Reminder: Project Vote = Citizens Services, Inc. = ACORN

Obama is ACORN is SEIU is Project Vote is Citizens Service Inc is SorosDo you remember Project Vote’s efforts on behalf of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign? Do you remember the $832,598.29 “oopsie” of a payment from Obama’s campaign to ACORN affiliate Citizens Services, Inc.? Did you know that although Barack Obama lies about having worked for ACORN, he admits that he used to run Project Vote? Did you know that Karyn Gillette was the Development Director of Project Vote during Obama’s presidential campaign, and that she was involved in those shady deals that helped Obama win? Want more proof? Here’s all the documentation you could ever want.
Keep all of this in mind as more ACORN scandals hit the news this week.

Buckeye Institute still fighting ACORN

The effort to nail ACORN through the RICO statute continues:

The Buckeye Institute, a Columbus-based think tank, Friday filed objections to a federal Magistrate’s conclusion that individual voters lack standing to protect their voting rights from groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Project Vote.
The Buckeye Institute’s objections are the latest turn in a case seeking to designate ACORN as enterprise engaged in organized crime and revoke its license to engage in unlawful [sic] voter registration in Ohio. The objection cites to federal cases from the civil rights-era, where courts found that citizens had standing to protect their civil rights from Ku Klux Klan intimidation.
“The right to cast a vote in an election that is not perpetually threatened with dilution by unlawful votes is a fundamental right, and if Ohio voters like Ms. Miller and Ms. Grant cannot enforce that right, the right itself is eviscerated,” Maurice Thompson, Director of the Buckeye Institute’s 1851 Center for Constitutional Law said.

The Magistrate’s recommendations come on the heels of the Nevada Attorney General’s decision to indict ACORN for crimes similar to those alleged in the Buckeye Institute’s Complaint.

Keep up the good work, Buckeye Institute!

New York Times spiked Obama/ACORN donor story

What a shock … the New York Times covered Obama’s butt during the 2008 election, preventing an unfavorable October surprise:

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”
Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”
Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.

During the March 19th hearing, Heidelbaugh testified (emphasis mine):

The New York Times articles stopped when Ms. Moncrief, who is a Democrat and a supporter of the President, revealed that the Obama Presidential Campaign had sent its maxed out donor list to Karen Gillette of the Washington, DC ACORN office and asked Gillette and Ms. Moncrief to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN. Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama Campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at the New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer”. That’s when Ms. Moncrief telephoned me on October 21, 2008. Ms. Strom never wrote another article about ACORN for the New York Times for the remainder of the period before Election Day, i.e. November 4, 2008.

Can you say “illegal coordination“? I knew you could.

12:10 AM Update: NixGuy has more.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner caught in bed with … ACORN

Watching the fraudulent activities of ACORN here in Ohio has left me wondering how they’ve been getting away with it. It sure seemed plain to me that our Secretary of State, the über-partisan Jennifer Brunner, has a soft spot in her heart for this merry band of fraudsters. I couldn’t point to any blatantly obvious connection between Brunner and ACORN (other than shameless Obama-worship), but I had a hunch there was more than meets the eye.
Thank God for Maggie Thurber:

Gillette is identified on Jennifer Brunner’s 2006 campaign website as a consultant. A blog entry by Brunner’s husband Rick talks about that relationship, saying: “our candidate had gone earlier in the day to have some meetings and work out of Karyn Gillette’s office.” He also describes Gillette as “very helpful to the campaign.”
According to campaign finance reports that were filed, Gillette was paid $21,250 by Brunner’s campaign. She has a longtime history of serving as a fundraising consultant to Ohio Democrats.

But that’s not all. Gillette is not Brunner’s only tie to ACORN. Members of the group’s voter registration arm, Project Vote, regularly advise Brunner on election strategy, previously serving on her Voter Rights Institute and even recently issuing a news release claiming credit for Brunner’s directive banning challenges to suspected fraudulent voter registrations.
So our Secretary of State shares a campaign advisor with ACORN, takes direction from ACORN’s voter registration arm, and refuses to verify over 200,000 mismatched registrations while claiming there is no voter fraud going on in Ohio…and that attention to such frivolous issues distracts her from doing her job.

Let’s see Brunner try to wriggle out of this.

A great quote from this past Friday

Rather than pursue the American Dream, [Barack Obama] insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it’s $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he’s now officially “rich.” The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The “hope” Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.
Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He’s not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks “fundamental change,” i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.
The question is whether enough Americans understand what’s at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

Barack Obama: taking your money for people who haven’t earned it

Joe the Plumber wasn’t the first to catch Barack Obama talking about spreading the wealth:

Here’s the transcript:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k.
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.
It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

State Senator Obama didn’t think it was feasible to change the federal courts to a Marxism-friendly system, but a President Obama can easily make it happen, especially with a liberal Democratic supermajority in the U.S. Senate. Don’t take my word for it; listen to him say it. Here’s the entire interview.
Do you think it’s the federal government’s job to decide how much success is too much for you to achieve? Is it up to the federal courts to pick winners and losers based on the philosophy of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” … that is, Marxism? Does Barack Obama know better than you when it comes to deciding who deserves your hard-earned money? If this is what you want, then vote for Barack Obama.
If you don’t like that Barack Obama intends to radically change America for the worse, then do something about it.

BLACKFIVE interview RE: Obama’s alleged mistress

The basic allegation is that Barack Obama had an affair with a staffer from his 2004 campaign named Vera Baker, Michelle Obama found out, and she had Baker shipped off to Martinique. I’m not clear when the alleged affair was supposed to have happened. I offer the interview between two contributors at BLACKFIVE for your consideration:

Background at BLACKFIVE, JammieWearingFool, Ace of Spades, Confederate Yankee, and HillBuzz.
October 27th, 2008 Update: Pictures of Vera Baker, plus a follow up interview with the tipster.

Obama’s other genocidal friend

No, not Raila Odinga. That’s old news to the mainstream media. I’m talking about William Ayers, genocidal thug.

If you don’t believe Larry Grathwohl’s statements above, and you don’t believe he foiled two of Ayers’ attempts at mass murder, then believe Ayers’ own words. He laid out his darkest goals in his 1974 book Prairie Fire, a manifesto of violent communist revolution.
But of course Barack Obama was innocently unaware of this deviant swine’s beliefs. Riiiiight.
To quote the blogger who goes by “Zombie“:

Ayers and Obama worked together for years on a school reform program called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Ayers and Obama also served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a separate charity organization.
Obama had his political coming-out party in William Ayers’ home.
Ayers mentions Obama by name in a book he wrote in 1997, and mentions that the two are very close neighbors.
Obama gave a short glowing review of that same Ayers book for the Chicago Tribune.
Obama and Ayers were both presenters together on a panel about juvenile justice (organized by Michelle Obama).
Both Obama and Ayers were close friends with the same person, Rashid Kalidi.
There are also several unverified rumors swirling around that have not been documented: That Ayers may have helped to write part (or all) of Obama’s autobiography; that Obama and Ayers shared an office space together for three years, on the same floor of the same building in Chicago; and that Ayers and Obama may have known each other as far back as 1981.

Nope. Nothing to see here.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

Keep Your Care Packages and Your Ballots

Good thing big brother’s looking out for us, especially if we’re deployed with the military right now.
A group of half-wits in Fairfax County, VA decided to invent a new rule applied to Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots that stretches beyond the related state and military guidelines. To make matters worse, these requirements only apply to those ballots most widely used by members of the U.S. military and their families — this rule does not apply to any other type of absentee ballot.
We better make sure that civilians and those not currently deployed (also known as ‘folk who don’t see the most pressing military needs’) decide who will be the next Commander in Chief.
Just imagine the bumper sticker often touted : “I support the troops not the war.”
Ace form of support in this grand piece of legislation.
My new sticker: “Keep the care packages and the ballots. — Fairfax County Registrar”

Barack Obama’s web site caught engaging in fraud

Obama’s campaign removed the safeguards that prevent fraudulent online campaign donations that exceed federal limits, come from overseas, or come from false addresses … and they’ve just been caught red-handed. I wonder how much of Obama’s war chest consists of illegal donations?
ACORN must be proud.
By the way, the McCain web site has these security features enabled, so it rejects fraudulent donations.

Barack Obama, socialist

Trevor Loudon of the blog New Zeal has more details on Barack Obama’s membership in The New Party, a socialist political party in Chicago.

This post is for journalists who care about the future of their country more than their careers.
I have previously posted about Barack Obama’s involvement in the socialist led Illinois New Party here, here and here.
Below are scans from New Party News Spring 1996.
They prove that Barack Obama was a member of the Illinois New Party and was endorsed by them in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race.

Here’s the first of several screenshots from the New Party News. Click to enlarge:

Read the rest and ask yourself why the American media continues to avert their eyes from this relevant background information about Barack Obama, the socialist.
To understand the New Party’s “fusion” strategy, and their connection to ACORN, read Stanley Kurtz.
H/T: Power Line

Let’s Never Find Out: Part 4 — Number One

What follows is a re-post of Matt Hurley’s original piece.

Rough Transcript:

Senator Obama, you are Number One.

Your 2007 voting record makes you the most liberal member of the US Senate. Left of Hilary Clinton, Left of Ted Kennedy, and even Left of your running mate, Joe Biden — Barely. He was Number Three. You, Senator Obama, are Number One.

What happens when we elect America’s most liberal Senator to the White House? Please America, let’s never find out.

Paid for by Let Freedom Ring, which is responsible for the content of this ad.

HOPE-ON ProjectIt is actually worse than the ad makes it sound. Obama isn’t just a liberal, he’s to the left of the only declared socialist in the US Senate!

Last week, Ohio Senator George Voinovich was quoted saying that Barack Obama was to the left of Ted Kennedy and that Obama was, in fact, a socialist. Governor Mitt Romney, an actual McCain-Palin surrogate, might have a problem with that (see clip) but I think that the evidence exists to make a pretty strong case that Obama is a socialist.

What shall we use as a measuring stick? How about a politician who is a declared socialist? There is one in the United States Senate and his name is Bernie Sanders. The National Journal has Sanders ranked #4 in 2007. Barack Obama was top of the class. But it might interest you to know who else was “to the left” of the socialist. Barack Obama chose him to be his running mate: Joe Biden finished third. Even George Voinovich gets this one:

“There’s a guy in the senate, Bernie Sanders” said Voinovich, “who brags about being a socialist. And if you compare Barack Obama’s record with Bernie Sanders’ record, they’re not too far apart.”

Obama’s response to Joe the Plumber’s question about why Obama wanted to punish him if he were to achieve the American Dream and achieve success was that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” If that isn’t a restatement of the socialist doctrine of redistribution of wealth, I don’t know what is.

Let’s not find out, America…