Examination of Obama’s past and present associations with questionable characters

No Democrat Can Keep a Straight Story About Obama’s “Devotion” to Israel

Posted on November 3, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Elsewhere in liberal politics., Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change |

This is Democrat Senator Jerrold Nadler speaking to Orthodox Jews about Obama. One part of this video made national news already when Nadler explained that Obama couldn’t leave Wright’s church because he wasn’t politically courageous enough. However, I find this part of the Senator’s speech about Obama the most telling. Just so Senator Nadler can be straight, yes there have been phone banks in Gaza where Palestinians have been cold-calling Americans to drum up support for Obama. Yes, Hamas did endorse Obama in 2006, and quickly retracted their endorsement as soon as they realized the negative impact it could have on their candidate of choice. Obama has also had to return $30,000 in illegal campaign contributions from Gaza. Let’s not forget that Jesse Jackson who has referred to Obama as, “part of the family,” told the World Policy Forum in France that Obama will bring an end to, “decades of putting Israel’s interests first.” Therefore, Senator Nadler, your rambling never did answer the question. If Obama is such a strong ally of Israel, why do all of Israel’s enemies endorse him for president? Here’s Senator Nadler’s sensless, ill-informed ramblings:

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

A Moving Letter to the Editor from a Voice of Experience with “Young Charismatic Leaders”

Posted on November 3, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change |

This was published in the July 7, 2008 edition of Richmond TImes-Dispatch. It is an account of someone with experience.

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach ‘Change’

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America’s. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

 

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Update on Dubious Record Checks on Joe the Plumber

Posted on November 1, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Elsewhere in liberal politics., Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, News on Obama's Competition |

This is the latest article about the ongoing investigations about who accessed Joe Wurzelbacher’s (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) government records following the final Presidential Debate where Wurzelbacher was made the center-of-attention. Wurzelbacher is probably most responsible for McCain’s recent momentum by coaxing out Obama’s “spread the wealth around” answer to a question about tax policy. Immediately after the final debate, the Obama campaign and the press went on the attack on Wurzelbacher, a private citizen who was in his own driveway when Obama approached him and made himself available to questions. While Biden and Obama were mocking Wurzelbacher, the press was working diligently to assassinate Wurzelbacher’s character by reporting that he did not have a current plumber’s license, he owed back taxes, even calling into question if he was registered to vote. This should make every voter irate with Obama and his attempts to personally smear a common citizen whose only crime was taking the time to ask Obama a legitimate question.
Since Wurzelbacher’s introduction to the nation by both campaigns, it has come to light that Ohio state and municipal government officials illegally accessed Wurzelbacher’s records. It is very suspicious that the officials ultimately responsible for ordering the record checks seem to all be Obama supporters. Now voters are being told that there is no connection between the illegal checks and the Obama campaign? That’s hard to believe since both the Obama-infatuated press and the Obama campaign simultaniously went on the attack with the same information discovered from the checks. Sadly, nothing will probably be done because the elected officials in charge of investigating these manners are Democrat and Obama supporters.
The link below is the latest update to the events that are unfolding. Remember, if Obama will advocate these actions during the campaign, imagine what he would do if he was the top executive in charge of the country. At no time has Obama condemned the illegal searches and at no time has Obama apologized to the common man he has trashed on several national media outlets. These are not actions of a “new politician” who truly cares about average Americans as Obama claims. In fact, this story just adds more illustration to Obama’s famous comments he gave in San Francisco where he said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them… And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” I guess Wurzelbacher is just trying to bitterly cling to his dream of buying a business and not having Obama tax it out of existence.

Finally, here’s the link I promised before getting carried away:
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/31/joe.html?sid=101

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama is Calling us Selfish?

Posted on October 31, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change |

Ann Coulture was right, Americans have to pay higher taxes just to take care of all of the Obama family living in poverty because Barack and Michelle sure as hell aren’t. Awhile back, it was reported that Barack’s half-brother lives in a hut in Kenya when just $50 a month would help him to become part of the middle-class. Now, it turns out one of Obama’s aunts that Obama wrote very fondly of in his autobiography is living in a government housing slum in South Boston. So now we have learned that Joe Biden only gave just over $3,000 out of his over $2 million income last year, and Obama will not even help his family members who are forced to live in squalor. Yet, Obama and Biden want us to pay higher taxes to take care of everyone less fortunate. Perhaps Biden and Obama should investigate why America is the most charitable nation in the world. This is because most Americans, who Obama is now calling selfish for not wanting to pay higher taxes, give a much more substantial amount to charitable causes. Most of Americans would, at least, help family members forced to live in grass huts or inner-city slums. When viewed in light of the fact that Obama gave over $22,000 to Jeremiah Wright’s church in one year, it should be apparent that Obama projects his own selfish actions on the rest of America when he calls them bitter and selfish.

For more about Obama’s aunt, click on the link below.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1128958&srvc=2008campnews&position=2

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ramifications of Obama’s Wishes

Posted on October 30, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change, Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

This is a video that is currently available on www.teamsarah.org. Watch the video and keep in mind Obama’s past statements and votes on the abortion issue. After the video is over, try to defend Obama’s policies. This is the main cause Obama wants to protect at all costs with judicial appointments, even to protect the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion and refusing to guarantee health care to infants born-alive after a failed abortion attempt. These practices have no place in a society that claims to be civilized. As I’ve stated before, this is not a religious issue, this is a humanitarian issue of how we will protect the most vulnerable members of society. Obama and his pro-abortion allies support atrocities performed on children that are so awful that if a person was caught performing them on an animal, they would promptly be put in jail for cruelty. Therefore, who can stand up and say that they are worthy of making the decision on whether or not these acts should be committed against a completely innocent infant who never asked to be brought into the world. As we bail out everyone’s bad financial decisions, it becomes apparent that, as a society, we are more concerned with relieving people of the consequences of their bad choices rather than being a responsible society. It is a sad day when we elect leaders who support these awful acts.

View this montage created at One True Media
Born Alive

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

If Obama Thinks We’re Bitter Now, Wait Until November 4

Posted on October 30, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change, Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

As Americans are getting closer to heading to the polls, they have every right to be mad as hell about the constant attempts to deceive them that have taken place for, at least, the past 18 months. As Election Day draws near, Barack Hussein Obama is going to be the first candidate in history who was completely able to dictate the narrative of his campaign in major media sources such as the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, and the list could keep going on. Obama has been able to label any questions that he doesn’t feel like answering as attempts to stoke the flames of racism and hatred. Apparently, for the first time in history questions about illegal campaign contributions, associations with domestic and foreign terrorist organizations, and a tax policy where the income cut-off to receive tax cuts keeps sinking lower and lower are all considered off-limits for anyone to ask. Obama’s campaign has even used their surrogates in state and local governments to get personal information used to smear a common citizen whose only crime was asking Obama a policy question. Yes, voters have every reason to be mad as hell when heading to the polls. By voting Obama, Americans are only setting themselves up for plenty more reasons to be mad as hell for the next four years. However, if Obama’s actions throughout his political career show anything, Americans may not have the right to voice their anger under an Obama administration.

Obama holds the average Americans in contempt. He built his entire worldview on contempt for, what he sees, as a racist and inequitable nation resulting from the bigoted middle class. Perhaps this is why he is capable of flat-out lying to the electorate with absolutely no restraint. Even more disgraceful is that the media, who are most responsible for informing the voters, allow Obama to lie freely without any subject. In the case of the L.A. Times, it is now apparent that they even assisted with Obama’s lies by suppressing a video tape showing Obama at a party for a former Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) spokesman, Rashid Khalidi. The tape shows such anti-Israel activities such as a young Palestinian child reading a poem about the “Zionists” committing acts of terrorism. Mark Levin stated on his nightly radio show that credible source said that the tape shows that Obama made very shocking remarks to invigorate the crowd during his toast at the party. Supposedly, the comments stated that Israelis have no God-given right to be in Palestine and that Israel is responsible for genocide of Palestinians. If the tape truly does show Obama making these statements, then the voters do have a definite right to see it for themselves. The Khalidi comments become especially disturbing since the Associated Press has reported that Palestinians are currently cold-calling American voters from the Gaza Strip to ask for their support for Obama. The Obama campaign has also been forced to return over $30,000 to Palestinians in Gaza who bought t-shirts on Obama’s website in bulk in order to contribute to his campaign. Voters should also keep in mind that Jesse Jackson, who has referred to Obama as, “part of the family” was in France in October where he told the World Policy Forum that Obama’s Middle East policy would, put a stop to the “decades of putting Israel’s interests first.” No one can forget either that the political chief of Hamas, an organization labeled a terrorist organization by the US government, was on ABC radio in April of 2006 where he stated, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections.” However, anyone who mentions all of these facts is immediately labeled as a right-wing extremist looking to personally smear Obama. Instead of criticizing voters who ask, the media should be demanding that Obama explain if he is as pro-Israel as he states he is, why is it that so many of Israel’s strongest opponents line up to support him? Anyone in the press who refuses to look for an answer to these questions beyond the Obama campaign’s talking points, has only proven that they have no business claiming to be objective sources of information.

So even though the media allows Obama to claim that there’s no politician more pro-Israel than himself without any further questions, they proceeded to dig up any negative piece of information they could about a man who merely stood in his own driveway and asked Barack Obama a question about tax policy. The man, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, better known as “Joe the Plumber,” had the unfortunate experience of having Barack Obama walk up to Wurzelbacher’s driveway while going door-to-door to drum up support. Wurzelbacher took the opportunity to voice his concerns to Obama about Obama’s tax proposals. Wurzelbacher stated that he was looking to buy the plumbing business he works for and Obama’s tax rate increase on anyone making over $250,000 (or whatever the threshold was that day) would severely limit his ability to hire more workers and expand the business. This is when Obama made his, now infamous, statement that, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.” With one short answer, Obama made a mistake and let the cat out of the bag to his true priorities when deciding tax and economic policies. Instead of economic growth, Obama is more concerned with finding policies that focus on social justice, thus the redistribution of income from those he considers well off to those not as successful. Even though it was Obama’s mistake, who took the fall for his bad answer? Wurzelbacher is who took the fall. Almost immediately after making the comments, the media had drug out all sorts of negative news about Wurzelbacher such as he did not have a current plumbers license, he owed back taxes, and even went so far as to imply that he is not even registered to vote. How would any of this information make Obama’s answer about his true tax policy goals any less relevant? Both Obama and Biden went on the warpath against the average American who asked a question of Obama when he showed up, unannounced, in Wurzelbacher’s driveway. Biden told Jay Leno on the Tonight Show that he wasn’t aware of any plumbers who make a quarter-million dollars a year. At a rally, Obama mocked John McCain for fighting for a guy who’s a plumber. News came out on October 29 that Julie McConnell, a clerk for the Toledo Police Department, is being brought up on charges of gross misconduct because she accessed Wurzelbacher’s official records after the third debate. The Toledo Police Department has also stated that Wurzelbacher’s records were illegally accessed a total of four times. So far, one search has been accounted for, now who made the other three searches and to who in the Obama campaign did they send the information?

The blog, Flopping Aces makes a very good point about the uproar when it was discovered that State Department officials ran searches on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. After the reports came out, it was front page news for the next few weeks. The Clinton and Obama searches ended up in a widely publicized investigation and people ended up losing their jobs for the actions. When is the press going to feel outraged over government officials using their positions to assault a common citizen whose only mistake was to trust Obama when approached in his own driveway? Wurzelbacher made the mistake of crossing Barack Obama and this is how Obama’s cronies in the government punished him for Obama’s mistake of speaking about his true policy goals. How will Obama and his supporters use their governmental powers to suppress questions if Obama gets into the Oval Office? Americans can count on an assault on both their freedom to question their government and their freedom to prosper.

Obama’s true feelings about average Americans were perfectly summed up last April at a San Francisco fundraiser where only the wealthiest of the liberal elites were present. During his speech, which he thought would never be heard by anyone outside of the room, Obama said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them… And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” These were Obama’s comments when he was among his closest of allies. These comments came when Obama thought the cameras and tape recorders were off and he was finally able to drop the campaign act and speak from his heart. This is the same Obama who claims that John McCain is completely out of touch with the middle-class. This is the same Obama who said in a radio interview in 2001 that he was disappointed with the Constitution for not allowing the government to do more to the people. He also said that he wished the Supreme Court would have pursued policies that were more distributive of wealth during the Civil Rights Movement. It doesn’t take a right-wing extremist to understand that the redistribution of wealth was the number one main priority in Marx’s vision of socialism. However, when a news anchor asked a very rare and uncharacteristically hard question of Joe Biden if Obama’s policies were socialist, Biden smirked and asked her if it was a real question. After the interview, the Obama campaign told the station that they were cancelling the already-scheduled interview with Biden’s wife and they were also cutting them out of any future interview opportunities. Not long after the Obama campaign made their announcements, the Obama-infatuated media then proceeded to report relentlessly about the anchorwoman’s husband in an effort to ruin her professional reputation. All of this was because someone on the Obama campaign was actually asked a non-softball question. Once again, the Obama campaign went into attack mode on an average American because she didn’t blindly buy into Obama’s policies and talking points.

This is the same Obama who also told his followers at a rally outside of Las Vegas to argue with their neighbors and friends and “get in their face” to tell them that Obama “supports the Second Amendment.” This is the first presidential campaign in a very long time where the candidates will not have been asked in a widely publicized event, such as a presidential debate, about their views of the Second Amendment. Perhaps the question has been avoided because Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the most anti-gun ticket to ever run for president. Throughout Obama’s political career he has never found a gun control bill that he would not vote for. He has publically stated that he believes all handguns should be banned. Obama even served on the board of the Joyce Foundation which gives substantial funding to many groups who advocate gun control and outright banning of private ownership of firearms. During an interview, Obama also stated that he has always opposed concealed carry permits and he always will work to prohibit the practice. The same politician who believes abortion in all forms should be legalized and is protected as a fundamental freedom despite the fact that no voter has ever been allowed to express their support or opposition to the issue wants to create a federal law to abolish all state conceal carry laws which the voters in each state approved. After the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was upheld by the Supreme Court, Obama falsely stated that the bill was not just a ban a single form of abortion. (And the most barbaric and savage form at that.) He said, “Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure…That presumption is also wrong.” Yet Obama doesn’t consider banning handguns an infringement on law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Obama will fight to protect abortion at all costs, even though there is no explicit Constitutional right granted, rather the Supreme Court created the right. But he will stop at nothing to abolish the explicit right granted in the Second Amendment which states “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” While in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against absolving homeowners of criminal charges who protect themselves and their families from a home invader by using a handgun, despite living in a community where they are banned. He voted against the bill and, despite his vote, the bill passed. Obama then voted against it again when he was one of a handful of senators who voted against overriding the governor’s veto. Luckily for Illinois residents, there was a majority in the state senate to override the veto. If Obama takes office with a supermajority in both houses of Congress, nothing will be able to stop him from rubberstamping any anti-gun legislation. Gun owners should be appalled. From his history, Obama has supported raising taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500%, raising the legal age to own a firearm to 21, and even to ban most calibers of ammunition used for hunting. Despite his horrible record of working to destroy gun owners’ rights, Obama has still not been questioned in the media when he claims to be a supporter of the Second Amendment. If the media has their way, no one will even consider it an issue when they go to the ballot boxes on November 4.

Obama writes in his memoirs about his grandmother’s racism when she once came home afraid because a beggar, who was black, was acting aggressively to her as she went to the bus stop. (It should be noted that his “racist” grandmother rode the bus to work because she and Obama’s grandfather sacrificed heavily to send Obama to the most prestigious private school in Hawaii.) Obama labeled her racist during the campaign when it surfaced that he had been a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s hate-based church for the past 20 years. When the media started showing clips of Rev. Wright yelling during his sermons, phrases such as, “No, no, no, not God bless America, God damn America,” and referring to the US as the “United States KKK of A,” Obama claimed that Wright was just like the old uncle in everyone’s family who says things that shock people. He then went on to claim that he could no more disassociate with Wright, than he could with his own grandmother who was racially prejudiced as he related the story about his grandmother and the beggar. Throughout his autobiographies, Obama discusses how he formed his view of the world through extremists like Malcom X, the communist poet Frank Marshal Davis, and how he relied on spiritual leaders such as Rev. Wright and extremist priest Father Pfleger who once threatened to “snuff out” a Chicago gun shop owner where Pfleger was protesting. With this background, Obama’s comments about rural Americans being bitter and clinging to guns and religion starts to give voters a glimpse into Obama’s true views of the United States. It becomes more difficult to dismiss his wife Michelle Obama’s quote that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life while she was campaigning for her husband. All commentators want to claim that Obama is a true patriot and his past quotes and associations do not take away from his love of his country. This is unbelievable when looking at Obama’s history as a whole. In fact, the only conclusion that someone could reasonably draw is that Obama is a bitter member of society, clinging to his cynicism and racial divide which creates animosity to those not like him.

On November 4, voters need to let Obama know just how bitterl they are from Obama’s insults by voting for McCain. Personally, I am not a large supporter of McCain and I never really have been. But when faced with the prospect of McCain running the country or Obama taking control with a sympathetic Congress and the possibility of appointing up to three Supreme Court justices, the choice becomes crystal clear. Obama will pursue policies of social justice and economic equality that will tear apart the capitalist system that has helped America become the most prosperous nation in the history of civilization. The US and global economies will take decades to recover from the socialist policies Obama promises to pursue. No American will receive a tax cut. Obama’s new spending programs costs, at least, four times as much as his projected tax revenues even after his tax rate hikes. Every American will no longer be working for their own prosperity, instead they will be working twice as hard because they will be forced to not only cover their own needs, and even harder to cover their tax liability. Voters should be mad as hell that Obama and his surrogates in the media have done everything possible to send them into the voting booth without making Obama answer for his lies and contradictions. Voters should let their bitterness help them retire Obama back to the Senate where he can become a footnote of history as the socialist who came closest to being president of the United States of America.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Sordid Past Affecting an Important Ally

Posted on October 17, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change |

At least one candidate took the time to clarify who he really was during the last debate. Of course, that candidate was John McCain when he said, “Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.” In fact, Obama is probably the only person who needed to have this explained. Had McCain been more like Bush, conservatives would be voting for a candidate, rather than against Obama. But Americans are still waiting to hear an honest sentence from Obama about his past. The issue isn’t only about William Ayers, but rather Obama’s vast history of seeking out associations with people who have the same anti-American views as Ayers. Not only do these associations draw questions about Obama’s character judgment, they also cast doubt onto Obama’s believability of the policy statements he makes during the campaign. Trust should never be guaranteed to any politician. In fact, Obama’s refusal to disclose his full relationships only throws a key foreign policy issue into question.

Jesse Jackson made news when he told the World Policy Forum in France that Obama would end the, “decades of putting Israel’s interests first,” with his Middle East policies. Had this been an isolated incident to threaten Obama’s credibility on this issue, it would not require questions. Jackson’s statement, however, was far from the only piece in the puzzle. Newsweek recently ran an article about $30,000 in Obama campaign contributions that the campaign had to return to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The campaign only returned the contributions, which were made in increments of less than $200 and therefore not required to be individually recorded, after it had been deemed illegal by the FEC. Obama spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said the Palestinian donations were made by two brothers who bought bulk t-shirt orders from the campaign’s website and when they listed their address as “Ga.” the campaign took it to mean Georgia. No one commented about whether the order actually shipped and if so, what address they were shipped to.

Once again, this would be a non-issue if there wasn’t more to the story. On April 13, 2006, an Obama supporter said on ABC radio, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections.” The problem is that the supporter was Ahmed Yousef, the chief political advisor to Hamas. (Hamas is the terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel and they are not huge fans of the US either.) Obama claimed Hamas gave his endorsement because of the fact that his middle name was Hussein and they felt they could trust him. This could be believable, if there wasn’t more to the story.

Adding to the problem is Obama’s inclusion of General Merrill McPeak, former US Air Force chief of staff under President Clinton, as one of his Middle East advisors. McPeak has publically stated his anti-Israel views throughout the years. Perhaps his most famous quote came in an interview with the Oregonian in 2003 that the biggest obstacle to Middle East peace is, “New York City, Miami. We have a large vote – vote here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.” (In case anyone missed the innuendo, McPeak blamed the Jewish populations in Miami and New York for the problems with achieving peace in the Middle East.) Another Obama advisor to the Middle East, Robert Malley, was forced to resign from Obama’s campaign after the London Times discovered that he was having regular, undisclosed meetings with Hamas for his work for the International Crisis Group think tank. Now voters might start to see the problems associated with Obama’s lack of full disclosure.

Jackson’s statement is even more credible when viewed in light of the fact that the church where Obama was a 20-year member had a minister, Jeremiah Wright, who made frequent anti-Israel remarks in his sermons. Wright didn’t just stop at sermons though. In 1984 he travelled to Libya with Louis Farrakhan to meet with Muammar el-Qaddafi, whose anti-Israel views are no secret. Wright even gave Farrakhan an Empowerment Award through Obama’s church. Obama’s picture was even featured on cover of the church’s magazine alongside Farrakhan’s. (In case it’s not recalled from my first article, Farrakhan had the memorable quote, “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.”) Obama had also written fondly in his autobiography of his attendance of Farrakhan’s Million Man March on Washington.

With all of this background, now Jesse Jackson is telling an international audience that Obama will end “decades of putting Israel’s interests first,” when addressing the Middle East. Jackson himself is not a stranger to Obama. In fact, during his Ill. political career, Obama became good friends with Jackson’s son, Jesse Jackson, Jr. In an interview with the New York Post on Oct. 14, Jackson described Obama as, “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” This would lead many to believe that Jackson might have a somewhat comfortable understanding of Obama’s world views.

Obama’s supporters claim that his past associations are an attempt to ignore the issues. In this case, these associations pose a risk to a vital area of foreign relations. Obama is not involved in a conspiracy against Israel, nor is anyone making the idiotic claim that Obama is secretly a Muslim. However, something about him has drawn repeated support from groups with hostile intentions to America and our important ally, Israel. Perceived lack of support for Israel could drastically escalate the situation in the Middle East creating many more problems and violence than are already present. The US often persuades Israel, as a trusted ally, from aggressive actions in the face of constant hostility. America cannot upset this balance because a presidential candidate refuses to be truthful about his past. One incident would be a non-issue. However, with Obama, it’s not a single incident, it’s an entire history.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama and ACORN: Another Obama Lie

Posted on October 13, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Elsewhere in liberal politics., Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters |

Across the country, there is a concerted effort to steal the election through voter fraud. Almost daily, there are more reports about fraudulent voter registration efforts through the group, Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN.) ACORN boasts from their website that they have registered over 1.3 million new voters for the November election, mainly from low-income, minority communities which almost exclusively vote Democrat. Over the previous weeks, there have been frequent news reports of ACORN submitting multiple registrations in different voting precincts for individuals. In fact, many voters registered by ACORN are quoted as saying that ACORN’s members pressured them to sign multiple registration cards and some have even admitted to being paid with money and cigarettes to register multiple times. In several states, it has also been discovered that ACORN worked to add many felons to the voter rolls in states where felons are not allowed to vote. Obama’s claims of never being associated with ACORN are just plain false. He partnered with ACORN with his Project Vote during his early years in Chicago and he also served as ACORN’s attorney for several matters. In fact, the FEC discovered that Obama’s campaign attempted to hide an $800,000 payment for voter registration services to an ACORN front group. As more reports continue to surface of blatant voter fraud committed in crucial swing states, it is becoming more and more obvious that Obama supporters will use any means to put Obama in the White House. ACORN has a long history of committing voter fraud and they even have plenty of dirt on their hands from the subprime mortgage meltdown through their efforts to intimidate banks into lowering their lending standards to increase the amount of subprime loans made to people who obviously could not afford them.

An editorial from Investors Business Daily’s website, IBDeditorials.com from October 8, gives a good overview of the current investigations into ACORN and even touches on the group’s history of running afoul of the law with their voter registration drives. The FBI has raided ACORN offices in Nevada and North Carolina, which are two states that the current polls show McCain and Obama are neck-and-neck. The raids in Nevada and North Carolina followed discoveries of fraudulent voters registered by ACORN in both states. The worst part is that these are not the only two states where serious problems have been discovered concerning ACORN. Investigations are also underway in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. ACORN officials have also recently been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado. Questions arose in Nevada when ACORN submitted voter registration cards made out with the names of the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys. Similar problems have been discovered in Missouri where one registrant’s name was submitted eight different times and all of the submissions carried the same signature. In Kansas City alone, 15,000 registrants have been questioned. St. Louis has sent out 5,000 letters requesting clarification for the voter registration cards submitted by ACORN. In many states, ACORN has also registered convicted felons and even inmates who are ineligible to vote. On ACORN’s website, they boast to have registered 1.3 million new voters nationwide which should sound alarms to every American about the validity of the new voters registered by the group.

Obama’s website denies that Obama ever had any relationship with ACORN. However, audio has surfaced of Obama addressing ACORN in 2007 when he told them, “[W]e’re going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda … so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America.” Sounds pretty clear that Obama understood who ACORN was and the agenda they promote. Contrary to the Obama campaign website, Obama has a long affiliation with the liberal activist group that goes all the way back to his first days in Chicago. In 1992, Obama partnered his Project Vote efforts with ACORN and focused on registering low-income and minority voters. Not only did Obama help with Project Vote, he also directed grant money to the group while he sat on the board of the board of the Chicago-based Woods Fund. (One of the boards he shared with unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayers.) He also served as attorney for ACORN while practicing law in Chicago.

Obama’s work as an attorney was to assist ACORN in their primary method of raising money which is to intimidate companies with lawsuits and charges of racism. The corporate intimidation policy pursued by ACORN which has probably affected the most Americans was their efforts to coerce lenders to lower lending standards in an effort to exploit the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. An article by Stanley Kurtz in the New York Post on September 29, 2008 discusses how Obama associate, Madeline Talbott, worked to intimidate banks into giving loans which are now responsible for the current economic meltdown. Talbott was a director of Chicago ACORN and she has long expressed her affinity for Obama. After ACORN teamed up with Obama’s Project Vote in 1992, Talbott was so impressed with Obama that she hired him during the early 1990’s to train her personal staff and also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN’s new aspiring leaders. ACORN also turned to Obama to represent them in lawsuits that the group had initiated. One case in 1992 was the Illinois “motor voter” case which had the purpose of facilitating voter registration at all government assistance offices and any offices that provided state-funded assistance programs. There is no argument that the law would disproportionately assist in registering Democratic voters. In 1994, Obama was also one of the attorneys to represent ACORN in a class-action suit against Citibank with the purpose of forcing the bank to lower lending standards and make more subprime loans to low-income minorities. The lawsuit was only a part of Talbott’s assault on the lending industry which ultimately resulted in the $700 billion bill that the taxpayers are now forced to pay for.

ACORN began their assault on the lending industry by using the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA.) According to the Federal Reserve’s website, “The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations.” As Kurtz says in his New York Post article, “The seeds of today’s financial meltdown lie in the CRA…made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings.” ACORN recognized that any bank looking to merge or expand must complete and pass a CRA review and the approval process can be greatly delayed by complaints filed by groups like ACORN. Talbott did not only use lawsuits and claims of CRA violations to intimidate banks into making subprime loans, she also coordinated stunts like sit-ins in bank lobbies, harassing bank executives at their offices and homes, and making public accusations that uncooperative banks were guilty of racist lending practices. Kurtz discusses how Talbott’s efforts culminated in the, “…first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA.” The target was Bell Federal Savings and Loan and they protested Talbott’s actions claiming that they were being required to implement an “affirmative action lending policy.” Kurtz goes on to say that Talbott was in dozens of articles in the following years about pressuring banks to making more subprime loans. ACORN continued in the early 1990’s to pressure banks into lowering lending requirements for low-income minorities. To meet ACORN and other activists groups’ demands, banks ended up lowering down payment requirements and lowering credit history requirements to receive loans. This environment was only exacerbated by the Clinton administration’s pressure to increase homeownership rates among low-income minorities. Through ACORN’s efforts, banks had been pressured to extend hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to people the banks, otherwise, would have never approved to borrow the money. The negative results of ACORNS agenda are now making themselves clear to the American taxpayers. Who is Obama blaming for the crisis? It’s certainly not ACORN. In fact, Obama is out blaming corporate greed for the subprime meltdown. Obama completely dismisses the actions of ACORN to pressure lending institutions to make loans to people who did not meet lending requirements and he completely forgets that he was one of the attorneys in 1994 suing Citibank because they would not lower their lending standards enough to please ACORN. Talbott stated that she was dragging banks “kicking and screaming” into the subprime market and the Chicago Sun-Times ran an article in September 1993 which presented Talbott as triumphant in regards to forcing banks into these loans.

Kurtz describes a national $55 million pilot program that was started in 1993 where banks were urged to participate with ACORN to make mortgages for low and moderate-income people with bad credit histories. This is the pilot program that introduced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to the subprime mortgage industry and everyone now knows how awful the consequences of the relationship were. Talbot was quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times stating, “If this pilot program works, it will send a message to the lending community that it’s OK to make these kinds of loans.” This shows how ACORN, with the help from Obama, actually worked to create the economic problems America is currently working to solve. Obama had worked to train Talbott’s staff through leadership seminars and even assisted through his legal services. However, no one, especially Obama, wants to admit how the nation wound up in this situation. It was not the complete fault of corporate greed. Rather it was the result of years of coercion to force banks to lend to people who had no business receiving a loan.

ACORN has several different organizations under their name. The voting registration efforts come from a different arm of the organization than the arm of their organization involved in housing policies. The Democrats in Congress attempted to direct money to ACORN’s housing arm in the economic bailout package. Republicans fought this effort and had them removed from the bill. Even though the voter registration actions are separate from the housing policies, it is not hard to see how funding one section of the organization makes it easier for the other section to operate. ACORN has proven to be a detriment to the American people and now they are attempting to steal the election for Barack Obama. Despite Obama’s claims to have never had any affiliations with the group, the evidence shows that once again, Obama is covering the truth about the association. The Obama-friendly press does not mention the FEC findings that the Obama campaign attempted to hide $800,000 in payments to ACORN for voter registration services. The payments were labeled as being for “advance work” made to Citizen’s Services, Inc. Obama needs to be questioned by voters for his past involvement with ACORN and the assistance he provided in forcing banks to enter into the subprime loans that have now wrecked the economy. Now, as the ACORN voter registration offices are being raided in almost every swing state, Obama needs to answer for the $800,000 he paid to the organization that is out committing rampant voter fraud for Obama’s benefit. The worst case scenario for Obama is that he knew about the illegal voter registration practices of the group and those practices are why he paid nearly a million dollars to ACORN to help them register sympathetic voters for him. The best case scenario shows that Obama is guilty, yet again, of having very poor judgment when it comes to those he trusts for help. Either way, ACORN, with Obama’s help, has done enough to hurt Americans. It is now time for the American voters to show Obama and the Democrats that they will not allow this trend to continue.

 

 Update: This article appeared in the New York Post showing that fraudulent voters who signed up multiple times through ACORN actually did so with the purpose of voting multiple times. How many of these voters were not caught by the election authorities?
 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Big Problems for Obama

Posted on October 7, 2008. Filed under: Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, InsideSTL.com Articles |

I need to take a moment to thank Tim McKernan and everyone at InsideSTL.com for giving me a new forum every Tuesday in their new STL Politics section. My weekly, Tuesday articles will be on www.InsideSTL.com, at least, through the election. Be sure to check the articles out, read the other content on their site and support their advertisers. Hopefully, if enough of you come back each Tuesday to either agree with me, or to curse me, maybe they will find a reason to keep me around after the election. Below is the first article published 10/7. If you are an InsideSTL.com reader checking out the Anti-Obamassiah Refuge for the first time, welcome. Look around and leave some comments if you like, and tell others to check it out, too – whether they agree or not. Thanks again to InsideSTL.com and thank all of you for taking the time to read my articles.

(One note: Unlike comments left on InsideSTL.com, I will censor the more colorful four-letter words out of comments. Please feel free to say whatever you want but just be aware that I censor out the profanity. Thanks.)

Sarah Palin recently gave some good motivation to dig through those Alaskan dumpsters a little faster. Citing a New York Times story, she called into question Obama’s long-time association with self-admitted, non-repentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. Palin stated that Obama, “…is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” Obama’s campaign responded that McCain took his, “…discredited, dishonorable campaign one step further…launching more personal attacks on Senator Obama.” Douglas Daniel of the Associated Press was quick to report, “…portraying Obama as ‘not like us’ is another potential appeal to racism.” If it isn’t obvious enough, Palin has definitely struck a nerve. Obama is back to questioning John McCain’s honor and his surrogates in the press are working harder to paint any Obama criticism as racist. Obama made it perfectly clear earlier in the campaign that his patriotism was not to be questioned. However, he should probably answer some questions if he wishes to maintain his status of unquestionable patriotism.

Obama’s rolodex had to be of concern to his campaign manager before ever hitting the campaign trail. The challenge was to find a way to silence any questions into the extremists who had mentored Obama, been his spiritual leaders, and those he had so casually associated with before hitting the national political scene. Throughout his campaign, Obama has deflected questions such as those Palin raises by insinuating the questions are racially motivated. Most members of the press have graciously followed Obama’s lead in their coverage of the election. In fact, the quote from Douglas Daniel’s AP article mentioned earlier is almost a restatement of a July speech Obama gave in Springfield, Mo. when he said, “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” Eventually Obama and his supporters will have to drop the claim of ‘racial immunity’ to questions about his past. Because the voters must ask what drew Obama to keep company with people like William Ayers without being afraid of being called charged with racism for demanding the answers.

On my blog, www.antiobamassiah.wordpress.com, there are multiple pieces detailing several of Obama’s long-time associations that would concern most voters, regardless of race. These include William Ayers who bombed police stations, the US Capital Building, and the Pentagon in the 1970’s. Obama claims that Ayers’ past in no way concerns him since the bombings were committed when he was eight-years-old. Yet, Ayers told the New York Times in 2001 that he did not regret the bombings and he wished they did more. Seems Ayers hasn’t fully given up his terrorist belief system. Obama claims no real friendship with Ayers even though Ayers personally chose him to head up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million organization. Obama accepted the position and stayed for eight years. A $50 million dollar grant would be quite difficult for Ayers to trust t a mere passing acquaintance. It’s clear that Obama is not being completely forthcoming.

Obama’s involvement with Trinity United Church of Christ should also raise questions with voters. This is the church he attended for 20 years where the Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave sermons based primarily on messages of racial hatred and divide. Wright would make outrageous, racially-charged claims like the US Government created the HIV virus to wipe out minorities. He also told his congregation after the 9/11 attacks that, “America’s chickens have come home to roost.” Wright made no secret of his affinity for Louis Farrakhan. In 1984 Wright traveled with Farrakhan to Libya to visit Muammar Qaddafi. In 2007, Farrakhan was given the Empowerment Award from Trinity. Just in case anyone isn’t familiar with Farrakhan, he is the Nation of Islam leader who is notorious for his extreme views such as, referring to whites as, “white devils,” and promoting anti-Semitism with quotes such as, “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.”

Obama does not support bombing government buildings, anti-Semitism, or the idea that HIV was created by the US government. Nor is Obama a member of the Nation of Islam with the same views as Farrakhan. However, what has allowed him to be tolerant of views like these? What has caused him to seek out the company of extremists with these views? Taking that he claims to have attended Trinity an average of twice a month for 20 years, what part of Wright’s sermons kept him as a member for so long? These are very important questions absolutely not connected to race. Whether or not Obama has merely wound up in the company of extremists through innocent lack of character judgment, voters must ask, who is he going to turn to for advice in the Oval Office? At the very least, voters should be asking if Obama really is the centrist he claims to be. Why is it so easy for extremists to command Obama’s attention? This isn’t merely “guilt by association” from the presence of a few lobbyists on his campaign; this is an indication of a disturbing trend of a severe lack of character judgment skills.

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Interesting Association

Posted on October 3, 2008. Filed under: Elsewhere in liberal politics., Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters |

While researching for new articles, I ran across something very interesting about the website FactCheck.org who hold themselves out as a nonpartisan “consumer advocate” for voters by pointing out the deception in campaign ads. It turns out that they are funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which is a part of the Annenberg Foundation. Annenberg Foundation also parents the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that Obama chaired with domestic terrorist William Ayers for eight years. Also very interesting is that the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center is Dr. Kathleen Jamieson who has a new book she coauthored titled, “Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment.” Is there perhaps even the slightest possibility that there might be a couple of conflicts of interest?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

    About

    Is this really a new type of politician? Or is the Obama machine just using politics as usual in their campaign?

    RSS

    Subscribe Via RSS

    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Add your feed to Newsburst from CNET News.com
    • Subscribe in Google Reader
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • The latest comments to all posts in RSS

    Meta

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...