Biden Makes McCain’s Case against Obama
Joe Biden, always reliable for betraying his shallow pool of savvy and power motives through a loose tongue, told his real feelings again, painting a second coat on his ticket-mate for being weak with world and terror leaders. As if it weren’t enough for him to claim Obama needs a second desk in the oval office where Biden will preside as co-president, now he puts another nail it Obama along the very same lines.
Biden’s quote froma speech last week…
“Within the first six months of this administration, if we win… we’re going to face a major international challenge. Because they’re going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy [who by the way largely failed]. They’re going to want to test him. And they’re going to find out this guy’s got steel in his spine.”
Not so much on the steel spine thing Joe.
But he was right on the fact that the rest of the world sees Obama as a media darling and a great motivational speaker (corporate training sessions and kid’s parties can be booked through the campaign), not as a strong leader or leaving certainly alone a strong defender. They know as well as we do that he’s naive and weak, despite his fightin’ words regarding Pakistan. Keep in mind, this is a pacifist at heart, as are all of the left of the left, and he’s saying what you want to hear to sucker your vote. He has no intention of doing anything but talking to our enemies, which has worked so well in the past, ask Carter.
The always candid and often wise John Bolton was on Fox, expanding on the issues that face us if Zero becomes president with this opening salvo “I think [Obama's] very naive, I don’t think he understands how to represent or defend American interests. And I think we’re going to learn… to great pain if he’s elected how much at risk we really are.”
BOLTON: Well, I think [Obama and Biden are] obviously eager to win, and that’s why Obama has changed his position so many times on key questions like how exactly is he going to get out of Iraq.
I must say my favorite Joe Biden line in that whole speech was when he said, I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than my colleague — most of my colleagues know, so he better win the vice presidency. I don’t think he can go back to the Senate after that.
HANNITY: Yes. Do you think, for example, that when you — when he said these things about Iran being a tiny country, not a serious threat, how do you think that is perceived?
I mean is that almost like when he talks about waiving — he would have left Iraq, we would have basically waved the white flag of surrender.
Is he an appeaser? Is that a fair word? I used that adjective about him?
BOLTON: Well, I think he’s a kind of a kumbaya guy. He can’t understand why somebody on the other side of the table may not be as reasonable as he is, and those people are prepared to take advantage of him.
And here on MSNBC for Obama (the stealth campaign arm)…
Obama’s Illegal Donations
Newsmax has a piece on Obama’s mysterious donors and lots of shady dealing…
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws…
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more…
Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.
The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.
But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.
“At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.
Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions — for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 — added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election…
In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors…
But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.
The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for “accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals,” which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.
The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.
Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama’s publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.
As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC — money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama’s finance team, who won’t take calls from the press.
While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.
The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.
If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.
However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.
Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday.
That’s the way Democrats play elections and policy, completely without moral character. And Obama wonders why there are character attacks.
Gavin Newsom Marries Two Women on First-Grader Field Trip
The money’s flying on both sides of the Marriage Protection proposition
While the No on 8 side has gotten big donations from Hollywood luminaries like Brad Pitt, Steven Spielberg and Knight, the Yes on 8 side has a media star, too, and not an expected one: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Mining snippets of an enthusiastic Newsom speech where he proclaims, “this door’s wide open now” for gay marriage, “whether you like it or not,” the Yes on 8 campaign has turned him into a figurehead of TV and radio ads that are “picture perfect” for their audience, said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political science professor who specializes in California ballot initiatives. The Newsom spots have been such a good foil for the Yes on 8 campaign that opponents may be forced to raise even more money to counter them, McCuan said.
Newsom was in the headlines again over the weekend, as conservative groups pointed out that a San Francisco first-grade class went on a field trip from school because their teacher was marrying another woman at City Hall — a ceremony officiated by the mayor. The class didn’t attend the actual ceremony, but waited outside on the steps of City Hall to congratulate their teacher.
I like to call that indoctrination and frankly child-abuse.
California, vote YES on proposition 8. Yes on 8, Yes on 8.
“Just Bad Luck? All of Obama’s People Hate America…”
Glenn Beck’s got a hilarious piece on the bad luck Obama’s had in being surrounded by those who hate, or at the very least aren’t proud of America.
Then Barack is like, “Hey, I want to be a state senator. Where should I have it? I mean, I could launch it from a park, you know, I could go to like a cool podium some place, maybe I can go to Pizza Hut. Where could I possibly — and somebody says, hey, I know, you can go do it at my house. And he’s like, really? Now, you would think to yourself, well, that’s lucky. And I’m sure that’s what Barack Obama was thinking, “I don’t know if I have a place to do it, I don’t know if I can get a park and a podium, I don’t know if I can get into Pizza Hut and we’ll have room for all the cameras. And this guy seems to have a big house. I mean, I don’t know him, we live in the same neighborhood but we don’t really talk.” Okay, so he launches at his house, and it’s this beautiful house. Turns out — ready for this one? Turns out the guy is a home grown terrorist.
Why Do Our Taxes Go To ACORN?
You might ask, as I did when I found out the Democrat shell company ACORN is federally funded, why this is the case. A Wall Street Journal piece today lays out some detail we didn’t know, and now we feel like being militant ourselves.
“But the organization’s real genius is getting American taxpayers to foot the bill. According to a 2006 report from the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), Acorn has been on the federal take since 1977. For instance, Acorn’s American Institute for Social Justice claimed $240,000 in tax money between fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Its American Environmental Justice Project received 100% of its revenue from government grants in the same years. EPI estimates the Acorn Housing Corporation alone received some $16 million in federal dollars from 1997-2007. Only recently, Democrats tried and failed to stuff an “affordable housing” provision into the $700 billion bank rescue package that would have let politicians give even more to Acorn.
All this money gives Acorn the ability to pursue its other great hobby: electing liberals. Acorn is spending $16 million this year to register new Democrats and is already boasting it has put 1.3 million new voters on the rolls. The big question is how many of these registrations are real.”
