USA Mega

Lottery Places

The time is now 12:47 pm

You last visited
June 5, 2026, 12:00 pm

All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Home › Blogs › konane's Blog

konane's Blog

Page 525 of 588

"An "idiot wind" or a useful idiot?

"An "idiot wind" or a useful idiot

Source Powerlineblog.com

Posted by Paul at 9:18 PM

"The Washington Post editorial board attacks John McCain for making an issue of Barack Obama's association with Rashid Khalidi. The Post is disturbed that the McCain campaign characterizes Khalidi as "a PLO spokesman." But the Los Angeles Times has reported that "when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." And Khalidi's association with the PLO was evident in an interview in 1981 (at a time when Arafat's organization was launching terrorist attacks in Israel and creating havoc in Lebanon). In the interview Khalidi referred to the exiled PLO's growing standing among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, saying "we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians 'on the inside' in different ways. We can render them services ... we've never been stronger there, and the trend is continuing."

The Post acknowledges that Khalidi's views are at odds with the ones that Obama presents in the presidential campaign. But it calls Khalidi's views "complex" and notes that even though he doesn't appear to favor a two-state solution, he thinks that the alternatives are suspect too.

In reality, Khalidi's views are not so much "complex" as hard to discern due to his poor writing. As far as I can tell from the article in the Nation magazine on which the Post relies, Khalidi doesn't like either a two-state solution or a one-state nation solution in which Jews and Arabs co-exist. Since he plainly hates the status quo, Israeli Jews can reasonably wonder what Khalidi has in mind for them. The Mediterranean Sea comes to mind.

The Post's main point is that Obama doesn't agree with Khalidi's views (whatever their precise nature) but, as "a man of considerable intellectual curiosity," he probably just wanted "to hear out a smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians."

The Post is correct that there would be nothing wrong with hearing Khalidi out. But Obama did more. Their relationship was longstanding. And when Khalidi moved from Chicago, not only did Obama toast the "militant advocate," but in doing so praised him for "offer[ing] constant reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases." In other words, Khalidi affected Obama's thinking, causing him to believe that his disagreements with Khalidi were the result of "blind spots" and "biases." This suggests that, in Obama's view, Khalidi was right and he was wrong on at least some matters.

Until Obama explains how this process played out, McCain has every right to raise the issue and to press for the tape that might well shed additional light on the matter (though if the Los Angeles really promised not to make the tape public, I think it is within its rights to keep that promise).

The Post informs us that when it contacted Khalidi about the matter, he said he was waiting for the "idiot wind [to] blow over." The Post adopts Khalidi's phrase as the title for its editorial and notes that the idiot wind "is likely to keep blowing for four more days." One might say the same about the Post's election coverage.

UPDATE: According to Fox News, in 1991 Khalidi wrote an obituary for Salah Khalaf, a founding member of the terrorist Black September organization which, among other things, carried out the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. Khalaf was known as Israel's most-wanted terrorist. Fox News reports that in the obituary Khalidi praised Khalaf and said he would be "sorely missed by the Palestinian people to whom he devoted his life."

But the Post isn't worried. After all, Khalidi went to Yale.

JOHN adds: This strikes me as a major story. Salah Khalaf, better known as Abu Iyad, masterminded the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. By his own account in his memoirs, he personally selected the terrorists who carried out the attack and delivered weapons to them. So the fact that he was a leading terrorist was anything but a secret. Nevertheless, when Khalaf was murdered in 1991, Obama's close friend Rashid Khalidi praised him and said that he would be "sorely missed." He was, no doubt, missed by those who approve of terrorist mass murders. It is fair to say that Khalidi, a representative of the PLO, was among that number.

It was shortly after this that Obama and Khalidi became friends and, as Obama has said, Khalidi "offered constant reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases." Isn't this a bit odd, to say the least? A person of normal sensibility would say that someone who praises the founder of Black September and the perpetrator of the Munich horror suffers from "blind spots and biases." (I, actually, wouldn't put it that politely.) So what was it, exactly, that Obama learned from Khalidi? Why did he, by his own account, find Khalidi to be not only a congenial friend but a mentor of sorts?

In short, what sort of a person would consider a professor who speaks for Yaser Arafat's PLO and mourns the death of a proud terrorist, the perpetrator of one of the 20th century's vilest acts, to be not just a profound thinker but a moral compass? That is to say: what sort of a person is Barack Obama?  "
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021940.php

Entry #946

"Rashid Khalidi Referred to Arafat’s PLO As ‘We’

"Rashid Khalidi Referred to Arafat’s PLO As ‘We’
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
"(CNSNews.com) – Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University professor whose friendship with Sen. Barack Obama is raising questions, says he was never a spokesman for the PLO, but his strong PLO leanings were evident at a time when Yasser Arafat’s group was mounting terror attacks in Israel and causing mayhem in Lebanon.
 
And while Khalidi may not have been speaking on behalf of the PLO, during interviews he occasionally used the word “we” when speaking of the organization.
 
In one 1981 interview, Khalidi referred to the exiled PLO’s growing standing among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, saying “we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians ‘on the inside’ in different ways. We can render them services … we’ve never been stronger there, and the trend is continuing.”
 
Sen. John McCain’s campaign has urged the Los Angeles Times to release a video reportedly showing Obama speaking at an event in Chicago about his friendship with Khalidi.
 
The newspaper last April reported on the 2003 event, which took place when Khalidi was leaving Chicago for a new job, a professorship of Arab studies, at Columbia University.
 
“Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking,” the LA Times said.
 
“His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been ‘consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases … It’s for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation – a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,’ but around ‘this entire world.’”
 
The newspaper said Khalidi had praised Obama, “telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat.”
 
The report also mentioned that the event had been filmed and said that “a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.”
 
After conservative bloggers raised questions about the unaired videotape, the McCain campaign issued a statement Tuesday.
 
“A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb.
 
“The election is one week away, and it’s unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job – make information public.”
 
LA Times editor Russ Stanton in a statement said that paper had not published the video “because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to sources.”
 
Attacks, atrocities
 
Obama’s relationship with Khalidi has become an issue because during his campaign for president, the Illinois senator has portrayed himself as strongly pro-Israel.
 
Khalidi has denied being a spokesman for the PLO during his years in Lebanon, when he taught political studies at the American University of Beirut in the second half of the 1970s and the early 1980s.
 
During that period, the PLO was based in the Lebanese capital, having been expelled from Jordan after an abortive attempt to topple King Hussein. In Beirut Arafat’s group established a “state within a state” taking over entire residential areas, setting up roadblocks, and extorting protection taxes. The PLO became a party to Lebanon’s civil war, backing Muslims against Maronite Christians.
 
PLO atrocities against Christians reached a climax in early 1976, when PLO fighters killed 582 inhabitants of the Christian town of Damour, south of Beirut, before turning it into a stronghold. According to published accounts, the terrorists pillaged and ransacked the town and its churches, desecrated a Maronite cemetery by digging up and robbing corpses, and used the interior of the St. Elias Church for a shooting range and a garage for PLO vehicles.
 
From its Lebanon stronghold, the PLO mounted cross-border terrorist attacks against Israel, culminating in a deadly assault that cost the lives of 35 Israeli civilians. Israel retaliated by sending in the army in 1978, pushing the PLO out of southern Lebanon. PLO shelling of northern Israel continued until Israel’s invasion in 1982 led to the PLO’s final expulsion from Lebanon, and it relocated to Tunisia.
 
Khalidi began teaching in Beirut in 1976, the year of the Damour massacre.

 


Excerpt from New York Times report published on June 11, 1979.
Over the following years, he was quoted a number of times in media reports, giving a Palestinian perspective on events.
 
On June 11, 1979, a New York Times report assessed Palestinian views of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty signed that March, following the Camp David accord the previous year.
 
Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat was the first of Israel’s enemies to sign a peace deal with the Jewish state, officially recognizing Israel, and many Palestinians worried about the implications for the PLO’s armed campaign.
 
The New York Times story, by Youssef Ibrahim quoted Khalidi – whom it called “a professor of political science who is close to [Arafat’s faction] Fatah” – as saying, “We are in a make-it-or-break-it period.”
 
“If we don’t turn the tide, if what Sadat is doing is not decisively repudiated, if the idea that Sadat has brought peace is allowed to stick without regard to Palestinian rights, then we are done in,” Khalidi said.
 
‘We’ve never been stronger’
 
On January 6, 1981 the Christian Science Monitor quoted Khalidi – a professor of political science “with good access to the PLO leadership” – in a report examining the incoming Reagan administration’s Mideast options.
 
If a “hard-line anti-Palestinian view” dominated the Reagan administration, he said, then “[t]he PLO will probably perceive the new administration as basically hostile – possibly more hostile than the Carter administration.”
 
Khalidi in the story appeared at least highly supportive of the PLO, if not actually speaking on its behalf. He also seemed to refer to the PLO as “we” on occasion.
 
“All you’ll see during the coming period of stalemate, which is all you can attain without the PLO, is the PLO getting stronger and stronger internally,” he said.
 
“It is already happening. When was the last time people inside the Palestinian movement solved their differences with guns? A long time ago – apart from executing traitors. We are much more mature these days – the most sophisticated political constituency in the Arab world.”
 
Arguing that the PLO’s standing among Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza had grown, he said, “Quite apart from the politics of it, we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians ‘on the inside’ in different ways. We can render them services, often through our compatriots in the West, that King Hussein, for example, could never match. We’ve never been stronger there, and the trend is continuing.”
 
Another Christian Science Monitor story, on June 2, 1981, referred to “Rashid Khalidi of the Institute of Palestinian Studies” (apparently a reference to the Institute for Palestine Studies, an institution set up in Lebanon in the 1960s. In 1971 it launched its Journal of Palestine Studies, a publication Khalidi has written for on occasion since then. He is its current editor.)
 
Khalidi was quoted again by the New York Times in April 26, 1982 – two months before Israel invaded Lebanon – when a report by Thomas L. Friedman described him as “a Palestinian professor at the American University of Beirut.”
 
At the time the PLO was under pressure from the Lebanese government not to provoke an Israeli reaction to its attacks. Khalidi commented on PLO strategies, again using the word “we.”
 
“If we break the cease-fire now it would not only play into Israel’s hands but would also divert world attention away from the popular uprising on the West Bank, which is equally important to the PLO’s long-term objectives,” Khalidi said.
 
On June 9, 1982, three days after Israel invaded, another Friedman report for the New York Times described Khalidi as “a director of the Palestinian press agency, Wafa,” and quoted him as saying the Israelis were out to “crush the PLO.”
 
Wafa was a PLO-owned and PLO-funded news agency. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, worked for Wafa when they lived in Beirut. She currently works for Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
 
Wafa remains today the news agency of the Palestinian National Authority, the self-rule administration set up by Arafat after the Oslo Accords enabled him to return to the disputed territories. "

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38326
Entry #945

"Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama

"Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama

By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2008

"A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
 
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world." ........
 
............"And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
Entry #944

Press would be all over this one if ...

Were this any relative of McCain-Palin camp or any one remotely associated with them it would be top of the hour headlines for several days.

______________

"AP: Obama aunt from Kenya living illegally in US 

Source Yahoo.com
"WASHINGTON – Barack Obama's aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

Zeituni Onyango (zay-TUHN on-YANG-oh), referred to as "Aunti Zeituni" in the Democratic presidential candidate's memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango's case. ......."

........."A spokesman for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said Saturday that he had no idea how Onyango might have qualified for public housing with a standing deportation order. He said he's not involved in the operations of the agency, even though he appoints the head, because it runs mainly on federal and state dollars.

William McGonagle, deputy director of the Boston Housing Authority, said when contacted: "I know nothing about it and I've got no comment." "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/obama_aunt

Entry #943

"Hillary Camp Assails Obama Anti-Palin Ad


"Hillary Camp Assails Obama Anti-Palin Ad

Friday, October 31, 2008 1:59 PM

By: Dave Eberhart
Source NewsMax.com

"Hillary Clinton supporters and Women for McCain leadership are slamming Barack Obama’s new ad, titled “His Choice,” as sexist and demeaning to women for its depiction of running mate Sarah Palin.

The ad features a McCain quote about relying on his vice president for economic advice — and then shows an unrelated clip of Palin winking mischievously at the camera.

The implication: She’s less than a person to be taken seriously.

****** [ VIDEO ] *******   http://newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_mccain_obama/2008/10/31/146399.html

“It’s a sexist example of reducing a woman to an object — a wink — and denying her a voice. Her lips are actually moving, but she’s not allowed to be heard,” says Stephanie Bressler, a Hillary Clinton supporter and women and politics professor at the University of Scranton.

Bressler is not alone in her umbrage over the ad.

Christine Toretti, co-chair of Pennsylvania Women for McCain, said, “God forbid a leader is not only competent, but beautiful and wears a skirt!”

And Judy Singleton, co-chair of Indiana Women for McCain, said: “To imply that Governor Palin doesn’t understand economics because she’s pretty and winks is ridiculous.”

Such objections are echoing throughout the country, so much so that the McCain-Palin campaign released the following statements Friday from former Clinton supporters and Women for McCain leaders reacting to the ad:

Virginia:

Judy Black, national co-chair of Women for McCain: “Enough is enough! Senator Obama has stooped to a new low in his constant attacks on Governor Palin . . . Barack Obama’s choice has been to attack, demean and ridicule women, first Senator Clinton and now Governor Palin.

“American women do not need any more of Obama’s sexist choices or attacks. John McCain made the choice to put a strong leader with a proven record forward as his running mate. As a woman, I am outraged by the over-the-top treatment of Governor Palin, and I urge all women to reject the double standard put forward by a man who was just a state senator in Illinois three years ago by voting McCain-Palin this Tuesday.”

Patty Denton, Washington County Republican chairwoman: “We, as a country, should be past the days in which women were treated as inferior. Women are the backbone of this country. It’s disappointing for Senator Obama, who has proclaimed change’ as his mantra, to disregard the monumental progress women have made in this country.

“Governor Palin is an exceptional leader and has fought on the side of all Americans, regardless of race or gender. These types of ads show that the Obama campaign is willing to do anything to score a few political cheap shots at the expense of women. On November 4th, women will go to the polls and demand respect for themselves and their daughters from the type of negative attacks perpetrated by Senator Obama.”

Missouri:

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson: “With more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined, Governor Sarah Palin holds her own on the national scene and embodies the values that Americans want in those who will lead our country. This ad is just one more example of the constant attacks from the Obama-Biden campaign. With each attack, they attempt to dismiss the intelligent, qualified, and experienced woman who will soon become our next vice president.”

Sharon Barnes, state chair of Women for McCain: “These attacks . . . show the desperation of the Democratic Party to try to stem the overwhelming support for the maverick Republican team of John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin — a team dedicated to bringing about the right kind of change for the people of this country.

“The voters of this great nation will not be fooled. Governor Palin is a proven leader and serious reformer with experience in economics, defense and foreign policy that the Democratic candidate for president can only wish he had.”

California:

Shelly Mandell, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women: “I am outraged by the new ad put out by Barack Obama. It is sexist and demeaning to women. These tactics started with Hillary Clinton and continue, growing even more disgusting, with Governor Palin. I was a Hillstar for Hillary and an avid supporter. Trashing two women clearly in a sexist manner in one election is an outrage and must be identified and stopped. There must be consequences. Let female Obama supporters take a good look at this and still believe their candidate supports women’s rights and women’s dignity.”

Prameela Bartholomeusz, DNC Platform Committee member: “I am once again stunned at the personal and sexist attacks by the Obama campaign against Governor Palin. This latest ad is sexist and offensive. The governor of Alaska has been managing and balancing a budget of $10 billion; I think she knows a bit about economics.

“Senator Obama never spoke up against sexism during the primary season, and is not speaking out against misogyny during this phase of the election season. He is contributing to it. I have no confidence that Senator Obama will fight for women’s issues if elected. This sets women back decades.”

Pennsylvania:

Christine J. Toretti, Pennsylvania Women for McCain co-chair and state national committeewoman: “Vice presidential running mate Sarah Palin is an experienced public servant. As governor of Alaska and as mayor of Wasilla, she proved to be an effective leader and businesswoman. Senator Obama’s baseless attack on Governor Palin is preposterous. God forbid a leader is not only competent, but beautiful and wears a skirt!”

Bernie Comfort, state chair of Pennsylvania Women for McCain: “Senator Obama’s ad simply mocks Governor Palin. The real truth is Governor Palin has experience dealing with the economy as an executive running the state of Alaska and as a business owner. She is the experienced leader we need to lead this country with John McCain.”

Stephanie Bressler, Hillary Clinton supporter and women and politics professor at the University of Scranton: “It’s a sexist example of reducing a woman to an object — a wink — and denying her a voice. Her lips are actually moving, but she’s not allowed to be heard.”

Ohio:

Barbara Rosier-Tryon, member of the Warren Republican Women’s Club: “This is yet another sexist cheap shot . . . Sarah Palin’s record of reform and experience as governor of Alaska and commander of the state’s National Guard is more distinguished than Barack Obama’s one and only term in the U.S. Senate.”

North Carolina:

Martha Jenkins, North Carolina Women for McCain state chairwoman: “Barack Obama chose Joe Biden to make up for his own lack of foreign policy expertise. He has absolutely no reason to criticize McCain’s pick of Palin. Governor Palin is infinitely more qualified than Barack Obama.

“In running this ad, Obama is acknowledging that Governor Palin is an effective and a positive part of John McCain’s candidacy. Otherwise, why focus on her at all? Barack Obama is using this ad to divert attention from the fact that the American public is realizing that Obama is just as radical as his associates, and that he lacks the experience and judgment to be President of the United States.”

Florida:

Albert Chang, regional director of Citizens for McCain, which includes Democrats and Independents: “We look forward to winning Tampa and the surrounding counties for McCain-Palin. This ad is a distracting personal attack on an experienced executive and the voters of Florida will see through it. This campaign will remain focused on issues impacting the everyday lives of Floridians and Americans.”

Mary Calderon, Tampa, former Hillary Clinton supporter: “I’m disappointed that Senator Obama has resorted to personal attacks at this point in the campaign. Would any male candidate for vice president of the United States be afforded similar treatment by the Obama campaign? I would say not.”

Indiana:

Judy Singleton, Indiana Women for McCain co-chair: “Obama seems to have a problem with strong, smart women. Ask Hillary. Running an ad like this is an affront to talented women everywhere. To imply that Governor Palin doesn’t understand economics because she’s pretty and winks is ridiculous.

“As a governor, she’s proved she understands the economy better than Barack Obama, who hasn’t completed his first term in the Senate, does. All one has to do is look at her record of leadership on economic development and then look at his.”

New York:

Amy Siskind, ambassador for Hillary: “When Senator Hillary Clinton was demeaned and degraded during the presidential primary, many of us of, myself included, vowed ‘never again.’ The treatment of Governor Palin by both the mainstream media, and now the Obama campaign, shows that the misogyny fest is alive and well in our country. There has been a complete and utter smear job of our fellow citizen, Sarah Palin, who is only trying to serve her country.”

The Obama campaign’s ad contrasts sharply with the image that the national Women for McCain organization projects of Palin on its Web site:"

****** [  VIDEO  ] *********

http://newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_mccain_obama/2008/10/31/146399.html

Entry #942

"How Foreign Liberals (and Jihadi's for that matter) Can Contribute Illegally to the Obama Campaign

Top article directly quoted from Powerlineblog.com who's been on the story at least a month.

Bottom article referenced in the Powerline piece, outlines exactly how Obama is openly soliciting fraudulent and illegal donations.

Embedded live links.

___________

"Obama Shrugged: An update

Source Powerlineblog.com

October 30, 2008 Posted by Scott at 5:57 AM

"Washington Post reporter Matthew Mosk returned to the subject of Barack Obama's online campaign fundraising yesterday in "Obama campaign using untraceable donations."  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html  The story was published on page 2. Mosk reported in the second and third paragraphs of the story:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

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. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

Mosk is to be congratulated on getting somewhere in the vicinity of the heart of the story after his earlier. The story is an improvement over his unbelievably obtuse page-one story "Campaign finance gets new scrutiny"  this past Sunday.

Yet Mosk's story yesterday is still lacking. It fails to observe that the McCain campaign's online donation screen contributors through the use of the basic Address Verification System. On the contary, it creates the false impression that the McCain campaign is party to the same modus operandi.

Moreover, despite the implication of the Obama campaign's statement that it provides "extensive review" to donations received online, Mosk fails to note that Obama contributors using a valid credit card but a fictitious name and address cannot be effectively screened once they have been accepted. That's why the McCain campaign is using AVS security and the Obama campaign is not, but Mosk's story blurs the difference between the campaigns.

Mosk's regurgitation of the statement that the Obama campaign "has ensured that [it] has refunded any improper contributions" is ludicrous. We know, for example, that "John Galt," "Osama bin Laden," "Bill Ayers," "Saddam Hussein," "Della Ware," and "Adolfe Hitler," among many others, are still waiting for their refunds. Again, one wonders if Mosk means to be obtuse.

Mosk also relates the Obama campaign's comment "that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations." But failing to screen donors at the front end coincidentally facilitates the violation of basic federal campaign finance law. Federal campaign finance law requires donors contributing over $200 to be identified, limits donations to a total of $2,300 and prohibits foreigners from contributing.

The Obama campaign's intentional disabling of basic AVS credit card security knowingly facilitates criminal fraud and illegal contributions. Is this too difficult a concept to grasp? John Ronning, (article posted in flull below) for example, provides a step-by-step set of instructions for foreigners seeking to contribute to the Obama campaign.

One might think this story is something of a scandal, but Mosk doesn't get it. He sees no causal connection between the Obama campaign's deliberate disabling of AVS credit card security "with a with a huge influx of donations over the Internet[.]" With two-thirds of Obama's $150 million September haul having come over the Internet, you'd think it might dawn on a dogged reporter that the end might have something to do with the means.

Mosk might have asked the Obama campaign why it has chosen to continue in this manner knowing it is accepting contributions that violate federal law. Yesterday, for example, Crazy Eight from Swindler Lane made a $25 dollar donation to the Obama campaign. "It went right through to my credit card after a two-day delay," writes Mr. Eight: "No security code. No address check. No name verification. Nothing. Unbelievable."

Mr. Eight was in good company yesterday. He was joined by "Karl Marx." Our man "John Galt" writes with questions and comments that seem to have eluded Matthew Mosk:

Given the bad PR and the additional cost for all their CC transactions, why is the AVS still turned off? This story first broke in the blogs in a big way last Wednesday, and the MSM starting asking the Obama campaign about it by the end of the week.

So the Obama campaign surely knows the basic facts of the story and its potential liability -- that they don't have even the most basic security measures initiated at their website. Just to cover their butts, don't you think they would have turned those features back on? So they can claim, "Yes, we discovered the issue and have rectified it several days ago...blah, blah, blah..."?

So, I tested the system, yet again, this morning with the same credit card - this time with Karl Marx as the donor - and sure enough, it went through.

But why? Why would they continue to expose themselves to this potential scandal? My bet is (in spite of their claims that it's too difficult to make the info available) they know down to the penny the exact details of all their under $200 donors and the serial-CC-fraudsters and the simply can't afford to give up the money. Also, as reported here, http://outsidethecode.com/faq/non_qualified_rate.aspx   it's actually costing them more per transaction to process all their online donations. Even the ones that aren't fraudulent.

So they know this is a PR issue, and it's more expensive on a per transaction basis, yet the AVS remains disabled. I can only conclude that they know this is such a significant percentage of their overall revenue that in spite of the publicity they have to continue to allow the fraud in order to meet their budget goals. They must know just how many of those small donations are coming from fraudulent sources, and if they turn the security on it could drastically impact those $150 million donation months.

If they did publicly announce that they restored the security features and a big drop in the fundraising figures ensued, it would only confirm all the fraud up to that point. Meaning, if the fundraising reports were to show a big drop in CC transactions after they turned the AVS back on, it would be evidence of the crime.



The sophisticated gentlemen running the Obama campaign know exactly what they are doing. "John Galt" has caught on. Matthew Mosk doesn't quite get it, but at least he's making a show of trying. It's more than can be said of his illustrious colleagues in the MSM.

UPDATE: You can see the importance of the MSM's averted eyes on this story as you observe how Obama spins Charlie Gibson. Mark Steyn comments here.



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021924.php

_________

 Referenced in Powerlineblog.com's article above.

"How Foreign Liberals (and Jihadi's for that matter) Can Contribute Illegally to the Obama Campaign

By John Ronning
Wednesday, 29 October 2008

[UPDATE: A friend alerted  me to this Newsmax article which details extensive illegal donations to Obama by foreigners]

It’s pretty easy — all you need is a credit card (foreign card is OK), a phony name, phony US address, phony telephone number, and just keep each contribution less than $200 so your illegal contribution never needs to be reported.  As a foreigner you can even give more than Americans are allowed to legally contribute, by just using a different phony name each time you contribute, so that your contributions are never tallied, thus never exceed the limit.

And of course American supporters of Obama can also contribute more than the legal limit by following the same procedure.

Not to mention the fact that you can easily steal someone else's credit card number and contribute through it, not needing the correct name etc. (yes it has happened), and just hope the victim doesn't notice it. 

Last Friday I read on various web sites (e.g. NRO) that the Obama campaign was facilitating illegal credit card contributions by disabling standard security verification procedures. Normally, a credit card payment is rejected if the name you give does not match the name on the card. Duh. Not so the Obama campaign. I said to myself, "If Americans can do this, I wonder if foreigners could too?" I’m a US citizen, but I have lived in South Africa for the last ten years and have a foreign credit card, from a South African bank. So I googled the Obama campaign web site and used my foreign credit card to contribute $5 (the minimum accepted) to his campaign. Sure enough, my account was charged $5 (54 Rand) on Monday. I assume that if I could do it, all those French who want Obama to be president could do it too.

Money translates into votes, because propaganda is effective, including obvious lies which are endlessly repeated.

Here, then, are the step by step instructions for fraudulently contributing to the Obama campaign, and participating in the mother of all campaign swindles:

Go to the Obama web site, find the page where contributions are accepted (I won’t link to it, but it’s not hard to find).

Listen to Obama’s spiel which automatically plays, telling you that since he’s not taking money from PAC’s or Lobbyists (nothing about foreigners), he’s depending upon you to contribute.

Fill in the name, address, etc., according to your imagination. Nothing needs to be correct except the credit card number. I used the name "Good Guess", a phony address etc., and got the message that my donation was accepted; three days later the money was charged to my account. During those three days a couple of mainstream newspapers did some whitewashing work for Obama, failing to make clear the deliberateness of Obama’s disabling of standard security checks to prevent credit card fraud, failing to point out the obvious, that you cannot get away with such fraud on the McCain/Palin web site, etc.

Next I had the opportunity to have Obama e-mail my friends, inviting them to follow my example. I had them send an e-mail from "Good Guess" to one of my e-mail addresses, and a short time later the e-mail arrived.

I know from experience that the Obama web site could be set up to automatically detect if it is being accessed from a foreign country (South Africa, in my case). I know from experience that it could be set up to reject foreign credit cards, even if the names and addresses were correct (for example, I cannot use my American credit card for certain transactions in South Africa).

And by the way, you can also contribute to Obama anonymously through those pre-paid credit cards you buy at the drug store. 

As another Republican candidate said 12 years ago, "Where is the outrage?"

P.S. I am asking for my money back. "

 Documentation:

Here is a screen shot of Obama’s "thanks" for my contribution.

Here is a screen shot of the e-mail I got from the Obama campaign, soliciting me to join in this fraudulent enterprise.

Here is a screen shot of my online bank statement (personal names blacked out). "

http://postbiblical.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=32

Entry #940

"Murtha pleas for $1 million after racism comments

"Murtha pleas for $1 million after racism comments 
By Roxana Tiron 
Posted: 10/30/08 01:53 PM [ET]

Source TheHill.com 

"Veteran Democratic Rep. John Murtha (Pa.) has sent out a last-minute plea for $1 million to save his hotly contested seat, endangered by his own remarks describing his district as racist.

In an e-mail sent to potential donors, Murtha’s campaign asked his supporters to maximize all campaign contributions.

“We need to raise another $1 million to compete,” his campaign fundraiser Susan O’Neill wrote in the e-mail obtained by The Hill. “We need money immediately.”

O’Neill blamed Republicans from outside Pennsylvania for Murtha’s problems. Polls show Murtha, running for his 18th term, ahead of his GOP opponent by just a few percentage points.

“Congressman Murtha is in a brutal reelection campaign,” O’Neill wrote. “The Swift Boaters have put up a candidate from Virginia and have raised millions of dollars against Congressman Murtha. In addition, other 527s and the [National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)] have spent millions to smear Congressman Murtha on TV, radio and in newspapers.”

Murtha’s race appeared to tighten after he called his western Pennsylvania district a “racist area.” After apologizing, he added more fuel to the fire by saying the district was, until recently, “really redneck.”

Murtha’s comments have been widely repeated, and the congressman was even parodied on “Saturday Night Live.”

In a fundraising e-mail sent on Thursday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) asked her own supporters to help Murtha. “In Pennsylvania, my good friend John Murtha — a strong supporter for me during the primaries and an important voice against the war in Iraq — is depending on your help to win,” Clinton wrote.

GOP challenger William Russell, a 46-year-old Iraq war veteran and retired Army colonel, has outraised Murtha so far. As of Oct. 15, Russell had raised $2.9 million compared to Murtha’s $2.2 million.

Political action committees can donate up to $5,000 to candidates, while individuals may donate up to $2,300.

Murtha, a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), is a welcome target for Republicans, who otherwise are headed toward what appears to be a gloomy election night.

Russell moved from Virginia to run for Congress because of Murtha's criticisms of the Iraq war. Murtha’s comments about western Pennsylvania being racist have emboldened Republicans to give last-minute help to Russell.

Murtha, a decorated war veteran, first won his seat in a 1974 special election by a little more than 100 votes.

The NRCC this week bought a television ad that highlighted Murtha’s remarks. Separately, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) accused Murtha in a radio spot of “insulting his own constituents” and “apparently forgetting who he works for.”

Murtha is the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee. He has been very successful in the federal earmarking process, ranking as the highest recipient of earmarks in the defense appropriations bill.

His earmarks have revitalized Johnstown, the largest city in his district, and defense companies have opened offices and facilities throughout the region he represents. "

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/murtha-pleas-for-1-million-after-racism-comments-2008-10-30.html

Entry #939

"Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate

Oblivious to the obvious.

__________________

__________


"Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate
How Parliament passed the Climate Bill
By Andrew Orlowski

Source The Register

29th October 2008 12:35 GMT

"Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of Parliaments was discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time, in a marathon six hour session.

In order to combat a projected two degree centigrade rise in global temperature, the Climate Change Bill pledges the UK to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The bill was receiving a third reading, which means both the last chance for both democratic scrutiny and consent.

The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring and reporting, which was expanded at the last minute. Amendments by the Government threw emissions from shipping and aviation into the monitoring program, and also included a revision of the Companies Act (c. 46) "requiring the directors’ report of a company to contain such information as may be specified in the regulations about emissions of greenhouse gases from activities for which the company is responsible" by 2012.

Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity of saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to be true. 60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change, and more people than not think Global Warming won't be as bad "as people say".

Both figures are higher than a year ago - and the poll was taken before the non-summer of 2008, and the (latest) credit crisis.

Yet anyone looking for elected representatives to articulate these concerns will have been disappointed. Instead, representatives had a higher purpose - demonstrating their virtue. And for the first 90 minutes of the marathon debate, the new nobility outdid each other with calls for tougher pledges, or stricter monitoring. Gestures are easy, so no wonder MPs like making them so much.

It was all deeply sanctimonious, but no one pointed out that Europe's appetite for setting targets that hurt the economy has evaporated in recent weeks - so it's a gesture few countries will feel compelled to imitate.

The US Senate has Senator James Inhofe, but in the Commons, there wasn't an out-and-out sceptic to be found. It was 90 minutes before anyone broke the liturgy of virtue. When Peter Lilley, in amazement, asked why there hadn't been a cost/benefit analysis made of such a major change in policy, he was told to shut up by the Deputy Speaker. "...........

...."However, Tim Yeo, the perma-suntanned Tory backbencher who wants us to carry carbon rationing cards, said it would "improve Britain's competitiveness". He didn't say how.  "
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/

Entry #938

"The Great Obama Swindle of 2008


"The Great Obama Swindle of 2008


By Raymond Kraft
Source Family Security Matters

"PART ONE
OBAMA: THE ILLEGAL ALIEN

"I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States.

Why I am so sure?

I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama's birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama's origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama's birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander-in-Chief.

In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can't wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they'll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.

Obama is tap dancing.

If I were Obama's lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity. I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.

But that's not what Obama's lawyers are doing, they're filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on "technicalities," at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.

But what Obama and his lawyers and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) are not doing is being open and honest with America. They're tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago. So we are forced to this conclusion as a matter of logical necessity:

1.    If Barack Obama could produce a good birth certificate that would verify his status as a "natural born citizen," he would. Failing to do so can only hurt him. Failing to do so can cost him the election.

2.    He hasn't, and is doing all possible not to.

3.    Therefore, we can only conclude that he can't, and that his birth certificate, if it exists at all, is either altered, forged, or shows him born outside the U.S. We have to conclude that producing his birth certificate, if he can, will prove he is not eligible to be president, not a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. We can only conclude that Obama and his lawyers know that producing his birth records will hurt him even more than not producing them.

Now, I could be wrong. Barack Obama can prove me wrong by producing a good birth certificate. But he hasn't. Will he? Can he?

PART TWO
NO "STANDING" TO SUE?

In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama's lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.

This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life – and from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn't make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I'll try again.

Let's do the analysis.

1.    The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.

2.    Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.

3.    If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. It’s just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.

4.    We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment "to petition the government for redress of grievances." If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.

I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.

PART THREE
THE DUTY OF CONGRESS

Article II, Section 1, requires that upon taking office the President of the United States shall take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States."

Article VI, Clause 3, requires that Senators and Representatives requires:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."

Members of Congress take this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Having taken this oath, Sen. Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.

Having taken these oaths, the President, the Vice President (an executive officer of the United States), every member of the Senate and House, every member of every State legislature, and every executive and judicial officers of the United States and of each State, has a mandatory duty per Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution to "support and defend" the Constitution, and that would necessarily include taking whatever action is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President.

And every Federal Judge, and every Justice of the Supreme Court, having taken this oath, also have a mandatory duty to "protect and defend" the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President. Indeed, I believe that the Supreme Court has a sua sponte duty to resolve this dispute by ordering, on its own initiative, the immediate production of all of Obama's birth records in order to confirm his place of birth, and prevent the election of an UnConstitutional President. So far, all Justices of the Supreme Court have failed this mandatory duty.

So far, the President, the Vice President, every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, ever Federal Judge and Justice, every member of every State legislature, and every governor, have failed in this duty. They have all failed to fulfill their oaths of office. Every one. They must all demand that Sen. Barack Obama either (a) produce a good birth certificate proving his status as a "natural born citizen," or (b) withdraw his candidacy before November 4th.

All those who do not should be impeached for having failed their oath of office.

PART FOUR
THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HISTORY

If Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot prove that he is a "natural born citizen," then Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats in the Senate and House who support him, and others such as former president Bill Clinton who openly support him, have perpetrated the greatest swindle in history by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting Obama as Constitutionally eligible to be president, concealing the truth about his place of birth, thereby inducing millions of Democrats by the fraud of concealment, by the lie of non-disclosure, by "trick and device," to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Barack Obama presidential campaign to elect an UnConstitutional President.

My opinion.

Note, this is a fraud perpetrated by Sen. Barack Obama, the DNC, and hundreds of Democrats in Congress, on their own constituency, the Democrat voters of America. It is a fraud of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and perpetrated on the Democrats. And it has defrauded Democrats out of more than $600 million.

According to their oaths of office, every Democrat member of Congress has an affirmative duty to assure that their presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified. As soon as questions about Obama's birth arose, every Democrat in Congress had a mandatory duty to confirm his eligibility by demanding release of his birth records. But, they have not. Not to my knowledge. Instead, every Democrat in Congress is complicit in the cover up – the cover up – of Obama's birth certificate, by failing to demand full disclosure to confirm his place of birth.

In my opinion, unless Obama can produce a good birth certificate proving that he is a "natural born citizen," then every Democrat member of Congress, every person managing Obama's campaign, every officer and director of the Democrat National Commitee, and every person who has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution and is now supporting an UnConstitutional candidate for president, has participated in a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud millions of Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect an UnConstitutional President.

In my opinion, every one of these people, hundreds of them, should be prosecuted for fraud under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for if Obama is not a "natural born citizen," that is what the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has become. And every one of them should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for decades, for this is a $600 billion swindle of America's Democrats, a swindle perpetrated by the DNC and Barack Obama.

Now, I could be wrong. I could be wrong about every opinion I have expressed here.

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama can prove me wrong, quickly, simply, easily, by opening the doors of the hospitals and the Hawaiian Department of Health and showing us, showing America, showing the Democrats, all of his birth records.

Unless and until he does, I will remain convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen."

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney and writer in Northern California. He can be contacted at rskraft@vfr.net. "
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1614/pub_detail.asp

Entry #937

ACORN Obama lawsuit testimony

"Siamese Twins
Source Powerlineblog.com
October 29, 2008 Posted by John at 3:22 PM

"The Obama campaign says it has "no ties" to ACORN, a ludicrous assertion given that the campaign has disclosed to the FEC a payment of $800,000 to ACORN's subsidiary, Citizens Services Inc. The depth of the relationship between the Obama campaign and ACORN was revealed today when a former ACORN staffer testified in a lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania Republican Party:

A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a "donor list" from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts.

Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical.

So the Obama campaign gave ACORN a list of donors who had given the maximum allowable contributions to Obama and urged ACORN to contact those donors to get them to help Obama some more by contributing to ACORN.

There's nothing wrong with that, except that 1) ACORN is the country's number one source of voter registration fraud, and 2) the relationship between the Obama campaign and ACORN, which Obama insists is non-existent, is in fact symbiotic at a minimum.

Of course, no story of this sort would be complete without thuggish behavior by the Left:

Moncrief said she had received repeated warnings to "back off" from testifying today by people she knows at ACORN.

Hey, don't worry. In a few months these people will be running the Justice Department.

UPDATE: A little while ago, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis released this statement:

Today's testimony by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate proves Barack Obama is guilty of lying to the American people about his relationship with ACORN. At the last presidential debate, in front of sixty million people, Barack Obama said his campaign was not involved' with ACORN. We now know that Barack Obama's campaign was working hand-in-glove with an organization reportedly under investigation by the F.B.I. and in more than a dozen states. In addition to funneling $832,000 to ACORN for get-out-the-vote efforts, the Obama campaign and ACORN have been sharing donor lists, encouraging maxed-out Obama donors to contribute to this unethical organization."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021917.php

Entry #934
Page 525 of 588
Guest