Friday, October 10, 2008

Barack Obama Seeks To Block Discovery in Citizenship Lawsuit By Brian W. Smith


October 10, 2008 - 10:01 AM

DISCLAIMER: The author is a registered Independent and does not have an opinion as to the truth and/or veracity of the allegations of the lawsuit referenced in this blog or the information contained at the web sites cited.

In his lawsuit, the Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, a Philadelphia attorney, alleged that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old, to regain his U.S. citizenship status. The lawsuit raises not only the Indonesian citizenship issue but also questions whether Obama was a citizen of Kenya.

The motion to block production of documents is just the latest in a series of filings in the case, but has become a focal point of the suit. According to a web site maintained by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff requested that three documents be produced by Obama:

1. a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth Certificate;

2. a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; and

3. a certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama at the age of majority.

Mr. Berg asserts that if Barack Hussein Obama will produce the above documents and prove his eligibility for the Office of the Presidency, that he (Mr. Berg) will dismiss his lawsuit voluntarily. To date, Obama has refused to produce these documents to Mr. Berg.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Surprise, Surprise! Barack Hussein Obama, Jr Born In KENYA; Is A Resident Alien NOT Natural Born U.S. Citizen



By Jon Christian Dryer

October 7, 2008

Author's Note: This article is a rewrite of last week's article on Philip J. Berg's lawsuit to force Barack Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate. On Sept. 24 the DNC filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action, which sent Berg scrambling to file a response, which was filed on Sept. 29, providing the date and material which led to my confusion that the order had been signed. Accept my mea culpas. The moment I realized the error I called News With Views and had the article pulled, and posted a recant on my website as well. Here is the most current information on the case, taken from court documents. -- Jon Christian Ryter

On September 29, 2008 Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, filed a response to a motion to dismiss by defendant Barack Obama who was joined in his effort to quash Berg's lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee, claiming it has no standing to proceed. Berg argued in the brief response that he has provided the precedents which establish the standing and petitioned US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to pursue the case. In his Sept. 29 filing, Berg said: "Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama's eligibility through subpoenas to the government entities and the hospital's in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiffs and two of (2) the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoenas.

"For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants and the Democratic National Committee's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery (the unsigned order requiring Obama to produce..." within three (3) days{

1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) birth certificate; and
2. a certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship;
3. a certified copy of Obama's oath of allegiance."

The certified copy of the citizen of the world's "oath of allegiance" to the United Sates is a document attesting to the fact that the newly "naturalized" citizen (usually an immigrant who has just been granted citizenship) or for native born Americans who have forfeited or otherwise surrendered their citizenship, and have requested reinstatement at their majority, usually 18, has sworn allegiance to the United States and its Constitution.

In this filing, Berg argued that he has legal standing to bring suit against Obama—and the DNC—pursuant to 5 USC §702; 524 US 11 (1998); 8 USC §148(b); 5 USC §552(B); 28 USC §1343 and also standing pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction. Berg rightfully claimed he has suffered "...the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute..." since the issue of where Obama was born with conflicting birth certificates and conflicting claims of what hospital Obama was born in—with Obama's own family members claiming he was born at three different hospitals in two countries.

The Obama "Birth Flap" was not of Berg's making. It began in June when National Review's Jim Geraghty raised the question and asked the Obama Campaign to release a copy of his birth certificate in order to prove that he actually was born in the United States. (Reports had previously surfaced claiming that Obama's Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, told reporters that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya. She also reportedly told reporters that when her son, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. returned to Kenya he was accompanied by his pregnant white wife who was close to term.)

Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii.

Reportedly, when she arrived back in Hawaii, Stanley Anne registered her son's live birth as an event which had just happened—in Honolulu, Hawaii. This supposition is supported by the appearance, shortly after Nov. 6, 2007, of a Hawaiian birth certificate that was issued, as a duplicate birth certificate, by the State of Hawaii to a US Senator who requested it.

Conservative bloggers on the Internet screamed that the birth certificate, which appeared on the Obama Campaign's "Fight The Smears" website and was also downloaded and used by far left blogger Markos Zuniga on his website, Daily Kos, was forgery concocted by Daily Kos, A self-described cyvbersleuth who uses the cyber-pseudonym Techdude claimed—without ever presenting an actual resum eto support his qualification claims—that the document was a fraud. There is little doubt it is the real McCoy—even if it was issued as a political favor to a prospective Democratic presidential candidate by some innocuous petty official in Hawaii. The clerk who issued the document, which purports to be a copy of an original document, was date stamped "Nov. 6, 2007" on the reverse side of the birth certificate in blue ink which bled through and is visible on the front of the electronic image.

Attorney Philip J. Berg, the former head of the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Democratic Party and a former member of the Democratic State Convention and, reportedly a Hillary Clinton supporter, wanted to learn the truth from the myriad of rumors that also suggested that Sen. Obama may also have been a citizen of Indonesia. The only consistent part of the story was Stanley Ann returning to Hawaii to claim he had been in the United States and was a US citizen.

In his original lawsuit filing, Berg specifically asked for those three items. Berg told the court that " the time Plaintiff's complaint was filed, Plaintiff was requesting protections from the court in order to stop Obama from being nominated by the DNC as the Democratic Presidential Nominee as Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States. However, Obama was nominated by the DNC...For that reason, Plaintiff must amend his complaint and will be amending this complaint to file a First Amendment complaint...."

Berg argued that he felt it was the role of the Federal Election Commission to ensure that presidential and congressional candidates are eligible to hold the positions for which they were seeking, and that those candidates run a fair and legitimate campaign. "In vetting the presidential candidate," Berg further said: "the DNC and the FEC are required to ensure the eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and the Presidential nominee, if elected, is qualified and eligible to serve pursuant to our United States Constitution. In order to be eligible to run for the Office of President of the United States, you must be a "natural born" citizen.

"There appears to be no question that Defendant Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a US citizen. It is also undisputed that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce recorded, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

"Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama's grandmother on his father's side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama's mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii. At her late stage of pregnancy (which apparently are normal restrictions, to avoid births during flights). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama's birth. There are records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii."

Berg's investigators revealed that Obama's own half-sister Maya Soetoro—with whom he was raised—seemed not to know where her own brother was born. In the Nov., 2004 interview by the Rainbow Newsletter Maya Soetoro said Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. In February, 2008 Maya was interviewed by the Star Bulletin. This time she told reporters that Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Kaliolani Medical Center for Women and Children. On June 9, 2008 Wayne Madsen, a journalist with Online Journal published an article in which he said a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya and located a Certificate registering the live birth of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a US citizen.

Berg's argument to the court was that under the US Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317 (b), a minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of his or her custodial parent. In Obama's case, Berg argued, a minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of his or her custodial father. Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetora signed a statement acknowledging Obama as his son, giving Obama natural Indonesian citizenship, which explains the name "Barry Soetoro" and his Indonesian school documents. Loss of US citizenship, under US law in effect in 1967 required that foreign citizenship be achieved through "application." Which, according to Berg, is precisely what happened to Obama when his mother married Soetoro and the family moved to Indonesia.

When Obama and his mother moved to Indonesia, Obama had already been enrolled in school—something that could not have happened under Indonesian law if Soetoro had not signed an acknowledgment (the application) affirming that Obama was his son and that he was Indonesian. Thus, it was deemed that Obama was an Indonesian State citizen. (Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992, Indonesia Civil Code): "...State children of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia Constitution, 1945." Furthermore, under Indonesian law, if a resident Indonesian citizen married a foreigner—in this case, Lolo Soetoro marrying Stanley Ann Obama—she was required to renounce her US citizenship.

In his lawsuit, Berg demanded a copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship, a document Obama needed for to regain his citizenship—which was lost in Indonesia. He will have that document only if the proper paperwork was filed with the US State Department when Obama returned to Hawaii in 1971 since that is the only way Obama could regain his US "natural born" status. Berg is convinced that Obama was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama returned to his maternal grandparents in Hawaii without his mother. Since she is the only one who could have filed for the reinstatement of his citizenship, it is unlikely it ever happened. If it did, his Certificate of Citizenship would affirm his right to seek the office of President. Without it, Barack Obama is just another resident alien who can't even legally hold his seat in the US Senate. if I was in the Republican National Committee, I would be joining Philip Berg with the full force, and pocketbook, of the GOP.

Barack Obama's Class Warfare Politics By Mike Volpe


Sunday, August 24, 2008

Class warfare is a tried and true political tool perfected by one Karl Marx. It's a tool that I believe the entire Democratic party has perfected. Yet, it appears that Barack Obama will use it as the center piece of his political strategy. The problem with class warfare is that while it may or may not be a good political strategy, it isn't rooted in any good policy. That's because pitting one class against another has no policy motivations. It is strictly a tool of politics. Here are the places where we can expect Obama to use class warfare as part of his campaign

1) Mortgages. On this issue Obama perfected it and has been using it since the beginning. Here are some examples.

There is a reason why this has happened. Over the past several years, while predatory lenders were driving low-income families into financial ruin, 10 of the country’s largest mortgage lenders were spending more than $185m lobbying Washington to let them get away with it. So if we really want to make sure this never happens again, we need to end the lobbyist-driven politics that made it possible.


Here, in Nevada, we see how so many people are fighting for their American Dream. Because in so many ways, Felicitas and Francisco have lived the American Dream. Their story is not one of great wealth or privilege. Instead, it embodies the steady pursuit of simple dreams that has built this country from the bottom up


Yet a predatory loan has turned this source of stability into an anchor of insecurity. Because a lender went for the easy buck, they are left struggling with ballooning interest rates and monthly mortgage payments. Because Washington has failed working people in this country, they are facing foreclosure, and the American Dream they sought for decades risks slipping away


The foreclosure crisis has played out in painfully steady but predictable motion.While lenders were taking advantage of folks like Felicitas and Francisco, they were also spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Washington to stay on the sidelines. For President Bush, the answer was to do nothing until the pain out on Main Street trickled up to Wall Street.

Then, a few months ago, he rolled out a plan that was too little, too late. Instead of offering meaningful relief, he warned against doing too much. His main proposal for an economy that is leaving working people behind is to give more tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, even though they don’t need them and didn’t ask for them.

The strategy is clear. Big powerful banks and mortgage brokers took advantage of poor helpless borrowers. This is classic class warfare strategy. You pit the powerful against the weak and put yourself on the side of the weak. Here, he takes it another step further. He even goes as far as putting his opponents, the Republicans, as being on the side of the powerful. Naturally, what follows is a solution that benefits the weak.

To stabilize our housing market and to bring this crisis to an end, I’m a strong supporter of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank’s proposal to create a new FHA Housing Security Program. This will provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages, and to convert them into stable 30-year fixed mortgages. This is not a windfall for borrowers – as they have to share any capital gain. It’s not a bailout for lenders or investors who gambled recklessly – as they will take losses. It asks both sides to sacrifice. It offers a responsible and fair way to help Americans who are facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates they can afford.

The Dodd/Frank is a bill I have talked about a lot. It is a $350 billion BAILOUT for borrowers that can't afford to make their payments on time. It is also one that I believe will eventually destroy our economy. That's because while it's billed as one to help the little guy, what it really does is help out the irresponsible at the expense of the responsible. That's because all of these folks who can't afford their mortgage will get a brand new loan they don't deserve. They'll do it because the bill will be paid by everyone else. That's the irony of the mortgage class warfare played by Obama. While he makes out to be the little guy against the powerful, the real effect is to reward the irresponsible at the expense of the responsibe.

2) Health care.

On health care, Obama takes a similar approach. Here, he also pits the powerful against the weak. In this case, it is the powerful medical industry (insurance companies, drug companies, doctors, etc) against the weak, the uninsured.

There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market

....In the interview, for example, he argued that his proposals on health care and the economy, which call for a stronger government role and more regulation, were really about what works.

So, as Barack Obama sees it, powerful companies create mergers and that hurts the little guy. His proposal to fix this is universal health care which will make sure that even the little guy has health care. That's because all the free health care will be paid by those that already have it.

3) Gas prices.

Here he again pits the powerful against the weak. In this case, the powerful is the oil companies and the weak are all the middle class folks that have to pay higher gas prices.

Of course, the irony is that his proposal will not pit the powerful health care industry against the little guy. It will actually pit those with means to get their own health care against those that can't. In one ads, Obama achieves everything any perpetrator of class warfare can ask.

He blames big oil for high gas prices. He puts his opponent on the side of big oil, and he makes sure to punish big oil and reward the little guy. This ad is in fact class warfare 101. Never mind of course, that windfall profits failed already when Carter tried them. Never mind, furthermore, that a windfall profits tax violates the spirit if not the letter of the 14th amendment which says all Americans are to be treated equally. Like I said earlier, class warfare is not a tool of policy, but politics. This ad is class warfare perfected.

4) Taxes

Here is the most obvious example of Barack Obama's class warfare. In fact, taxes are ripe for classic class warfare.

Barack Obama offered a plan to cut income taxes by $80 billion for workers, seniors and homeowners by boosting the take from wealthier Americans.

"It's time for policies from Washington that put a little wind at the backs of the American people," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a speech to the Tax Policy Center here.

Obama said the current system is skewed toward the benefit of the rich at the expense of the working middle class. The tax code is "too complicated for ordinary folks to understand, but just complicated enough to work for someone who knows how to work the system," he said.

Pledging to restore fundamental fairness to America's tax policies, Obama proposed a raft of reforms but didn't fully spell out how to pay for them.

So, once again, he achieved everything a perpetrator of class warfare could hope for all at once. He pitted the powerful against the weak, the rich against the poor and middle class. He attacked his opponent as being for the powerful by pointing out the current system is skewed to the wealthy. Finally, he proposed a system that would be more "fair".

What is fair. He will give a $1000 tax break to those making $75,000 and less. He will cut all taxes for seniors making $50,000 and less. At the same time, he would increase corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritence taxes, and taxes for the top two income tax brackets. Of course, this tool of class warfare that Obama calls fairness goes by another name, income redistribution.

Income redistribution refers to a political policy intended to even the amount of income individuals are permitted to earn.[ citation needed ]The basic premise of the redistribution of income is that money should be distributed to benefit the poorer members of society, and that the rich should be obliged to assist the poor.[ citation
] Thus, money should be redistributed from the rich to the poor, creating a more financially egalitarian society.[ citation needed ] Proponents of redistribution often claim that the rich exploit the poor or otherwise gain unfair benefits. Therefore, redistributive practices are justified in order to redress the balance.[ citation
]This differs slightly from wealth redistribution or property redistribution, a policy which takes assets from the current owners and gives them to other individuals or groups

Income redistribution is classic Marx. It has never been shown to be anything but a failure as policy, but as a political tool it has all sorts of political benefits. Those two concurrent themes could be applied to much of Barack Obama's class warfare politics.

McCain Blasts -- And We Mean Blasts -- Obama By Marc Ambinder and Patrick Ottenhoff


February 06, 2006

An outraged Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today called Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) insincere and partisan, suggesting the Illinois freshman as much as lied in private discussions the two had about ethics reform last week.

(McCain's letter is here and here; Obama's letter of last week is here)

McCain is perhaps the most admired Republican senator in the country and is likely an '08 presidential candidate. Obama, of course, is the Democratic Party's featured player, rivaling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) in nationwide popularity and fundraising prowess. It is rare for a Senator to rebuke another so publicly, and all the more exceptional that McCain does not cloak his language in layers of euphemism.

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform were sincere," McCain writes.

Obama attended a meeting with McCain and senators committed to a bipartisan task force on ethics reform. McCain left the meeting convinced that Obama was open to working closely together, according to an aide.

But the next day, Obama wrote McCain that he preferred his own party's legislation to a task force and suggested McCain take another look at the Democratic caucus's Honest Leadership Act, which does not have a Republican cosponsor.

Wrote Obama: "I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work[.]"

McCain, in his letter, takes exception to Obama's suggestion that his task force, which Dem. Sens. Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson support, would impede reform.

McCain: "When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. ... I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again."

Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, called McCain's letter "confusing" and "headscratching." He said Obama "remains committed" to reform and will work with "any Republican and Democrat" who is serious about the issue. His letter to McCain, said Gibbs, signaled his preference "to get legislation through committee, rather than wait for a task force."

In his letter, McCain says that his task force proposal would ensure that meaningless or cosmetic reforms aren't rushed into law -- and that the solution in the end would reflect the interests of both parties and their voters.

His last line suggests that Obama will not soon regain McCain's favor.

Writes McCain, "I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator."

McCain Releases Letter to Obama

February 6, 2006

Washington D.C. ­– Today, Senator McCain sent the following letter to Senator Obama regarding ongoing Congressional efforts towards bipartisan lobbying reform. The following is the text from that letter:

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.


John McCain
United States Senate

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

BTW: I'm Voting for McCain/Palin


This video is a MUST SEE for those still on the fence about voting for McCain/Palin. Get off the fence and watch this video!

It is time for American feminists to emancipate themselves from their devotion to the DNC:

I am Voting McCain/Palin. I am a Feminist

I am voting for McCain-Palin and I am a feminist. Many feminists can't understand my choice. I am not betraying the cause, the fight, the mission, because I don't want to vote Democratic. The Democratic Party is not our ally. The Democratic Party is 60% women but it has only once selected a woman as a vice-presidential candidate and that was nearly a quarter of a century ago. We are chattel in our own party. The head of the Democratic National Committee has never been a woman. Money donated to the Women's Leadership Fund is funneled into the Obama Victory Fund. We cannot give dominion over our bodies or ourselves to one party. Current feminist groups have no teeth because they are part and parcel of the Democratic Party. They are held hostage by Roe v. Wade. They know it and the Democratic Party knows it. The only way to regain our power is to regain our vote. The Democratic Party has no reason to earn our vote. We've sacrificed one choice for another.

I will not be held hostage by the Democratic Party that turned a blind eye to the corruption in the Democratic primaries and Democratic caucuses.

I will not be held hostage by the Democratic Party that ignored a woman who got 18 million votes.

I will not be held hostage by the Democratic Party, a party that was deaf, dumb and blind to the persistent and pervasive sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton.

I will not be held hostage by a Democratic Party that has never had a female head of the DNC.

I will not be threatened into submission. I will not cast my vote based on fear.

The Democratic Party cannot be rewarded for it's pervasive disrespect of women. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Sometimes you have to tear down a house before you can rebuild it. Most feminists think the Democratic Party will treat them differently during the next election. There is no next time. There is only this time. Reinforcing abuse only perpetuates abuse. In any abusive relationship, you have to leave to get respect . Abusers are often charming and apologetic and hold out the hope of better behavior. But there is no then, there is only now.

I am a woman and I am a feminist.

To the other feminists out there I ask, "Where is your pride or are you a victim of your own misogyny?"

I am a woman and right now I am ashamed to say, I am a feminist.

--Dr. Lynette Long

Militant Conspiracy Theorist Obama Says U.S. "Mistakes" To Blame For September 11, 2001


Obama Addresses 9/11 Government Complicity
Possible President responds to an Infowars reader

Steve Watson

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Democrat Presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama has responded to a question posed by an Infowars reader regarding government complicity in the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks.

Three months after the reader sent Obama a correspondence outlining her great concern that criminal elements of the government were directly complicit in the attacks, the Senator sent the following response via email, which was then forwarded to us:

Dear Penny:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your belief that the U.S. government was complicit in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. I appreciate hearing your passionate views on this matter.

While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day. The blunders that occurred prior to the 2001 attacks were inexcusable and often outrageous. The series of clear warnings about the potential use of hijacked planes as weapons is just one example of why the "surprise" of 9/11 should have been anticipated. In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11.

Thank you again for writing.


Barack Obama
United States Senator

More Bogus Obama Donors Surface: Donations Made Between July and Early August By Laura Strickler


Oct. 6, 2008

CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their contributions under fake names that look like they were written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida listed their employer as DASADA/SAFASF.

CBS News did not find any records of these last names, towns or employers anywhere else. Newsweek reported two questionable Obama donors over the weekend named “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will”.

Contributions from the two donors Hdusahfd and Hduadh were made on the same day starting on July 16, 2008. Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show the campaign began refunding the donations as early as August 6, 2008.

Despite numerous refunds from the Obama campaign, Hdusahfd still has a record of giving a total of $7500 to Obama which is well over the legal limit for the primary and general election of $4600. Hduadh gave $14,200 but the Obama campaign returned all but $222.00.

The Obama campaign says “out of an abundance of caution” all of these donations are in the process of being returned.

Obama spokesperson Bill Burton sent CBS News the following email statement, “We constantly review our donors for any issues and while no organization is completely protected from internet fraud, we will continue to review our fundraising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available step to root-out improper contributions.” Burton pointed to Harry Sargeant, one of McCain’s donors who is now the subject of a Congressional investigation. McCain returned $50,000 to Sargeant in early August.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has asked the FEC to look into foreign donations to the Obama campaign. The FEC told CBS News they would not comment on the RNC’s complaint.

Other donors who gave over the legal limit to the Obama campaign contacted by CBS News said their money was refunded promptly by the campaign. Of those who spoke to CBS News, it seems their only mistake was that of enthusiasm.

Felicity Nitz, 60, of Brooklyn says she kept on clicking on Obama’s online fundraising appeals, “I just kept punching it when I got the emails,” she said, “I’m an insane supporter.”

Christian Skeem from Chicago says he got a letter back from the campaign with a check, “I couldn’t give them more than the limit because they kept sending it back, it wasn’t like they weren’t on the ball.” The reason he gave so much? “Cause I’m a fan,” he said.

(CBS) CBS News Investigative Producer Laura Strickler wrote this story for with additional reporting from Sarah Fitzpatrick and Ariel Bashi.

Biden, the master gasbag: The vice presidential candidate isn't really an expert, he just plays one on TV By Jonah Goldberg


October 7, 2008

Last Thursday's vice presidential debate was the most revealing, and depressing, event of the entire campaign because it showed how irredeemably fraudulent America's political class is and how superficial the voters who will decide this election are.

Recall, if you will, that going into the debate, the conventional wisdom was that Gov. Sarah Palin would be woefully outgunned by Sen. Joe Biden. A self-touted foreign policy expert and constitutional law professor, Biden joined the Senate some time after the Cretaceous period but well before bell bottoms went out of style.

As we know, the conventional wisdom was wrong. Palin wasn't stellar. But she crushed those low expectations, salvaged her political career and turned herself back into an asset for the McCain campaign.

But what about Biden? Overwhelmingly, the professional political class proclaimed that he blew her away on "specifics" and "knowledge" and "seriousness." The New York Times said Biden avoided making any gaffes, "while showing a clear grasp of the big picture and the details." The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib proclaimed on ABC's "This Week" that Biden avoided any "verbal excesses or rhetorical flourishes."

The Associated Press called Biden the "master senator ... rattling off foreign policy details with ease."

And that's true in a sense. Biden was at ease; he easily rattled off a string of falsehoods and gasbaggeries.

According to the master senator, the U.S. and France "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Afterward, according to Biden, "I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.' " Perhaps Biden meant to say the U.S. and France kicked Syria out of Lebanon. But even this is woefully glib. Syria never fully abandoned Lebanon. And there was no "vacuum" for Hezbollah to fill. The terrorist group was already firmly in control of southern Lebanon and part of the government. No one remembers Biden and Obama fighting for the stupidly impossible NATO move either.

Biden insisted it's "just simply not true" that Obama has said he'd "sit down with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," even though in the primaries Biden criticized Obama for exactly that.

Biden bragged about how he and Obama have focused on Pakistan, insisting that "Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean." Um, no. Their missiles don't get halfway there.

The constitutional law professor scornfully mocked Dick Cheney because the vice president "doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president. That's the executive branch." Wrong. Article I defines the Legislature, Article II the executive branch. Both define the role of the VP.

He flatly said that McCain voted with Obama on a tax hike. He didn't. He said McCain's healthcare plan amounted to a tax hike. It doesn't. Biden said we "must" drill for oil, but that ain't how he's voted. He said he's for clean coal, but just this month he passionately insisted to a voter that "we're not supporting clean coal" and vowed "no coal plants here in America." The scrapper from Scranton boasted about bonding with the common folks at a restaurant that's been closed for two decades.

Now, Palin had her own problems. She failed to answer direct questions directly. She offered up some obviously canned one-liners.

But here's the difference. Palin is supposed to be everything Biden isn't, according to liberal pundits and mainstream reporters alike. For weeks they've been saying she's ill-prepared, uninformed and lacks the requisite experience. But that criticism is also an excuse of sorts.

Biden has no excuse. He's been in the majors for nearly 40 years, and yet he sounds like a bizarro-world Chauncey Gardner. The famous simpleton from Jerzy Kosinski's "Being There" (played by Peter Sellers in the film) offered terse aphorisms that were utterly devoid of specific content but nonetheless seemed to describe reality accurately. Biden is the reverse: He offers a logorrheic farrago of "specifics" that have no connection to our corner of the space-time continuum.

In short, he just makes stuff up. But he does it with passionate, self-important intensity. He's like a politician in a movie with a perfect grasp of a world that doesn't exist. He's not an expert, he just plays one on TV.

No one seems to care. He convinced the focus groups he's an expert. The media, with a few exceptions, let it all slide. But imagine if Palin had made any of these gaffes. It would be incontrovertible proof that her critics are right.

Palin "lost" because she's bad at being a dishonest politician. Biden won because he is, after all, a "master senator."

Obama Court is Conservative Nightmare By Curt Levey


July 28, 2008

“Among the starkest contrasts between John McCain and Barack Obama is the dramatic difference in their promised approaches to judicial appointments, especially to the closely divided Supreme Court.”
So begins the cover story in this week’s National Journal, which analyzes what an Obama and McCain Supreme Court would look like. We focus here on the article’s observation that Barack Obama “exudes determination to move the [Supreme] Court sharply to the left.” That warning has been heard before, but the stature and nonpartisan reputation of the article’s author, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Stuart Taylor, gives the warning added credibility. Taylor – who called the Bush Administration’s handling of enemy combatants “a global scandal” and accused the High Court’s conservative bloc of "colorblind Constitution absolutism” – is no conservative.

The virtual certainty of an increased post-election Democratic majority in the Senate means that Obama is “far more likely [than McCain] to get the Senate to confirm just about anyone he chose,” says Taylor. As a result,
“The door would be open for Obama, if he were so inclined, to appoint the kind of crusading liberal that the Court has not seen since Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall retired in 1990 and 1991 – or, for that matter, to appoint Hillary Rodham Clinton if she wanted the job.”
Taylor notes that Obama might “disappoint” some of his most fervent supporters by appointing a “moderate-liberal consensus-builder” to the Court. But that possibility rings hollow when Taylor reminds us that Obama cited former Chief Justice Earl Warren, the father of liberal judicial activism, “as a model for the kind of justice he would pick.” If we take Obama at his word, a likely pick would be Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who Taylor lists among “the most-talked-about prospects” for an Obama Supreme Court. A bright but ultra-liberal Hispanic woman, Sotomayor would allow Obama to check three boxes with a single pick. The mere mention of her name brings fear to in-the-know conservatives.

Were Sotomayor to replace 88-year-old liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court’s shift to the left would be muted. However,
“[A] Scalia or Kennedy retirement would enable Obama to move the Court dramatically to the left, creating a solid liberal majority for the first time since Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969.”
That very real possibility should frighten conservatives all the more when they consider that
1) by the end of an 8-year Obama presidency, Justices Scalia and Kennedy would be 80 years old, an age most men never reach, and
2) given the damage the Supreme Court has done to the rule of law since 1969, imagine what the Court would do if it regained a “solid liberal majority.”

In fact, not much imagination is necessary, because Taylor lays out the possible agenda of an Obama Supreme Court. For easy reference, we have transformed Taylor’s “conservative nightmare” scenario into a Top Ten List (while retaining his wording).

Top Ten Things to Expect from an Obama Supreme Court:
#10 – expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences
#9 – creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and human cloning
#8 – expanding judicial oversight of military detentions and CIA interrogations
#7 – prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools
#6 – banning the death penalty
#5 – requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimited abortion rights
#4 – creating new constitutional rights to massive government welfare and medical care programs
#3 – stripping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance
#2 – eroding property rights
#1 – ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage

Of course, this “conservative nightmare” is a “liberal dream” for Obama's most enthusiastic supporters. It’s no wonder that the issue of judicial appointments looms large in this year’s race for the White House.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Maybe McCain does want to win: He finally attacks Obama on Fannie/Freddie By Michelle Malkin


October 6, 2008 02:13 PM

Last week, the McCain campaign said it would be too complicated and politically incorrect to blast Obama for his Fannie/Freddie complicity.

They didn’t want to go there.

Looks like common sense mugged the Maverick.

Better late, than never — via Ed Morrissey, here’s McCain’s prepared text for an event later today:

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, “a good idea.” Well, Senator Obama, that “good idea” has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you’d think he’d always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them.

Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn’t he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won’t tell you, but you deserve an answer.

Don’t go wobbly now, McCain.

Don’t stop.

Take your own advice: Stand up and fight.

Pass it on:

Economists think McCain would be better for stock market: Obama hurt by pledge to raise tax rates on capital gains and dividends


July 23, 2008 10:07 AM ET

(Reuters)—The U.S. stock market would fare better in the first year after a victory by Republican presidential candidate John McCain than by his Democratic rival Barack Obama, according to a majority of economists at U.S. banks and research groups polled by Reuters.

But the survey of 29 firms taken alongside a regular Reuters economic poll also found that economists had mixed views on the two candidates’ economic plans.

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “very good”, 12 economists gave McCain’s proposals higher marks, while nine rated the two candidates equally and eight preferred Obama’s policies, according to the poll released on Wednesday.

The economy has supplanted the Iraq war as the main issue in the November presidential election between Arizona Sen. McCain and Illinois Sen. Obama.

The troubled housing market, tightening credit conditions and rising costs of food and energy have driven U.S. consumer confidence to a 28-year low.

The survey, conducted this week, found that 21 of the economists polled thought Mr. McCain would be better for the stock market in the first year after the election, while six chose Obama and two gave no response.

The sample includes a cross-section of U.S. financial institutions, large and small, including several prominent Wall Street names.

For investors, a key concern this election year is taxes on dividends and capital gains, which Mr. Obama has pledged to increase. He also favors allowing income tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush’s administration to expire, while Mr. McCain wants them made permanent.

“Preserving the capital gains and dividend tax rate (at) 15 percent is in my view very important to investors and therefore very important to Wall Street,” said Hugh Johnson, chief investment officer of Johnson Illington Advisors in Albany, New York, explaining why he thought stocks would fare better under a McCain presidency.

Mr. McCain has said the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve’s steps to shore up troubled mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were correct and he hoped Congress would approve them.

Mr. Obama said any action to rescue Fannie and Freddie should be aimed at helping homeowners and not just shareholders, managers and investors.

Mr. Obama has called for a $50 billion economic stimulus package on top of the $152 billion plan passed earlier this year. McCain has proposed low income taxes and incentives for small businesses as ways to boost the economy.

A Reuters/Zogby poll released last week showed that just 10% of Americans gave the Bush administration positive marks for its handling of the economy.

The poll also found that Mr. Obama held a 7-point lead over McCain in the presidential race, and had a small edge on the question of who would best manage the economy.

DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate: Democrat suing his own party says it's 'like they're in cahoots' By Drew Zahn


October 04, 2008

Philip J. Berg

The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party – rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks – would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.

Berg told WND the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away – instead of just providing the documents – the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.

Despite assertions by the Washington Post, and other organizations that Obama has produced a certified Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg told WND he remains "99.99 percent sure" that the certificate is a fake and he wants a court, not a website, to determine its validity.

Earlier last week, lawyers for Obama and the DNC filed a joint motion to dismiss Berg's lawsuit. The fact that the DNC joined in the dismissal request has Berg fuming, believing his party's leaders have ignored his pleas for proof in order to favor their chosen candidate over a rank-and-file constituent.

"I think it's outrageous," Berg said. "The Democratic National Committee should be ensuring the Democratic Party and the public that they have a qualified candidate up there. To file a joint motion is like they're in cahoots.

"Since then, I have asked by way of press release that Howard Dean resign, because (the DNC members) are not fulfilling their duties," Berg said.

"The DNC has a responsibility to all Democrats in this country to make sure that all of their candidates are properly vetted and properly qualified," Berg added. "I think it's really an outrage to the 18-plus million people who voted for Obama and the people who donated more than $425 million to him under false pretenses."

Berg is frustrated, not only with his own party's leadership for allegedly not investigating Obama's background, but also with the major news outlets for failing as well.

"I should also be suing the national media and their disgrace for not properly vetting, inspecting or checking on Barack Obama.

"Look what they're doing to Governor Palin: They're opening up her closet doors, they're going through everything personal, but no one has ever gone after Obama. It doesn't make sense," Berg said.

Obama's website counters Berg's claims with links to articles that affirm the validity of his citizenship and an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, born in Honolulu, Aug. 4, 1961. The webpage is part of the Obama campaign website's "Fight the Smears" section, an effort to prevent reports that Obama claims are false from disseminating as damaging rumors.

Berg acknowledges that as long as his lawsuit remains outstanding, the public will talk, and he told WND he wants Obama to quickly prove him wrong or the court to quickly prove him right.

"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."

Berg told WND, "I've had 19 million hits on my website. …Those people talk to other people, now we're up to 20, 30, 40 million people who are aware of this controversy, and it's going to drastically affect the entire election."

When asked what he would do if the DNC succeeded in getting his case dismissed, Berg said he would "immediately file an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and if we don't get a fair ruling there, immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court."

"We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg explained. "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main reason for doing this.

"The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," Berg said.

Backstage At First Presidential Debate In Mississippi



Obama & Ayers: More Than Just Acquaintances

Crossed Paths


The [1] New York Times looks at the relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers. It concludes that Obama may have downplayed his relationship with Ayers, but believes the relationship between the two was not close.

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”

[2] Stanley Kurtz, a National Review writer who has extensively researched Barack Obama’s working relationship with Ayers in connection with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an educational foundation based in Chicago, vehemently disagrees.

Welcome To Camp Obama


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Voters coast-to-coast are receiving e-mails from the Obama campaign encouraging them to sign up to learn pre-election agitation tactics at "Camp Obama." Red kerchiefs, anyone?

Read More: Election 2008

When readers first alerted us to the camps, we thought it might be another hoax that migrated into inboxes. But it's for real.

The unsolicited pitch goes like this: "Camp Obama attendees will receive real world organizing experience that will have a direct impact on this election. Graduates of Camp Obama will go on to become Deputy Field Organizers who will lead this campaign to victory in crucial battleground states around the country."

The letter continues, "By participating in Camp Obama you'll get the kind of experience that Barack got as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, where he learned that real change happens from the bottom up."

While the letter neglects to identify the source of that "experience," a slide on a camp blog linked to the Obama Web site offers a clue. Underneath a "Welcome to Camp Obama" banner, a trainer at Obama headquarters in Chicago is seen speaking next to a wipe board with the words "Saul Alinsky" scrawled across it.

Alinsky is the late Chicago socialist and street agitator who is considered the father of community organizing.

Another slide of a camp trainer identified as Mike Kruglik is equally telling. Kruglik happens to be the Alinsky disciple who first taught Obama hardball organizing tactics on the South Side. He was Obama's boss in the '80s. Kruglik now works for the Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation, which trains and deploys radicals across the country.

Kruglik once declared Obama "the undisputed master of agitation," according to David Freddoso, author of the best-seller "The Case Against Barack Obama."

Obama learned well from the master agitator. Alinsky taught future radicals that bad things are often done for the right reasons, love without power is sentimental mush, power must be taken, and all change comes about as a result of threat and pressure.

Obama calls his Alinskyite experience "the best education I ever had."

Now he's passing it on to his groupies. He recently told supporters in Nevada, a state that will be hotly contested, to sharpen their elbows in the final lap of the race. Confront Republicans, he said, and "get in their faces."

"Be absolutely ruthless," adds Camp Obama director Jocelyn Woodards, who leads the intensive two-day training course for campers in Chicago.

In the Alinsky model, organizing is code for agitating. For revolution. He had no patience for liberals who merely talked of change.

"Liberals protest," he wrote in "Rules for Radicals," while "radicals rebel." Liberals become "indignant," while "radicals become fighting mad and go into action."

"Liberals give and take oral arguments," Alinsky added. "Radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life."

Alinsky's paragon of radicalism was Satan, to whom he dedicated the first edition of "Rules": "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

Dirty street fighting is at the heart of Obama's organizing. While he stands above the fray, his minions at ACORN are threatening, intimidating, confronting and even committing voter fraud. This is Alinsky's end-justifies-means morality in action. Whatever it takes to win the revolution.

Obama needs more agitators, so he's set up these camps to train them.

ACORN has the minority communities covered, while the camps are churning out mostly coed organizers. The Chicago program has already trained some 2,000 agitators to go back to their college campuses and reproduce more Obama clones.

No campaign has been successful at mobilizing students to vote en masse. But Obama hired the founder of MTV's Rock the Vote to organize students and train them to use Alinsky tactics on campuses in battleground states.

They have been training these students since the primaries. They in turn are registering fellow students in droves to vote, while creating massive phone banks to help get out the vote on Election Day. Meanwhile, ACORN is registering thousands of minorities to vote in key states.

Such potential new voters don't show up in the national polls of "likely voters," which show a relatively tight race, because they've never voted and don't show on past rolls.

If they turn out at the polls on Nov. 4, it could translate into a landslide for Obama.

If he can garner better than 50% of the popular vote, he can claim a mandate for his radical agenda.

What's more, all these first-time minority and student voters wouldn't vote for just Obama. They'd also more than likely vote down-ballot for other Democrats, padding their majorities in Congress.

If Democrats score supermajorities, filibuster-proofing the Senate, Obama could get most of his agenda rammed through in the first 100 days, surely in the first two years, before Americans could get a chance to check Democrat power in the midterm election of 2010.

How much damage could they do? Well, look at how much damage the Clintonistas did. We're now seeing the financial fruits of their social experiment to apply affirmative action to the lending business. Obama plans to conduct a far more radical social experiment.

Few during this long campaign have wanted to talk about Obama's days as a community organizer or his ties to radicals, because they didn't want to raise the S word. Well, guess what? The avoidance has given him license to apply his organizing skills on a mass scale.

It made the difference in the primaries when he beat the Clinton machine, and it may now make the difference in the general election.

Not calling attention to Alinsky and the other socialists behind the Obama movement has even allowed creation of camps to indoctrinate American youth.

If John McCain hopes to win, he'll have to act as ruthlessly as Obama's campers.

He can start by exposing for voters the socialist underpinnings of community organizing.

Truthless Joe


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: It's hard choosing the worst in last Thursday's vice presidential debate: Sen. Joe Biden's continual untruths, his certitude in delivering them, or the free pass he got all night long.

Read More: Election 2008

In "The Prince of Darkness," his memoir of 50 years as a reporter in Washington, Robert Novak points out that while Jimmy Carter successfully ran for president by acting as "the anti-Washington, anti-government, anti-lawyer candidate telling audiences, 'I'll never lie to you' and setting post-Watergate standards of honesty," behind the smile Carter was actually "a habitual liar who modified the truth to suit his purposes."

But neither Carter nor Bill Clinton, whose twists and turns before a grand jury led to his impeachment, ever stared into the camera and spouted such a string of outright fabrications as if they were gospel truths the way Barack Obama's running mate did last week.

Thankfully, the blogosphere has been having a field day cataloguing Joe's whoppers. First, as InstaPundit's Michael Totten instantly noted after the debate, Biden — the great, seasoned foreign policy expert who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — falsely claimed France and the U.S. "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon."

Of course, the debate's moderator, Gwen Ifill of PBS' "Washington Week," didn't call Biden on the gaffe; that might not be good for sales of her upcoming book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" (especially if there turns out not to be an Age of Obama).

There was also Biden's accusation that John McCain is soft on regulation, when in fact he tried to beef up regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — an explanation for why he got so little campaign money from Fannie and Freddie over the years — under $22,000 — as opposed to the more than $126,000 Obama received in his short time in the Senate.

Sen. Biden falsely claimed that Obama didn't pledge to meet with Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; he falsely claimed Gov. Sarah Palin supported a windfall profits tax on oil companies; he said he's always been for clean coal in spite of his record of voting against it in the Senate.

Biden said we have to drill for more of our own oil, easily leading viewers to conclude he and Obama are in favor of more domestic drilling, but as the American Thinker blog's Rick Moran noted in a list of "Biden's Big Lies," "Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to 'raping' the Outer Continental Shelf."

Gov. Palin called Biden on his claim that Gen. David McKiernan in Afghanistan said that the surge could not be applied in Afghanistan; in fact, McKiernan has said that some aspects of Gen. David Petraeus' Iraq strategy could be part of our war efforts in Afghanistan.

And Biden was wrong when he claimed that both McCain and Obama opposed troop funding; McCain simply opposed legislation with a withdrawal deadline.

The Delaware Democrat falsely claimed that McCain's health care plan raises taxes, failing to mention his proposal's offsetting tax credit. And he was untruthful in claiming that under an Obama Administration the middle class will "pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan." Obama, in fact, says he will return income tax rates to the Clinton levels, which were significantly higher than those in effect after tax reform during the Reagan Administration.

National Review's Jim Geraghty noted Biden's claim that "we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country" and concluded Biden was "off by 2,000%."

Geraghty also found that "Katie's Restaurant" in Wilmington, Del., where good old Joe invited anyone to have a beer with him, apparently hasn't been around for decades. Maybe the senator was too busy conferring with imaginary French liberators of Lebanon to visit his constituency.