(UPDATE: I have updated this blog post to included links to sources on most of this critical voter information, to help you with your political research.)
In the first presidential debate, Obama accused McCain of making poor judgments about Iraq, saying that he made the right ones. Unfortunately he is leaving out a few facts.
When Obama made statements about iraq in 2002, he wasn't in Congress... he was in Illinois. he also made those statements in a speech to unquestionably the most liberal audience / district in his campaigning area, hence nothing other than a liberal message could have been well received. how do we know this Obama judgement on Iraq is pandering? Well, mostly because in 2004 he told the ChicagoTribune that "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." and in 2006 he said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices." What does this mean? It means that he is at best shooting from the hip, pandering, and then being revisionistic when momentum and new information benefits him.
So what of his other judgements? Let's take a look at his time as an Illinois State Senator.
Is Obama a brave soul that sticks to his position on the tough issues? Well, we know when we look at his constantly shifting positions on Middle East issues that he has a hard time knowing what we as a nation really need to do. EVERYONE AGREES that we don't want to be at or in war. Obama just can't seem figure out if Hillary was too weak on the issue (he said her timeline was too long) or if he should adopt more of her "weak" perspective now that he is the Democrat nomination for President (his plan now look more like hers than his.) He can't figure out if McCain is a warmonger who doesn't know how to do diplomacy, or if he is the warmonger who doesn't know how to do diplomacy rather than drop bombs (to chase terrorists) on Pakistan without their support.
Maybe we should break it down to something more simple. What if Obama is trying to look tough on crime, but doesn't want to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults for fear of offending some consituents? What should he do? I can only tell you what he did. He did the same thing that the 110th “do nothing” Congress did about wall street... he didn't vote. In fact, when the vote came around he voted “present” communicating, “Hey, I am hear, but I am politically scared to vote, so I won't.” What was the bill really about: It was about prosecuting 15+ year old kids who committed a crime with a firearm on or near school grounds. If it was the right thing to do, why didn't he vote for it? Likewise, if it was right to vote against it, then why didn't he? We will never know because he didn't have the courage to be counted either way.
Don't even get me started on the fact that Obama has given a horrible list of excuses why Obama was continually unwilling to support a bill in Illinois that would require doctors to give life-saving medical services to babies that survive an abortion. Google that one yourself... it is actually pretty sad stuff. Worse yet, again, after making a bunch of excuses why he wouldn't vote for it, he wasn't actually convicted enough to vote (again.)
Bill Burton, an Obama spokesperson, said of Obama, “No politically motivated attacks in the 11th hour of a closely contested campaign can erase a record of leadership and courage.” I agree. It is too bad for Obama that he doesn't actually have a track record like that. In fact Obama proved that he didn't have the courage to vote 130 times as a state senator in Illinois alone!
But what about other types of judgements? Surely, with an undebatable significant lack of experience, he would at least surround himself with the right people (I hear this all of the time as an excuse to forgive his lack of experience)? Well, let's meet some friends of Obama.
First there is Robert Malley (his father was associated with Arafat and the PLO.) Robert himself has written a number of articles and made statements that put him squarely in a position of weakening the American support of Israel through revisionist propoganda during the Clinton days and since. Even Clinton disagreed with Robert Malley's perspective on Israel killing peace talks between Palestine and Israel. At one point Arafat called Clinton to tell him he was a great man (after a peace talk.) Clinton replied to Arafat, “No, I'm not. On this i am a failure, and you made me a failure.” So Robert's dad would be a horrible choice but is Robert himself a horrible choice with a fairly horrible bias in the wrong direction. I mean, Obama had selected this guy to be on his foreign policy team. THEN Robert Malley admitted to The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, a terrorist organization. He claimed that he does peace talk work with them, but if you read his track-record on treating Israel like a whipping-boy and look at the politics of his father, it is obvious that his Hamas connection is questionable at best. The news came out about Robert Malley and suddenly now Obama fires him. What kind of judgment and leadership is this?
Biden has taken campaign contributions from credit company MBNA, consulting pay from them and has gotten one of his kids a job with them after graduation all while a senator participating in working on bills that gave benefits to the company. In addition and directly related to the current issues on wall street Obama is the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. If all we were talking about was Fannie Mae we would see enough lies coming from Obama to call him a liar and “scary.” (1) Again, he is in second place for receiving the most campaign contributions from FanMae and FredMac, second only to another Democrat, (2) He's had four years of a voting majority in Congress to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and hasn't done anything. In fact, if this was so important to him, why didn't he push to get the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (bill co-sponsored by McCain) passed? Answer: because he is too busy letting the majority Democrats telling him how to vote (not a leader; he's a follower simply voting the Democrat party line), (3) his campaign DID INFACT pursue advice on mortgage and policy issues from Franklin Raines, the defunked CEO of Fannie Mae, who pulled down $90 million for five years of work at FanMae, later successfully sued for millions because he committed financial fraud to get bonuses. Now, all of this news hits the fan, the truth about Raines comes out, and Obama has once again bailed from the connection (seeing a pattern here? I think he imagines that if he gets exposed all he has to do is disassociated himself, and then we are supposed to forget his bad judgments.)
Consider that the deregulation of Wall street was architected in a large part by Mr. Summers and Mr. Rubin, financial advisers in the Clinton administration, the deregulation signed by Clinton (let me say that again so it is clear - wall street was deregulated using a plan architected by and during the Clinton Democrat Administration.) So the big issue that Obama has with deregulation of wall street ENDS UP BEING a Clinton era result... but wait, there's more!? Those same guys (Rubin and Summers) right now continue to be financial advisers for Obama... Hmmm? So is this whole wall street thing really a Republican thing by people like John McCain as said by Obama to McCain in the first Presidential debate? Come on. Lies and more rhetoric. More revisions Obama, really? I am geting a little tired of it (as you can imagine.)
His pastor had some harsh stuff to say earlier this year consisting of a completely un-American sermon asking God to damn America (that is no joke. The sermon was called for his congregation to ask "God (to) Damn America"). Keeping things real, Obama attended his church for 20 years and called him his “spiritual advisor.” During that 20 years his church published a magazine titled “Trumpet Newsmagazine” where they gave the Dr. Jeremiah A Wright Jr Trumpeter Award to a man they said “truely epitomized greatness,” Louis Farrakhan. What? FARRAKHAN!? Farrakhan is an anti-semite and is full of hate-speak!!! So, staying true to form, when all of this comes into the light, what does he do? Obama suddenly withdraws himself from his spiritual leader of 20 years. Now, I don't think for a minute that Obama likely agreed with everything that Dr. Wright has said, but it is amazing to me the list of people by which Obama seems to surround himself. Is this good judgment?
Who else does Obama hang out with. Let's talk about radical William Ayers who's group (led by him in the 1960s, Ayers' Weathermen) took credit for bombings at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol four decades ago. He, Obama, chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge co-founded by Ayers. Ah, but maybe that means he really doesn't know Ayers right? Wrong. Ayers threw him a “meet-the-candidate” party IN HIS HOME when he first ran for a political seat in the mid 1990s. Don't kid yourself. They are connected.
Let's make the count so far: Pandering over Iraq, dodging his senatorial responsibility to vote because the issues were tough (how presidential is that?), associated with some of the more scandelous part of the deregulation of wall street, selected someone connected with the Hamas terrorist organization to be a part of his campaign, personal friend to an American terrorist that bombed the U.S. Capitol. This should be enough for a reasonable person to say, "Who is this guy?" and some of you should be asking yourselves, "Why am I thinking of voting for this guy?" Maybe at this point you are still thinking that Obama himself is not corrupt or given to using his political authority in corrupt ways with personal relationships that affect the average mainstreet person in a negative way? Keep reading.
What about the current bailout plan in D.C? I think people are upset that this is happening, but feel like something needed to be done. At the same time there is a lot of talk about how that money might go to people on wall street and not help people on mainstreet. Obama banged on this drum, right? In fact Obama said it reminds him of the S&L bailout in the 1980s and claimed, “our economy went into a recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?” How insightful of Obama. Typically I don't give him credit because I don't think he has much proven understanding or experience. In this case he does actually have some experience. Too bad it is on the wrong side (wait for it!) As a State Senator in Springfield, Illinois, he used his elected office and clout to help unscrupulous low-income slumlords like Tony Rezko get millions of dollars in state grants, that later turned into uninhabitable “projects.” When Obama was questioned about giving millions of tax dollars to these crooks who were claiming to solve housing issues on mainstreet, he said he believed in programs where public funds back private companies to develop housing.... what? Wait a minute? I thought privatization was evil according to Obama, and was going to fix this sort of thing? Worse yet, as president he is talking about building a fund that pushes more than half a billion tax payers dollars PER YEAR into the hands of guys like Tony Rezko who are going to continue to NOT build affordable (rather uninhabitable) housing for mainstreet. Wow, he doesn't know what he is doing, even after he does it!? How do I know this?
How do I know he hasn't learned anything from this? Well, because Valerie Jarrett the previous chief executive of Habitat Company (the group that managed Grove Parc, the worst of these uninhabitable housing “projects”) is a senior adviser to Obama and a part of his Finance committee. He wasn't kidding when he told the country that his lack of experience didn't matter. It appears that a lack of experience or even the wrong kind of experiences still seem to make for good qualifications to join his campaign in high seated places.
What about Allison Davis, fund raiser for Obama and a lead partner at his lawfirm in Illinois? Well, ends up she is not just a lawyer, she is a real estate developer as well, and was not only involved with Grove Parc but is the recipient of more Government money to rehabilitate her slumlord property where the plumbing was in such disrepair that raw human feces sludged it's way into her uninhabitable "mainstreet" apartments.
Who is Tony Rezko really, you ask? He is one of those other fundraisers for Obama. You see he knows people who like what Obama has to say (and are likely waiting to receive part of that cool half a billion a year grant for housing once he is elected) and so he raises money to get and keep him elected. Rezko has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama, and that money comes from guys like Cecil Butler, who controlled Lawndale Restoration, unquestionably one of THE largest government subsidized slumlord in Chicago. With no surprise the government (reminder: Obama = Illinois Government) had to eventually seize Lawndale Restoration when city inspectors found around 2000 code violations on his property. So pay these guys to build this crap, then take their campaign contributions, and then the taxpayers have to pay to seize the housing once it is uninhabitable. Nice Obama! Wow!
But don't forget about that darn Tony Rezko! I wonder what Tony would say about his connection to such slimy folks who were ready and did provide campaign funds for Obama? Well, the only way of knowing would require you to call up the prison where he now resides and see if you can get him on the phone to find out. Better yet, I wonder what Obama would say of his relationship to Rezko? Well, you would have to call Obama up in the house that Tony sold him. Ouch!
Updated: Let me make one more connection for you. I have heard a lot of people talking about how Obamas law experiences someone how pushes him over the top in terms of having special qualifications. Upon further investigation, the lawfirm we were led to believe was all non-profit nearly philanthropic in the end simply specialized in getting real estate grant contracts from the government for people like Tony Rezko. Are you putting it together? If this were a movie, his firm would have been the slimball lawyers working for the slumlords that didn't have the mainstreet folks best interests at heart. It is amazing how in the face of these undeniable facts about corruption, that Obama comes away unscathed by the press. It might be one thing if he was out there trying to fix the messes of these people. Instead, he financed them, and they threw parties for him and gave him money! Enough is enough!
To read more about the validity of this Obama / Rezko fiacso read these:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment