0
   

OBAMA’S SIGNATURE MOVE: UNSEALING PRIVATE RECORDS

 
 
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 04:40 am
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/01/ann-coulter-obamas-signature-move-unsealing-private-records/


Ann Coulter column, 8/1

Quote:

Mitt Romney presents one enormous problem for Barack Obama’s campaign: No divorce records. That’s why the media are so hot to get their hands on Romney’s tax records for the past 25 years. They need something to “pick through, distort and lie about” — as the Republican candidate says.
Obama’s usual campaign method, used in 100 percent of his races, has been to pry into the private records of his opponents.

Democrats aren’t going to find any personal dirt on the clean-cut Mormon, so they need complicated tax filings going back decades in order to create the illusion of scandal out of boring financial records.

Romney has already released his 2010 tax return and is about to release his 2011 return. After all the huffing and puffing by the media demanding those returns, the follow-up story vanished remarkably quickly when the only thing the return showed was that Romney pays millions of dollars in taxes and gives a lot of money to charity.

Let’s take a romp down memory lane and review the typical Obama campaign strategy. Obama became a U.S. senator only by virtue of David Axelrod’s former employer, the Chicago Tribune, ripping open the sealed divorce records of Obama’s two principal opponents.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

Those records were under seal, but as The New York Times noted: “The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had ‘worked aggressively behind the scenes’ to push the story.” Many people said Axelrod had “an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story.”

Both Hull and his ex-wife opposed releasing their sealed divorce records, but they finally relented in response to the media’s hysteria — 18 days before the primary. Hull was forced to spend four minutes of a debate detailing the abuse allegation in his divorce papers, explaining that his ex-wife “kicked me in the leg and I hit her shin to try to get her to not continue to kick me.”

After having held a substantial lead just a month before the primary, Hull’s campaign collapsed with the chatter about his divorce. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

As luck would have it, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced........


 
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 07:42 am
@gungasnake,
Are you actually accusing an American politician of using devious tactics in order to improve his chances of being elected???

Where did you ever get such a bizarre notion?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 08:56 am
@gungasnake,
ROFLMAO....

Yeah.. that damn Obama. Actually asking for what EVERY politician unseals.


Meanwhile we have Coulter who DID attempt to commit voter fraud.

Obama releases 12 years of tax returns
Obama releases birth certificate

Romney releases 1 year of tax returns

Which politician is more open?
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 10:24 am
@parados,
Romney dosent have to release all his personal stuff because he is a conservative. Wouldent want the surfs to get above themselves by finding out he is a tax cheat. In the moral sense, not the legal sense that people like him have gamed the system to benefit.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 10:59 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Romney dosent have to release all his personal stuff because he is a conservative. Wouldent want the surfs to get above themselves by finding out he is a tax cheat. In the moral sense, not the legal sense that people like him have gamed the system to benefit....


"moral tax cheating" ??????

What's moral about the IRS or the income tax?

I mean the U.S. made it to 1913 without any sort of a regular or permanent income tax. What they attempted to do in 1913 was to implement Alexander Hamilton's idea of using govt. debt as a main basis for money i.e. set up a central bank (the fed), and an income tax to pay interest on govt. while rolling the principle over in perpetuity.

What's moral about any of that? At best that was a fragile system, at worst a time bomb with a 100-year fuse. Minus Bork Obunga waltzing in and spending four or five trillion dollars in 3.5 years we might have had another fifteen years to think about what to replace that system with but now we don't even have that and if, for any reason, Bork were to be re-elected in November, we'll be looking at a new dark age, i.e. one of those periods of2 - 4 centuries for which no archaeological evidence exists.

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 11:00 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Wouldent want the surfs to get above themselves ...



I don't view English spelling as rational in the first place, but don't be handling out straight lines like that to mean-spirited people....
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 11:58 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Wouldent want the surfs to get above themselves ...



I don't view English spelling as rational in the first place, but don't be handling out straight lines like that to mean-spirited people....

Tee hee.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  0  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2012 12:14 am
@gungasnake,
Really GunjasnaKKKe!!! Annie KKKoulter???
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 01:28 am
gungasnaKKKe says:
Quote:
Minus Bork Obunga waltzing in and spending four or five trillion dollars in 3.5 years
Oh, you mean after George W. Bush waltzed in and increased the national debt by 4.9 trillion dollars in unfunded wars and unfunded government spending, and then left Obama the Great Depression II, which Obama managed to narrowly avert by, amongst other things, stimulus programs and measures to prop up the capitalist system, in effective Keynesian style. That couple trillion which saved the country from Republican economic meltdown? Good on Obama.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 04:18 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Oh, you mean after George W. Bush waltzed in and increased the national debt by 4.9 trillion dollars in unfunded wars and unfunded government spending, and then left Obama the Great Depression II, which Obama managed to narrowly avert by, amongst other things, stimulus programs and measures to prop up the capitalist system, in effective Keynesian style. That couple trillion which saved the country from Republican economic meltdown? Good on Obama.


I assume you mean after George W. Bush had to wait until Jan 19, 2001 to get the first look at any of the **** which 8 years of SlicKKK malfeasance had left him after Algor's legal war against the United States, and 9-11 then occurred before he'd had time to get rid of KKKlintonistas in agencies and Jamie Gorelick's "Gorelick WALL" had blinded our intelligence apparatus to an Amos/Andy style plot which should have gotten nowhere and would have gone nowhere with any decent regime in Washington over the previous eight years, and then tried to warn the nation about the disaster which Chris Dodd and Barney Frank had set us up for with their idiotic scheme for using ridiculous home loans as a new basis for money in the world and sent the whole world's economic systems crashing down in flames, and Frank and Dodd and their ilk laughed at him??



parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 05:27 pm
@gungasnake,
I'm guessing the only way you can recite that without choking on the lies is with that run on sentence.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 06:25 pm
@parados,
I envision him saying the whole sentence without taking a breath.

it's better that way...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 07:29 pm
@parados,
Quote:
with that run on sentence.


It's not a run on sentence, P.

gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 08:11 pm
@JTT,
Paradork doesn't appear capable of reading a sentence of more than about eighty characters.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 08:26 pm
@gungasnake,
It is a sentence that runs on but it isn't a run on sentence. Not that there's really anything wrong with either.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 08:58 pm
Do you actually believe that ****, gunga? I mean, really? Pretty much every clause is totally counterfactual. No, I looked again, I take it back. Not "pretty much". Every clause is counterfactual.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 09:13 pm
@MontereyJack,
Consider all the lies, counterfactuals, propaganda, ... that the average American has absorbed over a lifetime.

You even have to ask, MJ?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 09:17 pm
@MontereyJack,
The most major claims in the sentence which Paradork lacked the intellectual wherewithal to read involved the "Gorelick Wall" which you can look up yourself and the culpability of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in the financial collapse of 08.09.

None of that **** is imaginary, e.g.

http://www.truthandcommonsense.org/

Quote:
....Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The current mortgage failures and the associated collapse of America’s major financial institutions have brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy. Two major Congressional Chairmen could have prevented this collapse; Representative Barney Frank (D), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and Senator Christopher Dodd (D) Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Between these two committees, these men have absolute regulatory control over America’s financial systems.

These men with purpose eviscerated well established banking regulations for the short term partisan purpose of power and appeasement for a vocal segment of their constituency. In doing so, Messrs Frank and Dodd ruined the dreams and aspirations of millions of people they were to help. They did so in a reckless manner with complete disregard of America’s best interest. Messrs Frank and Dodd, in collaboration with Acorn forced lending institutions to accept alternative methods for evaluating high risk home buyers, and permitted Fannie and Freddie to accept high risk mortgages, and then fraudulently rate those mortgages as investment grade securities.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are GSE’s, government sponsored enterprises, and were originally developed to act as a secondary market to buy mortgage loans from local banks, which in turn would give banks more capital to invest in additional mortgages. This program gave responsible low income Americans with solid jobs and good credit, a hand up. Because of 1995 Clinton era legislative changes to the original Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the definition of a subprime borrower was re-classified.

In very simple terms, Messrs Frank and Dodd made an abomination of the noble goal of increasing home ownership and embraced the “socialist concept of entitlement,” and embarked upon a program to give mortgages to low income high risk borrowers who have an almost certain probability of default. Under accepted Banking principles; should an individual with a poor credit history, a "sub-prime" borrower, want to obtain a mortgage, that individual would be required to have a 20-30% down payment and pay a much higher rate than a "prime" borrower. With the full approval and encouragement of Messrs. Frank and Dodd, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac developed products that allowed the same "sub-prime" borrower to qualify for a mortgage with a much lower down payment and interest rate. Lenders felt comfortable giving mortgage loans to these borrowers with poor credit history because the ratings agencies, Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch's gave these mortgages the same ratings as U.S. Treasury notes, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. .........
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 07:59 am
@gungasnake,
Oh... those pesky Democrats. They were in control even when the GOP controlled both housed of Congress.


Quote:
Because of 1995 Clinton era legislative changes to the original Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the definition of a subprime borrower was re-classified.

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

104th House
(1995-1997)
Minority Party: Democrat 204
Majority Party: Republican 230
http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/partyDiv.aspx


I'm unclear how the minority party were the Chairs of any committees. Perhaps you can help us out here gunga and show us the vote where the GOP willingly elected Dems to those positions. Or maybe the GOP retired retroactive to 1995. Yeah, that must be it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » OBAMA’S SIGNATURE MOVE: UNSEALING PRIVATE RECORDS
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/16/2021 at 05:34:57