Barack Hussein Obama gives us proof that he’s a piece of fecal matter floating in a cesspool of raw sewage. The proof: his campaign has put a system in place to avoid the normal credit card verification process. They accept donations based solely on card number without requiring verification of numbers to names and postal addresses. In the end, the contributions cannot be traced to the donors.

Try using YOUR credit / debit card that way. I can’t even use my card to buy a $9.99 USB flash drive over the Internet without giving my name, home address (EXACTLY as it appears on the card), and the three-digit “Card Verification Code” (CVC) from the back of the card. Yet Obama accepts donations based solely on card numbers.

Osama’s donors have given nearly $220 million (over 2 million donors) by using a Web page to donate any amount up to $200 and donors are not asked for even a name. In fact, Osama bin Laden is most likely using his laptop in the caves of Waziristan to pass around card numbers for his followers to go online and help their American kindred spirit, Obama, gain control of the White House.

Sound far fetched? So was using airliners as missiles to knock down tall buildings. But unverified numbers is not the only criminal activity the Obama campaign runs.

Investor’s Business Daily, “The Card Shark”:

Barack Obama has turned a blind eye to the use and abuse of prepaid credit cards. It’s just one way he hides who his contributors are and just how much they’re giving.

When Steve and Rachel Larman of North Kansas City, Mo., opened their credit-card bill recently, a strange charge appeared on their statement — a $2,300 donation to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

This was odd, they thought, since they had not only not made the donation, they were planning to vote for John McCain.

It was one more piece of evidence that the unprecedented flow of cash to and through the Obama campaign is not entirely legit. In any campaign, bogus or unwanted contributions can slip through the cracks. But team Obama has deliberately created a chasm of credibility.

In addition to noncontributors being charged for contributions, at least $218 million has been received by the Obama campaign from donors of under $200 whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.

Fact is, team Obama has deliberately encouraged credit-card fraud by deliberately turning off the online safeguards normally used by sites receiving contributions or payments. There is no checking of names, addresses or card numbers done on the front end.

According to the Washington Post, “Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.”

Campaigns can accept donations of under $200 without disclosing contributors’ names. McCain, who accepted public financing while Obama did not, has made his full donor database available on the Internet. Of the $150 million Obama claims to have raised in September, some $42 million was raised from secret contributors and listed under a single line, “Donors, Unitemized.”

Obama’s deliberate lack of finance vetting allows the use of largely untraceable prepaid credit cards. These can be purchased at a local drugstore and used under any name, allowing anonymous donors to exceed limits on contributions and even foreign donors to funnel money to Obama’s campaign.

A Newsmax report noted a separate FEC database, of more than 11,500 foreign contributors to the Obama campaign, totaling $33.8 million. It was the largest influx of foreign money into a campaign since the Clinton-Gore campaign took millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.

Typical is Viktor A. of Lagos, Nigeria, who gave $500 to Obama in May. State abbreviations accepted by the Obama campaign include IT (Italy), FR (France), GR (Greece), NZ (New Zealand), JP (Japan) and GA (Gaza). According to Newsmax, 2,372 donors gave their state of residence as “ZZ” with addresses from Beirut to Kiev to Shanghai.

Considering the Obama campaign’s $800,000 donation to ACORN to “get out the vote,” this may be the first political campaign in which vote fraud is financed by credit-card fraud. Not only can Mickey Mouse register to vote, he can contribute to the Obama campaign.

SOURCE

.

What Voters Should Know BEFORE They Vote

• FINANCIAL CRISIS
• IRAQ
• DEFENSE
• BACKGROUND & CHARACTER
• JUDGES & COURTS
• ENERGY

That’s all available here…

~~~~~
Charles Krauthammer’s column appears in the same IBD issue. He has some compelling thoughts to take to the polls on Tuesday, with my cautionary note added.

Adding Up Obama + Pelosi + Reid + Frank

Last week I made the open-and-shut case for John McCain: In a dangerous world entering an era of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, the choice between the most prepared foreign policy candidate in memory vs. a novice with zero experience and the wobbliest one-world instincts is not a close call.

But it’s all about economics and kitchen-table issues, we are told. OK. Start with economics.

Neither candidate has particularly deep economic knowledge or finely honed economic instincts. Neither has any clear idea exactly what to do in the current financial meltdown.

Hell, neither does anyone else, including the best economic minds in the world, from Henry Paulson to the head of the European Central Bank. Yet they have muddled through with some success.

Both McCain and Barack Obama have assembled fine economic teams that may differ on the details of their plans but have reasonable approaches to managing the crisis. So forget the hype. Neither candidate has an advantage on this issue. [Bold added, see following comment]

More….

BEWARE: The man in the Oval Office will be making final decisions, regardless of which “fine economic team” is in place. Therefore, I take strong exception to Krauthammer’s remark (in bold). McCain has been dealing with national AND international financial policy for 35 years; Obama has zero experience. This is no time for on-the-job training.

.

**To The Undecided Voter**
By Neal Boortz – Tuesday, October 21, 2008

This is long; very long. Hey, I’m a pretty entertaining writer … so give it a go. If you’re an undecided voter in this presidential election the least you owe your country is to try to base your final choice on some substantive facts. No, I don’t have all the facts here … but I have enough of them to perhaps convince you that voting one particular way on November 4th might not be the most brilliant move you’ve ever made.

This election is my 10th. My 10th presidential election since I became a radio talk show host. My 10th election since I began spending more time than the average American thinking about, researching, reading about and talking about the choices voters faces. Look; I mean no arrogance here. It’s just that the average American doesn’t spend from 15 (then) to 22.5 (now) hours a week over the period of a presidential race talking about the candidates, the issues, the non-issues and the consequences of voter choice.

Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government. Somehow I don’t think 2008 is going to be the first time.

I’ve noted that some other “pundits” out there are starting to post, in columns and in their blogs, the reasons they are going to vote the way they are going to vote. I’ll make no attempt here to refute their (oh-so refutable) arguments here. Instead, I’m just going to put my thoughts and reasoning in writing just to cleanse my mind. If you can make some use of them; whether it is for laughter, talking points or intellectual consideration, have at it. Me? I’m just pulling the handle.

**The Race Factor**
Are many black voters going to vote for Barack Obama primarily because of race? Of course, many will. Surveys and polling have shown that the figure may reach 20%. I think it’s well more than that. Is race a sound reason to cast a vote? Probably not. Is it understandable? Absolutely. I cannot fault a black American for voting for Obama. It may turn out to be a negative vote insofar as their dreams and goals are concerned. It may not work out all that well for their children, especially if they’re ambitions and talented. But I don’t think many of us can absolutely say that we wouldn’t be casting the same vote were we in their shoes.

If you are a white American there is no way in the world you can look at this election through the same eyes as a third or fourth generation black American citizen. Several months ago a caller to my show suggested that Barack Obama’s ascendency in the presidential sweepstakes was Black America’s biggest accomplishment. I disagreed. Though I can’t remember the exact words, I said that, in a general sense, the shining moment for Black America may have been the show of patience and restraint shown by black men when they returned from putting their lives on the line in World War II and in Korea to a country with segregated schools, colored waiting rooms, whites only water fountains, beatings, lynchings, water hoses, police dogs and systematic discrimination pretty much every where they looked. The restraint showed by black Americans during the civil rights struggles of the 50′s and 60′s, though not universal, was something to behold.

Now .. try, though you won’t succeed, to put yourself into the mind of a black American. How can you experience or understand the legacy of segregation, violence and second-class citizenry your ancestors went through and not take pride in a black American on the verge of winning the presidency? How many black American voters do you think are uttering to themselves: “If my grandfather had only lived to see this.” It takes a great deal of maturity and a clear understanding of the possible future consequences for someone to put their racial pride aside and swim against the tide on this one. So, there will be no name-calling, at least not here, for people who cast their vote on the basis of race in this election. As I said, It’s understandable.

**And Then There’s the Race Card**
This really isn’t really a reason to vote for or against Barack Obama, but you do need to know what the next four years are going to be like with an Obama presidency.

During the campaign there have been some rather amazing charges of racism. Let’s see if we can remember a few:

• Using the word “skinny” to refer to Obama is racist.
• “Community organizer” is a racist term.
• Any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae is racist … that would be because Raines is black.
• All references to Jeremiah Wright are racist; that being due to Wright being black.
• Referring to Obama as “eloquent” is racist because it infers that other blacks are not eloquent.
• For goodness’ sake, don’t say that Obama is “clean.”
• This just in from The Kansas City Star: Calling Obama a “socialist” is also racist because “socialist” is just another code word for black.

And so it goes. We’ve also had several pundits, columnists and opinion-makers flat-out state that if you are white and you don’t vote for Barack Obama it can only be because he’s black. There is simply no other legitimate reason to deny this wonderful man your vote. Vote for McCain, you’re a racist. Simple as that.

Now let’s consider the next four years under President Obama. He is certainly going to introduce ideas and pursue policies that are pure poison to many Americans; especially achievement-oriented self-sufficient citizens. Whenever anyone dares to utter a word in opposition to any Obama position or initiative you can be sure that there is going to be someone waiting close by to start screaming “racist!” By the end of Obama’s first year in the White House virtually every white American will have been called a racist for one reason or another. So, what else is new?

(more…)

Decoding Barack
Neal Boortz – Monday, October 27, 2008

The election is now eight days way. If you’ve made up your mind for Obama; or if you’re trying to noodle through some of the things he’s been saying on the campaign trail, this should help. And if you’re voting for Obama, clearly you need help. I’ve taken four statements that The Chosen One repeats at almost every campaign rally. Now these statements are pretty powerful … if unchallenged … and we know that the MoveOn Media isn’t exactly what we would call “eager” to challenge God’s Candidate on any of these issues.

So, here we go again .. this simple talk show host (right wing, hate-filled shock jock, I believe they call us) is going to use some basic logic and the ability to actually read newspapers to catch you up to speed on just what the Big BO is saying here. Now if you’re educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging.

Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff. It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live.

Here we go, front and center with Barack Obama!

“I’m going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.”

This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn’t been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama’s supporters won’t know the truth.

And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don’t pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don’t pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of “tax cut.”

It used to be that when the government walked up to someone who had just received their paycheck and said ‘Gimme some of that,” and the government then gave that money to someone else who had not earned it; that was called welfare. Now apparently you can’t get welfare if you’re working … so we’ll just call it income seizure and redistribution. Under Obama a couple earning, for example, $70,000 and owing no federal income taxes at all will get several checks from Obama’s federal taxpayer-funded treasury. These checks will be called “tax cuts.”

So .. for those who don’t pay taxes, here are some of the “tax cut” checks you’ll be getting from The Chosen One. I’m taking some literary license here and replacing the words “tax credit” with the word “payment.” That literary flourish brings us much closer to the truth. Here are your goodies; come and get ‘em:

• A $500 “make work pay” payment.
• A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
• A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest.
• A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
• A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
• A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a “clean car.” By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
• Plus … an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn’t feel you are earning enough.

There you go … Obama’s “tax cuts.” Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it. Well, I guess it is, if you’re not too successful it IS pretty good. Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get. Barack Obama’s tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure. He understands that if it weren’t for failures, Democrats would be scrounging in the alleys for votes. It’s rather ironic that the Obama campaign will go to the mat with critics over the definition of “socialist,” but feel absolutely free to change the definition of “tax cut” to anything that suits them.

“95% of small businesses won’t pay any more taxes.”

Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the “small business” argument. Barack Obama knows he’s in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.

Here’s the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison. Let’s say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200. Now let’s assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 250,000 workers. If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won’t be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel? You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 250,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone. Quite a deal, huh. Aren’t you impressed?

The point here is that it’s not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it’s the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn’t going to take the time to explain it to you.

“John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time.”

First of all, George Bush doesn’t cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do. The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties. You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way. That would leave some key votes for you to consider. The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time. Now .. just sit on your hands and wait for the MoveOn Media to report that one. Sit on your hands, but for God’s sake don’t hold your breath.

“John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits.”

He’s right, but here’s the rest of the story. Let’s say that you and your brother work for different companies. Your company provides you with health insurance. Your brother has to buy his own. Your boss gets a tax deduction for the cost of your health insurance. Your brother does not get a tax deduction for the cost of his health insurance. In effect, he is paying much more than you are for the same policy. Not fair. There’s a reason for this. For decades government has wanted to coerce you into getting insurance through your employer. This gets you acclimated to the idea of someone else — someone besides yourself — is responsible for your health care. The end result is that the government, in effect, subsidizes the cost of your health insurance, but not your brother’s. Now McCain has this idea of a $5,000 tax credit for every family to pay for their own health insurance policy. To make this work everyone has to start from the same starting line. Remember, you’re subsidized, your brother is not. So McCain takes away the tax deduction your employer gets for your health insurance. There … now we’re all of equal standing when the $5,000 tax credits start coming out.

Now that wasn’t too hard, was it?

Now .. just in case you’ve read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain … just remember. You’re a racist. There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that’s if you’re a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman. Just so you know. You’re going to have that on your conscience.

.

SURE way to lose Election 2008…
Let the MSM convince you it’s a lost cause.

UPDATED, see end of list. (Also revised for clarity.)

So you’re thinking about taking a pass on Election 2008, eh? Well, I can think of dozens of reasons to stay at home myself but when I separate emotion from reasoning, none of them make sense.

As a moderate conservative I have almost as many reasons to vote against McCain as I had to vote against Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Johnson and Stevenson. Also, many years ago, when the MSM first started promoting McCain for president, I made a solemn promise that I would never vote for him because he was/is too liberal. Now I find that promise silly when I compare his political views to Barack Obama’s.

The differences in this election are more distinct and consequential than any in my lifetime and my first vote for a president was in 1956. No matter how far McCain, the Republican, is from my core beliefs, he’s a lot closer to my views than Barack, the socialist-Marxist.

Here’s why I will vote[d] for McCain.

• McCain will not appoint socialist judges to the Supreme Court or other federal courts who rely on personal opinion instead of the law and Constitution. Obama will.
• McCain will not appoint socialist political activists to key positions in the Department of Justice to work against the interest of the American people. Obama will.
• McCain has promised to veto bills from Congress filled with pork. His record in the Senate of not taking pork proves that he is likely to keep that promise. Obama is one of the biggest porkers in the Senate.
• McCain does not support infanticide. I.e., he would not sign bills like those Obama supported in Illinois that deny medical care to live births from botched abortions. Obama voted AGAINST providing medical care for babies born live from botched abortions.
• McCain will not support Obama’s plan to give the United Nations $845 billion American tax-payer dollars to spend on world poverty. Obama’s plan to do that has already passed the House. See the “Global Poverty Act”
• McCain will not take money from the Pentagon to fund liberal social programs. Obama has a plan to do just that: see this video.
• McCain will work to preserve the Bush tax cuts and he will continue to cut taxes across the board. Obama is a socialist. He wants to “spread the wealth” like they do in Cuba, Russia and China. Just ask Joe the Plumber.
• There’s at least hope that McCain will not staff the Department of State with Eurocrats like we’ve seen with Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Just thinking about an Obama State Department sends chills down my spine.
• McCain may not be a financial whiz but neither is Barack Obama. In fact, no president in history has been. But McCain has 35-years of experience dealing will economic policy at the national level. Obama has zero experience, and there’s little doubt that much of the instability in the stock market is a fear of Obama’s socialism.
• On national security (DOD, DHS, NSA, et al) McCain has solid credentials and we know where he stands. Obama has zero experience and plans to use the European model of appeasement and unilateral disarmament. JFK was swept into office on a youth movement and his naivety damned near caused a nuclear holocaust. Look up “the Cuban Missile crisis!”
• McCain will work to finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama plans to surrender. In fact, Obama voted to cut off funds for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan!
• McCain is well grounded, both in his character and in his mission, and isn’t psychologically persuaded that he is anything other than an American citizen trying to serve and keep his country first. Obama has a messianic complex and sees himself as a liberal change agent for the world.
• I have nothing but contempt for McCain’s positions on border security and illegal immigration. I feel exactly the same toward Barack Obama’s positions for open borders and amnesty but there’s more than one issue in this election.
• McCain, Bush, and other Republicans made several attempts to establish tighter regulatory control over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the sub-prime mortgage industry. Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and their party blocked every attempt.
• McCain will not support the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST) which would give the UN total sovereignty over the oceans and the power to regulate the shipping, fishing, and off-shore oil industries through the sale of commercial licenses! Obama does and will. He has declared he will make LOST a priority.

And, if none of those reasons had convinced me to vote for McCain, this would have closed the deal.

But there’s more: Flopping Aces writes about Obama’s proclivity to make the U.S. subservient to the United Nations. That’s the scariest part of all.

.

A recent comment to a post I made back in August seized my attention so I looked up the comment’s author. FYI, the post was about Barack Obama’s past association with communist. Specifically, it was about “Frank” who Obama identifies in Dreams From My Father as an influential person in his early life.

OBama’s “Frank” (which happens to also be my name, so don’t get us confused below) has since been identified as Franklin Marshall Davis, a well known communist, poet, journalist and union activist in Chicago and Atlanta before and during WWII. Soon after the war, while under investigation by a congressional committee and the FBI for un-Americanism, he moved to Hawaii (before it was a state) where he continued his communist activities. He died there in 1987. Obama was then 25 years old.

The commenter I mentioned above is R.S. Sukle [Web site]. It turns out she’s the author of Miner Injustice, the Ragman’s War. Following is a “front page” publication of the comments the article attracted. I received a bunch of email on it but I’m only re-publishing the stuff that’s already public. Her comment is last in the post’s archives but I’m placing it first here. Its then followed by the other comments in order.

[Comment #6] R.S. Sukle Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Franklin Marshall Davis was once a member of the CPUSA and friends with Paul Robeson as was my father who also served as a secretary to the IWO (International Workers Order) and who along with others like Robeson and Davis debated issues for the Civil Rights Congress in the 1940′s. My father left the party in the late 1940′s and the state of New Jersey in fear of his life to hide out in the hills of Western Pennsylvania. He did say a lot of people of color joined the Communist Party in the early 1930′s because there was no other group doing anything to help their cause.

Viewing the tight organization of the Obama campaign reminded me of tales my father told me about his time as a communist organizer for the CIO. The Communist Party trained them well in media manipulation, grass roots organizing, and delivering clever and inspiring speeches. The Obama r[h]etoric at the Berlin Wall and about spreading the wealth strongly resembled the content in some of my father’s old speeches.

When the iron curtain appeared to melt in the early 1990’s my father didn’t believe it.

“It’s a ruse,” he said. “They’re sneaky devils and will go underground until they can slowly conquer us from within. McCarthy and Truman knew, and so did I.” [Bold added]

.

Here’re the other comments:

[Comment #1] Mark Kaleokualoha Davis Says:
As the son of Frank Marshall Davis, I am fighting the right-wing disinformation campaign that exaggerates my father’s radical influence over Barack Obama in Hawaii. Please read my blog at: Mark Davis’s Blog

.

[Comment #2] Frank Says:
We appreciate your service Mark, but that’s not the issue.

Your father, Frank Marshall Davis, is [was] a Marxist. That’s a fact, and he had enough of an influence on Barack Hussein Obama that BHO wrote about him in his book, Dreams From My Father. Now we come to the pure simple fact that Barack Hussein Obama is a Marxist as well. What are we to think? That BHO became a Marxist but your Marxist father’s influence had nothing to do with it? That’s a bit of a stretch.

BTW: I see you are flying Obama’s logo on your site. If I put a hammer and sickle on my site it would be reasonable for visitors to peg me as a communist. I would expect that. What I find troubling is people like Obama and your father who are [were] Marxist[s] but try to deny it.

The unverified cv on your site is impressive but I have to question what you have posted because it does not square one whit with the honor you bestow on your father and your association now with Obama.

.

[Comment #3] Mark Kaleokualoha Davis Says:
If by “Marxist” you mean that he advocates replacing capitalism with communism, then you are dead wrong.

The focus of my site is not the actual qualifications of Barack Obama to become POTUS. It is the disinformation campaign that exaggerates my father’s radical influence on him. I have challenged Cliff Kincaid (and everyone else) to refute the “specific misrepresentations” I have identified on my blog at:
Redbaiting Barack Obama

.

[Comment #4] Frank Says:
Let’s forget your red herrings about the purpose of your site and Cliff Kincaid. The subject is the ideology of Frank Marshall Davis and whether he had an influence on the formation of Barack Obama’s ideology.

I have never “joined” a capitalist organization per se yet everybody that knows me is aware that I’m a capitalist.

I have never joined a right-of-center political organization but everybody that has engaged me in political conversation and / or read my political writings know I am more conservative than liberal.

Your father was a communist. I don’t give a rat’s ass whether he ever joined the Communist Party or ever wrote one word about “overthrowing” the U.S. government or not, he spent his adult life writing and working to undermine capitalism and federalism and those are bedrock principles of American democracy. Ergo, he was for everything I despise which is the same system I see in Russia, Cuba, China and now Venezuela. It’s called Marxism or communism, pick one.

That brings us to the point that Obama is a communist as well. He has exposed his ideology and in his book he spells out how he got to where is today, ideologically.

He’s been on the campaign trail for over a year and I have heard his speeches and read his writings. He’s communist to the core. What the hell do you think he means by “economic justice?” He favors a group of elitist running the country and distributing the wealth based on need; so did Stalin; so did your father.

As to whether your father influenced Obama or not: Obama brought it up. I think I’ll take his word over your hysterical, agenda-driven denials.

.

[Comment #5] PGR Says:
Mark – are you Barack Obama’s half brother?

.

Freedom Folks booted from Democrat event in Chicago!

The event was sponsored by our old buddies, the ICIRR, and featured a long list of politicians, including Mayor Daley, Senator Dick Durbin, Congressmen Danny Davis and Luis Gutierrez, and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. The press release touted “1,700 immigrant election volunteers,” and I don’t doubt they got the numbers — it’s easier than it sounds when you bus them in…

More, including photos and video…

Of course the event was at Teamster City, so we’re not surprised.

~~~~~~
At an unrelated site, here’s a glimpse of the real Obama.

.

UPDATED:

This will get your juices flowing.

Howard Stern sent his producer to Harlem to interview people about their choice for president.

The opinions of the interviewees may sound unfathomable but you’ll get it after you hear a fourth-grade dropout describe a Naval Academy graduate as uneducated.

Howard Stern: Sal in Harlem

If that doesn’t get you to the polls, nothing will.

Well…. maybe this will.

UPDATE: NEW audio….

Obama on redistribution of wealth

.

Eagle Forum, by Phyllis Schlafly:

Will William Ayers be Secretary of Education in a Barack Obama Administration? All parents should ponder that possibility before making their choice for President on November 4.

After all, Ayers is a friend of Obama, and Professor Ayers’s expertise is training teachers and developing public school curriculum. That’s been his mission since he gave up planting bombs in government buildings (including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon) and assaulting police officers.

Ayers brashly admitted that he was “guilty as hell” in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and feels that he and his Weather Underground associates “didn’t do enough.” After successfully avoiding trial and prison because of legal technicalities, he picked up his Ph.D. at Columbia Teachers College for a second career, landing a tenured job as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

Ayers’s political views are as radical now as they were in the 1970s. “Viva President Chavez!” he exclaimed in a speech in Venezuela in 2006, in which he also declared, “education is the motor-force of revolution.”

From his prestigious and safe university position, Ayers has been teaching teachers and students in rebellion against American capitalism and what he calls “imperialism” and “oppression.” The code words for the Ayers curriculum are “social justice,” a “transformative” vision, “critical pedagogy,” “liberation,” “capitalist injustices,” “critical race theory,” “queer theory,” and of course multiculturalism and feminism.

That language is typical in the readings that Ayers assigns in his university courses. He admits he is a “communist street fighter” who has been influenced by Karl Marx, as well as Che, Ho and Malcolm X.

Ayers speaks openly of his desire to use America’s public school classrooms to train a generation of revolutionaries who will overturn the U.S. social and economic regime. He teaches that America is oppressive and unjust, socialism is the solution, and wealth and resources should be redistributed.

In Ayers’s course called “On Urban Education,” he calls for a “distribution of material and human resources.” His left-wing notions would be very compatible with those of Barack Obama, who publicly told Joe the Plumber that we should “spread the wealth.”

Ayers’s books are among the most widely used in America’s education schools. Ayers even uses science and math courses as part of his “transformative” political strategy to teach that the American economic system is unjust.

Ayers is an endorser of a book called “Queering Elementary Education” by William J. Letts IV and James T. Sears, a collection of essays to teach adults and children to “think queerly.” The blurb on the cover quotes Ayers as saying this is “a book for all teachers . . . and, yes, it has an agenda.”

Unfortunately, Ayers’s far-out education theories are already having an effect in education schools. One after another, teachers colleges are using their courses to promote socialist notions of wealth distribution, “social justice,” diversity and environmentalism, and to punish students who resist this indoctrination by giving them low grades or even denying them graduation.

The Department of Education lists 15 high schools whose mission statements declare that their curricula center on “social justice.”

Propaganda about Obama is already finding favor with textbook publishers. The McDougal Littell 8th-grade advanced-English literature book (copyright 2008, Houghton Mifflin Co.) has 15 pages featuring Barack Obama and his “life of service.”

Most of Ayers’s socialist propaganda is financed with taxpayers’ money at state universities and teachers colleges. Some of the schools that have adopted Ayers-style pedagogy have received grants from ACORN or from Bill Gates’s charitable foundation.

You might assume that Ayers’s political ideas would put him on the outer fringe of the left-wing education establishment. However, his peers recently elected him to serve as vice president for curriculum in the American Education Research Association, the largest organization of education school professors and researchers.

Is an appointment to the U.S. Department of Education his next career advancement? Is Ayers’s transformative public school curriculum the kind of “change” Obama will bring us? — SOURCE

Investor’s Business Daily:

Call it the iron law of modern liberalism — deficits matter only when they’re useful in defeating tax cuts. When time comes to unleash government spending, they can be ignored.

Indeed, two liberals who were most vocal about deficits as President Bush advanced his tax cuts are now wearily dismissing them.

In 2003, when the deficit was $377 billion, Rep. Barney Frank said Bush’s dividend tax cut would have “negative long-term effects on the deficit,” and that deficits “are over the long term a negative for the economy.”

But just the other day, as the deficit has reached $455 billion and could go to $800 billion next year, Frank said: “I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat.”

Consider the deficit was about $377 billion in 2003, while it is now $455 billion and could go as high as $800 billion next year. If anything, deficit fear should be in the driver’s seat.

An even more notable switcheroo is New York Times columnist, Democratic mouthpiece and freshly minted Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. In column after column from 2001-2003 he denounced the Bush tax cuts for leading to “skyrocketing budget deficits.”

About-face! A week and a half ago Krugman wrote: “What we need right now is more government spending. . . . Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.”

More…