Obama’s $Half Billion In Small Donations Masking SERIOUS FRAUD.

Barack Obama is representing himself as a man of the people.  Why, he even has hundreds millions of dollars coming from millions of donors to prove it.  In fact, his breaking of his promise to accept public funding has been excused because – since so many of his donations are coming in small amounts from so many donors, his campaign transcends the morality of or need for public financing.

But what do you say when you find out that an unknown “Will Good” from Austin Texas (his employer is listed as “Loving” and his profession as “You”) gave 1,000 times? What do you say when you find out that a “Pro, Doodad” from Nando, New York gave 786 times?  And what do you say when you find out that these documented cases of obvious fraud were NOT discovered by the FEC, but by Newsmax in a random screening of a portion of Obama’s donations?

You say that Obama’s claims are a giant load of pig poop, is what you say.

Obama is refusing to provide the names of the doners for most of the nearly half a billion dollars ($429.6 million) he has raised.  John McCain provides all the names of all his doners.

We are also now learning of the tenth state in which ACORN – just ONE liberal voter registration organization working on behalf of Democrats – has been nailed for perpetrating voter fraud.  And this the same organization that Obama himself once served as a “community organizer.”

Barack Obama claims that he is a Democrat.  But the reality is he is the quintessential ANTI-Democrat.  He’s playing the worst kind of anti-democratic games directed against the very heart of our democratic process.

This is a guy who registered 125,000 voters for ACORN.  But the moment it suited him, he destroyed the candidacy of a woman who would have destroyed him in a fair election had she been allowed to run against him.  He got her – and every other candidate in the race – thrown off the ballot by purging voters.  He doesn’t want more voters; he doesn’t even want more Democrat voters; he only wants people who will vote for him, whether legally or otherwise.

But it gets even worse.  How does money pouring into Obama coffers from Islamic extremists and even terrorists strike you?  As Newsmax reports:

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.

A lot of Democrats will scream, “We’re just doing what Republicans did in Florida when Bush stole the election from Al Gore.”  That is such a giant lie that only a giant fool would still believe it.  In reality, a Democrat-designed ballot in a Democrat county relied upon a terrible ballot design that had actually cost Republican presidential hopeful Bob Dole 3 1/2 times as many votes in 1996.  It is tantamount to arguing that Monica Lewinsky was a secret Republican operative out to get Bill Clinton.

We are seeing the most massive and most systematic effort in America history to steal an election by any means necessary.  It’s time we woke up and realized it.

Obama Throws ‘New Politics’, ‘Change’ Aside To Focus On Attacks

Don’t you love to say, “I told you so”?

Obama used to dish out the Kool-Aid that he was a “new candidate” offering a “new politics” of “hope” and “change.”  And his believers swallowed it by the gallon.  Why, Barack Obama – who has literally replaced Jesus Christ as the central figure of history – can do no wrong, and it is only Republicans who would stoop to doing anything negative.

Everyone else looked back at the cynical way he wiped Alice Palmer – who would have crushed him in a fair election – off the ballot (along with every other Democrat in the election).  And we remembered that the same guy had earlier been fighting to keep every voter ON the ballot even if there was a good chance that the “voter” was fraudulent.

Obama also knows how to play hardball in other ways:

Obama Community Organizer Record Not Very Praiseworthy

It’s rather fascinating.  In the aftermath of Rudy Guliani’s and Sarah Palin’s remarks about Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, you would think that something genuinely outrageous had happened; such as claiming that Michelle Obama faked her second pregnancy to cover up the fact that her oldest daughter may have actually given birth to a child fathered by her Barack Obama.  That’s what was done to Sarah Palin and her family by the Daily Kos.  The Daily Kos scrubbed the articles from its site after it was revealed that Bristol Palin was pregnant with her own baby – and that she could not possibly have beent he mother of Sarah’s son Trig.

But in the ginned up outrage of the left, the Daily Kos is sending out emails likening Obama as a communuity organizer to Jesus of Nazareth as a community organizer – with Sarah Palin serving the role as the new Pontius Pilate (there goes that “Messiah” thing again); and The Atlantic is labeling remarks about community organizers must be “racist.”

It is almost as though the people who fired a howitzer at Sarah Palin are complaining that she shot a spitwad at them.  And Sarah Palin had the merit of actually speaking the truth.

The reality is that Barack Obama was mostly ineffective as a community organizer, and left the field disillusioned:

Bill Clinton: Obama Has “Political Instincts of a Chicago Thug”

I don’t remember ever seeing this much overt bitterness between a party’s nominee for President and the past President of the same party. And this from the Great Messianic Uniter who will inspire all mortals with his inspirational (albeit hollow as an empty piggy bank) message of hope and change.

Bill Clinton gave Obama a nice little endorsement in his speech (and Bill Clinton always knew how to give speeches), but there was little doubt that he would say at the Convention what he’d been saying everywhere else.

Slick Willy may not have a lot of room to talk, but the fact is that the “candidate of hope and change” has some dead bodies in his closet.

Bill Clinton is still clearly outraged over the Obama’s allegation that Clinton “played the race card” by comparing the Obama campaign to Jesse Jackson’s. Clinton said, “They played the race card on me.”

It’s like we’ve been saying to your wife, Bill: welcome to the Republican Party. Obama played the race card on John McCain, too. It stinks having your party’s bag of cheap and dirty tricks opened up on you, doesn’t it?

Clinton also still hasn’t gotten over vote rigging he claimed he personally witnessed by the powerful Obama-endorsing Culinary Workers’ Union in Nevada.

All that said, the quote, “Bill Clinton believes the Democratic nominee, far from practicing a unifying, transformational brand of politics, has the political instincts of ‘a Chicago thug,'” is still quite a doozy, coming out the day of the Democratic Convention.

New York Times Rips Obama on Character

When the New York Times rebukes the most liberal senator in Congress and the Democratic nominee for president, you know he’s got a problem with his base.

It is painfully common knowledge that Barack Obama has shifted dramatically in his policies to position himself as a liberal-moderate. Every politician tends to shift policies during the course of a campaign, but Barack Obama has reversed himself more quickly and more dramatically than any candidate in modern history (even John Kerry, whose “I voted for that bill before I voted against it” remark defined him as a serial flip-flopper). And Obama’s reversals are particularly glaring given his arrogant, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, smarmy self-serving rhetoric that he would be different and above it all when it came to such political tactics.

His abandonment of his public campaign finance pledge by itself proves that Barack Obama is not a candidate for the people, but rather a candidate for Barack Obama.

Many of his reversals have come at the cost of liberals, who want the most liberal Senator in the country to become the most liberal President in American history. They feel betrayed. So perhaps it should come as no suprise that the quintessentially liberal New York Times would take Obama to task for his betrayals.

I cite the entire July 4, 2008 New York Times editorial in its entirety:

July 4, 2008
Editorial
New and Not Improved

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Too late: Obama has already begun his maneuvering to reverse himself on the biggest “big question: of all; Obama has backed off his previously iron-clad pledge to cut-and-run in Iraq within 16 months. Hillary Clinton – who had a more moderate and cautious approach to Iraq that hurt her in the liberal-oriented Democratic primaries, claimed that Obama would do exactly what he is in fact doing now. Obama said time and time again that “I will bring the troops home in 2009,” but he is now hedging behind the disclaimer that he will only do so with the military commanders’ blessing.

Obama promised he would pull out of Iraq within 16 months dozens of times without caveats when he faced a liberal electorate; now he is deceitfully “refining” his position in order to pander to the more conservative overall electorate. John McCain, by contrast, has been absolutely firm and absolutely clear on his Iraq position even when it cost him politically. He publicly and repeatedly urged President Bush to send more troops into Iraq in a surge campaign when the situation in Iraq was difficult and vulnerable, and when even Republicans were beginning to waver in their commitment to Iraq.

The New York Times makes it quite clear that they wanted this guy to win. They thought he was different, but he is revealing that “hope” and “change” was never anything more than a rhetorical ploy.

I would argue that Barack Obama truly is different: he is the most cynical presidential candidate in history. The man who got his start in politics by stabbing Alice Palmer in the back to become a state senator is revealing his true character. This man – who used byzantine legal tactics and insider personal relationships to invalidate the voters’ will and keep a candidate off the ballot who had previously won her district with 87% of the vote, and who literally threw his own grandmother under the bus for the sake of political cover – is showing that he will betray anyone and anything to obtain personal power.

The Latin description for Obama is Hypocriticus Maximus. I have seen that in this man with crystal clarity ever since the day his church’s incredibly radical theology was revealed. Liberals and Democrats have repeatedly complained about “guilt by association,” but tell me when you have ever seen a major candidate for president ever having had such “associations.” And when these associations are exposed, he dismisses one longstanding friendship and relationship after another as he continues his climb to the top.

I use the word “cynical” – which the New York Times itself uses to characterize Obama – because only an incredibly cynical man would attack the modern political apparatus even as he uses that same apparatus to maximum personal advantage; only the most cynical candidate would claim to be so different from any politician who has ever come before when he is anything but.

A Closer Look At Obama, Candidate of ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’

We have seen something unparalleled in modern politics.

No, I’m not talking about the first black nominee of a major American political party.  I’m talking about the effort to whitewash every negative aspect to the past of a nominee of a major political party.

Interestingly, this story came out during the early days of the primary season when Hillarly Clinton was the presumed nominee, and Barack Obama was a nobody.  We haven’t heard a peep about it since the Obama campaign gained ground, which is the precise opposite of what we would expect to see if journalism was politically impartial and objective.

The story begins with Alice Palmer and the the 13th District Illinois State Senate.  Alice Palmer had battled as a community organizer in some of the poorest areas of that district – such as Englewood – for decades while Obama was getting a sun tan in Hawaii and living in Indonesia.  As a state senator, Palmer had faithfully served her district as a good progressive through the early 90s, giving up her safe seat to run for Congress at the request of the party establishment.  She gave Obama his start in politics.

In her previous Democratic primary race for the 13th District, Alice Palmer had defeated her opponent, Charlie Calvin, 83% to 17%, or 29,115 votes to 5,987.  She ran unopposed in the 1992 general election, and received 69,989 votes.

After losing her bid for Congress, Alice Palmer returned to take back her seat in the 13th District.  She had to mount a hasty signature campaign (she only had 18 days) in order to get her name on the ballot.

So what did Barack Obama do, facing the prospect of running against a beloved, long-standing fighter and activist who was actually the sitting incumbant, who had won the previous election with 83% of the vote, and who would have slaughtered the unknown Barack Obama in a primary election?

He put his Harvard Law degree to the most cynical use imaginable, mounting legal challenges to every signature Palmer collected.

Barack Obama, who as a community organizer had registered thousands of underprivileged voters, proceeded to turn around and organize an effort to nullify the signatures of many of these same voters on such technicalities as printing a name rather than writing in cursive.

As a CNN story titled “Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign” details, “As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.”

David Jackson and Ray Long, writing for the Chicago Tribune, begin their article, “Making of a Candidate: Obama knows his way around a ballot.  Some say his ability to play political hardball goes back to his first campaign” this way:

The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

“Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”

In a recent interview, Obama granted that “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents’ signature sheets. “To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up,” Obama recalled.

You Democrats are so mad at the will of the people getting overcome in Florida in 2000?  Well, it’s time for you to demonstrate the totality of your selective outrage yet again, because your glorious candidate of hope and change used crushing tactics to neutralize the clear will of the people.

The Chicago Tribune article addresses Obama’s own reservations about the tactic that he would come to fully embrace:

At the time, though, Obama seemed less at ease with the decision, according to aides. They said the first-time candidate initially expressed reservations about using challenges to eliminate all his fellow Democrats.

“He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?” said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his “guru of petitions.”

In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama’s Democratic rivals at the candidate’s behest.

While Obama didn’t attend the hearings, “he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing,” Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.

Obama defended his use of ballot maneuvers, arguing, “If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people’s business.”

So Obama won by elimimating candidates Marc Ewell and Gha-is Askia in addition to Alice Parker.  Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board’s decision, but Obama’s personal friend and fellow Harvard Law graduate Thomas Johnson intervened on Obama’s behalf and prevailed when Ewell’s case was dismissed days later.

Askia said, he was dismayed Obama would use such tactics.  “It wasn’t honorable,” he said. “I wouldn’t have done it.”  He said the Obama team challenged every single one of his petitions on “technicalities.”  If names were printed instead of signed in cursive writing, they were declared invalid. If signatures were good but the person gathering the signatures wasn’t properly registered, those petitions also were thrown out.  Askia came up 69 signatures short of the required number to be on the ballot.

So don’t you dare say anything nasty about George W. Bush and Florida, you liberal hypocrites.

And please stop whining about “the Right-wing political attack machine,” while you’re at it.

Please try to remember that the phrase, “The politics of personal destruction,” was coined to describe the vicious personal attacks the Clintons used over and over again to personally as well as politically destroy their opponents.

Democrats have more than enough blood on their hands that you would think they would feel more than a little bit self-conscious to point out the tactics of their opposition, but, no.  It’s a little like combining the conscience of a rattlesnake with the brazennous of a street hooker.

“He came from Chicago politics,” Jay Stewart [of Chicago’s Better Government Association] said. “Politics ain’t beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you’re pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that’s what was necessary at the time, that’s what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not.”

“Perhaps not“?

Let’s include the opinion of someone who demonstrates a little more honesty, veteran Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass:

Kass, the Chicago Tribune columnist, said the national media are naive when it comes to Chicago politics, which is a serious business.

He said they have bought into a narrative that Obama is strictly a reformer. The truth, Kass says, is that he is a bare-knuckled politician. And using the rules to win his first office is part of who Obama is.

“It’s not the tactics of ‘let’s all people come together and put your best ideas forward and the best ideas win,’ ” Kass said. “That’s the spin; that’s in the Kool-Aid. You can have some. Any flavor. But the real deal was, get rid of Alice Palmer.
advertisement

“There are those who think that registering people to vote and getting them involved in politics and then using this tactic in terms of denying Alice Palmer the right to compete, that these things are inconsistent. And guess what? They are. They are inconsistent. But that’s the politics he plays.”

My problem isn’t so much with Obama’s past tactics so much as with his message in light of those tactics, and in light of his past associations.

It’s bad enough that Barack Obama lectures us on race relations only after having been caught spending the past 23 years in as toxic of a racial environment as well, fellow Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

But to emerge from brutally and cynically stealing an office from a far more popular incumbent candidate and then calling yourself “the candidate of hope and change” is not only morally vacuous, but calls upon Americans to abandon their intelligence and common sense for smarmy, self-serving rhetoric.