) and, unless Mr. St. Pierre is a naturalized US citizen, I would have to seriously question whether he was actually involved in the evacuation of British and French troops from Dunkirk and "saving thousands of lives". I'm not saying that Frank St. Pierre didn't serve in the military in WWII or that he may have received awards for bravery but something doesn't ring true here. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Again, you try to avoid the matter at hand...the total ineffectiveness of Obama/Ayers' multi-million dollar education reform (Marxist indoctrination) attempt in the Chicago school system. Annenberg can certainly give their money to whomever they please but, again, how is that relevant? Obama claims this shows his experience and that this somehow makes him qualified for the presidency of the country. All it does is show how the program was ineffectual and him to be a failure in the area of "education reform". Can you point to any of his successes? "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

It's amusing how you seem to be unable to address the issue of Obama and the character of the people with whom he associates. It is not one person or one instance; rather, it is long term relationships with some very bad actors...homegrown terrorists - bombers and murderers - unrepentant and stating that they wish they had done more. I guess you have difficulty in refuting the facts so you try to deflect attention from Obama and the matter at hand. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Blood On the Hands of Obama’s Terror Associate By Cliff Kincaid: & Wes Vernon Thursday, July 24, 2008 Barack Obama was asked, during one of the Democratic presidential debates, about his relationship with communist terrorist Bill Ayers. But the more controversial relationship was with his wife, communist terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Both were present and hosted Obama when he launched a run for the Illinois State Senate. In effect, Ayers and Dohrn sponsored Obama’s political career. But it has now come to light that Dohrn repeatedly refused to deny credible reports that she planted a bomb at a police station that killed a law enforcement officer. Shouldn’t Obama be asked about the reported involvement of his political associate in cold-blooded murder? This revelation is important because the Weather Underground terrorists have long peddled the line that their bombings didn’t kill anybody, except themselves. The book flap for Ayers’ book, Fugitive Days, insists that the organization carried out “strategic, bloodless bombings, including one inside the Pentagon.” This is a Big Lie. The Legal Link The ties between Dohrn and Barack and Michelle Obama may run deep. From 1984-1988, Dohrn worked at Sidley & Austin, a law firm, which is also where Obama and his wife Michelle worked and met. “For three years after law school, Michelle worked as an associate in the area of marketing and intellectual property at Chicago law firm Sidley and Austin, where she met Barack Obama,” the official Obama campaign website reports. But it says nothing about meeting or knowing Dohrn. Ayers had told the New York Times—ironically in its edition of Sept. 11, 2001—“I feel we didn’t do enough” in those days. It looks like Dohrn shares that view. Indeed, a witness who questioned Dohrn tells AIM the onetime fugitive from justice refused to deny she planted a bomb on the window ledge of a police station in San Francisco that killed a policeman. But she has never been held accountable for this murder. Newspaper accounts at the time put the number of people wounded at nine. Riddled with shrapnel, Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell died two days later at San Francisco General Hospital. A memorial was held for him in February of 2007. “Sergeant McDonnell caught the full force of the flying shrapnel, which consisted of heavy metal staples and lead bullets. As other officers tried rendering aid to the fallen sergeant, they could see that he sustained a severed neck artery wound and severe wounds to his eyes and neck,” the San Francisco Police Officers Association Journal reports. “Officers [Ron] Martin and [Al] Arnaud, who were standing several feet from the window ledge, were knocked to the ground and sustained injuries from the flying glass,” it says. The blast caused them hearing impairment and shock. One officer was knocked to the floor unconscious, while another “suffered multiple severe wounds on his face, cheek and legs from the flying fragments of the glass.” The original testimony about Dohrn’s involvement in this came during a hearing by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on October 18, 1974. On that date, FBI undercover agent Larry Grathwohl testified at length on his penetration of the Weathermen and how he learned firsthand of its violent aims on America. Under questioning from the panel’s veteran counsel J.G. “Jay” Sourwine, Grathwohl testified that with the Weathermen, an offshoot of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), “it was no longer a question of changing the system from within. It was to destroy the system, completely destroy it, and that is what they said the first time I met them, and that is what they said the last time I was with them.” Grathwohl also testified about a specific bombing: “When he [Bill Ayers] returned, we had another meeting at which time—and this is the only time that any Weathermen told me about something that someone else had done—and Bill started off telling us about the need to raise the level of the struggle and for stronger leadership inside the Weathermen ‘focals’ [cells] and inside the Weatherman organization as a whole. And [what] he cited as one of the real problems was that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act.” Grathwohl added that Ayers “said that the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.” He was asked, “Did he say who placed the bomb on the window ledge?” He replied, “Bernardine Dohrn.” Asked if Ayers said that he had personally witnessed Dohrn placing the bomb, Grathwohl responded, “Well, if he wasn’t there to see it, somebody who was there told him about it, because he stated it very emphatically.” This testimony completely obliterates the notion, perpetuated by the Chicago Tribune and other media, that the bombings only killed the bombers themselves. Such propaganda is designed to play down the serious nature of the terrorist crimes and make Obama’s relationship with Ayers and Dohrn more palatable. Ayers Praised Dohrn Grathwohl includes this conversation with Ayers in his 1976 book, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen. The park police station bombing in San Francisco was “a success,” Ayers is quoted as saying, “but it’s a shame when someone like Bernardine Dohrn has to make all the plans, make the bomb, and then place it herself. She should have to do only the planning.” What a shame that Dohrn had to do all the dirty work. But it’s probably safe to assume that Ayers either helped her or knew about it in advance. Grathwohl reveals that Ayers himself knew how to make bombs and didn’t care about people being killed. At one point, he says, Ayers displayed a diagram of a bomb, with dynamite and a fuse. The plan was to bomb a police station but an objection was raised that it would also destroy a nearby restaurant. “We’ll blow out the Red Barn restaurant,” Grathwohl said. “Maybe even kill a few innocent customers—and most of them are black.” “We can’t protect all the innocent people in the world,” Ayers replied. “Some will get killed. Some of us will get killed. We have to accept that fact.” Grathwohl says the Weather Under-ground (WUO) also considered using kidnappings and assassinations in order to bring about their communist revolution in the U.S. Possible kidnapping targets were Vice President Spiro Agnew and presidential aide Henry Kissinger. The KU Appearance The Monday March 8, 1982 edition of The University Daily Kansan, the student newspaper of the University of Kansas, ran a story about the campus appearance the previous Friday of Bernadine Dohrn. She declared, “Those of us who participated in the [Vietnam] anti-war movement were not drastic enough.” Considering the testimony that she was responsible for planting the bomb in San Francisco on Feb. 16, 1970 that killed Police Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell, who caught the full force of the flying shrapnel, one wonders what would qualify as “drastic enough.” AIM has been in contact with a witness to the events of the day of Dohrn’s 1982 appearance on the KU campus. John B. Barrett, then a third semester law student at the university, showed up at the meeting where Dohrn was speaking against the war then in El Salvador. That was at a time when a Soviet-backed insurgency was out to take over that beleaguered country. President Reagan’s determination not to let the Soviets gain one square inch of territory on his watch was instrumental in putting the kibosh on that aggression. Reagan had a policy of supporting the government of El Salvador. As Barrett (now a practicing attorney in Goddard, Kansas) e-mailed this writer, “Using Larry Grathwohl’s testimony, and a pamphlet by ex-FBI agents, I asked Dohrn how she could condemn killing by the U.S. government when she had killed one police officer and injured others. Her response was, ‘Larry’s a pig.’ I asked about the incident at least two more times, and got the same response each time.” Through it all, as Barrett tells us, Dohrn’s two male companions tried to shout him down; Dohrn told them to let him speak. And then this: “DOHRN NEVER SAID THAT GRATHWOHL HAD LIED OR DENIED THAT SHE HAD PLANNED AND CARRIED OUT THE BOMBING THAT KILLED THE OFFICER IN SAN FRANCISCO [Caps in original e-mail].” During her appearance at KU, Dohrn also alleged that the U.S. government “is the main enemy of the people of the world” and that “Resorting to violence is painful and tragic, but with a slave/master situation, something has to be done.” The Manson Murders Not so coincidentally, members of the SDS such as Ayers and Dohrn were becoming members of the Weather Underground and engaging in numerous bombings and other violence as the case of Charles Manson and his “family” emerged in 1969. Manson had taken a group of young people, subjected them to heavy drug use, and ordered them to commit mass murder. On the Weather Underground and their drug use, Ayers writes in his own book, Fugitive Days, “Marijuana was available everywhere—every party, every gathering, every meeting.” Dohrn went further, praising the psychopath Manson as a true “revolutionary,” adding, “First they killed those pigs [i.e., the victims, including a pregnant movie actress], then they ate dinner in the same room with them. Then they even shoved a fork into one’s stomach. Wild.” In her “Declaration of a State of War,” Dohrn said, “We fight in many ways. Dope is one of our weapons. The laws against marijuana mean that millions of us are outlaws long before we actually split. Guns and grass are united in the youth underground.” The pro-Manson comments were delivered by Dohrn at a national SDS “War Council” in December of 1969. Those in attendance included SDS leader Mark Rudd, who also gave a speech. Rudd was a subject of an April 27, 2008, sympathetic article in the Washington Post about a “Columbia 68” “reunion” of SDS members and student radicals who had taken over campus buildings. Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia and a board member of the Post, delivered a welcoming address and participated in a panel discussion. The Post article about the event neglected to mention that Rudd had been to Communist Cuba before he led the riots and the takeover of Columbia University. Rudd wrote an SDS pamphlet, titled simply Columbia, which declared that during the “occupation” of Columbia University, “It was no accident that we hung up pictures of Karl Marx and Malcom X and Che Guevara and flew red flags from the tops of two buildings.” The pamphlet concluded with a quotation from Communist Chinese mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung, “Dare to struggle, dare to win.” The Dohrn-Soros Connection Dohrn is now a Clinical Associate Professor in the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern School of Law and an adjunct faculty member of the University of Illinois/Chicago in the Department of Criminal Justice. Her curriculum vitae shows participation in several American Bar Association (ABA) events and even a Department of Justice conference. She was involved in a “Peace Studies Program” at Colgate University and served on the board of the “Peace Museum” in Chicago, an entity currently funded by the Playboy Foundation. Most interesting, however, are her appearances at events sponsored by the Open Society Institute (OSI) of billionaire leftist George Soros. The Baltimore, Maryland branch of the OSI on May 12, 2004, hosted Dohrn at a forum on criminal justice issues and discipline in schools. In 1999, Dohrn participated in an OSI event at New York University on “families in a free society,” with a focus on welfare reform and child welfare. (Another WUO member, Linda Evans, was given a Soros grant to “increase civic participation of former prisoners.”) An objective observer might conclude that Ayers, Dohrn and their comrades are now dedicated to creating a new student and youth movement, like the one they participated in which eventually developed into a full-blown terrorist organization that killed our fellow citizens and tried to eliminate the “Thin Blue Line” of police separating us from the criminals. In this new crusade, they not only have an inspiring leader, Barack Obama, who attracts young people with his promise of “change,” but a moneybags named Soros, who has funded causes such as rights for convicted felons and legalization of dope. “I have very high regard for Hillary Clinton, but I think Obama has the charisma and the vision to radically reorient America in the world,” Soros told Judy Woodruff of Bloomberg Television. “I think that he has shown to be a really unusual person.” Where’s The Justice? So how do communist-backed terror bombers escape justice for their crimes and end up introducing Barack Obama to the wider world of American politics? To answer that, one must recall the post-Watergate anti-intelligence culture that began in the Ford years and accelerated in the Carter administration, in which concern over a huge slave empire’s drive for world domination was deemed “an inordinate fear of communism,” to quote Jimmy Carter. Roy M. Cohn, best known as chief counsel to the old McCarthy committee, captured the tenor of the times: “During the 1970s, the American internal security and counter-intelligence community [including congressional committees investigating communism] was virtually destroyed….by a sensation-seeking national media which utilized selective “leaks” and disclosures in order to present a bizarre, distorted picture of the purpose and operations of the intelligence, counter-intelligence and internal security agencies.” In those years, the FBI’s hands were tied by such prohibitions as being forbidden to clip news stories of subversive activities or building a file on individual subversives and terrorists. Meanwhile, the anti-intelligence lobby was going full tilt. Groups such as the communist-front National Lawyers Guild, and the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies worked openly with the American Civil Liberties Union. The Carter Justice Department prosecuted FBI agents Mark Felt (later revealed as “Deep Throat” in the Watergate case) and Edward S. Miller who were in pursuit of radicals in the Weather Underground (the renamed Weathermen) who had planted bombs not only in San Francisco but in New York, Los Angeles and in Washington at the U.S. Capitol and other federal buildings. It was left to President Reagan to pardon the agents. He declared: “During their long careers, Mark Felt and Edward Miller served the Federal Bureau of Investigation and our nation with great distinction. To punish them further—after 3 years of criminal prosecution proceedings— would not serve the ends of justice. “Their convictions in the U.S. District Court, on appeal at the time I signed the pardons, grew out of their good-faith belief that their actions were necessary to preserve the security interests of our country. The record demonstrates that they acted not with criminal intent, but in the belief that they had grants of authority reaching to the highest levels of government. “America was at war in 1972, and Messrs. Felt and Miller followed procedures they believed essential to keep the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General, and the President of the United States advised of the activities of hostile foreign powers and their collaborators in this country...” One argument used by the defendants (and not contradicted) was that the Weather Underground was taking orders and direction from Castro’s Cuba. The Cuban Connection Herbert Romerstein, former investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the House Internal Security Committee, has said that “What is significant today are the neo-communists—many of them are what we call red diaper babies and they came out of communist families. But they were disappointed in the Soviet Union back in the 1960’s and 1970’s and they were disappointed that the American Communist Party was so weak. So, they said they were communists and they were better communists than the American Communist Party. I think a better term for people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are neo-communists. They were not party members, but they were fighting on behalf of the countries that the Soviet Union controlled or created.” Romerstein noted that “A group of the Weathermen went down to Cuba in the so-called Venceremos Brigade, and some of them received training in terrorist activities. “One of their instructors was named Julian Torres-Rizo. Rizo was an officer of the Cuban DGI, the intelligence service. He was assigned to work with the young Americans who were coming down ostensibly to cut sugar cane. They were really coming down for training. And we have one of Rizo’s speeches in which he says, ‘You come from a society that must be destroyed. It’s your job to destroy your society.’ “Well, Bernardine Dohrn and her cronies published Rizo’s speech and I have the copy that they published so we know what he did and what they said. And Rizo later became the Cuban Ambassador to Grenada at the time of Maurice Bishop and he was still the Cuban Ambassador when Bishop was murdered by his own comrades and finally had to leave and go back to Cuba where he became a member of the central committee of the Cuban Communist Party. “He’s a very significant communist apparatchik and he was a tremendous influence on the Weather Underground…he helped the terrorists that were fighting against us at that time.” "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

I guess you don't get much opportunity to read or watch the national news. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Very incisive response "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Brunner: I'll obey court order, but thousands could lose their right to vote Posted by Reginald Fields/Plain Dealer Reporter October 15, 2008 13:33PM Categories: Breaking News, Election, Open, Real Time News Chuck Crow/The Plain Dealer Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner COLUMBUS -- More than 200,000 Ohioans who registered to vote this year for the first time or updated their voting information since Jan. 1 could be affected by the latest court ruling requiring the state to set up a new registration verification system by Friday, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said. Brunner said she would comply with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling late Tuesday but said she is deeply concerned that the decision is a veiled attempt at disenfranchising voters. The court's 9-6 opinion, written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, suggested that voters whose driver's license number or Social Security number does not exactly match those found on databases maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or Social Security Administration could be required to use provisional ballots instead of conventional ones. "The thing that concerns me is that Judge Sutton indicated that these mismatched names could be subjected to provisional voting and nowhere in [Help America Vote Act] is that the case. The Help America Vote Act is really not meant to be used to disenfranchise or to help determine voter eligibility," Brunner said in an interview today. "Essentially that provision of HAVA is basically supposed to maintain voter registration databases," she said. "It is not for determining voter eligibility. The interpretation that seems to be coming from at least that particular judge takes HAVA and uses it as a means to exclude voters from a regular ballot. That is a concern." The full 6th Circuit's opinion overturned the decision of a three-judge panel at the federal court last week and restored the ruling announced last week by U.S. District Court Judge George C. Smith. Since Jan. 1, Ohio has 666,000 newly registered or updated voters -- all of whom fall under scrutiny by this latest court ruling. Brunner said an initial review found that at least 200,000 of them might have mismatched information. Once the office identifies all of the mismatched voters, Brunner will send the list to the county boards of election where the individuals have registered. But state Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett said Brunner's decision to not implement the verification system sooner without the court forcing her to do so has cost county boards of election valuable time reining in examples of fraud. "Unfortunately, her delay in providing this matching system leaves little time for election officials to act on questionable registrations," Bennett said in a statement. "Secretary Brunner should immediately issue a new directive providing clear guidance on how the boards should handle the mismatched voter data." Between the secretary's office and the county boards, Brunner said, efforts will be made to notify the voters of the discrepancy and urge them to update their information. Brunner will also follow that up with a directive to the counties urging them not to force people to vote provisionally. She said that could set up yet another Republican challenge, but that federal law does not require a person with mismatched information to vote provisionally, as opposed to getting a regular ballot. Provisional ballot voting is often the most problematic and confusing form of voting. A Plain Dealer review found that 20 percent of the provisional ballots cast statewide for this year's Republican and Democratic presidential primaries were rejected because some part of the complicated process was not properly followed and thus the person's vote was not counted. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

"Obama and the work he did to help others"???? His "work was totally ineffective...all it did was spend millions of grant dollars, probably enriching the bank accounts of other left wingers in the process. Like liberals everywhere, he talks about his "intentions" but fails to talk about the lack of results. I posted this on another thread but it certainly applies here: Obama And Ayers' Annenberg Failure By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT Education: The joint effort between Barack Obama and terrorist William Ayers to "reform" Chicago schools was a flop. After spending $160 million, Chicago's children were still being left behind. It was, and some say still is, his only claim to have executive experience qualifying him for high government office. "My experience previous to elected office equips me for the job," Obama said in a 2000 televised debate during a failed campaign to unseat incumbent Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush. Of that experience, Obama said: "I have chaired major philanthropic efforts on the city, like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) that gave $50 million to prompt school-reform efforts throughout the city." It was an impressive line on anyone's resume. It was also a flop. Obama ran the fiscal arm that distributed grants to schools and raised matching funds. Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with grant recipients. They met and talked often. Ayers was more interested in transforming Chicago's schools into vehicles for socialist revolution than in reading scores. He sought to use Annenberg's grant to fund his dream of radicalizing both teachers and students. Obama helped him toward that goal, gaining what he thought would be an important credential. Like most efforts to improve the government monopoly by throwing money at it, the CAC was a failure, and a costly one at that. The grant was conditioned on raising at least twice that amount in matching funds. With the grant, CAC had $160 million to throw at the problem. The CAC operated in 210 Chicago schools between 1996 and 2001. At the CAC's conclusion, an evaluation report was prepared and titled, "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, Failures, and Lessons for the Future Final Technical Report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project." On page 14 of the executive summary we find that "the Challenge had little impact on student outcomes." On page 15, the report says: "There were no statistically significant differences between Annenberg schools and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain" and that "any improvements were much like those occurring in demographically similar non-Annenberg schools." In 1998-99, just 36% of the Annenberg school students in grades three through eight were reading at or above national norms compared with 35% in Chicago schools citywide. In math, the results were similar. Some 43% of Annenberg students were at or above national norms versus 42% for non-Annenberg students. High school graduation rates for both groups of students were the same at 40%. The Annenberg schools edged out Chicago schools in dropout rates — 35% to 36%. As the report said, there were no signs of improvement that warranted the expenditure of $160 million. The CAC did not improve the schools, and in some ways made things worse. The executive summary also notes: "Classroom behavior, students' sense of self-efficacy, and social competence were weaker in 2001 than before the Challenge." The report stated: "In 2001, students in Annenberg schools were somewhat less inclined than in 1994 to respect each other, work well together and help each other learn." Neither student attitudes nor student achievements were aided by Obama's efforts. Based on these results, Barack Obama would have trouble getting chosen as a high school principal. Yet he thought they were worthy of promoting him first to congressman and now to the presidency of the United States. When Obama collected the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers, he told the teachers that support for alternatives to the education monopoly amounted to "tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice" even though efforts like the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship, unlike those of the CAC, have produced stunning improvements. Not being left behind are Obama's daughters, who attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. There the tuition ranges from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school. When asked about it during last year's YouTube debate, Sen. Obama responded that it was "the best option" for his children. They had a choice Obama would deny others. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

October 15 Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded By Andrew M. Seder [email protected] Staff Writer SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded. The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him." News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story. Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment. “I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune. He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton. Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.” “We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.” Hackett said he did not hear the remark. Slavoski said Singleton was interviewed Wednesday and stood by his story but couldn’t give a description of the man because he didn’t see him he only heard him. When contacted Wednesday afternoon, Singleton referred questions to Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman. Sonderman said, “We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that’s really all there is.” Slavoski said the agents take such threats or comments seriously and immediately opened an investigation but after due diligence “as far as we’re concerned it’s closed unless someone comes forward.” He urged anyone with knowledge of the alleged incident to call him at 346-5781. “We’ll run at all leads,” he said. I'm sure the media will now printing corrections to their BS ....of course, I'm an optimist. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Obama And Ayers' Annenberg Failure By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT Education: The joint effort between Barack Obama and terrorist William Ayers to "reform" Chicago schools was a flop. After spending $160 million, Chicago's children were still being left behind. It was, and some say still is, his only claim to have executive experience qualifying him for high government office. "My experience previous to elected office equips me for the job," Obama said in a 2000 televised debate during a failed campaign to unseat incumbent Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush. Of that experience, Obama said: "I have chaired major philanthropic efforts on the city, like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) that gave $50 million to prompt school-reform efforts throughout the city." It was an impressive line on anyone's resume. It was also a flop. Obama ran the fiscal arm that distributed grants to schools and raised matching funds. Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with grant recipients. They met and talked often. Ayers was more interested in transforming Chicago's schools into vehicles for socialist revolution than in reading scores. He sought to use Annenberg's grant to fund his dream of radicalizing both teachers and students. Obama helped him toward that goal, gaining what he thought would be an important credential. Like most efforts to improve the government monopoly by throwing money at it, the CAC was a failure, and a costly one at that. The grant was conditioned on raising at least twice that amount in matching funds. With the grant, CAC had $160 million to throw at the problem. The CAC operated in 210 Chicago schools between 1996 and 2001. At the CAC's conclusion, an evaluation report was prepared and titled, "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, Failures, and Lessons for the Future Final Technical Report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project." On page 14 of the executive summary we find that "the Challenge had little impact on student outcomes." On page 15, the report says: "There were no statistically significant differences between Annenberg schools and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain" and that "any improvements were much like those occurring in demographically similar non-Annenberg schools." In 1998-99, just 36% of the Annenberg school students in grades three through eight were reading at or above national norms compared with 35% in Chicago schools citywide. In math, the results were similar. Some 43% of Annenberg students were at or above national norms versus 42% for non-Annenberg students. High school graduation rates for both groups of students were the same at 40%. The Annenberg schools edged out Chicago schools in dropout rates — 35% to 36%. As the report said, there were no signs of improvement that warranted the expenditure of $160 million. The CAC did not improve the schools, and in some ways made things worse. The executive summary also notes: "Classroom behavior, students' sense of self-efficacy, and social competence were weaker in 2001 than before the Challenge." The report stated: "In 2001, students in Annenberg schools were somewhat less inclined than in 1994 to respect each other, work well together and help each other learn." Neither student attitudes nor student achievements were aided by Obama's efforts. Based on these results, Barack Obama would have trouble getting chosen as a high school principal. Yet he thought they were worthy of promoting him first to congressman and now to the presidency of the United States. When Obama collected the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers, he told the teachers that support for alternatives to the education monopoly amounted to "tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice" even though efforts like the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship, unlike those of the CAC, have produced stunning improvements. Not being left behind are Obama's daughters, who attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. There the tuition ranges from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school. When asked about it during last year's YouTube debate, Sen. Obama responded that it was "the best option" for his children. They had a choice Obama would deny others. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Media Help Obama Cover A Suspect Past By THOMAS SOWELL Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:30 PM PT One of the oldest phenomena of American elections — criticism of one's opponent — has in recent times been stigmatized by much of the media as "negative advertising." Is this because the criticism has gotten more vicious or more personal? You might think so, if you were totally ignorant of history, as so many graduates of even our elite universities are. Although Grover Cleveland was elected president twice, he had to overcome a major scandal that he had fathered a child out of wedlock, which was considered more of a disgrace then than today. Even giants such as Lincoln and Jefferson were called names that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has been called. Why then is "negative advertising" such a big deal these days? The dirty little secret is this: Liberal candidates have needed to escape their past and pretend that they are not liberals, because so many voters have had it with liberals. In 1988, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis called himself a technocrat, a pragmatic solver of problems, despite a classic liberal track record of big spending, big taxes and policies that were anti-business and pro-criminal. When the truth about what he actually did as governor was brought out during the presidential election campaign, the media were duly shocked — not by Dukakis' record, but by the Republicans' exposing his record. John Kerry, with a similar ultraliberal record, topped off by inflammatory and unsubstantiated attacks on U.S. military men in Vietnam, disdained the whole process of labeling as something unworthy. The mainstream media closed ranks around him as well, deploring those who labeled Kerry a liberal. Obama is much smoother. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and so lofty that even some conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a man is the very opposite of what he claims to be — unless they check out the record of what he has actually done? In words, Obama is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he's spent years promoting polarization. That is what a "community organizer" does, creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment in order to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayers' money or to force banks to lend to people they don't consider good risks, as the community organizing group ACORN did. After Obama moved beyond the role of a community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in his other roles. That is what he did when he spent the money of the Woods Fund bankrolling programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools. That is what he did when he spent the taxpayers' money bankrolling the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger. When Obama donated $20,000 to Jeremiah Wright, does anyone imagine that he was unaware that Wright was the epitome of grievance, envy and resentment hype? Or were Wright's sermons too subtle for Obama to pick up that message? How subtle is "Goddamn America!"? Those in the media who deplore "negative advertising" regard it as unseemly to dig up ugly facts instead of sticking to the beautiful rhetoric of an election year. The oft-repeated mantra is that we should stick to the "real issues." What are called "real issues" are election-year talking points, while the actual track record of the candidates is treated as a distraction — and somehow an unworthy distraction. Does anyone in real life put more faith in what people say than in what they do? A few gullible people do — and they often get deceived and defrauded big-time. Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting himself as a uniter who reaches across the partisan and racial divides — after decades of promoting polarization in each of his successive roles and each of his choices of political allies. Yet the media treat exposing a fraudulent election-year image as far worse than letting someone acquire the powers of the highest office in the land through sheer deception. Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

ACORN's Bad Seed By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT Election '08: As a major voting fraud scandal explodes, the mainstream media seem intent on ignoring it. Given the seriousness of the charges, maybe a formal federal investigation is in order. The charges involve ACORN — the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now — for which Barack Obama once served as a lawyer and as a trainer. In recent months, a picture has emerged of ACORN as a group run amok — with ACORN accused of registering thousands of bogus voters using such names as Mickey Mouse, Veronica Mars and Pat Tillman, plus names from the Dallas Cowboys. Why care? As documented by Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, Obama has ties to ACORN that are numerous, irrefutable and go back years. Initial denials by the Obama campaign of links to ACORN have been shown to be false. Obama at various times during his 1990s career as a "community organizer" served ACORN in several roles, including as a major conduit of funds. And the ties continue. This year, Obama's campaign has delivered $800,000 to an ACORN affiliate. Obama has also vowed to give ACORN a big role in his administration. ACORN's links to the Democratic Party are deep, extending back to its 1970 founding. By its own reckoning, ACORN this year has registered 1.32 million voters in 18 states — many in swing states that could have an outsized impact on the outcome of the election. Nothing wrong with registering voters, except that ACORN has been accused of voter fraud activities across the country. At least 12 states have started investigations against ACORN. ACORN also has been implicated in the subprime mortgage meltdown. But it still gets millions in taxpayers' dollars. Something is seriously wrong here. Yet the media seem curiously incurious about it — just as they refuse to look deeply into Obama's longstanding ties to terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, or ACORN's own radical ties. ACORN, as it turns out, was co-founded by Wade Rathke, a former member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The SDS spawned the terrorist Weathermen — of which Ayers and Dohrn were members. The media show no interest. They're in the bag for Obama, big time. A study of the Big Three networks' election coverage released Tuesday by George Mason University's Center for Media & Public Affairs found that, from Aug. 23 to Sept. 30, 61% of their stories about the Democratic Party were positive; just 39% of the stories about Republicans were positive. With widening evidence of massive voter fraud nationwide, we can't leave it to a biased media to investigate. ACORN's alleged voter fraud crosses all jurisdictions, and is now federal in scope. So why hasn't the Justice Department launched a full-scale investigation? Or the Federal Election Commission? And why isn't Congress up in arms over this attempt to steal our republic? "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

How about aiding and abetting fraud. Conspiracry to commit fraud? What do you call giving people money and cigarettes to encourage them to register to vote multiple times? Why do you think some ACORN people are being prosecuted for their activities? I'm sure you have some lame excuse for it...or will try to find a way equivocate or deflect. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

An interesting article in National Review Online regarding Obama, Ayers, Wright, et al can be found at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ0YjhlOGVhYjQ0OWRhZjI2MmM4NTQ4NGM5Mjg0MzU= "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Dodd and Countrywide The Wall Street Journal Oct. 10, 2008 Former Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld was under oath Monday when he was grilled on Capitol Hill about his role in the current financial meltdown. But if Members really want to understand the credit mania, they should also call Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, (D., Conn). The Connecticut Senator has been out front denouncing the “companies that form the foundation of our financial markets,” for “their insatiable appetite for risk.” He has also decried “reckless, careless and sometimes unscrupulous actors in the mortgage lending industry” and he has proclaimed that “American taxpayers deserve to know how we arrived at this moment.” To that end, we propose he take the stand — under oath. Former Countrywide Financial loan officer Robert Feinberg says Mr. Dodd knowingly saved thousands of dollars on his refinancing of two properties in 2003 as part of a special program the California mortgage company had for the influential. He also says he has internal company documents that prove Mr. Dodd knew he was getting preferential treatment as a friend of Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide’s then-CEO. That a “Friends of Angelo” program existed is not in dispute. It was crucial to the boom that Countrywide enjoyed before its fortunes turned. While most of the company was aggressively lending to risky borrowers and off-loading those mortgages in bulk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mr. Feinberg’s department was charged with making sure those who could influence Fannie and Freddie’s appetite for risk were sufficiently buttered up. As a Banking Committee bigshot, Mr. Dodd was perfectly placed to be buttered. In response to the charge that he knew he was getting favors, Mr. Dodd at first issued a strong denial: “This suggestion is outrageous and contrary to my entire career in public service. When my wife and I refinanced our loans in 2003, we did not seek or expect any favorable treatment. Just like millions of other Americans, we shopped around and received competitive rates.” Less than a week later he acknowledged he was part of Countrywide’s VIP program but claimed he thought it was “more of a courtesy.” Mr. Feinberg, who oversaw “Friends of Angelo” from 2000 to 2004, begs to differ. He told us that as the loan officer in charge he was supposed to make sure that the “VIP” clients knew at every step of the process that they were getting a special deal because they were “Friends of Angelo.” “People are referred into that department as ‘very important people.’ You’re told that your loan is priced from Angelo. As the ‘Friends of Angelo department,’ [the department] has to give them a sense of importance and explain the reduction of fees and the rate as a result of being a ‘Friend of Angelo,’” he says. According to a report by Dan Golden in Condé Nast Portfolio in August, other VIPs included Senator Kent Conrad. Mr. Golden reported that “Countrywide also offered special discounts to congressional staffers involved in housing issues.” As to Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feinberg says he spoke to the Senator once or twice and mostly to his wife and that like other FOAs Mr. Dodd got “a float down,” which means that even after he had a preferred rate, when the prevailing rate dropped just before the closing, his rate was reduced again. Regular borrowers would pay extra for a last-minute adjustment, but not FOAs. “They were aware of it because they were notified and when they went to the closing they would see it,” Mr. Feinberg says, adding that he “always let people in the program know that they were getting a very good deal because they were ‘Friends of Angelo.’” All of this matters because Mr. Dodd was one of those encouraging Fan and Fred to plunge into “affordable housing” loans made by companies like Countrywide. One indicator of his influence is the $165,400 in campaign contributions — more than to any other politician — that Fan and Fred have given him since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These contributions are legal. But favors like those Mr. Dodd is alleged to have received may not be. Mr. Feinberg says he went public with his story because when he heard Senator Dodd on TV talking about predatory lending, he felt it was “hypocritical” and he says, “I just thought, ‘This is wrong.’” Mr. Dodd hasn’t yet released his copies of the mortgage documents, though he promised to do so more than two months ago. His office told us this week they’d get back to us on that. Meanwhile, presumably the Justice Department can have Mr. Feinberg’s Countrywide documents, if it’s interested Dodd wasn’t the only Democrat with his hand in the cookie jar. Other Senators were as well. Perhaps even more troubling, the very folks in charge of running Fannie Mae, all Democrats, like Jamie Gorelick, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson all got favorable mortgage loans and ALL are active on behalf of Barack Obama. And yet Republicans are to blame for the financial crisis while these shysters stand to be appointed to positions of power in an Obama Administration? "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Is this the same Jennifer Brunner, secretary of state for Ohio??? Court Finds Brunner in Violation of Federal Law Secretary of State appeals ruling, fights effort to validate registrations (Columbus) - A federal court ruled tonight that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner violated federal election laws by not taking adequate steps to validate the identity of newly registered voters. The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge George C. Smith called the identification breakdown “a serious problem” and ordered Brunner to immediately comply with federal requirements to match voter registration data with the information in the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Social Security Administration databases. The court accused Brunner of failing to provide county election administrators with “an effective way to access and review mismatches.” She immediately appealed the ruling. “For some reason, Jennifer Brunner does not want these new registrations checked,” said Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine. “Her refusal to comply with federal law raises serious concerns about her ability to objectively oversee this election. It’s especially troubling in light of her connection to ACORN and that group’s stunning confession this week of fraudulent registration activity happening right here in Ohio.” Brunner’s effort to fight the court order comes just two days after the Democrat activist group ACORN admitted to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections that the group engages in fraudulent voter registration activity. Ohio ACORN officials “blamed the elections board for not scrutinizing ACORN’s suspicious cards,” claiming the group “can’t be expected to catch everything.” ACORN is facing similar inquires in other Ohio counties as well as 10 other states. Members of the group’s “voter-mobilization arm,” Project Vote, regularly advise Brunner on election strategy, even recently issuing a news release that claims credit for Brunner’s directive restricting challenges to suspected fraudulent voter registrations. Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama also has strong ties to ACORN, working previously as an attorney and “leadership trainer” for the group. and this.... The Columbus Dispatch, 5/9/07: In what might be a Franklin County first, a Reynoldsburg man was indicted yesterday for voting twice in the November election. … [An attorney] said Gilbert was registered in both counties by ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a nonprofit agency that has come under fire in 12 states for voter fraud. Associated Press, 9/20/06: The mother of a 16-year-old has told the Summit County elections board that her daughter was registered to vote, just two months after a 10-year-old boy was summoned for jury duty because he was on the county’s voter rolls. …The board plans to issue subpoenas to the girl and the person who filed the voter registration application, Prentice McNary of Akron, a circulator paid by Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, [board director Bryan] Williams said. The Columbus Dispatch, 9/1/06: Concerns about bogus names increased recently as Franklin County Elections Board staffers questioned the validity of hundreds of names on registration forms and petitions for a proposed constitutional amendment to boost Ohio’s minimum wage. Most of the disputed names came from lists provided by paid solicitors working for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The Columbus Dispatch, 8/30/06: Franklin County elections officials plan to issue subpoenas to paid solicitors suspected of forging hundreds of signatures on ballot-issue petitions and voter-registration forms. … Most have come from people paid by ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which was blamed for similar problems with voter-registration forms in 2004. The Plain Dealer, 8/11/06: Potentially fraudulent voter registration cards have turned up in at least three Ohio counties, and 500 have been turned over to a prosecutor to determine if a crime has been committed. Matt Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said the 500 cards his office referred to County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien Wednesday were collected between March and July by workers for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/23/04: Cuyahoga County election officials are investigating more than a thousand possible fraudulent voter registrations - including one for Jive Turkey Sr. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported Friday that the name is one in a string of fake names on new voter rolls. Others include Dick Tracy, Mary Poppins and Michael Jordan in Defiance County. The Columbus Dispatch, 9/8/04: A part-time worker signing up new voters for a local community group has been indicted by a Franklin County grand jury on charges he forged a registration form. … The charges stem from an investigation that began in May after the Franklin County Board of Elections discovered dozens of voter registration forms with fake names or false information. They were submitted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which paid workers bonuses based on the number of voters they registered. The Columbus Dispatch, 6/3/04: A nonprofit group registering low-income and minority voters in Franklin County has fired two temporary workers thought to be the source of fake names and forged signatures on official registration forms. ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also has agreed to perform extra checks on forms turned in by its voter-registration workers before submitting them to the Franklin County Board of Elections, the group’s head organizer said yesterday. “Well, I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we’ve got Democrats in charge of the machines.” - Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama (Columbus Dispatch) Yep...all a conspiracy by the Republicans to steal the election from the anoited one! Diebold personnel are going to be flying around in black helicopters come November 4 to sabotage the voting machines from the air with ray guns. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling