How the Dems Plan to SHUT UP THE RIGHT

How the Dems Plan to SHUT UP THE RIGHT

 

We have already seen how candidate Obama has worked to quiet all dissenters. Remember how hard he worked to silence Governor Palin from the Iran rally this week. But that wasn’t the first time, when a group called the American Issues Project launched an ad talking about the Illinois Senator’s unexplained links to terrorist Bill Ayers. Senator Obama sent a letter to the DOJ asking for an investigation then pressured stations not to run the ad threatening them with letters to their advertisers etc. When the woman who survived an abortion made a commercial against the Senator’s Abortion position, He attacked her PERSONALLY as a liar. In Missouri where he tried to rally supporters in the State police to silence the NRA.

A (God Forbid) President Obama, will work with a Democratic congress to place even greater restrictions on the free speech of those who disagree with the liberal agenda. This is how they indeed to shut up the right:


DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON

October 20, 2008 –
SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.


Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats – including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore – strongly support the idea of mandating “fairness.”
Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It’s doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.
Then there’s all the lawyers you’d have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged – like entertainment or sports coverage?
For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of “fairness” might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer “equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary,” with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of “fairness” is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn’t sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters’ public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater “local accountability” on them – requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It’s a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.
It’s worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children’s programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn’t been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real – and profoundly disturbing.

Brian C. Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of “A Manifesto for Media Freedom,” just out from Encounter Books.

The Last Two Years

The Last Two Years

By Randall Hoven

The Obama/Biden ticket’s entire campaign theme is based on “the last eight years.”  Maybe we should really look at “the last two years,” or the time period when both the House and the Senate were run by Democrats.

In December 2006, after six years of Bush and the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature, a snapshot of our economy looked like this.

 

 

If you recall, that 2006 election was considered a referendum on Iraq.  The people wanted change, so they threw out the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats.  Welcome Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

 

Here is how they handled Iraq once in office:  Harry Reid told us that the Iraq war was “lost” and the surge was not “accomplishing anything.”   Senator Obama introduced legislation that would have prevented the surge and would have taken all US troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (that would be seven months ago, as you read this) .

 

Were they right?

 

Barack Obama now admits that “the surge succeeded.”   So much for that change.  And as the surge succeeded, Congress’s approval ratings plummeted.  The latest CBS/New York Times poll has it at 12%, well less than half of the already low level it stood at when the Republican Congress was being tossed out in 2006.

 

The Democratic Congress did a great job, if what you’re looking for in a Congress is continual investigation of Republicans.  Did the White House out CIA agent Valerie Plame?  No, it was the anti-White House Richard Armitage at State, but Congress investigated anyway.  Did Alberto Gonzalez, with White House urging, fire nine prosecutors for political reasons?  Probably not, and it wouldn’t be a crime anyway, but Congress investigated, and is still investigating.  Did the CIA, under orders from the White House, “torture” prisoners?  No evidence of that yet, but Congress is on the case.

 

What Congress would not investigate was anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  In fact, they fought against such investigations and cast aspersions against anyone who would even doubt the soundness of those institutions.  Here is what Barney Frank said:

 

These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.  The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

 

You can also see on YouTube how Democrats treated the regulators trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

 

But now we know what happened.  Fannie and Freddie were run corruptly and ineptly and went bankrupt.  Their $1.5 trillion portfolios had to be rescued by the government this year.  Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed CEO of Fannie Mae who was vigorously defended by Congressional Democrats, was sued by government regulators for cooking the books to the tune of $10 billion to increase his own bonuses to the tune of tens of millions.  He settled his suit for an estimated $25 million.

 

On the other hand, here is what the New York Times had to say in 2003 .

 

The Bush administration is rightly pushing for the Treasury Department to regulate the two giants, along with the network of federal home loan banks. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae provide financing to lenders by creating a secondary market for mortgages. All told, these two institutions’ debt portfolio exceeds more than $1.5 trillion. Their current regulator is ill equipped to keep tabs on Freddie’s and Fannie’s sophisticated hedging strategies and the other financial moves they use to manage their huge investments.

 

And here is what John McCain said on the Senate floor:

 

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…  I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation.  If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

 

So on the big things, the surge in Iraq and the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to our recent financial mess, the Democrats were wrong.  Dead wrong.  One hundred eighty degrees out wrong.

 

On the other hand, who supported the surge?  George W. Bush and John McCain.

 

Who tried to strengthen the oversight and regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  George W. Bush and John McCain.

 

In the case of the surge, Bush and McCain got their way.  The result?  Apparent victory in Iraq, a country that is now a democracy, at peace with its neighbors, no longer a WMD threat, no longer a terrorist sanctuary, and no longer filling hundreds of mass graves with hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.

 

In the case of Fannie and Freddie, Bush and McCain did not get their way – Barney Frank did.  The result?  The failure of Fannie and Freddie, law suits against their executives and the spark that sent banks failing and stocks falling across the globe to the point of threatening a Great Depression.

 

Let’s vote for change.  Let’s undo what we did in 2006.

 

Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or  via his web site, kulak.worldbreak.com/.

Chuck Schumer has a lot of explaining to do

Chuck Schumer has a lot of explaining to do

Thomas Lifson
Susan Schmidt of the Wall Street Journal has discovered a disconcerting coincidence: Senator Chuck Schumer took a highly unusual step of publicly criticizing a bank, sparking a run on it, just as big Democrat hedge fund donors were examining assets of the bank in hopes of buying them on the cheap should the bank fail.

Schumer of course denies any impropriety. But the odor from this is very, very bad. If a Republican had done something like this, the headlines and network news features would be screaming for his head.

 

Read the excellent article here. A few samples:

 

Sen. Schumer’s office said recently he didn’t know anything about Oaktree’s possible interest in IndyMac until after the bank failed. Oaktree Chairman Howard Marks said he never talked to the senator about IndyMac. [....]

 

The group of investors led by Oaktree are big political contributors, predominantly to Democrats. They have donated more than $700,000 to Senate Democrats and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the four years that Sen. Schumer has chaired the campaign committee.

 

Oaktree’s Mr. Marks gave the Democrats’ Senate Campaign Committee $20,000 in late March. Executives of his firm and three other equity firms that considered investing in IndyMac along with Oaktree — Thomas H. Lee Partners, Ares Capital Management LLC and Fortress Investment Group LLC — have been generous donors to the DSCC under Sen. Schumer’s chairmanship, as have many Wall Street financial-services firms.

 

Mr. Marks said he is a longtime Democratic donor and has gotten fund-raising calls from Sen. Schumer. But, he said, “I know him socially. I’ve never talked business with him.” [....]

 

We were interested in taking a look,” said Mr. Marks. His firm has raised $11 billion this year to invest in distressed assets. “We’re bargain hunters. And we have a long history in distress,” he said.

 

The investors knew after a few days of due diligence in mid-June that they weren’t interested in buying the bank, said Mr. Marks. He read from a June 22 email from Oak Tree managing director Skarden Baker, who was assessing IndyMac’s business. “I am taking the view of doing enough here to jump in if it goes to receivership,” wrote Mr. Baker.

 

Four days after the email was sent, Sen. Schumer released publicly letters he sent to bank regulators and to the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. “I am concerned that IndyMac’s financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers,” the senator wrote, warning that “the bank could face a failure if prescriptive measures are not taken quickly.”

 

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Elections board testimony: ACORN pestered me into registering multiple times

 

Elections board testimony: ACORN pestered me into registering multiple times

Posted by rrutti October 13, 2008 11:54AM

Freddie Johnson talks to reporters outside the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in Cleveland Monday.

Two Cleveland men who each signed multiple registration cards as part of a national voter registration drive told the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections today they did so to help ACORN canvassers keep their jobs.

One of the men said he was sometimes offered a cigarette or a dollar bill by workers with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

“They would come up with a sob story when they needed a signature,” said Freddie Johnson.

The other man, who came to the board wearing a Domino’s pizza delivery shirt, said he would tell ACORN workers who approached him while he was reading on Public Square that he already was registered. But the workers would persist.

“They’d just keep saying I could help them hold onto a job,” said Christopher Barkley.

Cuyahoga board of elections members learned recently that many ACORN canvassers had quotas and often had to scramble to meet them. Board employees had flagged a number of registration cards handed in by ACORN that showed the same names, but with different addresses or birth dates.

After testifying, both men were led to a private office and were interviewed by Cuyahoga County sheriff’s deputies. The board decided during its meeting that it would turn over the ACORN investigation to the sheriff and county prosecutor’s office.

A sheriff’s deputy said neither Johnson nor Barkley have been charged with a crime, but could be used as witnesses later.

ACORN has been under fire in several states for possible fraudulent voter registration activities.

The board subpoenaed two other people for today’s meeting. One could not be found. The other did not show up.bankert says…

donnaandstan: are you thinking the more you post, the smarter you sound? Didn’t work! Take it easy on the keys, will you?

Dems Plan on Obama Win – Pelosi May Call Congress Back (Oh Really???)

Dems Plan on Obama Win – Pelosi May Call Congress Back (Oh Really???)

Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008 1:13:30 PM by DocT111

WASHINGTON (AP) – After consulting with Barack Obama, Democratic leaders are likely to call Congress back to work after the election in hopes of passing legislation that would include extended jobless benefits, money for food stamps and possibly a tax rebate, officials said Saturday.

The bill’s total cost could reach $150 billion, these officials said.

The officials stressed that no final decisions have been made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt a formal announcement. House Democrats have announced plans for an economic forum on Monday “to help Congress develop an economic recovery plan that focuses on creating jobs and strengthening our economy.”

Democrats said Obama’s campaign has been involved in discussions on a possible stimulus package. The party’s presidential candidate, running ahead in the polls, has outlined his own proposals for stimulating the economy.

Democrats are increasingly confident of capturing the White House and increasing their majorities in the House and Senate on Nov. 4.

If they are successful, a lame-duck session of Congress two weeks later would allow them to start work on a response to the credit crunch that has sent stock prices plummeting and also threatens to trigger a deep recession. It often takes two or three months for a new Congress to begin turning out legislation, particularly when a new president is settling into the White House.

On the other hand, by attempting to pass legislation next month, Democrats would have to negotiate with President Bush, whose term runs until Jan. 20, 2009. Additionally, Senate Republicans, with 49 seats, could block any measure they opposed.

Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism

Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ’08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called “economic justice.” He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.


IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

 

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served,” he said at the group’s 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, “we’ll ensure that economic justice is served,” he asserted. “That’s what this election is about.” Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn’t have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It’s the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we’re launching this special educational series.

“Economic justice” simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It’s a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama’s positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he’d like to “recast” the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the “winner-take-all” market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about “restoring fairness to the economy,” code for soaking the “rich” — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It’s clear from a close reading of his two books that he’s a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He’s disguising the wealth transfers as “investments” — “to make America more competitive,” he says, or “that give us a fighting chance,” whatever that means.

Among his proposed “investments”:

• “Universal,” “guaranteed” health care.

• “Free” college tuition.

• “Universal national service” (a la Havana).

• “Universal 401(k)s” (in which the government would match contributions made by “low- and moderate-income families”).

• “Free” job training (even for criminals).

• “Wage insurance” (to supplement dislocated union workers’ old income levels).

• “Free” child care and “universal” preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for “working poor.”

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a “living wage,” with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and “fair trade” and “fair labor practices,” with breaks for “patriot employers” who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for “nonpatriot” companies that don’t.

That’s just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn’t stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he’s the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be “more left,” as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama’s voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

A careful reading of Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as “Frank” — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his “subversive,” “un-American activities.”

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis’ feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

“They’ll train you so good,” he said, “you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**.”

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences “for inspiration,” Obama followed in Davis’ footsteps, becoming a “community organizer” in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman’s a disciple of the late Saul “The Red” Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the “Rules for Radicals” and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama’s early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to “bring about real change” — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky’s “agitation” tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama’s Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words “Power Analysis” and “Relationships Built on Self Interest” — terms right out of Alinsky’s rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father’s communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses “owned by Asians and Europeans.”

His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn’t stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to “redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all.”

“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed,” Obama Sr. wrote. “I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development.”

Taxes and “investment” . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father’s communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya’s recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called “black liberation theology” and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Obama joined Wright’s militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of “black values” that demonizes white “middle classness” and other mainstream pursuits.

(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values “sensible.” There’s no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for “change” more effectively. “As an elected official,” he said, “I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer.”

He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for “economic justice.”

He’s been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as “liberal,” let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate “outsider” (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a “breath of fresh air” to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded “r” word.

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that’s made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

 

Election Fraud Scandal Spreads from ACORN to Obama’s Own Campaign

Election Fraud Scandal Spreads from ACORN to Obama’s Own Campaign

Hillary Clinton’s campaign accused Obama’s campaign of fraud and voter intimidation in Nevada and Texas.
by Bill Levinson

Barack Obama can try all he wants to distance himself from ACORN, even though it is a matter of proven record that he worked closely with the organization. A Google search on “Lyn Utrecht” (Hillary Clinton’s campaign counsel) and “Obama” reveals equally serious and very credible allegations of voter intimidation and election fraud against Barack Obama’s own campaign.

The allegations include, among other things, interference with the basic civil right to vote without fear of intimidation or loss of one’s job–a Federal crime if proven in a court of law. The allegations are in fact similar to those against ACORN itself, along with ACORN’s proven election fraud as shown by guilty pleas by numerous ACORN personnel. What we have is a well-established pattern of behavior that shows Barack Obama to be, not a reformer or idealist, but a common would-be dictator like Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, or Robert Mugabe, all of whom share Obama’s, Boss Tweed’s, and Joseph Stalin’s position that “Those who cast the votes, they decide nothing. Those who count the votes, they decide everything.”

Here is an optical character recognition transcription of the Clinton campaign’s letter to the Nevada State Democratic Party. Here is the original, in .pdf format.

    RYAN, PHILLIPS, UTRECHT 5. MACKINNON
    ATTORNEYS AT LAW
    ’ Nonlawyer Partner
    1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036
     (202) 293-1177  Facsimile (202) 293-3411January 23, 2008
    Jill Derby, Chair Nevada State Democratic Party 1210 South Valley View Road Suite 114 Las Vegas, NV 89102

    Dear Chair Derby:
    I write on behalf of Hillary Clinton for President (”the Committee”) in regard to the January 19, 2008 Nevada Democ-ratic Caucus. The Committee is aware of a letter addressed to you today from the Obama for America campaign requesting an inquiry into the conduct of the caucuses. The Committee shares the Obama campaign’s concern that full participation in the democratic process may have been compromised by the substantial number of irregularities occurring at the caucuses, and we fully support a complete inquiry by the Nevada State Democratic Party (the ”Party”) into all caucus improprieties.

    This letter is not intended as a response to the Obama campaign’s letter. However, in the interest of a complete record, and in contrast to the alleged minor procedural problems noted by the Obama campaign, the Committee wishes to bring to your attention information we have received evidencing a premeditated and predesigned plan by the Obama campaign to engage in systematic corruption of the Party’s caucus procedures. Compounding this blatant distortion of the caucus rules was an egregious effort by the Obama campaign to manipulate the voter registration process in its own favor, thereby disenfranchising countless voters. Finally, the Committee has received a vast number of reliable reports of voter suppression and intimidation by the Obama campaign or its allies.

    The Committee had 30 phone lines on Saturday to receive calls in its Las Vegas offices. These lines rang continuously from early morning until well after the caucuses concluded with reports from people who were victimized and who observed irregularities. The phone lines were so over-whelmed that many callers resorted to calling individual Committee staff cell phones to report that they could not get through. The Committee also received many similar calls at its national headquarters.

    The Committee is confident that any investigation into the conduct of the caucuses will be thorough, fair and in the interest of insuring that future Party caucuses will be as open and democratic as possible.

    Systematic Corruption of the Party’s Caucus Procedures
    The Committee received substantially similar reports of improprieties of such a number as to leave no conclusion but that the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters engaged in a planned effort to subvert the Party’s caucus procedures to its advantage. For example:

    þ Preference cards were premarked for Obama.

    þ Clinton supporters were denied preference cards on the basis that none were left, while Obama supporters at the same caucus sites were given preference cards.

    þ Caucus chairs obviously supporting Obama:
    o Deliberately miscounted votes to favor Senator Obama.
    o Deliberately counted unregistered persons as Obama votes.
    o Deliberately counted young children as Obama votes.

    o Refused to accept preference cards from Clinton supporters who were at the caucus site by noon on the ground that the cards were not filled out fast enough.
    o Told Clinton supporters to leave prior to electing delegates.

    þ Clinton supporters who arrived late were turned away from the caucus, while late Obama supporters were admitted to the caucus.

    Manipulation of the Voter Registration Process
    Numerous reports received by the Committee demonstrate a concerted effort on the part of the Obama campaign and its supporters to prevent eligible voters supporting a candidate other than Senator Obama from caucusing. The Obama supporters complained of were acting in positions of authority at the caucus sites. Some of these reports are as follows:

    þ Obama supporters wrongly informed Clinton supporters that they were not allowed to participate in the caucus if their names were not on the voter rolls. However, Obama supporters whose names did not appear on the voter rolls were permitted to register at the caucus site.

    þ Obama supporters falsely informed Clinton supporters that no registration forms were available for them to register to vote at the caucus site.

    þ Obama supporters wrongly told Clinton supporters who were attempting to caucus at the wrong precinct that they could not caucus at that site, while simultaneously permitting Obama supporters at the wrong precinct to participate.

    þ Obama supporters were allowed to move to the front of the registration and sign-in line.

    Voter Suppression and Intimidation
    The Committee received a substantial number of disturbing reports from voters that they had been subject to harassment, intimidation or efforts to prevent them from voting. Some of the most egregious of these complaints are described below:

    þ Voters at at-large caucus sites were informed that those sites were for Obama supporters only.

    þ Clinton supporters at at-large caucus sites were told that their managers would be watching them while they caucused.

    þ Workers were informed that their supervisors kept lists of Clinton and Obama supporters, and were told that they could not caucus unless their name was on the list of Obama supporters.

    þ Many Clinton supporters were threatened with employment termination or other discipline if they caucused for Senator Clinton.

    þ Workers were required to sign a pledge card to support Obama if they wanted time off to participate in the caucus.
    þ Workers at one casino were offered a lavish lunch and permitted to attend and register to vote only if they agree to support Obama.

    The complaints summarized above represent only a small sample of the complaints received by the Committee. With respect to each of these complaints and many more, the Committee has the names and phone numbers of those reporting these incidents and the specific precinct numbers where the incidents occurred. Upon request the Committee will share these with the Party with appropriate safeguards to protect these individuals from reprisal. On the whole, these reports show a troubling effort by the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters to advance their own campaign at the expense of the right of all Nevada Democrats to participate in the democratic process in a free, fair and open manner.

    Senator Clinton and the Committee are wholly committed to ensuring that every eligible voter has his or her vote cast and counted. There is no place in the American electoral process for the types of voter suppression, intimidation and harassment systematically engaged in by the Obama campaign, its allies and supporters.
    Sincerely,
    /v
    Lyn Utrecht Counsel Hillary Clinton for President

What we have here is a pattern of behavior that is far better suited to a common Third World dictator like Moammar Khadafy (with whom Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright and Wright’s friend Louis Farrakhan in fact met), Robert Mugabe, or Kim Jong Il than a candidate for an office in a civilized and democratic nation.

Subject: 7 & 1/2 years of George Bush

Subject: 7 & 1/2 years of George Bush
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.

TO ALL MY FRIENDS….LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE……..FYI  only.
 
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years.  The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
           1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
           2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
           3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%. 
           4) the DOW JONES hit a record high–14,000 + 
           5) American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!…
 
  But American’s wanted ‘CHANGE’!  So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes–we got ‘CHANGE’ all right. In the PAST YEAR: 
            1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
            2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
            3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
            4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION
                 DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
            5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
            6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another  low~~
                $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR  

                STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT  
                PORTFOLIOS!

              

  YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE…AND WE SURE GOT IT!  ….
 
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
 
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
 
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
 
JUST HOW MUCH MORE ‘CHANGE’ DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

The Barack Obama – ACORN – Voter Fraud Connections

HOW ACORN GOT ME INTO VOTE SCAM

NUTS!

HOW ACORN GOT ME INTO VOTE SCAM

  •  JEANE MacINTOSH, Post Correspondent
Christopher Barkley
Christopher Barkley
PreviousPauseNext

 

Last updated: 8:01 am
October 9, 2008
Posted: 4:31 am
October 9, 2008

CLEVELAND – Two Ohio voters, including Domino’s pizza worker Christopher Barkley , claimed yesterday that they were hounded by the community-activist group ACORN to register to vote several times, even though they made it clear they’d already signed up.

MORE: E-Thief In Chains

MORE: Right: It’s Loan-acy

WILL: RX For A Blowout

Barkley estimated he’d registered to vote “10 to 15″ times after canvassers for ACORN, whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, relentlessly pursued him and others.

Claims such as his have sparked election officials to probe ACORN.

“I kept getting approached by folks who asked me to register,” Barkley said. “They’d ask me if I was registered. I’d say yes, and they’d ask me to do it [register] again.

 

“Some of them were getting paid to collect names. That was their sob story, and I bought it,” he said.

Barkley is one of at least three people who have been subpoenaed by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections as part of a wider inquiry into possible voter fraud by ACORN. The group seeks to register low-income voters, who skew overwhelmingly Democratic.

“You can tell them you’re registered as many times as you want – they do not care,” said Lateala Goins, 21, who was subpoenaed.

“They will follow you to the buses, they will follow you home, it does not matter,” she told The Post.

She added that she never put down an address on any of the registration forms, just her name.

A third subpoenaed voter, Freddie Johnson, 19, filled out registration cards 72 times over 18 months, officials said.

“It feeds the public perception that there could be [fraud], and that makes the pillars fall down,” said local Board of Elections President Jeff Hastings.

Registering under a fake name is illegal. But officials usually catch multiple registrations and toss them.

The major risk of fraud growing out of mass canvassing involves the possibility of ineligible voters filing absentee ballots, and thus avoiding checks at polling places, said Republican National Committee chief counsel Sean Cairncross.

The subpoenas come as Republicans have ramped up criticism of ACORN. Officials in Nevada raided ACORN’s Las Vegas office Tuesday, accusing the group of signing people up multiple times – in some cases under phony names, like those of Dallas Cowboys.

ACORN’s Cleveland spokesman, Kris Harsh, said his group collected 100,000 voter-registration cards; only about 50 were questionable, he claimed.

As for workers, “We watch them like a hawk,” he said.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers