CHICAGO -- All Illinois state business with the Bank of America will be stopped immediately until the bank provides credit to a windows and door factory that fired 200 workers last week.
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich announced Monday the state's solidarity with the workers of the Republic Windows and Doors plant, who were laid off without being paid severance or vacation time that was due under union contracts.
The employees are staging a sit-in at the shuttered factory, occupying the building in eight-hour shifts of about 60 workers at a time.
The workers are scheduled to meet with union and bank officials, Rep. Luis Gutierrez said Monday. Their demonstration has drawn support from President-elect Barack Obama and others.
Gutierrez, a Chicago-area Democrat, said officials of the now-closed Republic Windows and Doors would meet with representatives of the workers' union, the United Electrical Workers, and of the bank that has canceled its financing of the company.
"We're very pleased to see all the support that's coming in from all around the country, including obviously President-elect Barack Obama," United Electrical Workers representative Mark Meinstein said.
Company representatives have not commented since the sit-in began on Friday, and have not responded to calls and e-mails.
Gutierrez said Republic officials had signed a waiver permitting the opening of its financial records at the meeting.
Republic Windows and Doors told the workers on Dec. 2 that they would be out of work by the end of the week.
Leah Fried, an organizer for the United Electrical Workers, said the company told the union that Bank of America had canceled its financing. The bank had said in a statement that it wasn't responsible for Republic's financial obligations to its employees.
"This thing is in the bank's hands right now and ... we're really looking to the bank to do the right thing here, come to a positive resolution and make sure that the workers are paid the money they're owed," Meinstein told FOX News.
The announcement of the meeting comes after a wave of publicity about the sit-in and appearances by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Obama, who said Sunday that the company should honor its commitments to the 200 workers.
"The workers who are asking for the benefits and payments that they have earned, I think they're absolutely right and understand that what's happening to them is reflective of what's happening across this economy," Obama said at a news conference Sunday.
To their amazement, the workers have become a national symbol for thousands of employees laid off nationwide as the economy sours.
"We never expected this," said factory employee Melvin Maclin, vice president of the union local that represents the workers. "We expected to go to jail."
One of the factory's workers, Silvia Mazon, said in Spanish that she needs the money owed to her for an $1,800 monthly house payment. The 40-year-old Cicero resident said she has enough money saved to survive for one month.
"We're making history," she said.
This has to be one of the most arrogant things our Pres-elect could have done. He has basically steered these people away from following the proper legal channels and gave them a green light to break our laws. And it seems that the Illinois Governor has also given his blessing. i guess when you run with criminals, the mentality will eventually wear on you.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Political mistakes can be costly, but when they are made by the president of the United States of America, they can be deadly.
When in 1979, the unrest in Iran escalated, President Carter’s national secretary advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, advised him to encourage the Shah to crack down the revolution. The more cautious State Department, suggested that Carter reach out to democratic opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to a new government. Carter did neither, and the worst possible outcome ensued.
Muslim youths, from all over the world, were dazzled by the unexpected success of the Islamic revolution. Nothing is more roborant to Islamists than victory. Victory gives them the confirmation that they are right. It is an elixir that invigorates them. Thus, after centuries of lying in its grave jihad was resurrected .
As you can see, mistakes in the White House can be costly. Who would have thought Carter’s lack of political acumen would cause the carnage of 9/11, so many wars and the death of millions of people across the world? Carter is history, but history is the best teacher.
America has elected a new president. Barak Hussein Obama, an unknown political figure, has emerged as the candidate of the Democrats and has won the presidency. He has mesmerized a great number of people. Is he the right man to lead the world's most powerful country? Does he have enough political acumen for the job?
What to Do with a Nuclear Iran?
Obama linked his rival McCain to the outgoing president Bush and said the Bush/McCain record on protecting this country, has benefited Iran, left al-Qaida "stronger than ever", and allowed Osama bin Laden to remain free and release propaganda videos.
So what will he do now that he has been elected? Well, to begin with, he has announced that, he wouldn't ask Iran to comply with UN resolutions as a precondition for direct talks.
"Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art," he said. "Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."
What Obama misses, is that the preconditions are not whimsical excuses of Bush to avoid talk with Iran. They are unanimous resolutions of the UN Security Council, agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Obama will have to ignore the recommendation of IAEA and defy the resolutions of the UN Security Council to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
What would be the reaction of the Chinese, the Russians and America's European allies who voted for these resolutions in the Council? What message would this send to all other banana republics that may want to violate the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the international law? Wouldn’t it undermine the credibility of the Security Council? Wouldn’t it be a mockery of international diplomacy?
Why Obama thinks the preconditions are unfair and unnecessary? The resolution basically says that Iran should stop cheating. Does Obama think it is okay for Iran to cheat and to lie while the talks are proceeding?
Let us say Obama, thumbs his nose at the IAEA and the Security Council and meets Ahmadinejad without precondition. Would this make the delinquent Iran weaker or stronger?
Obama’s statement that he would waive the preconditions to talk with Iran could not have come at a more propitious time for the beleaguered president of the Islamic Republic. Ahmadinejad, who was under attack by his internal opponents and weakened for endangering Iran with his irresponsible rhetoric on "wiping Israel off the map" and his reckless pursuit to build nuclear bomb in defiance of the UN Security Council suddenly got a shot in the arm by Obama who conceded that Iran does not have to listen to the highest international authority.
This is not just a victory for Ahmadinejad and the hardliners, but also a setback for the Iranian opposition and the democratic movement in that country. More strength for the hardliners translates into more instability in the region and more support for terrorism.
Clarity of Language
In an interview with ABC television, Clinton was asked what she would do as president if the Islamic Republic were to launch a nuclear strike on Israel. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said unequivocally. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
This is tough talk, but it sends a clear message and clarity prevents misunderstanding, wars and loss of lives.
What was Obama’s reaction? He took issue with that and said, “Using words like obliterate doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling.”
The truth is that, it is ambiguity that does not produce good result. Clinton was clear. Clarity acts as a deterrent. When in 1990, April Glaspie, the American Ambassador to Iraq saw the massing of Iraqi troops near the border of Kuwait, she said, "we [Washington] have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She told Saddam Hussein that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements led Saddam into believing he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait. The result was catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed as the result. If she had warned Saddam unequivocally of the consequences, those lives would not have been sacrificed. Clarity saves lives. Obama’s lack of clarity vis-à-vis Iran can spell disaster for millions of Iranians.
Obama wants to talk with Ahmadinejad. What would they talk about? What are the legitimate grievances of Iran that Americans need to hearken? Ahmadinejad has made his wishes clear. He wants to build the nuclear bomb and he wants to wipe Israel off the map. How much of these are negotiable? He is convinced that it is through destroying Israel that the hidden Imam Mahdi will make his appearance. He sees himself as the hand of God. This man is motivated by faith, not by reason. How do you negotiate with such a person?
On Regime Change in Iran
Obama said that if he is elected he would engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" and offer Iran economic inducements and a promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.”
Of course, Iran has never shunned from talking. The mullahs love to talk. The phrase "dialogue between civilizations" was coined by the last Iranian president Mullah Khatami. These talks would allow them to buy time and to build their coveted atomic bomb.
Furthermore, the mullahs have never acknowledged meddling in Iraq, cooperating with terrorists, or wanting to build atomic bombs. They can give all the promises to make you happy and continue doing what they are doing, while they will get the economical incentives that Obama will throw at them.
For Muslims, treaties mean nothing. Inspired by the example set by their prophet at Hudaibiyyah, Muslims will sign any treaty, only to break them when they can get away with it. As an ex-Muslim, assuming Obama is an ex-Muslim and not just pretending for the sake of political expediency, he should know that.
Again what Mr. Obama does not know is that the mess in Iran is the result of the errors of Washington. In 1953 the CIA, instigated by the British, led a coup against the Prime Minister Dr. Mossadeq and uprooted the fledging democracy in that country. Then in 1979, Carter turned his back against the Shah, the good ally of America, and let Iran fall into the hands of Islamists. America is morally obligated to Iran, more than she was to Japan or to Germany. Unlike these two countries, Iran has never attacked America. Iran is a victim of America's misguided foreign policies.
Today 90% of Iranians oppose the Islamic regime. They want change, but an uprising against a tyrannical regime that has no qualm killing any number of people to stay in power is not realistic. Iranians need support to overthrow their tyrants. When Mr. Obama reassures the regime that the US will not support regime change, he is dashing the hopes of the majority of Iranians. Today, the greatest allies of America in the Middle East are the people of Iran. They distrust the European countries because of their dealings with the Islamic regime. By offering protection to mullahs, Obama risks alienating the oppressed people of Iran. Iranians do not deserve to be betrayed and stabbed again by another inept American president.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is the main supporter and financier of many terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. It is the instigator of troubles in Iraq. The mullahs will never cooperate with America to bring stability to Iraq. Stability and democracy in Iraq are threats to the regime in Iran. Obama's views are naive. He does not understand the intricacies of the politics of the Middle East. The best solution for the crisis in the Middle East is regime change in Iran and not promises of its protection. Iran is the head of the snake. Islamic terrorism began in Iran and must end in Iran.
On Israel/Palestine Conflict
Where does Obama stand on Israel/Palestine issue? Well, today he is markedly pro Israel.
On February 2007 Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago to woo pro-Israel campaign donors. In his speech he expressed his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Ha'aretz last week.
Reviewing his speech, Ha'aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama “sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.”
However, Obama’s views on this issue, a decade earlier, were very different. The pro-Palestine activist and the co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah writes:
Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago 's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"
Ali Abunimah, laments that Obama has gradually shifted into AIPAC camp as he has moved from small time Illinois politics to the national scene and is “courting the pro-Israel constituency."
Mr. Abumimah seems to be a bit impatient. Maybe Obama is just playing the political game of deception to get elected. After which he will be "more upfront." Such a dramatic change must be seen with suspicion. In fact Abumimah himself concludes, “He [Obama] is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected.”
From left to right, Michelle Obama, then Illinois state senator Barak Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. Edward Said was an outspoken advocate of Palestinian rights and vehemently against Israel .
On July 3, 2000, Prof. Said was photographed lobbing a rock across the Lebanon-Israel border.. Wikipedia
Michelle Obama and Barak Obama listen to Edward Said give the keynote address at an Arab community event in Chicago, May 1998.
On Patriotism
Carter’s lack of political wit weakened America, but he was succeeded by Reagan, a man with implacable patriotic credentials. Reagan was proud to be an American. He made America #1. His love for his country translated into strength, both economically and strategically. Communism fell on its own but one must not underestimate the success of capitalism during the Reagan era for the demise of communism. It was the strength of America that highlighted the failure of communism and convinced the Soviets that their world view is flawed.
For America to be strong it is necessary to have a president who is proud of being an American. Obama does not seem to be too happy with his country. Obama’s spiritual mentor is Jeremiah Wright, a man who hates America and who said “God Bless America ” should be replaced by “God damn America.” Obama says he never heard that remark. But he has been attending Wright’s church for 20 years. Wright’s anti American rhetoric is not something new. It is reflected in all his sermons. He has even praised Louis Farrakhan, a man known for his racist, homophobic, and antisemitic remarks. Obama has made a donation of more than $20,000 to Wright’s church. Is it possible to be a friend of someone and listen to his sermons for 20 years and not know him? Assuming Obama is not lying, can he be trusted to pick the right people to run the country?
As a matter of fact, Michelle, Obama’s wife, evinced the same disdain for America when she said she has never been proud of her country until now that her husband is running for the top job. Will she be ashamed of America again if he loses?
What Changes?
If the Obamas are ashamed of America they must have a different vision for it and if elected, it is likely that they would make some tweaking. In fact "change" is Obama's campaign slogan.
When someone promises change, one must ask what kind of change. Khomeini promised change and so did Hitler. They delivered what they promised. Has Obama explained what is he going to change and to what? That is what is troubling. He has not. As a matter of fact, now that he is seeking the widespread support of the voters, he is sounding more and more like other candidates. Actually his plans are not a lot different from those of Bush whom he loves to attack at every turn.
Despite the fact that he is changing his rhetoric and is sounding more mainstream to appeal to voters, I do believe that Obama will make some changes and that is what concerns me. I am afraid the changes that he intends to make are not what the Americans would want to see.
Who Wins if Obama Wins?
Obama’s victory will no doubt be a victory for Ahmadinejad and the hardliners in Iran who will be encouraged to crack down more brutally the opposition. They will jail and execute their opponents and the minorities to solidify their hold on power. Likewise, the terrorist organizations that are supported by the regime in Tehran will cheer and they too will take advantage of the weak America to score political points.
The Sunnis will not let the Shiites steal the show. They too will intensify their terrorist activities. Obama thinks America should back off and appease its enemies. The truth is that the more the terrorists succeed the bolder they become. The weakness of America will be their victory. The so called moderate Muslims who are now sitting on the fence because they think the ummah is too weak for jihad, will join their jihadi brethrens and the spectrum of the third world war and a nuclear holocaust becomes a reality.
There are other people who will also cheer Obama’s victory. More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees endorsed Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism.
Then there are the communists, the supporters of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and the admirers of the terrorist Che Guevara who will also cheer. As a matter of fact these people are actively campaigning for Obama (see also this video). Obama has promised to lift the economical embargo on Cuba if elected.
The Cuban flag with the image of Ernesto Che Guevara superimposed on it. It’s tacked onto the wall of an office in Barak Obama’s Houston campaign headquarters.
Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. From communists to Islamists down to the terrorists, everybody loves Obama. Is there something these people know that the average Americans don’t? Why the sworn enemies of America are so hyped and excited over the prospect of Obama's presidency?
Obama is aware of the potential backlash. He is doing everything he can to hide this embarrassing display of affection. On June16, in his Detroit rally, his campaign volunteers barred two Muslim women from sitting behind the podium to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate. The women were offended, one of them said, "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."
I believe the man in the White House must be someone who can be trusted, someone with impeccable patriotic credentials who is not ashamed of wearing America's flag pin and puts his hand on his heart instead of his genital when the national anthem is played. Big acts are rehearsed; it is little things like these that can tell us about a person.
A trustworthy candidate is one whose views on vital issues have not shifted 180 degrees only recently. He must understand the threat of Islamofascism and must have the sagacity to deal with it.
Is Senator Barak Hussein Obama fit to be the commander in chief of the mightiest military force on earth? If we are still paying the consequences of Carter’s ineptitude, what would be the price if Obama turns to be the wrong man for the White House? The problem is that we know so little about this man and the little that we know is not reassuring. Obama is a wild card. Can Americans afford gambling their country and the world peace in these perilous times?
When in 1979, the unrest in Iran escalated, President Carter’s national secretary advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, advised him to encourage the Shah to crack down the revolution. The more cautious State Department, suggested that Carter reach out to democratic opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to a new government. Carter did neither, and the worst possible outcome ensued.
Muslim youths, from all over the world, were dazzled by the unexpected success of the Islamic revolution. Nothing is more roborant to Islamists than victory. Victory gives them the confirmation that they are right. It is an elixir that invigorates them. Thus, after centuries of lying in its grave jihad was resurrected .
As you can see, mistakes in the White House can be costly. Who would have thought Carter’s lack of political acumen would cause the carnage of 9/11, so many wars and the death of millions of people across the world? Carter is history, but history is the best teacher.
America has elected a new president. Barak Hussein Obama, an unknown political figure, has emerged as the candidate of the Democrats and has won the presidency. He has mesmerized a great number of people. Is he the right man to lead the world's most powerful country? Does he have enough political acumen for the job?
What to Do with a Nuclear Iran?
Obama linked his rival McCain to the outgoing president Bush and said the Bush/McCain record on protecting this country, has benefited Iran, left al-Qaida "stronger than ever", and allowed Osama bin Laden to remain free and release propaganda videos.
So what will he do now that he has been elected? Well, to begin with, he has announced that, he wouldn't ask Iran to comply with UN resolutions as a precondition for direct talks.
"Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art," he said. "Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."
What Obama misses, is that the preconditions are not whimsical excuses of Bush to avoid talk with Iran. They are unanimous resolutions of the UN Security Council, agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Obama will have to ignore the recommendation of IAEA and defy the resolutions of the UN Security Council to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
What would be the reaction of the Chinese, the Russians and America's European allies who voted for these resolutions in the Council? What message would this send to all other banana republics that may want to violate the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the international law? Wouldn’t it undermine the credibility of the Security Council? Wouldn’t it be a mockery of international diplomacy?
Why Obama thinks the preconditions are unfair and unnecessary? The resolution basically says that Iran should stop cheating. Does Obama think it is okay for Iran to cheat and to lie while the talks are proceeding?
Let us say Obama, thumbs his nose at the IAEA and the Security Council and meets Ahmadinejad without precondition. Would this make the delinquent Iran weaker or stronger?
Obama’s statement that he would waive the preconditions to talk with Iran could not have come at a more propitious time for the beleaguered president of the Islamic Republic. Ahmadinejad, who was under attack by his internal opponents and weakened for endangering Iran with his irresponsible rhetoric on "wiping Israel off the map" and his reckless pursuit to build nuclear bomb in defiance of the UN Security Council suddenly got a shot in the arm by Obama who conceded that Iran does not have to listen to the highest international authority.
This is not just a victory for Ahmadinejad and the hardliners, but also a setback for the Iranian opposition and the democratic movement in that country. More strength for the hardliners translates into more instability in the region and more support for terrorism.
Clarity of Language
In an interview with ABC television, Clinton was asked what she would do as president if the Islamic Republic were to launch a nuclear strike on Israel. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said unequivocally. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
This is tough talk, but it sends a clear message and clarity prevents misunderstanding, wars and loss of lives.
What was Obama’s reaction? He took issue with that and said, “Using words like obliterate doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling.”
The truth is that, it is ambiguity that does not produce good result. Clinton was clear. Clarity acts as a deterrent. When in 1990, April Glaspie, the American Ambassador to Iraq saw the massing of Iraqi troops near the border of Kuwait, she said, "we [Washington] have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She told Saddam Hussein that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements led Saddam into believing he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait. The result was catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed as the result. If she had warned Saddam unequivocally of the consequences, those lives would not have been sacrificed. Clarity saves lives. Obama’s lack of clarity vis-à-vis Iran can spell disaster for millions of Iranians.
Obama wants to talk with Ahmadinejad. What would they talk about? What are the legitimate grievances of Iran that Americans need to hearken? Ahmadinejad has made his wishes clear. He wants to build the nuclear bomb and he wants to wipe Israel off the map. How much of these are negotiable? He is convinced that it is through destroying Israel that the hidden Imam Mahdi will make his appearance. He sees himself as the hand of God. This man is motivated by faith, not by reason. How do you negotiate with such a person?
On Regime Change in Iran
Obama said that if he is elected he would engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" and offer Iran economic inducements and a promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.”
Of course, Iran has never shunned from talking. The mullahs love to talk. The phrase "dialogue between civilizations" was coined by the last Iranian president Mullah Khatami. These talks would allow them to buy time and to build their coveted atomic bomb.
Furthermore, the mullahs have never acknowledged meddling in Iraq, cooperating with terrorists, or wanting to build atomic bombs. They can give all the promises to make you happy and continue doing what they are doing, while they will get the economical incentives that Obama will throw at them.
For Muslims, treaties mean nothing. Inspired by the example set by their prophet at Hudaibiyyah, Muslims will sign any treaty, only to break them when they can get away with it. As an ex-Muslim, assuming Obama is an ex-Muslim and not just pretending for the sake of political expediency, he should know that.
Again what Mr. Obama does not know is that the mess in Iran is the result of the errors of Washington. In 1953 the CIA, instigated by the British, led a coup against the Prime Minister Dr. Mossadeq and uprooted the fledging democracy in that country. Then in 1979, Carter turned his back against the Shah, the good ally of America, and let Iran fall into the hands of Islamists. America is morally obligated to Iran, more than she was to Japan or to Germany. Unlike these two countries, Iran has never attacked America. Iran is a victim of America's misguided foreign policies.
Today 90% of Iranians oppose the Islamic regime. They want change, but an uprising against a tyrannical regime that has no qualm killing any number of people to stay in power is not realistic. Iranians need support to overthrow their tyrants. When Mr. Obama reassures the regime that the US will not support regime change, he is dashing the hopes of the majority of Iranians. Today, the greatest allies of America in the Middle East are the people of Iran. They distrust the European countries because of their dealings with the Islamic regime. By offering protection to mullahs, Obama risks alienating the oppressed people of Iran. Iranians do not deserve to be betrayed and stabbed again by another inept American president.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is the main supporter and financier of many terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. It is the instigator of troubles in Iraq. The mullahs will never cooperate with America to bring stability to Iraq. Stability and democracy in Iraq are threats to the regime in Iran. Obama's views are naive. He does not understand the intricacies of the politics of the Middle East. The best solution for the crisis in the Middle East is regime change in Iran and not promises of its protection. Iran is the head of the snake. Islamic terrorism began in Iran and must end in Iran.
On Israel/Palestine Conflict
Where does Obama stand on Israel/Palestine issue? Well, today he is markedly pro Israel.
On February 2007 Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago to woo pro-Israel campaign donors. In his speech he expressed his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Ha'aretz last week.
Reviewing his speech, Ha'aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama “sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.”
However, Obama’s views on this issue, a decade earlier, were very different. The pro-Palestine activist and the co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah writes:
Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago 's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"
Ali Abunimah, laments that Obama has gradually shifted into AIPAC camp as he has moved from small time Illinois politics to the national scene and is “courting the pro-Israel constituency."
Mr. Abumimah seems to be a bit impatient. Maybe Obama is just playing the political game of deception to get elected. After which he will be "more upfront." Such a dramatic change must be seen with suspicion. In fact Abumimah himself concludes, “He [Obama] is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected.”
From left to right, Michelle Obama, then Illinois state senator Barak Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. Edward Said was an outspoken advocate of Palestinian rights and vehemently against Israel .
On July 3, 2000, Prof. Said was photographed lobbing a rock across the Lebanon-Israel border.. Wikipedia
Michelle Obama and Barak Obama listen to Edward Said give the keynote address at an Arab community event in Chicago, May 1998.
On Patriotism
Carter’s lack of political wit weakened America, but he was succeeded by Reagan, a man with implacable patriotic credentials. Reagan was proud to be an American. He made America #1. His love for his country translated into strength, both economically and strategically. Communism fell on its own but one must not underestimate the success of capitalism during the Reagan era for the demise of communism. It was the strength of America that highlighted the failure of communism and convinced the Soviets that their world view is flawed.
For America to be strong it is necessary to have a president who is proud of being an American. Obama does not seem to be too happy with his country. Obama’s spiritual mentor is Jeremiah Wright, a man who hates America and who said “God Bless America ” should be replaced by “God damn America.” Obama says he never heard that remark. But he has been attending Wright’s church for 20 years. Wright’s anti American rhetoric is not something new. It is reflected in all his sermons. He has even praised Louis Farrakhan, a man known for his racist, homophobic, and antisemitic remarks. Obama has made a donation of more than $20,000 to Wright’s church. Is it possible to be a friend of someone and listen to his sermons for 20 years and not know him? Assuming Obama is not lying, can he be trusted to pick the right people to run the country?
As a matter of fact, Michelle, Obama’s wife, evinced the same disdain for America when she said she has never been proud of her country until now that her husband is running for the top job. Will she be ashamed of America again if he loses?
What Changes?
If the Obamas are ashamed of America they must have a different vision for it and if elected, it is likely that they would make some tweaking. In fact "change" is Obama's campaign slogan.
When someone promises change, one must ask what kind of change. Khomeini promised change and so did Hitler. They delivered what they promised. Has Obama explained what is he going to change and to what? That is what is troubling. He has not. As a matter of fact, now that he is seeking the widespread support of the voters, he is sounding more and more like other candidates. Actually his plans are not a lot different from those of Bush whom he loves to attack at every turn.
Despite the fact that he is changing his rhetoric and is sounding more mainstream to appeal to voters, I do believe that Obama will make some changes and that is what concerns me. I am afraid the changes that he intends to make are not what the Americans would want to see.
Who Wins if Obama Wins?
Obama’s victory will no doubt be a victory for Ahmadinejad and the hardliners in Iran who will be encouraged to crack down more brutally the opposition. They will jail and execute their opponents and the minorities to solidify their hold on power. Likewise, the terrorist organizations that are supported by the regime in Tehran will cheer and they too will take advantage of the weak America to score political points.
The Sunnis will not let the Shiites steal the show. They too will intensify their terrorist activities. Obama thinks America should back off and appease its enemies. The truth is that the more the terrorists succeed the bolder they become. The weakness of America will be their victory. The so called moderate Muslims who are now sitting on the fence because they think the ummah is too weak for jihad, will join their jihadi brethrens and the spectrum of the third world war and a nuclear holocaust becomes a reality.
There are other people who will also cheer Obama’s victory. More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees endorsed Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism.
Then there are the communists, the supporters of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and the admirers of the terrorist Che Guevara who will also cheer. As a matter of fact these people are actively campaigning for Obama (see also this video). Obama has promised to lift the economical embargo on Cuba if elected.
The Cuban flag with the image of Ernesto Che Guevara superimposed on it. It’s tacked onto the wall of an office in Barak Obama’s Houston campaign headquarters.
Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. From communists to Islamists down to the terrorists, everybody loves Obama. Is there something these people know that the average Americans don’t? Why the sworn enemies of America are so hyped and excited over the prospect of Obama's presidency?
Obama is aware of the potential backlash. He is doing everything he can to hide this embarrassing display of affection. On June16, in his Detroit rally, his campaign volunteers barred two Muslim women from sitting behind the podium to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate. The women were offended, one of them said, "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."
I believe the man in the White House must be someone who can be trusted, someone with impeccable patriotic credentials who is not ashamed of wearing America's flag pin and puts his hand on his heart instead of his genital when the national anthem is played. Big acts are rehearsed; it is little things like these that can tell us about a person.
A trustworthy candidate is one whose views on vital issues have not shifted 180 degrees only recently. He must understand the threat of Islamofascism and must have the sagacity to deal with it.
Is Senator Barak Hussein Obama fit to be the commander in chief of the mightiest military force on earth? If we are still paying the consequences of Carter’s ineptitude, what would be the price if Obama turns to be the wrong man for the White House? The problem is that we know so little about this man and the little that we know is not reassuring. Obama is a wild card. Can Americans afford gambling their country and the world peace in these perilous times?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Troop withdrawal
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi Cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact that would set the terms for U.S. troops in Iraq.
Members of the Iraqi Cabinet vote on the security agreement Sunday in Baghdad.
The agreement sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
I am wondering how the Obama camp will spin this so they can take credit for it.? Knowing full well that Mr. Obama had nothing to do with it, I am sure that they will still try to make this one of his accomplishments.
Members of the Iraqi Cabinet vote on the security agreement Sunday in Baghdad.
The agreement sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
I am wondering how the Obama camp will spin this so they can take credit for it.? Knowing full well that Mr. Obama had nothing to do with it, I am sure that they will still try to make this one of his accomplishments.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Obama Presidency
Well, it seems that the people have spoken. Although I am not comfortable with Mr. Obama as our Big Chief, I of course will support him and our country as any one that loves our home land should. But I also feel that it will be virtually impossible for Obama to live up to the hype that has been placed at his door. Every one seems to think that he will wave his magical hand, smile with those pearly whites, make another eloquent speech, and all of our problems will be solved. But then again, any one with any common sense knows that this will just not happen.
I think it is fascinating that so many people of color turned out to vote for their man. I ask myself; how many of those first time voters actually listened to a speech or even have a clue of why they were voting for Mr. Obama? other than for the color of his skin.
I truly hope that Mr. Obama will live up to the hype. Maybe he will be a great President. Or maybe because of his lack of experience in these times of crisis, he will fail miserably and cause more trouble than this Country can bear. Mr. Obama takes over as our Chief right smack in the middle of one the worst crisis that this country has ever seen. Next to an all out world war, we could not get much worse. Is he prepared to fight a 2 front war? He has already acknowledged that he can put no time line on troop withdrawals from Iraq. Can he really help the middle class while taxing and fining successful businesses to the brink of bankruptcy? How can even more taxes during a recession possibly bring about any change for the good?
No Mr. Obama, I do not think you will live up to the hype. The self created hype.
I personally do not think that any of your promises will ever come to bear fruit.
But I do have some predictions for the next 2 years.
1. Mr. Obama will be white headed before the middle of his term.
2. Michelle will gain 35 pounds.
3. The Middle East will be in complete chaos with Ahmadinejad leading the charge.
4. Diplomatic ties with Israel will be in tatters.
5. The price of a barrel of crude oil will be $185.00 per barrel.
6. Many big businesses will move out of the reach of Obama's taxes.
7. The National deficit will double.
8. At least 2 major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
9. We will be on the brink of an all out war with pakistan.
10 Not one positive "change" that any one will be able to put a finger on that is a direct result of Obama's policies.
I think it is fascinating that so many people of color turned out to vote for their man. I ask myself; how many of those first time voters actually listened to a speech or even have a clue of why they were voting for Mr. Obama? other than for the color of his skin.
I truly hope that Mr. Obama will live up to the hype. Maybe he will be a great President. Or maybe because of his lack of experience in these times of crisis, he will fail miserably and cause more trouble than this Country can bear. Mr. Obama takes over as our Chief right smack in the middle of one the worst crisis that this country has ever seen. Next to an all out world war, we could not get much worse. Is he prepared to fight a 2 front war? He has already acknowledged that he can put no time line on troop withdrawals from Iraq. Can he really help the middle class while taxing and fining successful businesses to the brink of bankruptcy? How can even more taxes during a recession possibly bring about any change for the good?
No Mr. Obama, I do not think you will live up to the hype. The self created hype.
I personally do not think that any of your promises will ever come to bear fruit.
But I do have some predictions for the next 2 years.
1. Mr. Obama will be white headed before the middle of his term.
2. Michelle will gain 35 pounds.
3. The Middle East will be in complete chaos with Ahmadinejad leading the charge.
4. Diplomatic ties with Israel will be in tatters.
5. The price of a barrel of crude oil will be $185.00 per barrel.
6. Many big businesses will move out of the reach of Obama's taxes.
7. The National deficit will double.
8. At least 2 major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
9. We will be on the brink of an all out war with pakistan.
10 Not one positive "change" that any one will be able to put a finger on that is a direct result of Obama's policies.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Media kicked off obama's plane
The Washington Times, N.Y. Post and Dallas Morning News -- three newspapers that recently endorsed John McCain -- have been kicked off Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's plane in the final days of his campaign.
The Obama campaign informed The Washington Times Thursday evening of its decision, which came two days after The Times editorial page endorsed Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama. The Times editorial page runs independently of the news department.
"This feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars covering Senator Obama's campaign, traveling on his plane, and taking our turn in the reporters' pool, only to have our seat given away to someone else in the last days of the campaign," said Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon.
News organizations pay campaigns for the cost of traveling on the candidate's planes.
Read The Washington Times' editorial on the endorsement of Republican presidential hopeful John McCain.
Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass said the changes on the plane had "absolutely nothing" to do with the organizations' coverage, an explanation echoed by Obama advisor and communications chief Anita Dunn.
"Demand for seats on the plane during this final weekend has far exceeded supply, and because of logistical issues we made the decision not to add a second plane. This means we've had to make hard and unpleasant for all concerned decisions about limiting some news organizations and in some cases not being in a position to offer space to news organizations altogether," Ms. Dunn wrote in an e-mail to The Times Thursday night.
However, the Politico reported Friday that political considerations also were part of the decision. Bill Burton, another Obama spokesman, said the seat shuffles were an effort by the campaign to "reach as many swing voters as we can."
Swing voters aren't likely to change results among The Dallas Morning News' Texas readership or the New York Post's audience, but The Washington Times is widely read in Virginia, a battleground state where the race could still break either way.
The Obama campaign informed The Washington Times Thursday evening of its decision, which came two days after The Times editorial page endorsed Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama. The Times editorial page runs independently of the news department.
"This feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars covering Senator Obama's campaign, traveling on his plane, and taking our turn in the reporters' pool, only to have our seat given away to someone else in the last days of the campaign," said Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon.
News organizations pay campaigns for the cost of traveling on the candidate's planes.
Read The Washington Times' editorial on the endorsement of Republican presidential hopeful John McCain.
Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass said the changes on the plane had "absolutely nothing" to do with the organizations' coverage, an explanation echoed by Obama advisor and communications chief Anita Dunn.
"Demand for seats on the plane during this final weekend has far exceeded supply, and because of logistical issues we made the decision not to add a second plane. This means we've had to make hard and unpleasant for all concerned decisions about limiting some news organizations and in some cases not being in a position to offer space to news organizations altogether," Ms. Dunn wrote in an e-mail to The Times Thursday night.
However, the Politico reported Friday that political considerations also were part of the decision. Bill Burton, another Obama spokesman, said the seat shuffles were an effort by the campaign to "reach as many swing voters as we can."
Swing voters aren't likely to change results among The Dallas Morning News' Texas readership or the New York Post's audience, but The Washington Times is widely read in Virginia, a battleground state where the race could still break either way.
Obama's money
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raises taxes on the wealthy, but as a member of that social class, he isn't eager to fall victim himself. He has invested at least $1 million in a fund that yields tax-free income.
The Illinois senator's latest campaign-finance disclosure shows that his investments have nearly tripled in the past two years to as much as $7.4 million, and his income in 2007 surged past $4 million, not counting his government salary.
Obama reported accounts with Morgan Chase Private Client Asset Management, an elite firm that deals only with the rich, as well as a host of retirement accounts, some in the name of his wife, Michelle.
Because the required disclosure forms allow candidates to report their assets in ranges, such as $250,001 to $500,000, Obama's net worth at the end of 2007 -- not including his home and other nonfinancial assets -- was pegged between $2,022,016 and $7,356,000.
By far the largest account, valued between $1 million and $5 million, was in the Northern Municipal Money Market Fund. It generated tax-free interest in 2007 of between $15,001 and $50,000.
The Illinois senator's latest campaign-finance disclosure shows that his investments have nearly tripled in the past two years to as much as $7.4 million, and his income in 2007 surged past $4 million, not counting his government salary.
Obama reported accounts with Morgan Chase Private Client Asset Management, an elite firm that deals only with the rich, as well as a host of retirement accounts, some in the name of his wife, Michelle.
Because the required disclosure forms allow candidates to report their assets in ranges, such as $250,001 to $500,000, Obama's net worth at the end of 2007 -- not including his home and other nonfinancial assets -- was pegged between $2,022,016 and $7,356,000.
By far the largest account, valued between $1 million and $5 million, was in the Northern Municipal Money Market Fund. It generated tax-free interest in 2007 of between $15,001 and $50,000.
We don't even know who Obama is
— A bombshell was released this weekend when a copy of an interview by Obama on WBEZ-FM, Chicago Public Radio, from 2001 was found (bold italics added):
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society ... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. ... I think that you can craft legal theoretical justifications for it legally, any three of us here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts."
Class warfare rhetoric is one thing. But as Obama’s comments to Charlie Gibson indicate, Obama disapproves of the very notion that people should be successful. Why is making the wealthy poorer “fairness,” even when the poor also get less money? The goal is not to help the poor, it's to keep the wealthy from getting too much. It is apparently better that everyone be poorer than it is to have everyone have more money but a greater dispersion of income.
How is simply giving people money a way to make sure that they “have a chance for success too”? Obama might end up giving people who currently aren’t paying taxes even more money than they currently get from the Earned Income Tax Credit. But he will be doing so at a real cost: he is creating a high effective marginal tax rate that will keep them poor and keep them dependent on the government largess.
Obama’s tax credits are phased out as people earn higher incomes — that is, the government takes money away from you as your income goes up. Someone earning an extra dollar at $40,000 will find that income taxes alone will take 40 cents from that dollar.
Obama’s old comments from WBEZ seem impossible to ignore. Put aside that Obama obviously doesn’t believe that affirmative action represents redistributive justice. Saying that the Supreme Court “never ventured” into “redistribution of wealth” rules that out.
Obama’s constant theme is of transferring wealth, to “spread it around.”
There is so much else beyond his statements. Obama surrounded himself with people who were socialists and communists. Obama’s minister of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright with his black liberation theology, a religion described as turning “Jesus into a black Marxist rebel.” Father Michael Pfleger, another Obama spiritual adviser, is also quite leftist. And his associate William Ayers apparently told an author, who was writing a book on 1960s radicals shortly before the foundation was set up in 1995, that “I’m a radical, leftist, small ‘c’ communist.”
In April Obama was caught on tape telling San Francisco donors, in a meeting that was closed to the press, that “it’s not surprising then they get bitter, [small town Pennsylvanians] 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.” It was a very elitist left-wing statement. But the despising of people turning to religion is certainly something held in common by those on the far left.
During the presidential campaign Obama’s past positions have generally been ignored. Why wasn’t there one single question during the debates as to why Obama has so radically changed his positions on so many issues within just a few months?
Who is Obama going to put on the Supreme Court? With Democrats controlling a filibuster-proof Senate, will we be seeing the most extreme left-wing academics in law schools fill up the courts?
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society ... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. ... I think that you can craft legal theoretical justifications for it legally, any three of us here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts."
Class warfare rhetoric is one thing. But as Obama’s comments to Charlie Gibson indicate, Obama disapproves of the very notion that people should be successful. Why is making the wealthy poorer “fairness,” even when the poor also get less money? The goal is not to help the poor, it's to keep the wealthy from getting too much. It is apparently better that everyone be poorer than it is to have everyone have more money but a greater dispersion of income.
How is simply giving people money a way to make sure that they “have a chance for success too”? Obama might end up giving people who currently aren’t paying taxes even more money than they currently get from the Earned Income Tax Credit. But he will be doing so at a real cost: he is creating a high effective marginal tax rate that will keep them poor and keep them dependent on the government largess.
Obama’s tax credits are phased out as people earn higher incomes — that is, the government takes money away from you as your income goes up. Someone earning an extra dollar at $40,000 will find that income taxes alone will take 40 cents from that dollar.
Obama’s old comments from WBEZ seem impossible to ignore. Put aside that Obama obviously doesn’t believe that affirmative action represents redistributive justice. Saying that the Supreme Court “never ventured” into “redistribution of wealth” rules that out.
Obama’s constant theme is of transferring wealth, to “spread it around.”
There is so much else beyond his statements. Obama surrounded himself with people who were socialists and communists. Obama’s minister of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright with his black liberation theology, a religion described as turning “Jesus into a black Marxist rebel.” Father Michael Pfleger, another Obama spiritual adviser, is also quite leftist. And his associate William Ayers apparently told an author, who was writing a book on 1960s radicals shortly before the foundation was set up in 1995, that “I’m a radical, leftist, small ‘c’ communist.”
In April Obama was caught on tape telling San Francisco donors, in a meeting that was closed to the press, that “it’s not surprising then they get bitter, [small town Pennsylvanians] 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.” It was a very elitist left-wing statement. But the despising of people turning to religion is certainly something held in common by those on the far left.
During the presidential campaign Obama’s past positions have generally been ignored. Why wasn’t there one single question during the debates as to why Obama has so radically changed his positions on so many issues within just a few months?
Who is Obama going to put on the Supreme Court? With Democrats controlling a filibuster-proof Senate, will we be seeing the most extreme left-wing academics in law schools fill up the courts?
Obama already going back on his word
Well, it seems that camp Obama has already dropped their middle class threshold to $125,000. I am guessing that it will come down even further before its over with.
"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.
There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase. Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview.
But Sarah Palin accused Obama of shifting the threshold Friday afternoon at a rally in York, Pa.
"So now we're down to less than half of the original income level," she said, citing Richardson's interview. "We can't let this happen."
And the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."
"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.
Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."
John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies.
"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.
There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase. Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview.
But Sarah Palin accused Obama of shifting the threshold Friday afternoon at a rally in York, Pa.
"So now we're down to less than half of the original income level," she said, citing Richardson's interview. "We can't let this happen."
And the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."
"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.
Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."
John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obama on equal pay for equal work
Equal Pay, in Practice (Obama doesn't practice what he preaches)
Recently, Presidential candidate Barack Obama has been talking about "equality" for women, as measured by what he calls "equal pay for equal work".There are a lot of numbers thrown out comparing how much women get paid, as compared to how much men get paid.
The first problem of course, is how you compare jobs, situations, performance -- what makes two jobs "equal". It's easy if you have two assembly workers that both do a weld. Of course, in that case there is "equal" pay, although it might be based on seniority.
In a perfect free-market society, equal pay wouldn't be an issue. The market would dictate how much each job was worth. If one company insisted on not paying women as good as men, they would tend to get workers that were less qualified, and a competitor who paid women equally would win the competition.
And in fact, a lot of what is seen as discrimination toward women is simply the market reflecting the employer's ability to find an adequate pool of workers. If I advertise a job for $10 an hour, and no man wants to work for that money, but several women do, I will hire the woman. If down the street someone offers $15 for the same job, and they hire a man who is more qualified than any women, my hire will look like she is "underpaid" for the same job, but the problem was that she was willing to work for that amount.
A great example of the difficulty of "Equal Pay" in practice is the senate staff for the two presidential nominees. Deroy Murdock, national columnist, examines the pay practices of Obama's and McCain's Senate Staff, and finds an interesting disconnect. While Obama attacks McCain for not supporting "equal pay", Obama actually pays HIS female staff less than his male staff, while McCain pays his female staff MORE than his male staff, and more than Obama.
From his article Obama’s female staffers shortchanged:
Based on these calculations, Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama’s highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama’s five best-paid advisers, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.
Again, on average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign Web site condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.
So, how does McCain stack up?:
McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart - while adding $10,726 to her annual income - by leaving Obama’s office and going to work for McCain.
(btw, note that McCain, in the Senate for over 20 years, has a total of 42 staff. Obama, a 1st-termer, has 58. McCain pays out about $2.2 million, Obama $2.9 million. It is clear which one is more likely to hold down spending in government).
Also, McCain apparently values the opinions of women more than Obama. For while only ONE of Obama's top 5 advisors is a female, THREE of McCain's top aides are female:
One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain’s highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women - much more than men - for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.
But what this shows is that, in practice, even a guy who pretends to be for "equal pay" doesn't seem to be able to achieve it, because in fact the staff don't all do the same job, and can't be "equally compared".
But Obama favors laws which would allow the Federal Government to build a registry of "comparable jobs" and force employers to pay women more for work than is necessary to make them satisfied employees. This will make our country even LESS competitive, and will discourage the hiring of women (I'm sure Obama will make quotas for that as well to solve the problem).
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Obama and the Acorn
This is a post written by Michelle Malkin:
If you don’t know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League documents how Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.
Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn’t being spent on these radical activities?
Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a “community organizer” and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who “best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about” — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money. Let’s take a closer look at the ACORN Obama knows.
Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter-registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN’s criminal sabotage “an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls.”
The group’s vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter-fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio, and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: “In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.”
In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney’s office.
Under the guise of “consumer advocacy,” ACORN has received money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing “anti-poverty” groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing-counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since George W. Bush took office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.
As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new exposé, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, “under the table” money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group’s “financial justice” operations attack lenders for “exotic” loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters “no lobby” agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.
Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group’s apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling, and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN’s management and minions alike.
Where does the candidate of Hope and Change — the candidate of Reform and New Politics — stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN’s senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. That’s the Chicago way.
If you don’t know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League documents how Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.
Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn’t being spent on these radical activities?
Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a “community organizer” and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who “best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about” — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money. Let’s take a closer look at the ACORN Obama knows.
Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter-registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN’s criminal sabotage “an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls.”
The group’s vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter-fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio, and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: “In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.”
In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney’s office.
Under the guise of “consumer advocacy,” ACORN has received money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing “anti-poverty” groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing-counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since George W. Bush took office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.
As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new exposé, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, “under the table” money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group’s “financial justice” operations attack lenders for “exotic” loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters “no lobby” agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.
Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group’s apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling, and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN’s management and minions alike.
Where does the candidate of Hope and Change — the candidate of Reform and New Politics — stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN’s senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. That’s the Chicago way.
Colin Powell, fired republican, liar,
There are still a remarkable number of people who maintain illusions in Gen. Colin Powell, and believe he was really a "good guy" who tried his best to moderate the evil nature of the Bush administration but failed. As part of that, they actually give credence to Powell's recent "mea a little bit culpa" speech in which Powell asserted that his February, 2003 speech to the U.N. was now "painful" for him and a permanent "blot" on his record. Of course he hid behind the claim of having "been misled about the accuracy of the intelligence on which he relied" and didn't take any actual responsibility for what he said. This despite the fact that reports at the time (June, 2003) had Powell saying "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit," and removing "dozens of pages" of alleged evidence.
Supporters of Powell like to claim that Powell was just being a "good soldier," but, with apologies to German readers, the proper colloquial term for Powell's behavior is that of a "good German." A "good soldier" not only doesn't have to obey illegal orders, it is is obligation to disobey them. From Powell's role in covering up the My Lai massacre, to his speech at the U.N. which even he recognized was filled with "bullshit," Powell has acted to promote illegal actions; in the latter case, he played a key role in moving American "establishment" opinion to support the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans. Of particular interest are statements like these which Powell made in his U.N. presentation:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
Such a statement takes on even more significance given today's revelation that reports as early as February, 2002 had indicated that key portions of the "intelligence" presented by Powell were sourced to a "likely fabricator."
Colin Powell is a free man and not only welcomed, but honored by "polite society." A war crimes trial for his role in selling an illegal war doesn't seem to be on the horizon. Meanwhile, another General, Iraqi Gen. Amer al-Saadi, sits in solitary confinement in a prison in Iraq, where he has been for the last 2 1/2 years. As with most prisoners held by the Americans, he has neither been convicted, tried, or even charged with any crime. Gen. al-Saadi, you'll remember, was the Iraqi liason to the weapons inspectors, the voice of Iraq when Iraq denied having any weapons of mass destruction or WMD programs. And just what was Gen. al-Saadi's crime? For all intents and purposes, it was speaking the truth to Powell's lies:
Colin Powell is a liar and a criminal and he has decided to find new relief with the democrats this coming election. Do a little digging on Colin Powell and the My Lai Massacre during the Viet Nam War and you might have a little different opinion of this criminal. But yet, Mr. Obama and the dem-libs will welcome him with open arms.
Supporters of Powell like to claim that Powell was just being a "good soldier," but, with apologies to German readers, the proper colloquial term for Powell's behavior is that of a "good German." A "good soldier" not only doesn't have to obey illegal orders, it is is obligation to disobey them. From Powell's role in covering up the My Lai massacre, to his speech at the U.N. which even he recognized was filled with "bullshit," Powell has acted to promote illegal actions; in the latter case, he played a key role in moving American "establishment" opinion to support the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans. Of particular interest are statements like these which Powell made in his U.N. presentation:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
Such a statement takes on even more significance given today's revelation that reports as early as February, 2002 had indicated that key portions of the "intelligence" presented by Powell were sourced to a "likely fabricator."
Colin Powell is a free man and not only welcomed, but honored by "polite society." A war crimes trial for his role in selling an illegal war doesn't seem to be on the horizon. Meanwhile, another General, Iraqi Gen. Amer al-Saadi, sits in solitary confinement in a prison in Iraq, where he has been for the last 2 1/2 years. As with most prisoners held by the Americans, he has neither been convicted, tried, or even charged with any crime. Gen. al-Saadi, you'll remember, was the Iraqi liason to the weapons inspectors, the voice of Iraq when Iraq denied having any weapons of mass destruction or WMD programs. And just what was Gen. al-Saadi's crime? For all intents and purposes, it was speaking the truth to Powell's lies:
Colin Powell is a liar and a criminal and he has decided to find new relief with the democrats this coming election. Do a little digging on Colin Powell and the My Lai Massacre during the Viet Nam War and you might have a little different opinion of this criminal. But yet, Mr. Obama and the dem-libs will welcome him with open arms.
Favorite Obama quotes
Here are some of the more amusing Obama quotes. These are exactly the way they were said or written. Now if i were to say some of this garbage I would be labeled a racist, but Mr. Obama continues to get a free pass on these things. Why is that?
Tim was not a conscious brother. Tim wore argyle sweaters and pressed jeans and talked like Beaver Cleaver. …His white girlfriend was probably waiting for him up in his room, listening to country music.
“Dreams From My Father,” pp. 101-102
“I learned how to talk to white folks as to not scare them”
From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I CEASED TO ADVERTISE MY MOTHER'S RACE AT THE AGE OF12 OR 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE"
From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART"
"I will stand with the muslims should the political winds change". Yes he actually said that.
But this strategy alone couldn’t provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerated. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.
“Dreams From My Father,” page 101
Just a short list of some of Obama's Good friends
Tim was not a conscious brother. Tim wore argyle sweaters and pressed jeans and talked like Beaver Cleaver. …His white girlfriend was probably waiting for him up in his room, listening to country music.
“Dreams From My Father,” pp. 101-102
“I learned how to talk to white folks as to not scare them”
From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I CEASED TO ADVERTISE MY MOTHER'S RACE AT THE AGE OF12 OR 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE"
From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART"
"I will stand with the muslims should the political winds change". Yes he actually said that.
But this strategy alone couldn’t provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerated. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.
“Dreams From My Father,” page 101
Just a short list of some of Obama's Good friends
- Jeremiah Wright ("God **** America")
- Michael Pfleger ("There were a whole lot of white people crying")
- Otis Moss, Obama's new pastor, who thanked God for Michael Pfleger's message as shown above
- The Trinity United Church of Christ, which applauded Pfleger's racist tirade. TUCC also published blood libels of the United States and Israel--e.g. Jeremiah Wright accused the U.S. of inventing the AIDS virus, and the church's official newsletter carried a guest opinion piece that accused Israel of inventing an "ethnic bomb" to kill Black people and Arabs.
- Al Sharpton and his National Action Network: Google on "Freddy's Fashion Mart" (and "Tawana Brawley" and "Yankel Rosenbaum") to learn more.
- Louis Farrakhan; Obama admittedly never endorsed Farrakhan, but he refused to "reject" Farrakhan's endorsement until after Hillary Clinton and Tim Russert backed him into a corner on national television.
Dorothy Tillman, lunatic, extortionis, racist
Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama opposed reparations for slavery. After his election, Obama subtly changed his view, stating he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune Nov. 14, 2004).
Second, whom does Barry O "hang" with? Dorothy Tillman; just to name the most racist lunatic of them all.
Another friend of Mr. Obama is U.S. Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and he is reportedly waiting for Obama to be elected so he can rush a reparations law through Congress (The Hill, March 13, 2007). Hmmm. Does Conyers know something we don't?
Finally, the most telling indication that Obama has a secret addiction to reparations is reflected in those who support him and those whom he supports: the most notorious race-baiter on the Chicago City Council, Alderwoman Dorothy Tillman.
Haven't heard of Dorothy Tillman?
You better learn about Obama's No. 1 supporter. And fast.
Tillman has almost single-handedly made a joke of the city of Chicago in the public finance industry over her preoccupation with slavery and reparations.
Tillman supports Obama and Obama supports Tillman.
Obama has endorsed Tillman for re-election against the advice of his constituents. Tillman was forced into a runoff after her opponents failed to agree on a single candidate to oppose her. Tillman was an early supporter of Obama in his rise to prominence over the past decade. And Tillman is a disgrace. Hasn't been too long ago that she was arrested and convicted in Alabama for causing a ruckus at a local hospital.
Her favorite pastime is abusing banks and financial institutions that want to do business with the city of Chicago. A regular feature of council proceedings is Tillman flaying banks for "owning slaves" at some remote point in history over 150 years ago.
Using a 2002 "Slavery Era Disclosure Ordinance" that she authored, Tillman has accused Bank of America of having a predecessor bank that made "leg irons for slaves." Wachovia, J.P. Morgan Chase, LaSalle Bank, Lehman Brothers, American General, and Nationwide Life Insurance were all brought before Tillman's mast and whipped for their ties to slavery, however remote, over 150 years ago.
Indeed, Tillman has been quoted as saying her goal is to "repair the damage of 400 years" of slavery. "America owes us," Tillman demands (Sun-Times march 26, 2007). And yes, Obama has endorsed this carnival-style extortionist for re-election.
So much for the audacity of Obama; so much for the "smallness" of politics in Chicago.
Tillman abuses and opposes anyone who thinks that slavery is not a major issue any more. When the city wanted to refinance $800 million in debt, Tillman was there claiming slavery should be an issue. Last fall, the city tried to lease parking garages for over a half billion dollars: The deal hit a "slavery speed bump."
Tillman filed suit because her slavery ordinance was brushed aside (Sun-Times Dec. 1, 2006). "The whole world is watching us just disregard this law for black people . . . We're totally disrespected as a people . . ." (Sun-Times 10/31/06). On and on it goes. Sounds like the race card to me.
Tillman accused Morgan Stanley of "getting rich from investments and profits in slavery," (Chicago Tribune, 10/30/ 2006). Morgan Stanley was formed in 1935.
Full disclosure: My maternal ancestors arrived in the United States in the 20th century. Unlike Obama's forebears, my grandparents had nothing to do with slavery. Why should I pay for the earlier sins of others? Why should anyone pay for events that took place in history?
When a public official files a frivolous lawsuit against a half-billion dollar public finance deal, claiming that blacks are being disrespected because of slavery, and Obama goes on to endorse that kind of nonsense, Obama should be charged with endorsing the antics of the reparations gang.
When confronted with the claims of some of his more controversial supporters President Reagan used to say, "They endorsed me; I didn't endorse them."
In the case of Barry Obama and Dorothy Tillman, he has endorsed her and her unseemly reparations crusade for slavery.
Only Obama doesn't want his national audience to know it.
I seriously doubt that many of the tens of thousands of people who have succumbed to Obama's pleas for "hope" and "change" realize he "hopes" to force them to pay tax dollars to provide some form of compensation to people who weren't alive from people who weren't alive, all for the evils of slavery. They have no idea who Dorothy Tillman is, or what she stands for, or the damage she continues to do to taxpayers in Chicago. All in the name of slavery. This lunatic even waved a gun at a city council meeting when her demands were not met to her satisfaction.
And yet ignorant suckers keep on giving, not knowing who Obama is and what he wants to accomplish if he should end up in the Oval Office.
Ready to pay reparations for slavery? Obama's your man. He just doesn't want you to know. Yet.
Second, whom does Barry O "hang" with? Dorothy Tillman; just to name the most racist lunatic of them all.
Another friend of Mr. Obama is U.S. Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and he is reportedly waiting for Obama to be elected so he can rush a reparations law through Congress (The Hill, March 13, 2007). Hmmm. Does Conyers know something we don't?
Finally, the most telling indication that Obama has a secret addiction to reparations is reflected in those who support him and those whom he supports: the most notorious race-baiter on the Chicago City Council, Alderwoman Dorothy Tillman.
Haven't heard of Dorothy Tillman?
You better learn about Obama's No. 1 supporter. And fast.
Tillman has almost single-handedly made a joke of the city of Chicago in the public finance industry over her preoccupation with slavery and reparations.
Tillman supports Obama and Obama supports Tillman.
Obama has endorsed Tillman for re-election against the advice of his constituents. Tillman was forced into a runoff after her opponents failed to agree on a single candidate to oppose her. Tillman was an early supporter of Obama in his rise to prominence over the past decade. And Tillman is a disgrace. Hasn't been too long ago that she was arrested and convicted in Alabama for causing a ruckus at a local hospital.
Her favorite pastime is abusing banks and financial institutions that want to do business with the city of Chicago. A regular feature of council proceedings is Tillman flaying banks for "owning slaves" at some remote point in history over 150 years ago.
Using a 2002 "Slavery Era Disclosure Ordinance" that she authored, Tillman has accused Bank of America of having a predecessor bank that made "leg irons for slaves." Wachovia, J.P. Morgan Chase, LaSalle Bank, Lehman Brothers, American General, and Nationwide Life Insurance were all brought before Tillman's mast and whipped for their ties to slavery, however remote, over 150 years ago.
Indeed, Tillman has been quoted as saying her goal is to "repair the damage of 400 years" of slavery. "America owes us," Tillman demands (Sun-Times march 26, 2007). And yes, Obama has endorsed this carnival-style extortionist for re-election.
So much for the audacity of Obama; so much for the "smallness" of politics in Chicago.
Tillman abuses and opposes anyone who thinks that slavery is not a major issue any more. When the city wanted to refinance $800 million in debt, Tillman was there claiming slavery should be an issue. Last fall, the city tried to lease parking garages for over a half billion dollars: The deal hit a "slavery speed bump."
Tillman filed suit because her slavery ordinance was brushed aside (Sun-Times Dec. 1, 2006). "The whole world is watching us just disregard this law for black people . . . We're totally disrespected as a people . . ." (Sun-Times 10/31/06). On and on it goes. Sounds like the race card to me.
Tillman accused Morgan Stanley of "getting rich from investments and profits in slavery," (Chicago Tribune, 10/30/ 2006). Morgan Stanley was formed in 1935.
Full disclosure: My maternal ancestors arrived in the United States in the 20th century. Unlike Obama's forebears, my grandparents had nothing to do with slavery. Why should I pay for the earlier sins of others? Why should anyone pay for events that took place in history?
When a public official files a frivolous lawsuit against a half-billion dollar public finance deal, claiming that blacks are being disrespected because of slavery, and Obama goes on to endorse that kind of nonsense, Obama should be charged with endorsing the antics of the reparations gang.
When confronted with the claims of some of his more controversial supporters President Reagan used to say, "They endorsed me; I didn't endorse them."
In the case of Barry Obama and Dorothy Tillman, he has endorsed her and her unseemly reparations crusade for slavery.
Only Obama doesn't want his national audience to know it.
I seriously doubt that many of the tens of thousands of people who have succumbed to Obama's pleas for "hope" and "change" realize he "hopes" to force them to pay tax dollars to provide some form of compensation to people who weren't alive from people who weren't alive, all for the evils of slavery. They have no idea who Dorothy Tillman is, or what she stands for, or the damage she continues to do to taxpayers in Chicago. All in the name of slavery. This lunatic even waved a gun at a city council meeting when her demands were not met to her satisfaction.
And yet ignorant suckers keep on giving, not knowing who Obama is and what he wants to accomplish if he should end up in the Oval Office.
Ready to pay reparations for slavery? Obama's your man. He just doesn't want you to know. Yet.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
William Ayers the terrorist
How are we giving this man a free pass on this. am I the only one that cares that Mr. Obama has ties to these people. If John McCain were tied to this man he would crucified in the eyes of the American public, but not Mr. Obama. No-one cares because he gives a good speech and he promises change.
Ayers, 63, spent 10 years as a fugitive in the 1970s when he was part of the "Weather Underground," an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a string of other government buildings. Nobody was hurt in the attacks by the defunct organization, which the FBI labeled a "domestic terrorist group."
Today, Ayers and his wife -- fellow former Weather Underground fugitive Bernardine Dohrn -- live in Hyde Park, where they moved after surrendering in 1980. Federal charges against the two were dropped because of improper surveillance, so they avoided prison.
Ayers and Dohrn have raised two sons of their own and adopted a third boy whose parents were Weather Underground members who went to prison. They've built stellar reputations as professors: Dohrn at Northwestern's law school, Ayers as an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Along the way, they met a rising political star named Barack Obama, who lived in their neighborhood.
The Ayers-Obama relationship became a hot topic in Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate. It is "an issue certainly Republicans will be raising" should Obama be the Democratic nominee for president, Obama rival Hillary Clinton said.
In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted.
In addition, Ayers and Obama interacted occasionally in their roles with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a not-for-profit group charged with spending tens of millions of dollars it obtained through its affiliation with a school-improvement foundation created by late Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg. Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge's board of directors. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on which organizations should get grants. The groups worked on school-reform efforts between 1995 and 2000.
Reached by the Sun-Times on her cell phone, Dohrn declined to comment. Ayers, who was traveling, did not return messages.
But friends like Chicago political strategist Marilyn Katz said Ayers should not be a campaign issue.
Katz met Ayers when he was 17 and they were members of Students for a Democratic Society, a group from which the Weather Underground splintered.
She noted Ayers' work with Mayor Daley to overhaul the Chicago Public Schools and likened him to Black Panther-turned-U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush.
"What Bill Ayers and Bobby Rush ... did 40 years ago has nothing to do with" the presidential campaign, Katz said. Ayers "has a national reputation. He lectures at Harvard and Vassar. He writes the textbooks that are the standard for innovative approaches to reaching inner-city youth."
Ayers, a Glen Ellyn native who became active in SDS while attending the University of Michigan, is the son of late Commonwealth Edison CEO Thomas G. Ayers. Ayers has praised his dad for standing by him while he was on the lam.
A book Ayers penned about those years, Fugitive Days, landed him in hot water on Sept. 11, 2001. That morning, the New York Times ran a story about the book in which Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers' statement was made before the World Trade Center attacks, but its timing led some to believe it was in response. "My book is in fact a condemnation of terrorism in all its forms -- individual, group and official," Ayers later said in a letter to the Chicago Tribune.
Ayers has a Web site, billayers.org, in which he blogs about politics and other subjects. He lets friends and foes post comments.
In response to an Ayers posting, "End the War," a reader wrote, "You are an anti-American communist and a terrorist. I hope you get what you deserve over and over and over."
Ayers has not formally endorsed Obama for president.
But do not be fooled, they are more than just passers-by, they are friends. So what if Mr. Obama was only eight years old when Ayers was setting off bombs, he still knew what kind of man he was dealing with and this is a mark on his judgement and character.
Jeremiah Wright the racist
Only after these sermons hit the airwaves did Mr. Obama disown his church of 20 years. Mr. wright is a racist and Mr. Obama has been a member for the better part of his life. How can we possibly believe that Mr. Obama does not buy into his word. Unbelievable that he is getting a free pass on this.
3 days after saying that he had no intention of leaving the church, Mr. Obama disowned his church. Also Oprah Winfrey told A news magazine that she left the church in the 80's because Mr. wright was a racist and she did not buy into what he was preaching. So if Oprah heard this in the 80's how come Mr. Obama was not hearing the same sermons. Or did he only show 46% of the time, same as he showed up to vote in the Illinois Senate. You Mr. Obama are a liar.
This is the racist that Obama called his friend and spiritual advisor for 20 years. he is a racist and he hates America.
Need I say more?
Keeping an eye on Obama is critical
Yes I mean critical. Who is this guy? Until he decided to run for President, we knew absolutely nothing of him, and it seems that we now know just as much about Mr. Obama as we did 2 years ago. The young people are hysterical about him, the women are drooling over him and the dem-libs just can't seem to get enough of his eloquent speeches. I, for one, want to know more. It seems that every time some one decides to bring up his past affiliations, the racist card comes flying in. Every one, including the media, wants to give Mr. Obama a free pass on his background and affiliations. I always thought that the company you keep was a true testament to your character. If you are not a thief, why would you associate with them? if you are not a terrorist, why would you associate with them? If you are not a racist, why would you subscribe to their church for 20 years? And it seems that Mr. Obama has a long list of shady characters in his background.
While Mr. Obama claims to tackle the hard issues head-on, his voting record says just the opposite. It seems that Barrack Obama has missed 303 votes (46.3%) during the current Congress. How could he possibly miss 46% of the votes. Unbelievable. Please go here for a full list of missed votes. His continuing absence of votes and his "Present" vote are just ways to side step the tough issues and keep his supporters guessing at where he truly stands. Speaking of supporters, it looks like the great Colin Powell has decided to turn democrat. Well, that suits me just fine because he is a liar and a war criminal and I think Powell and Obama will make a great team. The Great liar and The great speaker. Both empty suits.
Ok, lets move on to Mr. Obama and the Rev. Wright. (Longtime friend and confidant)
Mr. Wright is absolutely one of the most racist men that has ever walked the planet. And it seems that Mr. Obama has been a member of his church for over 20 years. How could you possibly subscribe to the same church for over 20 years and not believe in the word that your pastor is preaching? here is a nice little piece from The Washington Post that tells why Oprah Winfrey left Mr. Wright's church way back in the 80's.
But Mr. Obama continued to be a part of his church for many more years, only disowning the church after he announced his run for office and Mr. Wright's rantings about Whitey's oppression came to light.
Or how about Mr. Obama and the domestic terrorist William Ayers. This has got to be one of the most blatant free passes that the media and the general dem-lib public can give. Ayers is a terrorist, nothing more nothing less. He set bombs off in his own country to kill innocent civilians and even boasts that he did not do enough. If not for having evidence suppressed on a technacality, he would have been sentenced to death for domestic terrorism. Even the F.B.I. is pissed off about this free pass. No one is questioning this tie. Even one dinner together with a terrorist should be enough to disqualify Mr. Obama from holding our Nation's highest honor.
Lets move on to Mr. Rezko. He is nothing more than a gangster and Mr. Obama has had some land dealings with him that have recently come under scrutiny. Sure, Mr. Obama has been able to explain some of these things away, even calling them mistakes. But the bottom line is; Mr. Obama knew that Mr. Rezko was a shady gangster and continued to do business with him. Even accepting campaign contributions from him and then when Mr. Rezko's shady past come to light, he donated Mr. Rezko's contribution to charity.
And then there is A.C.O.R.N. To what extent is Mr. Obama's ties to them. We know that he represented them in court. We also know that he contributed money to them, for what we still do not know. we have only his word. And remember that he is an eloquent speaker, so everything he says must be the gospel truth.
And lets not forget Dorothy Tillman. Now this woman is a lunatic. Mr Obama has been endorsing her for many years and she is nothing more than an extortionist trying to squeeze white America for every penny that she can get. She is a strong advocate for slave reparations and has held Chicago businesses in a grip of fear for more than a decade, and she could possibly have a voice in the White House if Mr. Obama is elected. I for one do not want to pay anyone, anything for something that I had no part of.
So Mr. Obama, the eyes of our great country are on you. If your intentions and your heart are in the right place we will know soon enough. But I still do not believe that you are the righteous man that you say that you are. With your history of cocaine use, past affiliations and the way you have been able to dodge some of the real issues lead me to believe the I do. If you were applying for any low level government job, your back ground check would almost certainly disqualify you. How can you possibly be ready to tale the most sacred position this great country has to offer.
Some great Obama Quotes:
Before I sign out for the day I have one final thought. If I were to ask 100 black males over the age of 40 if they thought that the white man was holding them down, or if they felt any hatred for the white man, how many would answer yes?
While Mr. Obama claims to tackle the hard issues head-on, his voting record says just the opposite. It seems that Barrack Obama has missed 303 votes (46.3%) during the current Congress. How could he possibly miss 46% of the votes. Unbelievable. Please go here for a full list of missed votes. His continuing absence of votes and his "Present" vote are just ways to side step the tough issues and keep his supporters guessing at where he truly stands. Speaking of supporters, it looks like the great Colin Powell has decided to turn democrat. Well, that suits me just fine because he is a liar and a war criminal and I think Powell and Obama will make a great team. The Great liar and The great speaker. Both empty suits.
Ok, lets move on to Mr. Obama and the Rev. Wright. (Longtime friend and confidant)
Mr. Wright is absolutely one of the most racist men that has ever walked the planet. And it seems that Mr. Obama has been a member of his church for over 20 years. How could you possibly subscribe to the same church for over 20 years and not believe in the word that your pastor is preaching? here is a nice little piece from The Washington Post that tells why Oprah Winfrey left Mr. Wright's church way back in the 80's.But Mr. Obama continued to be a part of his church for many more years, only disowning the church after he announced his run for office and Mr. Wright's rantings about Whitey's oppression came to light.
Or how about Mr. Obama and the domestic terrorist William Ayers. This has got to be one of the most blatant free passes that the media and the general dem-lib public can give. Ayers is a terrorist, nothing more nothing less. He set bombs off in his own country to kill innocent civilians and even boasts that he did not do enough. If not for having evidence suppressed on a technacality, he would have been sentenced to death for domestic terrorism. Even the F.B.I. is pissed off about this free pass. No one is questioning this tie. Even one dinner together with a terrorist should be enough to disqualify Mr. Obama from holding our Nation's highest honor.
Lets move on to Mr. Rezko. He is nothing more than a gangster and Mr. Obama has had some land dealings with him that have recently come under scrutiny. Sure, Mr. Obama has been able to explain some of these things away, even calling them mistakes. But the bottom line is; Mr. Obama knew that Mr. Rezko was a shady gangster and continued to do business with him. Even accepting campaign contributions from him and then when Mr. Rezko's shady past come to light, he donated Mr. Rezko's contribution to charity.
And then there is A.C.O.R.N. To what extent is Mr. Obama's ties to them. We know that he represented them in court. We also know that he contributed money to them, for what we still do not know. we have only his word. And remember that he is an eloquent speaker, so everything he says must be the gospel truth.
And lets not forget Dorothy Tillman. Now this woman is a lunatic. Mr Obama has been endorsing her for many years and she is nothing more than an extortionist trying to squeeze white America for every penny that she can get. She is a strong advocate for slave reparations and has held Chicago businesses in a grip of fear for more than a decade, and she could possibly have a voice in the White House if Mr. Obama is elected. I for one do not want to pay anyone, anything for something that I had no part of.
So Mr. Obama, the eyes of our great country are on you. If your intentions and your heart are in the right place we will know soon enough. But I still do not believe that you are the righteous man that you say that you are. With your history of cocaine use, past affiliations and the way you have been able to dodge some of the real issues lead me to believe the I do. If you were applying for any low level government job, your back ground check would almost certainly disqualify you. How can you possibly be ready to tale the most sacred position this great country has to offer.
Some great Obama Quotes:
Before I sign out for the day I have one final thought. If I were to ask 100 black males over the age of 40 if they thought that the white man was holding them down, or if they felt any hatred for the white man, how many would answer yes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
