Bonuses?????? For top executives???!!!
Bonuses?????? For top executives???!!!
Lombard for News
The NY Daily News reports that William Ayers sneaked out of hiding on Sunday to attend a liberal panel in Manhattan, a venue well within his comfort zone, where he whined to a devoted gathering of lefty Obama supporters that “he was tired of being used as cannon fodder in America’s political wars”.
The press was barred from the discussion, which was held at the Stella Adler Studio near Gramercy Park, but a Daily News reporter managed to crash the party. Ayers held forth with an obligatory slam of big bad Fox News:
“[Fox host] Bill O’Reilly comes on his show and first thing he says is, ‘Why won’t this Ayers story die?’” Ayers told well-wishers. “And then he spends 10 minutes talking about it.”
It must have been very gratifying for him to appear before such a gaggle of useful idiots:
The former member of the Weather Underground beamed at the attention paid by the audience of about 60 people, many of whom were decked out in Obama gear.
The crowd gave Ayers a warm welcome, guffawed at jokes about “redistributing the wealth” and nodded at his complaints about the “Republican revolution.”
Haha. Funny stuff…I wonder if they’re laughing this morning?
After the talk was over, event organizers attempted to sneak Ayers out a back door to avoid the media.
Waiting reporters gave chase, but Ayers sputtered, “No comment,” and darted into a cab.
Back to his hidey-hole.
Howdy AoSHQ morons. Thanks, Ace.
Says it’s a “tragedy” that the constitution wasn’t reinterpreted to force redistribution of wealth, and discusses the best way to bring about redistributive justice for blacks, (Joe the Plumbers all across this nation should perk up their ears):
You know what’s a tragedy? That this guy has more than 20% of the vote. It’s a tragedy for us all if he gets the liberal supermajority he needs for his grand scheme of “redistributive change”.
God help us.
Hat tip: Gateway Pundit
Speaking of “reparative economic work”….I seem to remember Obama stating unequivocally that he’s against reparations…..*google* *google* Oh what do you know...back in August he tried to convince us that, yep, that’s always been his position:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.
The man with a serious chance to become the nation’s first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.
“I have said in the past — and I’ll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” the Illinois Democrat said recently.
I suppose in Obama’s world “reparative economic work” in the form of restribution of wealth, AKA “spreading the wealth”, is totally different from “reparations”.
Bill Whittle weighs in at NRO:
This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.
Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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 it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw.
Read the whole thing. He’s on a tear:
That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.
Then he goes on to talk about the Media malpractice that has brought us to a place where it took a single individual, and the internet to break a bombshell of a story like this..
Hillbuzz offered this interesting tidbit late last night:
We have not had a single nasty comment by an Obama follower on this site since Drudge ran the gigantic headline about Obama’s socialist agenda, and audiotape proof of it breaking.
Whenever Obama is in trouble, these people clam up.
The worse something is for Obama, the quieter his followers get.
It’s how we gauge the impact of something around here.
Not a single Obamabot comment in the last hour. We’d usually have 30 of them in our spam filter in that hour.
NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Where did they all go?
UPDATE: Seriously. Two hours now. Not a single Obama Kool-Aid Gang comment. And these people are up all night attacking us, telling us how Obama will win, and making fun of Hillary Clinton supporters or saying vile things about Hillary herself. They do this all night — but not tonight. They’ve done this nonstop since we started this blog back in February. But not tonight.
Know when the last time they just got really, really quiet like this was?
When Jeremiah Wright became a household name.
Heh. See how the cockroaches scatter when the lights come on?
Carl Cameron says that McCain is going to address the tape, later today.
The left has begun spinning in earnest.
Epic Spin FAIL: Claire McCaskill explains all: ‘redistribution of wealth’ means ‘tax cuts’.
More interesting dish over at Hillbuzz: This is just one of 3 shoes to drop? Obama campaign to respond with vicious smear about McCain beating his first wife – (same exact smear he used to knock out a primary opponent in Illinois)?
I think we may be in for a bumpy last week.
The thing that has concerned me most about the Ayers/Obama relationship is their apparent shared educational philosophy. I’m glad to see that the issue is finally being discussed on t.v.
Stern makes a very good point about how the media has successfully created a “false portrait” of Bill Ayers, as an education reformer, when he is instead, an already too influential proponent of the marxist “social justice teaching”.
That’s the one issue, Megyn Kelly allowed lefty Professor, Alan Singer to obfuscate, during his interview with her about Ayers. But that’s okay, ’cause she tore him a new one, anyway.
Love this. Usually, when I watch any interview with an elite b.s. artist, my b.s detector starts spinning wildly, and I have to watch in abject frustration as he’s allowed to get away with it.
Not this time:
Hat tip: Astute Bloggers
Virginia Virtucon has some uplifting polling information for you “Eeyores” out there:
I was having dinner a night ago with a friend of mine who is a statistician for a well-regarded private polling company. They do some work for Republicans in California, but most of the work they do is for Democrats or Democrat-leaning operations (Unions, etc.). Anyway, her shop was retained to do a few Presidential polls for targetted states on behalf of a union so the union could decide where to spend their ad dollars for the last week. They did Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Missouri. After mocking the hell out of the voter id spreads used by Rassmussen, Zogby, etc. (and this is coming from a committed Dem who will be voting for Barry O) she said the results of their polling lead her to believe that McCain will definitely win FL, OH, NC, MO and NV. She says Obama definitely wins New Mexico. She said that Colorado and New Hampshire were absolute dead heats. She said she thinks there is a 55% chance Obama holds on in Pennsylvania and a 75% chance McCain wins Virginia. She absolutely laughed at the public polls showing Obama leading Virginia–and pointed out that all of those polls rely on Dem turnout being +4 and as much as +7, when in 2006, Republicans actually had the advantage by +3. She also pointed out that the numbers for Obama in SWVA look absolutely awful and that McCain is running 10 points better then Allen did in NoVa.Anyway, her companies conclusion is that the election will come down to Colorado, New Hampshire and the Republican leaning district in Maine, which in her opinion might very well decide the Presidency (apparently the district in Nebraska that Obama thought he might be able to get is now off the table). She said she has very little doubt that the public polling is part of a “concerted voter suppression effort” by the MSM. She said IBD/TIPP was the only outfit doing public polling that was “worth a bucket of warm piss”.
Bernadine (kill the pigs) Dohrn was unavailable for comment.
Naturally, O’Reilly gets the whole Obama/Ayers controversy wrong. He thinks Obama should apologize to the nation for making the “mistake” of writing a blurb for Ayers’ book, and sitting on “a” board with him.
He totally misses the point that the reason these two knew and worked with each other (more extensively than O’Reilly mentions) for 20 years or more is because of their similar political philosophies.
What is it about Obama that makes him gravitate to these deplorable characters?
Law enforcement all across the country are getting ready for riots, here, in case Odinga’s cousin doesn’t win. The Hill reports:
Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.
Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation’s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.
Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.
Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters.
Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly.
Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed.
In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby.
“Are we anticipating it will be a riot situation? No. But will we be prepared if it goes awry? Yes,” said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department.
As Joe Biden would say….”Gird your loins”…
The campaign finance fraud we’ve been witnessing on the Democratic side reached critical mass, a long time ago. Atlas Shrugs first brought to light Obama’s illegal overseas donors, last July. The media ignored the story, mostly, and Obama claimed he returned the money. Public records show he didn’t.
Now, it’s clear that Obama, and other Democrats have deliberately disabled their address verification system for donations, to facilitate campaign donation fraud, from both people going over the limit and of course Saudis, Pakistanis, and Gazans donating illegally.
As they are so clearly in the tank for Obama, the MSM has barely given this lip service. We expect that.
But where is the Dept. of Justice? Where is Mukasey? The FEC? Is anyone working on this?
There has been blatant, systemic campaign finance fraud going on resulting in millions of illegal donations, contributing to a candidate who has shattered all fundraising records.
Isn’t this worth looking into?
You can fire off an email, here:
A letter Hillary Clinton’s lawyer sent to the NV State Democratic Chair has surfaced, and confirms everything the PUMAs have been saying about the illegal thug tactics of Obama and his supporters:
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) 293-3411
January 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,Lyn Utrecht Counsel Hillary Clinton for President