Obama




From Newsmax.com:

Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.

But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.

But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.

“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.

But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.

Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”

The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.

But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.

“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.

FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro

When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.

Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.

Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.

But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”

Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.

Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.

In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.

In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.

Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.

Foreign Donations

And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.

Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."

Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.

Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.

One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.

In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.

Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.

The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.

A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.

Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.

The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.

The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.

According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.

Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.

The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.

A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.

But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.

Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.

The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.

“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”

FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.

This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.

Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”

Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.








I think most of us here get our news from a variety of places. Places that do more than publish biased sound bites. Most Americans obviously don't because apparently Obama's line about "McCain won't regulate" and "8 more years of Bush" is resonating with undecideds and Ohio starts their register and vote the same day mess today (I think).

Obama is making "McCain is against regulation" the key to his attack. McCain has to punch back on this one because it WAS regulation that got us into this mess. It was regulation that demanded that banks make a certain number of loans to minorities regardless of tbeir financial qualification that brought us to this. And Fanny's and Freddy's Democrat leaders made a killing on this.

It was Obama's Acorn (and his hands are filthy in the Acorn mess) that literally invaded banks that did not make loans to unqualified borrowers. They intimidated lenders and when that ball got rolling, then banks, mortgage lenders and Fanny and Freddy adapted to the new banking: pay bonuses for NUMBERS of loans, not for good loans--Fanny and Freddy would take the paper. Years ago, my husband was a banker. He received a straight salary and his future in the bank depended on how many accounts he brought in and how few loans went bad. He left banking before the NINJA loans, and now I understand why people who make less than us can afford an $800,000 house (I've been asking for several years: how can they DO that. How can that young couple buy THAT house AND a BMW?). Because of this Democrat REGULATION, the basics of sound banking policy went out the window.

And WHY hasn't McCain's support to stop greedy Freedy and Fanny been the NUMBER ONE story? There is video of Barney Frank saying that Fanny and Freddy are fine and the Bush and McCain and Republican efforts to stop the bleeding was ridiculous. Why is Dodd and Frank getting away with their hypocritical acrobatics on this bail-out bill?

A week ago, I was asking why the H*ll hasn't the campaign been trumpeting McCain's action to stop the Freddy and Fanny mess? Why wasn't his warning the number one ad? Why wasn't the Democrat sleazeballs who were on the take from Fanny and Freddy and who stopped legislation on a party vote revealed as the culprits in an ad?

Why isn't the RNC and McCain campaign advertising what exactly was in that so-called "deal" that that pompous prig of a pig's rump, Harry Reid said McCain "ruined". THAT BILL DEMANDED THAT 20% OF MONEY REPAID WOULD GO TO ACORN AND LIKE ENTITIES!
Talk about an earmark!!!

Go to justsaynodeal.com and see the flow chart they've put up which connects all the dots between George Soros, Acorn and Obama. It's scary as h*ll.








"Mainstream media" (MSM) never was an accurate representation of what this country's major print and broadcast news sources are and what they do. "Mainstream" is defined, when used as an adjective, as "representing the prevailing attitudes, values and practices of a society or group." The media, as a group, certainly has a set of prevailing attitudes, values and practices, but they are not those of American society, rather only representative of the more liberal elements of American society. It was when talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh eschewed the oxymoronic "MSM" appellation and coined the more appropriate term "drive-by media" (DBM) that we get a fitting label for today's fifth column Fourth Estate.

According to a Rasmussen poll conducted earlier this month, a majority of those surveyed believe that the DBM is not only biased against GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, but it is actively working to do her in:

Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.

If this same poll were to be taken today, I'd wager that 51% figure would have only moved higher, for the DBM has increased both the frequency and the ferocity of its attacks on Gov. Palin. Rasmusssen's study was conducted prior to the two major network interviews of Palin, first by ABC's Charles Gibson one week after the poll, and this week by CBS' Katie Couric.

While ABC and CBS have have been setting Gov. Palin up, NBC has been busy knocking her down. Human Events editor Jed Babbin accurately described the two NBC networks as "Obama surrogates" in a column two weeks ago. More recently, MSNBC's Three Stooges for Obama - Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow - have been flying daily carpet bombing sorties against Palin, and even that network's morning show host, former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, has cast himself in the role of The Fourth Stooge (not sure if he's Shemp or Emil Sitka) with his cluck-clucking this week about how Sarah's answers to Katie's questions just go to show that she's "not ready" for all of this running-for-VP business.

CNN, for its part, seems to be only too happy to cut and paste false information about Palin from the Left's nutroots websites in the form of doctored photos, distorted quotes and outright lies clearly intended to smear the Alaska governor and her family.

Virtually unheard, in all this DBM Palin-bashing, is any attempt at showing balance by giving equal time and space to Gov. Palin's Democrat counterpart Sen. Joe Biden. Indeed, any rational analysis of the two vice presidential candidates shows that Biden is one who's not ready for prime time.

Which of the two is more of a drag on his or her respective presidential ticket? The DBM would have voters believe that Palin is hurting John McCain because her answers to "gotcha" questions from Gibson and Couric were less than smoothly handled. Oh, really? Let's test that hypothesis.

Even liberal print outlets Washington Post and San Fancisco Chronicle have been forced to admit that Gov. Palin has energized the Republican Party's base. Moreover, Gallup polling indicates that John McCain's selection of Palin has broadened support for his ticket among a crucial voter demographic - independent swing voters. In another key demographic, white women, the addition of Gov. Palin to McCain's ticket has resulted in a major payoff, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll:

Before the Democratic National Convention in late August, Obama held an 8-point lead among white women voters, 50 percent to 42 percent, according to the Washington Post/ABC News poll. After the Republican convention in early September, McCain was ahead by 12 points among white women, 53 percent to 41 percent, that survey found.

A 20-point reversal is not just significant; it is nothing short of dramatic. Rather than being a drag on the GOP ticket, as the DBM's talking heads claim, we see that the reverse is true.

So how is Sen. Joe Biden helping Sen. Barack Obama's ticket? Hot Air's Allahpundit points out that twice in just 18 hours this week, Biden undermined his own campaign. He criticized an official Obama Campaign ad, and he gaffed big time by directly contradicting Obama's clean coal policy. In the critical battleground states of Pennsylvania and Virginia, which both also happen to be coal states with significant numbers of United Mine Workers members among their respective populations, such self-inflicted wounds could prove to be fatal.

These are just two very recent examples of a well-known Biden characteristic - like the oppositely-charged poles of two bar magnets, his foot and his mouth share a mutual attraction. Unlike McCain's choice of Palin, Obama's pick of Biden to be his running mate resulted in no significant bounce in the numbers for the Democrat's presidential nominee.

Yet, the media assault on Sarah Palin continues unabated. It makes one wonder, "What are they thinking?" We have already seen the potential for a major boomerang effect which could knock the DBM out cold and send the Democrats reeling. In an op-ed for Real Clear Politics, Robert Tracinski observes:

I have never seen anything like the wave of hostility and contempt aimed at Sarah Palin from the moment she was nominated. This press partisanship is a crucial part of the story, because it explains the difficulty of discovering who Sarah Palin is. And ironically, the pompous hostility of the press has served as a foil which Palin has used to increase her popular appeal.

In the final analysis, the media assault on Sarah Palin could be as damaging to Obama's campaign as the loose and loaded cannon that is Joe biden's mouth.

But have the talking heads of the DBM and other Democrat operatives noticed? The constrast between Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden, as well as the potential ramifications to their respective presidential tickets, is conspicuously absent from their list of talking points.

- JP








What does a community organizer do? Pressure banks to make bad loans
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/what-does-a-community-organizer-do...

posted at 11:20 am on September 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Stanley Kurtz takes a look at how the Community Reinvestment Act was used by activist groups to pressure banks into lending money to high-risk applicants, and how “community organizers” like ACORN played a front-line role. ACORN insinuated itself into the process by using CRA to block bank sales and mergers and force lending institutions to lower standards for applicants. They also championed the sale of these loans to Fannie Mae as a key program that would alleviate the lenders of any risk in lending:

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

I wrote about this last week from the fascinating perspective of 1999, when this effort got mainstream media notice for its supposed success. Now, however, no one wants to talk about the “community organizers” of ACORN, La Raza, and the Urban League, and how they used identity politics to distort the lending market. This closes a loop from that post in describing exactly how the CRA got used to extort shaky loans. The government relied on ACORN and other “community organizers” to file nuisance complaints in order to force the bad lending practices that created this mess.

Where was Congress in protecting the market? Why, they were funding these same “community organizers”. Over the last seven years, Congress gave earmarked grants worth millions of dollars to ACORN, explicitly for their assistance in low-income housing. The original Dodd proposal for the bailout would have made millions more available to ACORN through the Housing Trust Fund, a slush fund Democrats established this year to support even more “community organizing” along these lines.

Of course, Congress did more than just that. They pressed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into buying up all that bad paper and turning them into investment products. Supposedly this spread the risk, but what it really did was create an artificial demand for loans under any conditions. The lenders could not lose; they made a short-term profit on every loan whether or not the borrower made payments, thanks to Fannie and Freddie, and that set off a frenzy of credit sales that paid little attention to fundamentals. Fannie Mae’s board was too busy getting personal sweetheart deals from lenders like Countrywide to worry about whether the paper was good or not.

Kurtz takes special pains to note Barack Obama’s ties to ACORN. Madeline Talbott served as director of Chicago’s ACORN office and led high-profile protests for living wage laws and looser lending practices. Talbott had Obama train her staff, hired him for legal work, and eventually received funding through the Woods Fund when Obama and William Ayers served on the board. In their report, the Woods Fund noted the difficulty that ACORN has in raising money from traditional sources, thanks to their controversial activities, and that their award gave ACORN more political cover:

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public’s eye. The Woods Fund’s claim to be “nonideological,” it says, has “enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government ‘establishments’ without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship.”

Obama understood what ACORN does very, very well. He had started off as a “community organizer” from the same tradition, and he remains committed to that tradition — as his $800,000 campaign payment for ACORN’s services showed.

Just a few weeks ago, the media scoffed at critics who wanted a better explanation of “community organizing”. It’s no laughing matter now.

___________________________________________________________________________________

See also the excellent video that explains the relationship between CRA and the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Burning Down the House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o








Can Mccain use the 'no time for a novice' line on Novice Obama?

GB's Gordon Brown said there is no time for a novice (in these difficult times).


BBC NEWS | Politics | No time for a novice, says Brown

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7630567.stm








Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned
By: Newsmax

"The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads. The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.

Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control. You can see the "Hunter" ad at:
http://election.newsmax.com/nra_Hunter.html

This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.

"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"

"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."

The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate."
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/Obama_Wants_NRA_Ads_Banne/2008/09/27/135...








Since this campaign began, fellow conservatives described Obama as a Socialist, Marxist and a Communist. After the events of the last few weeks, I must add another description; the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels.

Saturday September 27, 2008

“Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.”

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Thanks be to God that someone with authority is willing to stand up against the Obama Campaign Machine.

Using law enforcement to squelch debate and intimidate isn’t Obama’s only dog and pony show. According to the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star, Obama continues to forget we have First Amendment Rights. He forced the University of Mary Washington, where he spoke on Saturday to prohibit sign and banners from the rally, and requested anyone who dares bring one to be removed.

Now I realize a man who is too frightened to go on Fox News may have a nervous breakdown over the thought of a paper cut, yet, what he fears most is dissent.

With Obama’s “vision” for our country, his “to each according to their needs" “social policies, demonization of the wealthy combined with a distaste for small businesses and corporations , are remarkably similar to the political philosophy from a party that seized power in Germany on September 14, 1930.

Is this what we are to expect from an Obama presidency? With his history of radical associations does anyone doubt, under his administration, an office of propaganda will be established?

Obama has already shown willingness to use law enforcement to censor dissent. This alone is worrisome enough. That 2 Circuit Attorneys and a Sherriff agreed to join him in this revolution makes one wonder, how many more members of the law enforcement and judicial system are willing to burn the Constitution in order to install Obama as our leader?

St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer all read from the Goebbels handbook and accepted the philosophy. I hope, Governor Blunt removes all three from office and launches an investigation into others who are willing to sell their souls to Obama.

It is becoming clearer as the campaign moves along - Obama has two intents for the United States; to move us from a capitalistic society to a socialist nation, financing the move on the backs of the “wealthy” and business. And to abolish parts of the Bill of Rights that disrupts his vision for America.

According to the Wall Street Journal, on September 5, 2008 Obama said “I’m not going to take your guns away, even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress". When playing poker, one should never show their hand. Do you doubt, Obama would take all guns?

As an affirmative action student at Harvard didn't he learn the 1st Amendment? Yet the man isn't stupid nor ignorant, the most likely scenario, free speech to him is like garlic to a vampire.

Actions speak louder than words and Obama’s true colors are showing. America, we need to wake up to the reality of this man and take action now. When Governor Giuliani said at the RNC "this is the most important election in our history" his words were prophetic.

If Obama is elected, he will set back out country for generations to come.

It is our responsibility as Americans, Conservatives, former and current Military and the 60% of Americans because we are patriotic tax payers (Thank you Joe), to do everything in our power, legally, to see to it that Obama never again steps foot in the White House.

For those who sit back and this “This is America that would never happen here” have forgotten an important lesson, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."








I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, not inclined to penalize someone over an unfortunate gaffe.

But, to me, this speaks volumes about Obama's charater.







Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis.


At a 2004 hearing see Democrat after Democrat covering up and attacking the regulations to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (their Cash Cows) that are now destroying our economy because the Democrats let them cheat.

Related FOX report here:








TWS Exclusive: Kissinger Unhappy About Obama

Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized.

He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

Posted by Stephen F. Hayes on September 26, 2008 10:55 PM | Permalink

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP





Syndicate content