Friday, August 29, 2008
Earlier this year, when Barack Obama first introduced his plan to negotiate with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, Americans were understandably dumbfounded, they couldn't believe what they had just heard! Both Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media immediately pounced upon Obama, citing this gaffe as proof of his lack of foreign policy experience. Subsequently, Hillary Clinton's poll numbers started climbing, while Obama's poll numbers began to decline.
Thereafter, for a short period of time, Obama refrained from discussing this asinine idea any further. But eventually, the Clinton campaign committed several faux-pas of its own, allowing Barack Obama to regain his footing. And from that point and on, as the momentum swayed in Obama's favor, the race was pretty much over with - and Obama, once again, returned to his favorite theme: "Negotiating with despotic regimes".
The media continued to press him on the issue, but Obama - while adjusting his position ever-so-slightly - remained defiant. "We must negotiate with rogue leaders", he repeated over and over again, defeating the enemy was not an option.
As the notorious Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin once said, “A lie told often enough becomes truth”, and similarly, “a refrain repeated often enough" also becomes "truth".
Lo and behold, the mainstream media slowly bought into Obama's foolish refrain, treating it as if it were sacrosanct - an unarguable, intransgressible fact of life, which must not be violated.
And what was once thought to be the unthinkable - the appeasement of tyrants - has now become a key component of the Democratic Party platform.
With Joe Biden - a firm believer in cozying up to rogue leaders - on board with him, Obama can now pursue his policy of appeasement, full steam ahead. And undoubtedly, Obama's decision to choose Senator Biden as his running mate had very much to do with Biden's pro appeasement policy.
Sadly, “a refrain repeated often enough becomes truth", an impenetrable fact of life - for the mindless zombies, who fawn over every last word of Barack Obama, as if he were the Messiah himself.
"Temperament and Judgment"? Or harebrained appeasement?
I believe it's the latter.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sen. Joe Biden in June of 2007, responding to Gen. Petraeus' plan to deploy additional troops to Iraq - Source - Chicago Tribune
The Tribune adds: "John McCain risked his political career to take the opposite view. He will not let Biden off the hook easily."
Unlike his Democratic opponents, who invariably bend to whichever direction is most politically expedient for them, John McCain supported the troop surge and put his political career at risk - because it was the right thing to do.
Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden were vehemently opposed to the troop surge. Biden, the so called 'foreign policy expert', also recommended that Iraq be partitioned into three separate regions, which, as the Chicago Tribune points out, would have left "the fragmented regions vulnerable to... Iran and Turkey." It also would have allowed the sectarian violence in the region to spiral totally out of control.
Yet, these 'losers' say they 'got it right' and McCain was wrong.
If Biden and Obama have their way, Iraq will soon become a proxy client of the Iranian regime. In fact, that's already a given, in their minds.
Just as Jimmy Carter allowed the Mullahs to gain control over Iran, Biden and Obama would empower the Iranian regime by allowing it undue influence in Iraq and by dallying with the regime over its nuclear weapons program.
Biden's foreign policy views and his ties to Iranian lobbyists with close connections to the Iranian Mullahcracy, are a recipe for disaster. And, if elected, Biden would usher in another 4 years of Jimmy-Carter-like diplomacy in the White House.
Both of these clowns are nothing but a couple of Jimmy Carter wannabes. Hopefully, the American people will not allow these two left-wing extremists to carry out their self destructive agendas.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
McCain might not know how many houses his wife's trust fund owns because their finances are separate, but Obama doesn't know how many abandoned, broken down apartment buildings he and Rezko scammed his constituents with. It's eleven dilapidated apartment buildings in Obama's State Senate district. Obama gave Rezko 14 million taxpayer dollars to fix the buildings in order to supply low income housing. Rezko never did and now Rezko is in jail and we cannot afford to let Obama have control of the White House.
Sen Biden's willingness to go to attend fundraisers (for his senatorial re-election) at the houses of rather questionable millionaire Iranians in Bel Air, who are founders of the Islamic Faith (Iman) Foundation and known to have deep ties with the Mullahs... reigning over Iran, is disconcerting to say the least...The commenter than goes on to criticize Senator Biden for his ties to a Mr. Houshang Amir-Ahamdi:
Sen. Biden has refused to meet with Iranians opposed to the Mullahcracy in Iran lest they take him to task for his connections to the Qom-on-Bel air Iranians.
Not one Iranian that I know of, who is against dialoguing with the Mullahs has ever been bestowed an audience with this foreign policy maven of a Senator. Mr. Biden’s “discrete” meetings with various envoys of the Mullahcracy, in European cities, in the presence of disreputable Mullah-supporting members of the European Parliament is also well-known among us Iranians who do have very decent proposals which Mr. Biden has recalcitrantly refused to consider.
Amir Ahamadi though a professor at Rutgers University is the founder of a rather objectionable organization called the American Iranian Council (AIC) - which has some of the shadiest characters who were involved in the oil-for-food scandal on the various boards.The Diarist on Red State wonders if these allegations are true.
Amir-Ahmadi is an admitted supporter of the regime in Tehran and goes back and forth to Iran to meet with the Supreme Leader of the Khomeinist regime, Khamenei himself, as well as... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Amir-Ahmadi in fact nominated himself for president of Iran in 2005...
Mr. Biden has been flown to various events and lodged at the most expensive hotels by Mr. Amir-Ahamdi and his group in order to promote the... normalization of relations with a regime that continues to execute innocent Iranians of all ages, sexes, creeds, religions and backgrounds. Mr. Biden is the last person who I as an Democrat would nominate as a vice president, all partisan sentimentality aside.
I've already linked to several sources - here and here - which indicate that all this is indeed true. There's no denying that Sen. Biden met these people and held fundraisers with them. Nor is there any denying that he supports direct negotiations between the US and the Iranian Mullahcrat regime.
And of course, there is this item from the Boston Globe:
Some believe that nuclear weapons have become an "emotional necessity" for Iranians. Senator Joseph Biden said that even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India. What the world needed to address was Iran's "emotional needs", he said, with a nonaggression pact.What more do you need to know about Senator Biden and Barack Obama's views on Iran?
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union! They don't pose any serious threat to us!"
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Today, Kenneth Timmerman elaborates further on Sen. Biden's nefarious ties to pro-Tehran lobbying groups:
Excerpted from Newsmax:
- Read in full
Sen. Barack Obama and his newly-picked running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, may have sparred during the primaries. But on one issue they are firmly united: the need to forge closer ties to the government of Iran.
Kaveh Mohseni, a spokesman for the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, calls Biden “a great friend of the mullahs.”
He notes that Biden’s election campaigns “have been financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network,” a loosely-knit group of wealthy Iranian-American businessmen and women seeking to end the U.S. trade embargo on Iran.
“In exchange, the senator does his best to aid the mullahs,” Mohseni argues.
Biden’s ties to pro-Tehran lobbying groups are no secret. But so far, the elite media has avoided even mentioning the subject....
At a March 2002 conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the American-Iranian Council (AIC), Biden made the case for closer U.S. ties to the government of Iran. “I believe than an improved relationship with Iran is in the naked self-interest of the United States of America," Biden said....
While Biden has condemned the human rights abuses of the Iranian regime, his decision to address the American-Iranian Council and other pro-Tehran groups has angered many Iranian-Americans.
“Biden has been too cozy with the supporters of the Iranian regime, which is anti-American, anti-Iranian, and has a horrendous human rights record,” said Sardar Haddad, an Iranian pro-democracy activist based in Texas.
The American-Iranian Council was founded by Hoosang Amirahmadi, a Rutgers University professor of urban studies who tried to run for president of the Islamic Republic in 2005.
Funded in part by oil giant CONOCO, which hoped to secure lucrative oil contracts, AIC has lobbied consistently to get U.S. trade sanctions on Iran eliminated.
In a recent interview with the popular Persian-language netzine, Tabnak, run by the former head of the Revolutionary Guards, Amirahmadi complained that he wasn’t getting enough credit for lobbying Washington.
Biden hasn’t shied from asking wealthy Iranian-Americans with known sympathies for the Tehran regime for campaign cash.
When Iranian-American pro-democracy activists learned that Biden planned to attend a fundraiser organized on his behalf by an Iranian Muslim charity in California, they phoned his U.S. Senate office to warn him about the group’s pro-Tehran sympathies.
But the Delaware Democrat swept aside their concerns and attended the Feb. 19, 2002, event at the California home of Dr. Sadegh Namazi-Khah, which brought in an estimated $30,000 for his U.S. Senate re-election campaign. ..
The senator said that "Iran always wanted to be an ally of the United States and to have good relations with the U.S.," said Housang Dadgostar, a prominent lawyer who wrote Biden’s campaign a $1,000 check.
"As Iranian-Americans, we don't want anything to happen to the Iranian government or to the Iranian people as a result of this war on terrorism," said Mohsen Movaghar, a Los Angeles businessman who also attended the event and contributed $1,000 to Biden...
Namazi-Khah and other IMAN board members told me that the idea for the fundraiser came from Biden, who apparently learned about the group after attending an earlier event sponsored by the AIC.
Both Namazi-Khah and Movaghar also belong to the Board of the American-Iranian Council, the Washington, DC-based lobbying group pressing for an end to U.S. sanctions on Iran.
So does Japeh Youssefi, who traveled from Scottsdale, Ariz., with his wife to attend the 2002 fundraiser in California.
Between the two of them, the Youssefi’s gave $4,000 to Biden’s U.S. Senate campaign, the legal limit at the time. ...
Another key Biden contributor is Hassan Nemazee, a New York money-manager... Nemazee... recently set up the Iranian-American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) along with a group of Silicon Valley billionaires, many of whom have close ties to the Iranian regime.
Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his running mate “highlights the need to really investigate the web of Iranian influence in the United States,” Iranian-American political analyst Hassan Daioleslam told Newsmax.
“What you have here is a group of people who have been working together through different groups and organizations for the past ten years” to promote the interests of the Iranian regime.
“It’s deeply troubling to have a vice-presidential candidate raise funds from people whose ties to the Iranian regime raise such serious questions,” Daioleslam said.
Earlier today I wrote:
"I suspect there may be an avaricious motive behind Biden's pro-Iranian position - and I think it has something to do with the color green and $$$."Indeed, it is time we start looking into Senator Biden's FEC records. Who knows what else we'll find beneath those obscure FEC files of his?
Is Senator Biden Sympathetic Towards the Iranian Regime and it's Nuclear Ambitions?
The Biden, Iran Connection - Morrissey and Rubin Leave Out Key Details!
You're probably thinking Tony Rezko, right?
Well, that's true, but that's not what I meant.
Here's the answer:
Both Barack Obama and Nadhmi Auchi are trying to impose a communist style injunction on the constitutional right to "freedom of speech":
From the AP:
Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 "Swift Boat" campaign.Pamela Geller says "FOX has caved and will not run this ad". Michael Savage, on his radio program also stated that both Fox and CNN have been warned by the Obama campaign not to run the ad.
Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations from airing the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial. - Read in full.
Fits perfectly with Obama's socialist/communist ideology.
And according to Men's News Daily, Nadhmi Auchi is doing the exact same thing! - H/T Atlas Shrugs:
Why aren’t the American media investigating the role of British billionaire businessman Nadhmi Auchi in supplying loans to Barack Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko?Ah yes, Obama and Auchi, 'Birds of a Feather', indeed!
Some point to media bias, but there is another factor. Working for Auchi, who was born in Iraq, attorneys from London law firm Carter-Ruck have for several months been flooding American and British newspapers and websites with letters demanding removal of material they deem “defamatory” to their client. - Read in full
But they left out some important points, which I mentioned in my previous post [I know I'm being redundant - sorry]:
Biden, in 2004, held a high-level, 90-minute meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland - despite the fact that the U.S. has had no official relations with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Even more troubling than that: In 2002 Biden held a fund-raiser at the California home of Sadegh Namazi-khah, a prominent lobbyist for the radical mullah regime, where he raked in $30,000 for his senatorial campaign.
Yuval Levin of The National Review Online, cites a TNR article - which I mentioned in my previous post, detailing a meeting that Biden held with committee staffers shortly after the 9/11 attacks, where according to TNR, Biden hit on an idea: "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran."
I suspect there may be an avaricious motive behind Biden's pro-Iranian position -and I think it has something to do with the color green - $$$.
Hopefully, Pamela Geller and her loyal followers, who've done an excellent job in vetting out Barack Obama's campaign contributions, will begin examining Senator Biden's campaign contributions. I know it's a painstaking task, and not for the meek of heart. But someone's got to do it - and it ain't gonna be me! Ughhhh!
Is Senator Biden Sympathetic Towards the Iranian Regime and it's Nuclear Ambitions?
The Biden, Iran Connection - The Saga Continues
Sunday, August 24, 2008
First, there is the following tidbit from an October 2001 article posted in the the New Republic. If you read the article in its entirety, you'll see just how idiosyncratic this man really is. But what's even more troubling than that is the following item:
At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.Shocking, indeed, but not all that shocking considering the following revelation, from a February 2005 column in the Boston Globe:
The staffers sit in silence. Finally somebody ventures a response: "I think they'd send it back." Then another aide speaks up delicately: "The thing I would worry about is that it would almost look like a publicity stunt." Still another reminds Biden that an Iranian delegation is in Moscow that very day to discuss a $300 million arms deal with Vladimir Putin that the United States has strongly condemned.
Some believe that nuclear weapons have become an emotional necessity for Iranians.It is any wonder then that Mr. Biden vehemently opposed a Senate resolution, back in September of 2007, designating Iran's Revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. He clearly believes in Iran's inalienable right to possess nuclear weapons. "Nuclear weapons have become an emotional necessity for Iranians." "Even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India," Senator Biden said back in 2005. "What the world needed to address was Iran's emotional needs."
Senator Joseph Biden said that even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India. What the world needed to address was Iran's emotional needs, he said, with a nonaggression pact.
Problem is, Iran isn't a full Democracy. It is a theocratic regime that supports terrorism and poses a dire threat to the entire free world.
Ultimately, you've got to wonder why Senator Biden would want to send a "no strings attached check for $200 million to Iran", why he evinces so much sympathy towards Iran and its desire to procure nuclear weapons and why he was so vehemently opposed to the Senate resolution designating Iran's Revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization?
Well, what do you know? I just noticed a World Net Daily Article from April of 2005 that seems to answer my questions [I still haven't checked to see if WND has written anything about this recently].
Excerpted from World Net Daily:
As WorldNetDaily reported, Biden recently told a columnist the world must address Iran's emotional needs and agree to a nonaggression pact.... "Senator Joseph Biden said that even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India. What the world needed to address was Iran's emotional needs, he said, with a nonaggression pact."Read the full article.
The senator's sharp criticism of the Bush administration's Iran policy has been expressed not only in Congress but in meetings with Iranian-Americans sympathetic to the mullah regime and with Iranian officials themselves.
Last year, Biden held a high-level, 90-minute meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, which took place in a lounge in full view of reporters during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The U.S. has had no official relations with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
IRNA, the state Iranian news agency, reported Biden "stressed the importance of Iran and the role which it can play in the sensitive and volatile region" and said "he hoped the existing problems between the Islamic Republic of Iran and America would be removed someday."
According to the IRNA, "Kharrazi, in turn, said 'the Iranian nation has suffered gravely from the antagonistic steps of the American government... "The report said Kharrazi "stressed that ... American statesmen are required first to change their existing approach and prove their goodwill in order to pave the way for dialogue and diplomatic relations according to mutual respect."...
Biden reportedly told Kharrazi he also is urging his own government to rethink its positions...
"I hope we're all smarter about this, smarter than we've been," Biden said. "I hope our leadership is brighter because if it's not, it's a very dull picture for the region, and for humanity."
In 2002, amid protests from Iranian-Americans, Biden held a fund-raiser in the California home of a prominent lobbyist for the radical mullah regime, during which the senator "delivered a sweeping condemnation" of President Bush's "Axis of Evil" formula.
One Iranian-American activist said, "Getting the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to appear at this event will certainly be seen by the regime in Tehran as a show of support."
Held at the home of Sadegh Namazi-khah, the fund-raiser brought in $30,000 for Biden's re-election to the Senate that year....
The senator said "Iran always wanted to be an ally of the United States and to have good relations with the U.S.," according to Housang Dadgostar, a prominent lawyer. ...
Namazi-khah denied any official contact with the Iranian government, but said he regularly travels to Iran and actively supports "moderates" within the ruling clergy, such as Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.
Namazi-khah and other IMAN board members said Biden's office had asked if they would hold the private fund-raiser after meeting with them at a pro-Tehran gala in New York in December 2001.
That event was sponsored by the American-Iranian Council, a pro-regime group lobbying to lift the trade embargo on Iran.
My suspicions about Senator Biden have now been validated and all my questions have been answered.
And make no mistake about it, Senator Biden's radical views on Iran did not go unnoticed by Barack Obama. Is it any wonder then that Barack Obama chose this man to be his running mate?
Remember what Senator Obama said at a campaign rally back in May?:
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union! They don't pose any serious threat to us!"Just a gaffe on Obama's part? A mere slip of the tongue?
I don't think so....
There's an old adage: "Birds of a feather flock together". And I guess that would explain why Barack Obama is so fond of his newly chosen running mate, Senator Joe Biden. The Delaware Senator has long been accused of plagiarizing passages of his speeches from other candidates, and Obama has been accused of doing the same thing.
I wouldn't be surprised if these two running mates - both "highly acclaimed" orators - end up plagiarizing each others' speeches. That would be a real blast! And only these two "birds of a feather" are capable of doing such an asinine thing like that.
The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed that Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni — with a central government in Baghdad.Of course Biden's plan is a recipe for disaster, rather than a viable solution, as the GOP website duly notes:
BIDEN'S IRAQ PLAN OFF MESSAGE WITH EXPERTSBut how can anyone compare the views of a few Middle East experts - novices at best - to the sage advice of Joe Biden, a veteran senator with 3 decades of experience in the senate? Even Barack Obama - according to some experts - is a mere "Johnny Come Lately" compared to Mr. Biden!
Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal: "To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale and uprooting of families..."
"Many Middle East Experts Are Horrified By The Difficulty Of Dividing The Nation."
Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, is probably not too excited over the Prospect of an Obama Presidency, nor is he too happy with Obama's timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Zebari told Senator Obama in June that he found his proposal for setting a timetable, worrisome.
"We have a deadly enemy," Mr. Zebari told Obama. "When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity."
However, Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki [a shiite, who's been accused of pushing an extreme Shiite agenda in Iraq and who once called the Islamic Republic of Iran “a good friend and brother.”] seems pretty content with Obama's timetable for a troop withdrawal. And he seems pretty excited over the prospect of Obama becoming the next US President. I also suspect Mr. Maliki would have no qualms with Iraq ultimately becoming a mere proxy of the Iranian regime.
But how would he feel about dividing up Iraq into three separate regions?
Well, if Iran ends up benefiting from Biden's plan - a plan which would certainly devastate the entire region - I believe Mr. Maliki would be more than happy to sign off on such a deal.
As far as Senator Biden's ability to govern is concerned, it is my sincere belief that America would be much better off today had Senator Biden been President during the Civil War era. First off, he would have ordered an immediate withdrawal of troops on both sides of the conflict. Then he would have split the US into two halves - and there'd be a lot less bickering in this country right now because of it.
Oh well, it's no use crying over spilled milk. It simply wasn't meant to be.
One last note: The GOP post that I linked to before is loaded with lots of goodies detailing Senator Biden's previous statements about Barack Obama and his lack of credentials to be President. Hopefully, I'll link to several of these tidbits in a future post, but in the meantime, I'd recommend you hop on over there and read it yourselves. It's a worthwhile read, indeed.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
RUSH: I want to run through some of the sound bites from the Saturday night forum at Rick Warren's church, the Saddleback Church out in Lake Forest, California. This Obama answer is unbelievable. Rick Warren said, "Senator Obama, let me ask you about evil. Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?"America's Chickens are coming home to roost!
OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfooor. We see, uh, evil, some -- sadly, on -- on the streets of, uh, our cities. Now, the -- the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because, uh, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated, uhhh, based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil. Just because we think our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doin' good.
RUSH: This is just beyond the pale to me.... He never mentions Islamic extremism as evil. Islamic extremists killed 3,000 Americans... Obama is... very concerned about... the evil that we have created, and so he doesn't want to be too critical of evil, because being critical of evil makes evil even angrier....
He sees this country as the focus of evil; he sees this country as the reason bad people are bad, both in this country and around the world...
I actually think that this guy is a walking, talking robot. He has been programmed from the time he was young and started into formal education.... That's how I explain all of these positions he takes... such as voting three times to kill babies outside the womb after they have survived an abortion. Even when the bill gets the particular language that he wants, he still votes against it, because he's... been told to by every left-wing special interest group what to do...Unfortunately, Mr. Limbaugh left out one question:
Ladies and gentlemen... the guy is a walking, talking robot, repeating things that leftist extremists and blame-America-firsters have just drilled into his head.
If evil does exist in America - as Senator Obama suggests - is his vote in favor of infanticide a part of this evil?
Friday, August 22, 2008
From an AP article describing Barack Obama's years as a student at Occidental College in LA.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
But for some reason or another - as Confederate Yankee points out - Ben Smith of the Politico blog falsely accuses the ad of smearing Barack Obama and tying him to Islamic terror.
"The use of 9/11 imagery links Ayers, and Obama, to the American conflict with Islamic terror," Smith says, "which is the subject of many viral e-mails attacking Obama."
Of course, that's not true. The ad does not link Barack Obama to Islamic terror. But sometimes, Conservative pundits, in an effort to portray themselves as mainstrean journalists, will distort the facts in order to enhance their "journalistic" credentials. Perhaps, it was only carelessness on the part of Mr. Smith, but these kind of mishaps are more likely to occur when a journalist feels the need to portray himself as a member of the "mainstream" media.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
O' hail the Messiah
The path to the new socialist Motherland
Our savior, our savior
The leader more famous than Lindsay Lohan
Bow down and praise the one
Give him your money and your guns
Give us a country that makes your wife proud
Lord Barry heal the bitter ones
White and Clinging to faith and to guns
Hope for the change of the hope of the change!
I am a crack dealer in Beaumont, Texas, who has recently been diagnosed as a carrier of the HIV virus.
My parents live in Fort Worth. One of my sisters lives in Pflugerville and is married to a transvestite. My father and mother have recently been arrested for growing and selling marijuana. They are financially dependent on my other two sisters, who are prostitutes in Dallas.
I have two brothers: one is currently serving a life sentence at Huntsville for the murder of a teenage boy in 1994. My other brother is currently in jail awaiting charges of sexual misconduct with his three children.
I have recently become engaged to marry a former prostitute who lives in Longview . She is a part time 'working girl'.
All things considered, my problem is this. I love my fiancee and look forward to bringing her into the family. I certainly want to be totally open and honest with her. Should I tell her about my cousin who supports Barack Obama for President?
Worried About My Reputation
Someone is sending out fake text messages to people's cell phones claiming to announce Obama's veep pick. Some of the messages say his running mate is Clinton, other messages say it's Gore, and they look like this:In case you're interested in driving the Obama crowd crazy and wish to send out these text messages from Obama to them, Wonkette has instructions how to do it:
"Dear supporter, today our campaign joins in a historic partnership with Al Gore. Together we will move America forward. Yes we can."
The messages seem to come from 62262, which is the Obama text number. I don't know how easy or hard it is to spoof text messages, but someone is doing it.
Using Verizon’s website its super easy to send fake VP nominations…Happy texting!
Just make the From and Reply to number 62262.
(You have to put your real number in the Call Back field, but it doesn’t show up in the text.)
… and send a message (to your verizon wireless friends) thanking them for their support and letting them know you have chosen Hillary Clinton as your running mate!
Don’t forget to hit the Urgent check box!
From the New York Sun:
"I urged him to move ahead in the Israel-Syria negotiations as much as possible so that whoever is the next president would not start from too far down the track," Kurtzer said...However, let me remind you of something I posted back on May 17, in response to Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who assailed President Bush over comments he made while speaking to the Israeli parliament on the 60th anniversary of Israel - criticizing those who seek to appease terrorists.
Mr. Kurtzer was in the Syrian capital for a conference co-sponsored by the Law Society of England and Wales and the American Bar Association and arranged by the British Syrian Society...
A Levant expert with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Tony Badran, said the conference was similar to efforts last month by a nongovernmental organization... to bring what he called "official-unofficial Syrian intellectuals to come to Washington and lobby on behalf of the regime."
"They failed to meet with anyone in the administration," he said. "But it's not a secret that the Syrians are openly banking on Barack Obama...."
A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, Wendy Morigi, said: "Senator Obama values the expertise of Ambassador Kurtzer, but he is not a paid adviser, nor is he authorized to conduct talks with any government. Ambassador Kurtzer's trip... had no connection with the campaign."
Mr. Kurtzer said he informed the campaign of his trip to Damascus and described his role as someone who gives advice to the campaign and the candidate from time to time on the Middle East. In this capacity, he was at the Illinois senator's side in Israel last month. "I don't do politics, I do policy," Mr. Kurtzer said.
"We have a protocol, a custom, informally around here, that we don't criticize the president when he's on foreign soil," Pelosi said. "One would think that would apply to the president, that he would not criticize Americans [Barack Obama] when he is on foreign soil."
And I wrote the following:
Thus Mr. Kurtzer's claim that "I don't do politics, I do policy" is total BS - because that's exactly what he was doing in Israel back in May, campaigning on behalf of Barack Obama and soliciting support for Obama from Israeli leaders.
In actuality, it was Barack Obama who was attacking and undermining the President while he was on foreign soil.
According to DEBKAfile’s political sources - "Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had sent representatives to the international conference in Jerusalem to solicit campaign supporters in Israel.
"Clinton’s was ex-ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and Obama’s were Dennis Ross, formerly of the US state department and ex-special Middle east envoy, and Dan Kurtzer, another former ambassador to Israel.
"Whereas Indyk kept a low profile, Ross and Kurtzer were in and out of the offices of Israeli leaders including prime minister Ehud Olmert. They promised that Israel had nothing to fear from Barack Obama as president, or his offer to meet the presidents of Iran and Syria for face to face discussion on the issues outstanding between them and the United States. They insisted that this offer did not apply to Palestinian terrorists like Hamas." - Read in full.
But Ross and Kurtzer were doing much more than that. They were also using their visit to criticize President Bush's Middle East policies:
"Two representatives of the United States' previous administration.... on Tuesday criticized the policies of current U.S. President, George W. Bush and the conduct of the Annapolis Middle East peace process.
"Special Middle East coordinator in the Clinton administration, Dennis Ross, and former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer were speaking in the framework of the "Facing Tomorrow" Presidential Conference in Jerusalem.
"Ross... [now an Obama adviser] said that last November's Annapolis conference was not planned properly, that all of the parties should have agreed in advance on at least some of the main principles and that more groundwork should have been done to give both the Israelis and the Palestinians the sense that the event could make a difference for them....
"Kurtzer, an adviser on foreign policy and the Middle East to Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama criticized the Annapolis process and said the current administration in Washington is not seriously advancing the negotiations....." - Read in full.
So in essence, Barack Obama's advisers were attacking President Bush on foreign soil - during Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations.
Meanwhile, deputy communications director for the McCain campaign, Michael Goldfarb, quipped yesterday:
"If one of Senator Obama's advisers has been to Damascus, we just wonder how many have been to Tehran."Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani added:
Discussions should only take place "when you have confidence that you're not being used," said Giuliani, charging that Kurtzer’s actions might be a result of an Obama policy of “negotiating with dictators without precondition."
Source - CNN's Political Ticker
CBS4 news has confirmed that 2 known Democratic supporters have expressed outrage after being solicited to buy tickets to Barack Obama's acceptance speech. The tickets were supposed to be free. The Obama campaign spokesman in Colorado says the tickets are free and the convention committee says the tickets are free, but one source told CBS4 he was solicited 3 times to buy tickets for one thousand dollars a piece. The solicitor is a consultant for the Obama campaign.
The source, a known Democratic supporter, says the Obama campaign is apparently running an underground, unethical fund raising operation that is being kept secret from the public.
An e mail directed the source to a link on Obama's official campaign website. The link takes you to a little known page to buy tickets for one thousand dollars a piece. The email says "don't be concerned about the voter address on the website, it's the secret code that will get you club level access at Invesco Field".
A CBS4 reporter made several attempts to access the same page on the Obama website, but was not able to do so. It appears to be limited to big donors actively being pursued by party insiders. Only after the CBS4 reporter copied the link from the source was she able to access the "underground operation". And after the reporter made calls and pressed the Obama campaign for answers the web-page - mysteriously - shut down, saying "no more tickets available". - Source Digital Journal
I believe that Obama's campaign staffers need to seek out psychological help immediately. Their shady fund-raising tactics probably won't harm Barack Obama's Presidential campaign or his so called "squeaky clean" image, considering he has the mainstream media in his back pocket. However, these starry-eyed campaign staffers could find themselves in deep trouble one day if they don't break their addiction to unethical [and often illegal] fund-raising schemes soon. And they better get psychological help forthwith - before it's too late!
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
An Obama aide said at the time that it had never been the campaign’s practice to make such payments. The field operation “hasn’t been about tapping long-standing political machinery,” the aide said. - Source LA Times
But apparently after losing the Pennsylvania primaries to Hillary Clinton by nine percentage points, Senator Obama has decided to change course and to dole out cash to ward leaders and other Democratic operatives who help get out the vote in November.
Excerpted from the Philadelphia Daily News:
US Rep. Bob Brady (Pa) said the Obama campaign has promised street money to pump up turnout in November. And now that Obama is the official nominee, his campaign will team up with the city's Democratic ward leaders, who traditionally help get out votes...Read the rest.
"They told me there are going to be resources here," Brady said. "That's what we do in Philadelphia; we pay people to work. They understand that."
Craig Schirmer, Pennsylvania director for the Obama campaign, would not talk about street money. But he did say that the campaign would be working closely with the local Democratic apparatus....
Ward politics in the city presents a unique set of challenges to the Obama campaign. Paying money to ward leaders and other supporters represents exactly the kind of transactional politics Obama has run against....
Then again, for quite some time, Sean Hannity was the only one in the Conservative mainstream media who felt the Jeremiah Wright/Obama connection was worthy of discussion. So I guess this indifference towards Obama's pro infanticde policy doesn't really surprise me.
Nevertheless, if you'd like to familiarize yourself with Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Protection Act, click here. Obama claimed he would have supported the measure had it been worded the same as the federal bill. But that is a mere prevarication, because an amendment was indeed added to make the Illinois bill exactly identical to the federal law. Baraba Boxer, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton all supported the Federal Bill, but in Illinois, Obama chose political expediency over a born infant's right to live.
Jill Staneck questions Obama's true motive in opposing the bill: "Obama, Wright, and the Christ Hospital connection". 'Did Jeremiah Wright influence Obama to oppose Illinois' 'Born Alive Protection Act'?' Hmmm....
Also read Born Alive Infants Cry Out to Obama: "We Don't Want To Die!" for additional info.
I would have to agree with Marc on this one. Trust is of utmost importance for any Presidential candidate.
Early in the spring, Barack Obama asked John Kerry for his advice on the vice presidential selection process. Kerry was too happy to oblige. Choose someone, he told Obama, that you trust completely. Don't expect the process to build trust...
This was, of course, the lesson that Kerry learned from 2004; he thought he could trust John Edwards... It didn't work...
Assuming Obama agrees, it stands to reason that he won't choose someone he does not trust ALREADY...
All you need to do is take a look at what happened with Obama's longtime spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright refused to keep his yap shut and Obama was forced to throw him under the bus to save his Presidential campaign from sinking into oblivion. Indeed, Obama has had his share of problems from people he mistakenly thought were his friends.
However, if I were advising Obama , I would recommend he tap his longtime buddy from the UIC - the distinguished Professor Bill Ayers - as his running mate.
Yes, I admit, Mr. Ayers is a controversial figure, but throughout this Presidential campaign he has never once betrayed the Messiah's trust. In spite of all the recent revelations detailing Obama's close ties to Ayers, the former Pentagon bomber has remained silent and has never once discussed the matter openly. [Some believe, Ayers may actually be the one behind the UIC's decision not to allow Stanley Kurtz access to a cache of documents housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the UIC that could possibly shed additional light on Obama's close relationship with Ayers]
Will there be an initial backlash if Obama taps the former Weather Underground terrorist as his running mate? Perhaps - but ultimately, I believe the left will become enamored with Mr. Ayers crazed ideologies just as they have become enamored with Barack Obama's crazed ideologies.
Infanticide? Pentagon bombings? What's there not to love about these two charming fellows?
Ultimately, picking a VP is all about trust, and Bill Ayers is definitely someone you could trust - as long as you're standing on the same side of the fence as he is.........
Monday, August 11, 2008
However, on Sunday the Atlas Shrugs' blog revealed that the FEC had sent two letters to the the Obama campaign seeking additional information regarding contributions it received that appeared to exceed the $2300 legal limit.
Among those questionable contributions, were donations from Monir and Hosam Edwan. The Obama campaign responded to the first letter in May 2008, but apparently the FEC was not satisfied with its response and sent out a second letter to the Obama campaign on July 30 2008 requesting additional information for sixteen pages of questionable contributions, including several of Monir Edwan's contributions.
So apparently, the Obama campaign failed to tell the FEC about the refunded money both in its original FEC report and in its response to the FEC's letter in May of 2008 (5 months after they allegedly returned the money). Otherwise, the FEC would have had no reason to further question them about these donations in its follow up letter (in July) - which makes the Obama campaign's claim - that it returned their donations in December - all the more difficult to swallow. And according to World Net Daily, the Wall Street Journal's attempt to brush off concerns about these contributions wasn't sitting well with the newspaper's readers either.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Voight's remarks spurred criticism throughout the Liberal blogosphere
One Hollywood blogger, an ardent Obama supporter, labeled Voight "a diseased Wing-nut" and said that, "Honestly? If I were a producer and I had to make a casting decision about hiring Voight or some older actor who hadn't pissed me off with an idiotic Washington Times op-ed piece, I might very well say to myself, "Voight? Let him eat cake."
Voight accused Liberal Hollywood of blacklisting him.
If there were a group of questionable donations all with the name AbdullahMarc, the answer to that question is a resounding "no"!
that were funneled through a guy in Jordan
who is a Jordanian national
who is under investigation for war profiteering
and it were Barack Obama
instead of John McCain
would this be a bigger deal?
For indeed, Barack Obama did receive questionable donations - about $30,000 worth - from two Palestinian nationals living in Gaza - and neither the New York Times or anyone else in the mainstream media bothered covering that story.
And the Jordanian national you refer to merely contacted Arab Americans living in California and asked them to contribute to Senator McCain's campaign, he did not donate any of the money himself. So let me rephrase your question for you:
If there were a group of questionable donations - over $30,000 worth - all with the name Edwan
that were donated by 2 Palestinian nationals living in Rafah
and it were John McCain
instead of Barack Obama
would this be a bigger deal? Would the New York Slimes choose to ignore this story? Or would they splash it all over the front page - as they did with the Abdullah story - and pose a more troubling question: Where did the Edwan's $30,000 really come from?
Double Standard? I think so.
And Marc, was it just a mere coincidence that the New York Times published their story on McCain only a few days after the Obama/Edwan story broke? Hmmm?... Marc? I'm "Just asking..."
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Read in full
Vassel, who had been advising the campaign on White House drapery measurements, will now oversee a state-of-the-art, scalable database indexing all of the supporters from whom Senator Obama has officially distanced himself.
“As the campaign has gone on, we’ve had a harder and harder time keeping up with all the people I’ve had to renounce,” the Illinois Senator said.
”We know it will be even harder after the convention, as more and more of my supporters get caught up in the excitement of the election and make stupid, racist, offensive remarks I’ll have to pretend to be bothered by. Ron will make sure no one falls through the cracks.”
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Report is also reporting that Barack Obama has officially tapped Green Bay Packer Great, Brett Favre as his Vice Presidential Running Mate.
Illinois Senator denies receiving $20 million campaign contribution from the Green Bay Packers, says quarterback was his “first choice all along”.- Read in full
Just one day after returning to training camp, Brett Favre sent shockwaves through the NFL, and then across the country, by announcing he would leave the Green Bay Packers to become Barack Obama’s running mate.
“There’s no way in hell I’ll ride the pine behind Aaron Rodgers,” Favre said at a hastily assembled press conference. ”But it would be an honor to back up this guy.”
Senator Obama said... that putting Favre on the ticket guarantees “the kind of idolatry on the sports page I’m already getting on the front page...”
And finally, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Report is reporting that Osama Bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamden has been "found guilty of failing to signal a lane change":
Since the offense is a moving violation, three points will be added to Hamden’s driving record. That, combined with the three points he received last year for stoning a promiscuous woman to death after 9 p.m., will mandate that Hamden attend a safe driving program or risk losing his license.- Read in full
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign contends it returned $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, but the donors told WND today they have not received any money.Do the Edwan brothers have any ulterior motive to lie about the money not being returned to them?
The Wall Street Journal reported it spoke to Obama officials who said the donations from three Palestinian brothers were received between Sept. 20 and Dec. 6 last year, and virtually all of the money was returned by Dec. 6. The campaign said, however, the refunds were not reported to the Federal Election Commission due to a technical error.
The Obama camp insisted the remaining $2,500 was refunded Monday and all of the refunds will be reflected soon in an amended report. The campaign said new controls are in place to prevent any similar attempts in the future.
But WND asked two of the brothers – Monir and Hasam Edwan – to respond to the campaign's claims.
"No, we did not receive any money back from the Obama campaign at any time," said Monir Edwan.
The Edwans continue to maintain – as they told WND earlier this week – that the financial transactions made on Obama's campaign website were not actual donations but purchases of "Obama for President" T-shirts. The transactions, however, were listed as donations in U.S. government election filings. - Read the rest
Well, if they did receive their money back from the Obama campaign, that would obligate them to reimburse the campaign for the T-shirts they received. However, WND already pointed out that the brothers couldn't possibly have received the T-shirts, since Israel imposed a tight closure of the Gaza Strip from June 2007 until June 2008, when the Israeli government agreed to a cease-fire with Hamas. Plus, keep in mind that earlier this week the brothers told WND that they were concerned this whole story might damage Barack Obama's campaign.
"They will try to use this story to let Obama fall," Monir said. "We don't want to cause any damage to Obama's campaign... Not just the people in Gaza but people from all over the world are rooting for this great man."
If they are indeed lying, they're certainly not helping the man they're so passionately rooting for.
Nevertheless, the Obama campaign's claim [as reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal] that "virtually all of the money... was returned by December 6. But the refunds weren’t reported to the Federal Election Commission due to a technical error," sounds a bit strange to me.
Even if we were to assume that they did return the money to the Edwan brothers, was the failure to report the refunded money to the FEC really a technical error, or were they afraid that if they reported it to the FEC, the FEC would begin scrutinizing the rest of Obama's campaign contributions? Hmmm......
As to why the remaining money wasn't returned till now - a conundrum indeed - ponder this thought:
The Obama campaign felt that as long as they returned most of the money and stayed within the legal limit [although it was actually $200 over the limit], no one would notice that Monir Edwan's donations came from Rafah - except for a curious blogger who realized there aint no Rafah in GA. Hmmm... Something to ponder, indeed.....
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Barack Obama says he would give consumers an emergency rebate of $1,000 to help them pay for gasoline -- paid for by taxing Big Oil's "windfall profits."
However, Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman of the department of economics at George Mason University, notes as follows:
"Total profits of U.S. oil companies in 2007 were about $90 billion. If Uncle Sam took all of these profits and distributed them equally to all households in the U.S., each household would get $750."
Mr. Boudreaux reminds that $90 billion represents all profits. Even if Obama claims half of those profits are "windfall," the noted economist says each household would receive $375. And even if Obama's plan excludes all households in the top half of income earners, there's still only enough for $750 for each remaining household, Boudreaux says.
That said, Boudreaux reminds that the Obama plan would subsidize gasoline consumption while more heavily taxing its production. "This plan -- which increases the demand for gasoline and reduces its supply -- makes as much sense as trying to put out a fire by dousing it with jet fuel."
But that matters not as long as a gullible public sucks up the populist pap that is Obamanomics. - Read in full.
Monday, August 4, 2008
"Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets," a voice-over in the ad says. "Now, Big Oil’s filling John McCain’s campaign with 2 million dollars in contributions. Because instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another 4 billion in tax breaks. After one president in the pocket of big oil, we can’t afford another."
In an interview on CNN today, former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney expressed dismay over the ad saying:
“Boy, that’s really sad. I didn’t know that Barack Obama had stooped to dishonesty.... Corporations are not allowed to give contributions to candidates, and employees of oil companies give to Barack Obama as well as to John McCain.... So it’s simply dishonest as well as below the belt.”And McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds had this to say about the ad:
"Barack Obama's latest negative attack ad shows his celebrity is matched only by his hypocrisy, after all it was Senator Obama, not John McCain, who voted for the... energy bill that was a sweetheart deal for oil companies. Also not mentioned is the $400,000 from big oil contributors that Barack Obama has already pocketed in this election."Indeed, the 'Obama Low Road Express' is moving full speed ahead and apparently, it's getting lower and lower each and every day.
And from the Hillary Clinton campaign website - March 28 2008
False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money From Oil Companies.Apparently, Hillary forgot to scrub that page.
Phil Singer, Deputy Communications Director: "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn’t take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that ExxonMobil, Shell and others are among his donors. I wonder if they’ll fix the ad."
A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. Obama says, "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I won’t let them block change anymore."
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 [by now, he has received much more than that amount] from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar – are oil company CEOs.
Also see "Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick." from Fact check [a website that refuses to "fact check" Obama's false statements ever since he clinched his party's nomination.]
It is illegal for a U.S. candidate to accept campaign contributions from foreigners. It is also also illegal for a US candidate to accept more than $2,300 per election cycle.
A WND investigation tracked down Monir Edwan and his brother Hosam who made donations totaling $5,200.13 to the Obama campaign, all in October of 2007.
From World Net Daily:
A WND investigation tracked down the Edwans, who are brothers living in the Tal Esaltan neighborhood of Rafah, a large refugee camp in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
The Edwans are a large clan that include top Hamas supporters.
Speaking to WND, the two brothers praised Obama and admitted giving the money online to his campaign. They said they are not U.S. citizens but are citizens of "Palestine."
The Edwans denied they are affiliated with Hamas. Palestinian sources in Gaza confirmed the Edwans in question are secular, but could not say whether they supported Hamas.
Monir and Hasam Edwan denied their financial transactions online – listed as donations in U.S. government election filings – were actual donations to Obama's campaign. Instead they claimed they purchased about $30,000 in Obama T-shirts from the presidential candidate's online store – a contention that did not hold up during a WND interview, when they changed their story several times.
"My brother Hosam and I knew that Obama will be a big hit even before he became a candidate. We knew the guy would be a celebrity in Gaza so we decided to invest the amount of $29,000 to buy Obama T-shirts from his website and sell them in Gaza," Monir Edwan told WND, speaking by cell phone from Gaza.
"I know on the back of this story Obama rivals will present our business as a donation and they will try to use this story to let Obama fall, but I'm telling you, we bought T-shirts," Edwan maintained....
"We have nothing to do with the Obama campaign. We just like Obama and believe he will be the best for the Palestinians and for the world."
At first Monir Edwan claimed he sold the T-shirts in Gaza for around $9 and that a profit was made...
But it was pointed out to Edwan the T-shirts for sale on Obama's website are listed as $20.08 and that selling the merchandise for less would not yield a profit.
"Maybe we sold the shirts for a lot more. I can't remember now," said Edwan.
Asked why he would purchase T-shirts at such a high rate and pay the cost of shipping when he could pay a company to produce T-shirts for less, Edwan replied, "We wanted the shirts to come from the campaign."
But Edwan could not explain how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the months he claimed to have purchased the merchandise, since Israel imposed a tight closure of the Gaza Strip starting in June 2007 that lasted until June 2008, when the Israeli government agreed to a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza.
"We don't want to cause any damage to Obama's campaign," was Edwan's reply. Edwan said he wants Obama to be president.
"Not just the people in Gaza but people from all over the world are rooting for this great man," he told WND.
FEC spokesman Biersack told WND contributions from overseas are allowed if the donations are coming from U.S. citizens or green card carriers. But he said accepting money from foreigners would violate election provisions.
He said there are strict guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election.
"I am not familiar with the particulars of the case, so I am commenting in general. The FEC will have to examine all the circumstances before determining any wrongdoing," Biersack clarified.
Read in full.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
This prompted McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds to respond: "We're glad the Obama campaign retracted Barack Obama's accusation because it was absolutely false, and we're moving on."
However - as Lynn Sweet points out - upon closer examination of what Obama had said, it is quite clear that the Democratic nominee was still accusing Senator McCain of playing the race card even while insisting he was doing no such thing.
At Saturday's press conference, a reporter asked Barack Obama the following question:
Senator, you said you are not injecting race into the campaign race. Your surrogates have said that your comments about not looking like other presidents on the dollar bill is not about your race. But you did say that, back at a fund-raiser in Jacksonville, that they are going to try to make you afraid of me, that he is young and inexperienced, he's got a funny name and did I mention that he is black. How do you reconcile that?To which Obama replied:
Here is what I was saying. I think this should be undisputed, that I don't come out of central casting when it comes to presidential races, for a whole range of reasons. I'm young.... My name is Barack Obama. I am African-American.... I spent time in Indonesia. I do not have the typical biography of a presidential candidate...And, so, what I think has been an approach to the McCain campaign is to say that he is risky. To try to divert focus from the fact that they don't have any new ideas... All those elements... feed into this notion that he may be a, quote, unquote, risky choice... Let me be clear. In no way do I think that John McCain's campaign was being racist. I think they are cynical."So in essence, Senator Obama was accusing Senator McCain of using race - whether directly or indirectly - as a scare tactic.
However, Senator MCain has never alluded to Obama's race in any of his statements or any of his campaign ads.
A voice-over in McCain's latest campaign ad, pokes fun at Obama's celebrity status - "He's the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" says a voice-over in the ad. - But there isn't the slightest implication in the ad that Obama's name or his race would make him a risky candidate.
Thus, I think Tucker Bounds erred in saying that Obama had retracted his accusation and in saying the McCain campaign was going to move on.
Obama is still playing the race card even while insisting he's not, and until he stops accusing the McCain campaign of racism, they should call him out on that.
In truth, other than injecting race into the campaign and reversing his position on off shore drilling [on the heels of the latest polls showing that the majority of Americans support off shore drilling], - it is Senator Obama, and not his opponent, who clearly "has no new ideas".
Friday, August 1, 2008
However, Lynn Sweet notes that in 2004, shortly after Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate, he spoke at a Gridiron dinner and joked about his celebrity status saying everything changed for him after he keynoted the Democratic convention earlier that year:
"It's like I was shot out of a cannon. I am so overexposed, I make Paris Hilton look like a recluse. "After all the attention -- People magazine, GQ, Vanity Fair, Letterman -- I figure there's nowhere to go from here but down..."Belittling Paris Hilton's celebrity status? How dare he do such a thing!
Donation Details: Adwan, Monir Rafah, Georgia
Here is the file: Download EdwanDetail.xls.
And here's the link to the FEC file, Compliments of Atlas Shrugs.
Debbie Schlussel notes: "As we all know, it is illegal for any U.S. candidate for federal office (and most state and local offices) to accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals. It is also illegal for any U.S. candidate for President to accept more than $2,300 per election cycle."
To see the contents of the FEC file, you could also hop on over to The American Jingoist, who has it posted on his blog, showing the entire list of donations adding up to $24,321.41. And he concludes his post with the following observation:
So Friends… what do you think? I think the phone banks are humming at Hezbollah and Hamas, the purveyors of death, intolerance, murder and terrorism are working the phone banks on overtime for their boy the Mulatto Marxist, Barack Hussein Obama! Is this the guy you want as your President?He may be jumping the gun a little bit, but $24,321.41 is a heck of a lot of money for someone living in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip!
Of course, this could all be a mistake. Perhaps there is a town called Rafah tucked away somewhere in the state of Georgia, or perhaps Mr. Edwan lives elsewhere in Georgia and decided to list Rafah as his preferred choice of residence, but it still doesn't explain how Obama was able to accept well over the legal amount allowed for campaign contributions.
Get ready for the spin. You know it's coming. It always does.