I only proved that Obama was up to his eyeballs in the Chicago machine and, in my opinion, based on what we CAN prove, he was not uninvolved in the corruption of that.
How did you "prove" that?
Foxfyre wrote:
I mentioned no specific crime.
Of course not. How could you?
Foxfyre wrote: "he up to his eyeballs in all the corruption in the Chicago machine."
Despite her attempt to backtrack through the use of a disingenuous double negative, Foxfyre emphasized that Obama was extremely involved (up to his eyeballs) in ALL the corruption in the Chicago machine. Foxfyre did not mention a specific crime because she already libelously accused Obama of being extremely involved in ALL the corruption (alleged, imaginery, et al.).
0 Replies
genoves
0
Reply
Fri 19 Jun, 2009 05:11 pm
You know, as much as I hate to do it, I will have to agree that Debra L A W( the most brilliant female mind in the USA who gave up making millions in Big Law and instead decided to work for the PEOPLE by taking time to post on Able2Know instead of working on high profile cases.
Barack Hussein Obama HAS NOT been convicted of any crime.
But Foxfyre said as much--Note--
So why are you changing the subject? I didn't mention a word about a 'dirty machine'. I only proved that Obama was up to his eyeballs in the Chicago machine and, in my opinion, based on what we CAN prove, he was not uninvolved in the corruption of that. I mentioned no specific crime. And I don't think President Bush ever disavowed a relationship with Abramoff either or used the 'barely knew him' or 'he isn't the person I knew' defense that President Obama uses fairly consistently.
One of the more puzzling developments in Obama’s career is how he has been able to position himself as a reform style politician - as an outsider who can come in and clean up the mess politicians have made. This simply doesn’t match reality. And yet the media seems uninterested in exploring and explaining Obama’s past.
At the start of his career you could make the argument that this is the kind of politician Obama was seeking to become, but his ambition seems to have quickly pushed this idealism aside. Making his career in Chicago, and Cook County Illinois, gave Obama the chance to put some substance behind his words. But at practically every opportunity he has chose the safe route rather than the route of reform; of challenging the system. Back in July Michael Van Winkle, a Chicago resident, offered a quick rundown of this rarely talked about aspect of Obama’s career:
He has a track record of putting party over principle.
In 2006, he endorsed the re-election of Rod Blagojevich, despite very real concerns about the Governor’s ethics. Since the endorsement, Blagojevich has come very close to full blown indictment, so close that some Illinois Democrats tried to have him recalled. But Obama’s voice has been silent on the matter.
In 2007, incumbent Cook County Board President and long-time Machine candidate, John Stroger, faced a tough challenge from a reform candidate in the Democratic Primary. Obama refused to make an endorsement.
When John Stroger was incapacitated by a stroke two weeks before the election, Obama was silent. When the Machine told us Stoger was fine and only admitted the seriousness of the stroke once the deadline for candidate filings had passed, Obama remained silent. And when the Machine replaced John Stroger with his inexperienced and unimpressive son, Todd, well Obama endorsed him.
Since Obama’s endorsement, Todd Stroger has gone on to break promises, lie to the public, and raise taxes to support six-figure salaries for his family and friends.
Even now, Obama is putting politics over principle in Illinois. Illinoisans have a chance to reform state politics by voting “yes” for a consitutional convention on a November ballot question. But Obama’s own campaign mastermind, David Axelrod, has been hired to oppose the effort.
I’m not blaming corruption in Illinois on Obama; let’s be clear. But he’s done very little to stand up for principles and good governance in a state that deperately needs principled and bipartisan leadership.
Tom Bevan provides further details on the consequences of Obama refusing to take a stronger stand in the Cook County Board election:
Whether Obama’s endorsement would have mattered or not is beside the point. Endorsements are, as a matter of practical politics, mostly symbolism. By choosing to stay neutral in the race and to not go the extra distance to endorse Claypool, Obama signified that he was for reform and change - but only up to a point.
As it turned out, there was a bizarre epilogue to this race - and one that proves these kind of decisions have real world consequences. A week before the primary, Stroger suffered a severe stroke. The resulting outpouring of sympathy played at least some part in the final outcome: the reformer Claypool lost by six points, 53 to 47.
Stroger stayed out of sight for weeks and eventually it came to light that after recognizing he would not be able to stand for re-election, he engineered a deal from his hospital bed to install his son, Todd Stroger, on the ballot.
The move was decried by many, including Claypool, for what it was: a bald act of nepotism. Despite Todd Stroger’s youth, inexperience, and his reputation as a corrupt, machine-style ward boss, Obama not only endorsed Stroger in the general election but heaped praise on him as a “a good progressive” - a claim that no one who knows him could make with a straight face.
In the end, Todd Stroger won election in November 2006. Since taking office as Cook County Board President, however, he has been an unmitigated disaster. With runaway tax increases and the county hospital system in crisis, Stroger has been busy packing the County payroll with allies at the expense of taxpayers, including more than a dozen friends and relatives making more than $100,000 per year.
As I noted yesterday, Obama likes to talk about his stance against the war in Iraq as difficult and courageous when it was really just smart politics. Here was a true chance to be courageous, to put real political capital on the line, and Obama refused to stand up to the political machine. And there were real world consequences in the form of continued corruption, nepotism, and bad government.
Only those who view Obama through rose colored glasses, however, will be surprised by any of this history. Obama’s political mentor, and the politician who gave Obama what little legislative accomplishments he has, was a member of the Chicago machine and continues to treat public office like a family business.
Nobody expected Obama to become a one issue crusader against corruption in Chicago. Even most anti-machine politicians attempt to work within the system. But it is one thing to remain silent and another to use the system to climb the ladder and then claim to be something different. Obama’s record is the record of a politician accommodating himself to the system not challenging it. But of course, it is hard to win elections running as just another politician.
Obama’s reformer image is an illusion and a dangerous one because it hides his real record and masks his real character.
0 Replies
genoves
0
Reply
Fri 19 Jun, 2009 05:24 pm
Convicted? No. Indicted? No. But connected with the sleaziest of Chicago cons, yes.
Note:
From the Chicago Sun-Times
A NEWSPAPER WHICH KNOWS FIFTY TIMES MORE ABOUT OBAMA THAN ANY LEFT WINGER ON THESE THREADS>
8 things you need to know about Obama and Rezko
Tale in national spotlight, thanks to Clinton
January 24, 2008
All of a sudden, seems as if everybody's talking about Barack Obama and Tony Rezko.
Rezko already was a big story in Chicago, accused of influence-peddling in the Blagojevich administration and set to face trial Feb. 25.
FROM THE SUN-TIMES ARCHIVE
Rezko cash triple what Obama says
Barack Obama and his slumlord patron
Why didn't City Hall stop him?
Obama's letters for Rezko
Rezko cash triple what Obama says
Obama: I didn't know about Rezko problems
Obama ducks the questions
City should have cut off Rezko: aldermen
But Monday, he became national news -- and an issue in the presidential race. That's when Hillary Clinton blasted Obama for having represented "your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago."
Having a hard time keeping track of the facts? Here are eight things to know:
1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down.
2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.
3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm.
4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.
5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.
6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.
7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.
8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.
The left wingers who were not frightened to read this will note the charge made by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
0 Replies
genoves
0
Reply
Fri 19 Jun, 2009 05:59 pm
Joe the Ambulance Chaser knows NOTHING about the crimes of Bill Clinton. If he is not a gutless fake, I dare him to debate with me on this subject.
I will begin with the statement that George W. Bush was never indicted or found guilty of any crime.
But Clinton? Why he was a complete scumbag.
Does Joe the Ambulance Chaser know the number of presidents who had their law licenses revoked?
Does Joe the Ambulance Chaser know why the Arkansas Bar revoked Clinton's law license?
Does Joe the Ambulance Chaser know that Clinton had to pay a huge fine for his misbehavior in a Federal Court?
Does Joe the Ambulance Chaser know that Clinton was once suspected of rape?
Does Joe the Ambulance Chaser know that in Jones Vs. Clinton, Clinton was accused of exposing himself and asking Jones to fellate him?
Does Joe the Ambulance Chaser know that Clintion pressed for legislation while he was the governor of Arkansas to help Tyson Foods so that Hillary could be the recepient of Thousands of dollars in "bribes" through a fixed cattle futures scam?
Does Joe the Ambulance Chaser know that Clinton lied and manipulated the draft board while he was in Oxford so he would not be drafted?
************************************************
and note the following:
For several years, the Washington Weekly has published a compiled list of alleged crimes in the Clinton administration. Current events quickly make the list incomplete, necessitating updates. The list, now including 33 Clinton appointees, is by no means exhaustive, but does include activities before taking office.
BILL CLINTON
(1) Used State Police for personal purposes.
(2) Directed State Police to fabricate incriminating evidence
against a political opponent: Terry Reed.
(3) Conspired with David Hale and Jim McDougal to defraud the
Small Business Administration.
(4) Was complicit in the shipment of drugs through Arkansas.
(5) Allowed laudering of drug money through ADFA.
(6) Appointed and protected Arkansas Medical Examiner Fahmy Malak
who repeatedly obstructed justice by declaring murders as
"suicides" or "accidents."
(7) Has never accounted for his actions during 40 days behind the
Iron Curtain during the Vietnam War.
(8) Tipped off Governor Tucker about upcoming criminal referral.
(9) Violated Arkansas campaign finance laws.
(10) Violated his oath ofoffice to uphold the Constitution by
signing into law an ex post facto law, a retroactive tax
increase.
(11) Fired RTC chiefAlbert Casey to allow his friend Roger
Altman to monitor and block Whitewater investigations.
(12) Fired FBI director William Sessions to prevent an
autonomous FBI from investigating the Foster suicide and from
resisting cooperation in the Filegate operation.
(13) Fired all U.S. Attorneys to appoint Paula Casey to prevent
Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton.
(14) Offered State Troopers federal jobs in return for their
silence about Clinton's crimes.
(15) Blocked Justice Department indictments after Inspector
General Sherman Funk found "criminal violations of the Privacy
Act provable beyond reasonable doubt" when former Bush employee
files were searched and leaked to the press.
(16) Appointed friend and now-convicted felon Webster Hubbell to
number 3 position in Justice Department in order to be able to
block Whitewater criminal referrals.
(17) Blocked the criminal trial of Representative Ford, a
Tennessee Democrat.
(18) Appointed a campaign activist to head the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, without the mandated "advice and consent" of
the Senate, to derail a probe of his and Hillary's financial
dealings.
*******************************************************************
Even the left is embarrassed by Clinton.
Soon they will be embarrassed by Obama.
0 Replies
genoves
0
Reply
Fri 19 Jun, 2009 06:02 pm
The following post shows that after only five months in office, Obama is beginning to go down in flames:
The key, which Axelrod and his goons must really be sweating out is that the article points out that Obama is losing AMONG THE MODERATES.
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama faces a dilemma as he fights the recession: The public identifies both rising unemployment and soaring budget deficits as its top policy concerns -- but fixing one could worsen the other.
Reuters
President Obama said this week that he expects the jobless rate to hit 10% this year.
Mr. Obama can ill afford to lose public support on the cusp of the biggest political fights of his presidency, over health care, energy and financial reregulation. Three separate polls this week, including one from the Wall Street Journal/NBC News, have raised red flags at the White House that the president, though still personally popular, is losing some ground with the public on his economic policies.
Officials concede there is little the president can do to please everyone, given the economic Catch-22. If he heeds concerns on the deficit and pulls back on economic stimulus, he risks choking off the "green shoots" of what may be a fledgling recovery.
Mr. Obama said this week that he expects the unemployment rate to reach 10% this year. Without sustained stimulus spending, it could move even higher heading into next year's midterm congressional elections. Rising joblessness could trigger pressure for another injection of spending or tax cuts beyond the billions of dollars already spent.
Yet the sustained push -- even without another fiscal stimulus plan -- threatens to push the budget deficit over the $2 trillion mark, a percentage of the economy unmatched since World War II.
"Traditionally people haven't paid enough attention to the looming fiscal crisis in this country, so people seem to be waking up," said R. Glenn Hubbard, who was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers when President George W. Bush pressed forward with tax cuts in the face of rising deficits. "The issue the administration faces here is a trade-off between short-term [spending] to fix the economy and long-term deficit control."
In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released this week, 58% said the president and Congress should worry more about keeping the budget deficit down, even though such action may mean a longer recession and slower recovery. Just 35% said they favored boosting the economy, even though it might mean larger budget deficits.
Democrats are more evenly split, with 50% favoring boosting the economy, and 42% urging a deficit focus, while Republicans are overwhelmingly more concerned about the red ink.
White House officials are more closely watching independents. By 2 to 1, that politically pivotal group would rather see the White House and Congress bring the deficit under control.
That said, 31% of those in the Journal/NBC poll identified job creation and economic growth as the highest priority for the federal government to address, by far the biggest priority. The deficit and government spending came next, at 19%.
A recent WSJ/NBC poll shows that voters' top concerns are unemployment and the budget deficit. White House correspondent Jonathan Weisman explains why these concerns have contradicting solutions, which spells headaches ahead for the Obama administration.
Given the public's conflicting impulses, the White House is urging Americans to stay the course. Christina Romer, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, cites the Great Depression. In the opening years of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, annual economic growth averaged over 9%. Unemployment fell from 25% to 14%.
Then came 1937, when a large bonus for World War I veterans came to an end, Social Security taxes were collected for the first time, and the Federal Reserve Board, looking for an exit strategy, began reining in the money supply. The budget deficit fell, by about 2.5% of the gross domestic product. Unemployment leapt to 19%.
"The 1937-38 recession shows what can happen if policy support is withdrawn too soon from an economy struggling to recover from a severe financial crisis. The key is to plan an exit strategy, but to resist a return to normal policy until the economy is again approaching full employment."
The real dilemma could come late this year or early next, if it becomes clear a recovery is stalled but rising long-term interest rates make another stimulus plan a gamble, said Martin Baily, a former chairman of President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers.
"I'd say go ahead and do it, probably as a tax cut and not more of this infrastructure spending," he added, "but I'd be worried as hell about it."
0 Replies
McGentrix
1
Reply
Fri 19 Jun, 2009 06:55 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
But Bush did it too!
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Fri 19 Jun, 2009 07:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr Obama, told The Times: “The bottom line is Obama does not recall ever meeting him [Mr Auchi].”
The house-and-garden deal raised questions about whether Mr Rezko, a property developer and fast-food restauranteur, made it possible for the Obamas to purchase a mansion they could otherwise not afford.
Mrs Rezko paid the asking price for the garden but the Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million, - $300,000 less than the asking price. The sellers deny they offered the Obamas a discount on the house because the garden had fetched full price from Mrs Rezko.
Mr Rezko has since been indicted for allegedly scheming to pressure companies seeking business with the state of Illinois for kickbacks and contributions to the governor Rod Blagojevich's campaign. He goes on trial on March 3.
A prosecution document filed last month alleged that a "political candidate" - identified by the Chicago Sun-Times as Mr Obama - received a $10,000 campaign contribution from what is said to be a $250,000 kickback in the corruption case. That means Mr Obama's name could figure in Mr Rezko's trial, although he is not accused of any wrongdoing.
Mr Obama insists he never used his office to do favours for Mr Rezko but admits that, as an Illinois state senator, he once wrote letters to housing officials urging them to provide money in support of a proposed apartment building for elderly people which Mr Rezko wanted to build.
Being 'up to ones eyeballs' in the corruption of the Chicago machine is not the same thing as accusing anybody of a crime. It only means that one benefits from the machine and, if the machine is corrupt, from that corruption. Corrupt is not necessarily synonymous with 'illegal' though usually the two go at least in part hand in hand. The fact is, President Obama seems to have no friends at all that he has not had to distance himself from since he started running for President, yet all those people seem to be involved in some way with his rise to fortune and power.
0 Replies
ican711nm
1
Reply
Fri 19 Jun, 2009 08:21 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Again, Ican, you have to have a verifiable crime that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that would stand up under our current legal and social understanding of what that looks like. At this time, the "Founders intent" or their understanding (or your understanding) of what the Constitution says simply won't support identification of such a crime, at least as it will be interpreted now.
We disagree!
We have at least four verifiable crimes that rise "to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that would stand up under our current legal and social understanding of what that looks like."
What the Constitution says in its 5th and 10th Amendments does support identification of such crimes. How the Constitution will be interpreted depends on how competently the case is made. Failure to even try to make such a case now will promote the continuation and expansion of these crimes.
OBAMA MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE HIGH CRIMES HE HAS COMMITTED AGAINST AMERICA’S CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
(1) Obama is transfering property from those who have lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.
(2) Obama is denying corporate bond holders of bankrupt corporations their full lawful equity in those bonds, BEFORE distributing corporate assets to any other corporate persons including employees.
(3) Obama is refusing to allow corporate receivers of federal loans to pay back those loans without his permission.
(4) Obama is forcing selected car dealer businesses to close.
Again, Ican, you have to have a verifiable crime that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that would stand up under our current legal and social understanding of what that looks like. At this time, the "Founders intent" or their understanding (or your understanding) of what the Constitution says simply won't support identification of such a crime, at least as it will be interpreted now.
We disagree!
We have at least four verifiable crimes that rise "to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that would stand up under our current legal and social understanding of what that looks like."
What the Constitution says in its 5th and 10th Amendments does support identification of such crimes. How the Constitution will be interpreted depends on how competently the case is made. Failure to even try to make such a case now will promote the continuation and expansion of these crimes.
OBAMA MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE HIGH CRIMES HE HAS COMMITTED AGAINST AMERICA’S CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
(1) Obama is transfering property from those who have lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.
I agree that this is not constitutional on the face of it, but nevertheless it has been allowed since the last Roosevelt administration and has even been ordered by the courts as mandatory under equal protection criteria. I don't see how you can make it stick that Obama is doing anything illegal there as the law is currently interpreted. Outside the intent of the Constitution, sure. Outside what is humane, profitable, and edifying for the nation, of course. But illegal? I think you'll have a very difficult time making that case. We first must have a law that makes it illegal.
Quote:
(2) Obama is denying corporate bond holders of bankrupt corporations their full lawful equity in those bonds, BEFORE distributing corporate assets to any other corporate persons including employees.
Unethical of course. Destructive absolutely. But, given the fact that the bond holders stood to lose everything in a Chapter 7, how would a court decision on this go? At least you have a better case on this one I think, but I still think it would not rise to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' because I think it would be shown to be illegal, but without malice or bad intent. It would be much like a few fine details of policy of Homeland Security during President Bush's administration were ruled illegal, but without malice or bad intent or criminal activity. It was simply a matter of ordering cease and desist which was done.
Quote:
(3) Obama is refusing to allow corporate receivers of federal loans to pay back those loans without his permission.
I think this would be shown to have been done with the full knowledge and consent of Congressional leaders and to prevent additional drain on the treasury if those borrowers should again fall onto perilous financial circumstances. Manipulative, bullying, improper use of Presidential power? A case for all can be (and has been) made for that, but without a law stating that the government has to accept payment of loans outside their original intent, I don't think you can make any kind of case for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Quote:
(4) Obama is forcing selected car dealer businesses to close.
However irresponsible, unwise, or politically expedient that might be, there is no law requiring an auto company to renew a franchise. Again, you'll have a difficult time making a case for high crimes and misdemeanors.
I am as alarmed and heartsick as you are re how things are going, and I think if the current tactics by the government are allowed to stand with impunity, we will never again be the free and prosperous nation that we once were. But our only hope is to elect a Congress that can put the brakes on it because that is what our Constitution was designed to do to prevent such abuse of power and a runaway branch of government.
It is fun to debate somebody who is actually debating the issue, however, and even though we can't agree, I can't tell you how much I appreciate that.
I forgot about this one, but if Obama moves forward at some point with his "National Security Force" just as big, strong, and well funded as the military, he deserves impeachment. That would clearly be an abuse of power. Keep in mind he wants to do this already, although he is not emboldened yet to go all the way. But he is expanding Americorp, and finding ways to fund ACORN to do various things, even conducting the Census. I think he is clearly overstepping his bounds already.
If anyone thinks what is happening in Iran could not happen here in maybe 10 years, 20 years, or at some point in the future, think again. It is entirely possible if Obama is not thwarted from doing some of his screwy ideas.
If anyone thinks Obama is not possibly another dictator wannabe, watch this:
"The pro-government Basij militia has held back its full fury during this week's street demonstrations. But witnesses say the force has unleashed its violence in shadowy nighttime raids, attacking suspected opposition sympathizers... "
Well, what would Obama have his security force doing, if it did not include Election security and other various and sundry jobs to quell his opposition?
Libs will call me a nut, as losing my mind, but here is my thought, I never thought it could happen in America, but I never thought we would have a president that would propose such bizarre and dangerous ideas? So I have to look at the reality of who we are dealing with, and Obama is certainly a piece of work, a dangerous guy indeed, that is the only conclusion that one can draw from this.
0 Replies
genoves
1
Reply
Fri 19 Jun, 2009 11:59 pm
Okie, Foxfyre and Ican have made some good points. As you know, Ican and perhaps can remember, I have been appreciative of your posts, especially on the Global Warming site where you poisted evidence which was never really addressed by Parados.
But, I must comment that, although I too think that Barack Hussein Obama is highly dangerous to the well being of the United States, he will not be impeached.
The reasons are many--some more important than others--One of the most important is his race. I am sure that you are aware that the highest crime one can commit in the USA is not murder or arson or pederasty, it is being a RACIST.
That is why, Ican, in the most recent polls, Obama's support on the deficit, the stimulus package, the health plan and the cap and trade legislation is slowly being pulled away where(most importantly) even the moderate politically undeclared middle is now stating thier opposition to the POLIC IES of Obama. They are not, however, stating their opposition to him as a person. I believe that most of our populace has been brainwashed to such an extent that they will not criticize a black person even though he or she is clearly in error because such criticism might be construed as RACIST.
Some of our children have learned such RELATIVISTIC garbage in some of the most PROGRESSIVE of our schools.
Those who are familiar with the Chicago Pollitical Scene know that Obama has been close to or beholden to the following:
l. Governor Blagojevich--Impeached by the Illinois Senate-awaiting trial about corruption.
2. Senator Burris-Now being investigated for possible perjury involving his conversations with Governor Blagojevich in which he allegedly sought to buy the Senate Seat vacated by Obama after Obama's election to the presidency.
Note:
The apparent decision to seat Roland Burris came after aides to President-elect Barack Obama contacted senior Senate Democrats and suggested that they reverse course and accept Gov. Rod Blagojevich's controversial appointment, according to a senior Dem congressional aide.
Just minutes after the decision to seat Burris was reported, Obama offered the veteran Illinois pol praise and promised a working relationship.
"That is a Senate matter," he said of the news. "But I know Roland Burris, obviously he is from my home state. He is a fine public servant, if he gets seated then I am going to work with Roland Burris like all other senators to make sure that the people if Illinois and the people across the country are served
*****************************************************
note-Obama says he( Burris ) is a fine public servant and that he will work with Roland Burris.
Notice that Obama's staff contacted SENIOR SENATE DEMOCRATS>
Obama, the most brilliant man who ever served as President did not know, did not have a hint of, was not informed that Burris was trying to buy a seat.
SURE.
0 Replies
Foxfyre
2
Reply
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 12:50 am
An excellent crash course in forms of government. It answers the question: Are you a Democrat--one who favors Democratic form of government? Or are you a Republican--one who favors a Republican form of government?
It takes a little bit of time to view the whole thing, but it is well worth it:
A good film, Foxfyre--Only about 11 minutes long. The main point, as I gathered it, is that we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Quite True! Since a real Democracy means the DIRECT rule of the people( as in the small towns of Greece) as opposed to a Representative form of governmenrt.
The tension between states rights on one hand and the central government's power has been a key stumbling block for many in our country It is, in my estimation, the Supreme Court usage of the Commerce Clause which has caused most of the trouble. No clause in the 1787 Constitution has been more disputed. No clause has generated as many cases.
1. wimp.com
its a website with many different games,videos,and pics. it is mainly for "mature audiences" (meaning its for people who laugh at just about anything)
Do you know that the word used in the film relates to WIMP as you found it, Herr Hinteler? I'll bet that it doesn\'t but someone like you, from Germany, who knows NOTHING about US Slang thinks he is able to comment. Stick to your diatribes about the injustices committed at the Nuremberg Trials, Herr Hinteler!
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 09:43 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I don't know if the clip is available in the German language Walter, but I can assure you that Wimp.com collects a widely eclectic assortment of videos out there on the internet and many absolutely do make sense. I wish you could listen to it as there are no captions for you to translate. I found that particular video linked on Walter Williams website, however, and not on Wimp.com.
I also don't know why you thought it important to discredit Wimp.com when you obviously had not heard or understood the video.
0 Replies
Foxfyre
2
Reply
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 09:56 am
Many American conservatives have deplored the increasing nonobjectivity of the American press and the real danger that so much will become tools of the leftists and Democratic Party that we will lose the 'Fourth Estate' entirely. We already know that GE is in full pander mode with the Obama Administration and have ordered NBC and CNBC and MSNBC, which they own, to not say anything critical about the President or his Administration. So scratch those sources for any kind of objective news.
CBS has been an extension of the Democratic Party for at least a decade now, though at least they did force Dan Rather out when he got caught rigging the news.
And now we have ABC producing a glorified infomerical for the President's health care plan, from inside the White House yet, and refusing to present any opposition to it, which is unconscionable and deplorable to any of us who values a free and open press. Their wimpy assertion that they will solicit 'diversity' rings really hollow when they won't allow any opposition advertising for the President's healthcare plan and are blocking the AMA--increasingly NOT a fan--from commenting.
Quote:
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.
Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff
MORE
ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':
"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.
"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."
ABC: Obama propaganda machine?
Gibson anchoring from White House, devoting hours of coverage to health care agenda
Posted: June 16, 2009
By Drew Zahn
Critics are blasting ABC News for its plan to televise blanket coverage of Barack Obama's health care reform initiative, voicing concern that "the media and government [have] become one" and that the network is "virtually turning over news programming to the Obama government" for "a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda."
The media ethics furor stems from ABC News' announcement that next week the network will devote hours of news coverage to the president's plan, televise a primetime "town hall" discussion on the topic called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" and anchor its nightly "World News" program from inside the White House.
Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay was doubly incensed that ABC News reportedly rejected a Republican request to be allowed a response.
"As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue," McKay wrote in a letter to ABC News President David Westin. . . . http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101292
Fox caught with its pants down on ABC attacks
Posted Jun 18, 2009, 12:52 PM PT by Jed Lewison
As Think Progress noted, despite Fox’s whining about ABC’s upcoming special on health care reform which will include a town hall conducted in the White House, it turns out that when George W. Bush was President, Fox did exactly what they are accusing ABC of.
Here’s a video mashup of what Fox is saying now " and what it reported then, including footage from its fawning specials on both Bush and Cheney.
Can't embed, but you can watch a video at the link -
Fox, I never heard you complain about Fox News being given exclusive access and interviews within the WH, and they most certainly didn't represent all points of view in their coverage.
I should point out as well that the AMA only represents about 30% of American doctors and should hardly be considered an authoritative source when it comes to the actual opinions of doctors. They are a money-generating group specifically created to control the medical industry and ensure high prices for their members.
