america, you may already know that i strongly dislike obama as a politician but, the writtings on this blog-site are not my own creation. it took a lot of hours, days, weeks, & months to amass the articles i have uncovered regarding obama &, all i want to do is put them out there for you to see because most of the media won't & hasn't.
this is but another example of obamas judgement &, it's a bad one. i will be the first to admit i have not lost a lot of sleep concerning kenya but, if this is what a potential president does by coddling cut-throats, please don't elect him.
When Will MSM Report Obama's Support for Kenyan Tyrant Odinga? NewsBusters.org
TimesWatchCNSNewsEyeblastBiz & MediaCulture & MediaTake Action!
Free Email Alerts!" name=email>
home blogs about forum contact search account
"Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias"
MSM Again Ignores Obama's Abortion Record
Only six stories in 18 months, none in detail
Another Fake
NYT finds 'lifelong Republican' who surprisingly loves Obama
Sweet-On-Obama Sixteen
Like March Madness, but in October and with biased journalists
When Will MSM Report Obama's Support for Kenyan Tyrant Odinga?
By Kerry Picket (Bio Archive)October 12, 2008 - 15:42 ET
While many in the media are accusing the McCain campaign of throwing everything they have at Barack Obama in the closing weeks of this presidential election cycle, other than Mark Hyman's Washington Times commentary today and World Net Daily's online coverage, little is being discussed about Obama's support of Kenya's tyrant Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
This popular internet video at 6:26 in cites Obama's connection and support for Odinga. An edited version of this internet video exists here and an Obama/Odinga on the campaign trail is here. All 3 video embeds are at Eyeblast.tv.
The Odinga association may be even more devastating than the Bill Ayers link, because Obama cannot make the "I was only eight years old when this bad stuff happened" excuse. Also, questions are being raised if Obama may have violated the Logan Act. Additionally, Odinga's thugs were involved in the slaughter of thousands of Kenyans.
Hyman's article in the Times says the following (my emphasis throughout):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians.
The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama's father.
Hyman goes into Obama's coordinated support for Odinga:
Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama's six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials," Mr. Obama announced.
"Kenyans are now yearning for change," he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama's remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans - he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga.
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama had met several times before the 2006 trip. Reports indicate Mr. Odinga visited Mr. Obama during trips to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Mr. Obama sent his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate his summer visit. Mr. Obama's August trip coincided with strategizing by Orange Democratic Movement leaders to defeat Mr. Kibaki in the upcoming elections. Mr. Odinga represented the ODM ticket in the presidential race.
Author of "Obama Nation" Jerome Corsi was recently detained in Kenya and later deported. He was in the country promoting his book. While the western media covered Corsi's detainment and deportation, the bigger picture was ignored.
Why was the Odinga government protecting Obama to the point of attacking one lone American author? More importantly, the media needs to address this: How does a tyrant like Odinga benefit from an Obama presidency?
More videos on the Raila Odinga-Barack Obama relationship continue to spring up on the web. Many questions still remain unanswered. By omission, the mainstream media is delinquent in covering this story, and it may already be dangerously too late.
Kerry Picket is an Associate Producer At the Media Research Center's Eyeblast.tv
Monday, October 13, 2008
DEMOCRATS, CAN YOU HANDLE TRUTH?
america, wake up! do you remember just a short time ago when the dems were running for congress on a promise to end the war? plus, there were additional promises made. but, regardless whether you remember or not, the bottom line is: the dems took control of congress & you are now experiencing their lack of leadership for this country. their inability to get things done has gave them a dismal approval rating of just 12%. they promise you the world & when they don't deliver it, they blame everyone but themselves to include pres bush. true, bush vetoed a lot of bills but, when you look at the language in those bills & the earmarks, you'd have vetowed them also. how can you beleive in them when you have dem senator nancy pelosi, speaker-of-the-house doing this:::::
TimesWatchCNSNewsEyeblastBiz & MediaCulture & MediaTake Action!Free Email Alerts! home blogs about forum contact search account “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias” MSM Again Ignores Obama's Abortion RecordOnly six stories in 18 months, none in detail Another Fake NYT finds 'lifelong Republican' who surprisingly loves Obama Sweet-On-Obama SixteenLike March Madness, but in October and with biased journalists House Speaker Pelosi Accused of Earmarking Funds for Husband’s Benefit, Media MumBy Noel Sheppard (Bio Archive)May 8, 2007 - 12:00 ET
If Democrats had accused former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) last year of earmarking funds that could help real estate investments owned by his wife, would the media have reported it?
Probably on the front pages of every newspaper, and as the lead story of all of the evening news programs, right?
Well, the Associated Press published a story Monday about current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) possibly earmarking funds that would benefit her husband's investments around the San Francisco Bay. Yet, the media showed virtually no interest (emphasis added):
Story Continues Below Ad ?
Republicans are accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of including a provision in a water redevelopment bill that could benefit property her husband owns in San Francisco.
[…]
Republicans raised the issue more than two weeks after the bill passed the House.
Pelosi's measure would authorize 25 (m) million dollars to improve San Francisco port areas, and also would put some areas off limits to navigation so cruise ships could dock.
Her investor husband gets rental income from four buildings in a nearby commercial district.
Even though this originally appeared on the AP wire at 4:38 PM EST Monday, it appears that none of the cable or broadcast television networks bothered to share the story with their viewers.
Furthermore, although most newspapers did run the story at their respective websites Monday evening, I have been able to identify only one major print publication that bothered to include this in Tuesday’s edition, the New York Post (emphasis added):
"The appearance is obviously not good, and she needs to be forthcoming about how this impacts her financial interest," Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) told The Post.
[…]
Pelosi's office confirmed that she got the provision included in a water-resources bill, which passed the House April 19.
But House financial-disclosure documents reveal that Pelosi's husband, Paul, owns four commercial real-estate properties near the Embarcadero, which is home to many restaurants and hotels.
The properties earn combined rental income of more than $3 million.
One of the properties is 5,400 feet away from the redevelopment site.
[…]
Speaker Pelosi's role in pushing the project came to light because of new disclosure requirements passed by the Democratic House requiring members to declare when they get special "earmarks" tacked onto legislation.
Democrats put the rules in place after calling to reform Congress in the wake of a series of lobbying scandals and questions about other land deals.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was criticized for getting more than $200 million earmarked for a highway near Illinois property he owned.
The $15 billion water-resources bill comes up for debate in the Senate this week.
Hmmm. So, this will be debated by the Senate this week, but only the Post felt it was necessary to report?
Well, not only the Post, for Congressional Quarterly published this late Monday evening regarding the matter (emphasis added):
“Situations like these are precisely why conservatives have stressed that transparency is the best way to make the system work,” said Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the Republican Study Committee. “The public can make up their own mind about Speaker Pelosi, the earmark and whether it benefits the businesses that she profits from in the area, but the key is that they are aware of it.”
[…]
Pelosi submitted forms to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee certifying that her support for the waterfront project does not create a conflict of interest. In her disclosure form, Pelosi said repairs to Pier 35’s substructure were needed “to enable full cruise ship use of the pier.”
The pier, an old cruise line hub, is located several blocks from two commercial buildings owned at least in part by Pelosi’s husband, Paul.
“If Tiger Woods teed a ball up at Pelosi’s million-dollar rental property, he could easily hit the earmark in two strokes, with a slight draw to avoid the water,” said a senior Republican aide. “I don’t see how the Senate can let these projects stay in the bill with an ethics cloud hanging over them.”
Paul Pelosi has an interest of between $1 million and $5 million in each of the properties and draws annual rental income between $100,000 and $1 million from each, according to the Speaker’s 2006 financial disclosure forms.
The Speaker got a $20 million earmark for the same waterfront redevelopment project placed in a bill in July 2005, but the measure died. The following December, her husband increased his interest in one of the properties in question for an amount between $1 million and $5 million, according to financial disclosure forms.
CQ identified that this moves to the Senate on Tuesday. Yet, virtually nobody has bothered to report it.
Once again, what would the media have done last year if this involved former Speaker Hastert or former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
AND THIS IS FROM CNN.COM POSTED 6/21/07 ABOUT HOW THOSE DEMS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS WERE GOING TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THEIR EARMARKS. IT REALLY IS AMAZING THAT YOU, WHOEVER VOTED THEM IN, WERE TAKEN BY THEIR PROMISES. THEY HAVE NOT KEPT ONE OF THEM...
Member Center: Sign In Register
International Edition
Home World U.S. Weather Business Sports Analysis Politics Law Tech Science Health Entertainment Offbeat Travel Education Specials Autos I-Reports Tools: Save Print E-mail Most Popular Despite promises, few in House publicize earmarks POSTED: 4:59 p.m. EDT, June 21, 2007 Story Highlights• Only 52 of 435 House members provided information on earmark requests• 68 declined to provide requests; 315 didn't return calls or provide requests• Democrats promised scrutiny of earmarks when they regained Congress• Earmarks -- derided as "pork" -- often fund lawmakers' pet projects
From Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston CNN
Adjust font size:(CNN) -- Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of "openness and transparency" in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.
Initially, staffers for only 34 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between June 13 and 15 were willing to supply a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1. Some of those 34 staffers simply pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.
Since CNN aired the results of the survey, bloggers demanded that members of Congress release their requests. The Chicago Tribune ran an editorial asking why members of the Illinois delegation were being so secretive.
On Thursday, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, a member of the Illinois delegation, posted his more than 100 earmark requests on his Web site, the first presidential candidate to do so.
And 11 more House members released their earmark requests.
Six members of the House said they had no earmark requests.
Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 315 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't. (Find out how your representative responded)
"As long as we are not required to release them, we're not going to," said Dan Turner, an aide to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Louisiana.
In 2006, Congress approved a record $29 billion in earmarks. Those spending requests -- often derided as "pork" -- fund everything from road construction and research grants to ski lifts and minor league baseball diamonds. Legislators view these projects as important proof they are serving their constituents back home.
The 2006 total was 6.2 percent -- more than 2005's $27.3 billion.
When Democrats regained control of Congress last fall, they promised to create the most honest, open Congress in history.
"We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks," Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said in December 2006, "and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve."
Democrats said Republicans had corrupted the earmark process while they controlled Congress.
Earlier this year, the House implemented rules changes that require greater disclosure of earmark requests, and the Senate passed a bill that would require lawmakers to post a list of their earmark requests on the Internet. The bill, however, has not passed the House.
Last week, the issue came to a head as the House got bogged down deliberating the budget for the Department of Homeland Security Department.
Republicans accused the Democratic leadership of attempting to bypass debate on questionable earmarks when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, said he would not attach them to legislation until those bills had passed the Senate and House and had been sent to conference committees to work out differences.
Obey said there wasn't time to scrutinize the 32,000 earmark requests and keep the legislation moving. He blamed having to "clean up after" the Republican-controlled Congress for why the requests wouldn't be examined in time. (Watch Obey tell the GOP that Dems had to clean up "your mess" before addressing earmarks )
But House Republicans pointed out that position was counter to Democratic campaign promises and Obey was forced to back down and allow Republicans weeks to examine the earmark requests.
Critics said that doesn't play well with reform-minded taxpayers.
"Their behavior isn't better than the last Congress and in some ways worse because they know they have those requests," said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "We know they have more than 30,000 letters asking for specific earmarks and they're not letting us see them."
Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste, said the compromise is a step in the right direction but short of promised reforms -- all requests won't be made public, only the ones for which spending requests are approved.
Originally there was going to be no disclosure, now we have some disclosure," Schatz said. "And yet again the judgment will be made by the Appropriations Committee staff."
But others like Public Citizen say the compromise is far from what was promised.
"It violates the whole spirit of the reform, said Craig Holman, legislative representative for the nonpartisan group's Congress Watch.
"We really did expect that earmark requests would be an open book so that all of America could sit there and take a look at who's requesting what earmarks," Holman said.
CNN staffers Amanda Sealy and Todd Schwarzschild and interns Rachel Zelkowitz, William Hudson, Rachel Reynolds, Chamise Jones, Haley Van Dyck and Brittany Edney contributed to this report.
THIS IS ME AGAIN. IN SHORT, THE LEADER OF THE DEM PARTY IS JUST AS 'CROOKED' AS EVERYBODY ELSE IN WASHINGTON. SO, IF YOU PULL UP THE RECORDS, WHY CAN YOU FIND 'EARMARKS' IN ABUNDANCE FOR OBAMA & NOT FOR MCCAIN? SHOULDN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING &, THEY ARE NOT BEING HIDDEN FROM YOU. WHERE WAS HIS VOICE-IN-OBJECTION TO THIS SPENDING?
&, what disturbs me the most is, you are about to elect the most liberal, passive & deceptive person there is, to the office of PRESIDENT without challenging him on his past or his record.
TimesWatchCNSNewsEyeblastBiz & MediaCulture & MediaTake Action!Free Email Alerts! home blogs about forum contact search account “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias” MSM Again Ignores Obama's Abortion RecordOnly six stories in 18 months, none in detail Another Fake NYT finds 'lifelong Republican' who surprisingly loves Obama Sweet-On-Obama SixteenLike March Madness, but in October and with biased journalists House Speaker Pelosi Accused of Earmarking Funds for Husband’s Benefit, Media MumBy Noel Sheppard (Bio Archive)May 8, 2007 - 12:00 ET
If Democrats had accused former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) last year of earmarking funds that could help real estate investments owned by his wife, would the media have reported it?
Probably on the front pages of every newspaper, and as the lead story of all of the evening news programs, right?
Well, the Associated Press published a story Monday about current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) possibly earmarking funds that would benefit her husband's investments around the San Francisco Bay. Yet, the media showed virtually no interest (emphasis added):
Story Continues Below Ad ?
Republicans are accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of including a provision in a water redevelopment bill that could benefit property her husband owns in San Francisco.
[…]
Republicans raised the issue more than two weeks after the bill passed the House.
Pelosi's measure would authorize 25 (m) million dollars to improve San Francisco port areas, and also would put some areas off limits to navigation so cruise ships could dock.
Her investor husband gets rental income from four buildings in a nearby commercial district.
Even though this originally appeared on the AP wire at 4:38 PM EST Monday, it appears that none of the cable or broadcast television networks bothered to share the story with their viewers.
Furthermore, although most newspapers did run the story at their respective websites Monday evening, I have been able to identify only one major print publication that bothered to include this in Tuesday’s edition, the New York Post (emphasis added):
"The appearance is obviously not good, and she needs to be forthcoming about how this impacts her financial interest," Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) told The Post.
[…]
Pelosi's office confirmed that she got the provision included in a water-resources bill, which passed the House April 19.
But House financial-disclosure documents reveal that Pelosi's husband, Paul, owns four commercial real-estate properties near the Embarcadero, which is home to many restaurants and hotels.
The properties earn combined rental income of more than $3 million.
One of the properties is 5,400 feet away from the redevelopment site.
[…]
Speaker Pelosi's role in pushing the project came to light because of new disclosure requirements passed by the Democratic House requiring members to declare when they get special "earmarks" tacked onto legislation.
Democrats put the rules in place after calling to reform Congress in the wake of a series of lobbying scandals and questions about other land deals.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was criticized for getting more than $200 million earmarked for a highway near Illinois property he owned.
The $15 billion water-resources bill comes up for debate in the Senate this week.
Hmmm. So, this will be debated by the Senate this week, but only the Post felt it was necessary to report?
Well, not only the Post, for Congressional Quarterly published this late Monday evening regarding the matter (emphasis added):
“Situations like these are precisely why conservatives have stressed that transparency is the best way to make the system work,” said Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the Republican Study Committee. “The public can make up their own mind about Speaker Pelosi, the earmark and whether it benefits the businesses that she profits from in the area, but the key is that they are aware of it.”
[…]
Pelosi submitted forms to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee certifying that her support for the waterfront project does not create a conflict of interest. In her disclosure form, Pelosi said repairs to Pier 35’s substructure were needed “to enable full cruise ship use of the pier.”
The pier, an old cruise line hub, is located several blocks from two commercial buildings owned at least in part by Pelosi’s husband, Paul.
“If Tiger Woods teed a ball up at Pelosi’s million-dollar rental property, he could easily hit the earmark in two strokes, with a slight draw to avoid the water,” said a senior Republican aide. “I don’t see how the Senate can let these projects stay in the bill with an ethics cloud hanging over them.”
Paul Pelosi has an interest of between $1 million and $5 million in each of the properties and draws annual rental income between $100,000 and $1 million from each, according to the Speaker’s 2006 financial disclosure forms.
The Speaker got a $20 million earmark for the same waterfront redevelopment project placed in a bill in July 2005, but the measure died. The following December, her husband increased his interest in one of the properties in question for an amount between $1 million and $5 million, according to financial disclosure forms.
CQ identified that this moves to the Senate on Tuesday. Yet, virtually nobody has bothered to report it.
Once again, what would the media have done last year if this involved former Speaker Hastert or former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
AND THIS IS FROM CNN.COM POSTED 6/21/07 ABOUT HOW THOSE DEMS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS WERE GOING TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THEIR EARMARKS. IT REALLY IS AMAZING THAT YOU, WHOEVER VOTED THEM IN, WERE TAKEN BY THEIR PROMISES. THEY HAVE NOT KEPT ONE OF THEM...
Member Center: Sign In Register
International Edition
Home World U.S. Weather Business Sports Analysis Politics Law Tech Science Health Entertainment Offbeat Travel Education Specials Autos I-Reports Tools: Save Print E-mail Most Popular Despite promises, few in House publicize earmarks POSTED: 4:59 p.m. EDT, June 21, 2007 Story Highlights• Only 52 of 435 House members provided information on earmark requests• 68 declined to provide requests; 315 didn't return calls or provide requests• Democrats promised scrutiny of earmarks when they regained Congress• Earmarks -- derided as "pork" -- often fund lawmakers' pet projects
From Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston CNN
Adjust font size:(CNN) -- Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of "openness and transparency" in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.
Initially, staffers for only 34 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between June 13 and 15 were willing to supply a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1. Some of those 34 staffers simply pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.
Since CNN aired the results of the survey, bloggers demanded that members of Congress release their requests. The Chicago Tribune ran an editorial asking why members of the Illinois delegation were being so secretive.
On Thursday, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, a member of the Illinois delegation, posted his more than 100 earmark requests on his Web site, the first presidential candidate to do so.
And 11 more House members released their earmark requests.
Six members of the House said they had no earmark requests.
Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 315 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't. (Find out how your representative responded)
"As long as we are not required to release them, we're not going to," said Dan Turner, an aide to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Louisiana.
In 2006, Congress approved a record $29 billion in earmarks. Those spending requests -- often derided as "pork" -- fund everything from road construction and research grants to ski lifts and minor league baseball diamonds. Legislators view these projects as important proof they are serving their constituents back home.
The 2006 total was 6.2 percent -- more than 2005's $27.3 billion.
When Democrats regained control of Congress last fall, they promised to create the most honest, open Congress in history.
"We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks," Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said in December 2006, "and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve."
Democrats said Republicans had corrupted the earmark process while they controlled Congress.
Earlier this year, the House implemented rules changes that require greater disclosure of earmark requests, and the Senate passed a bill that would require lawmakers to post a list of their earmark requests on the Internet. The bill, however, has not passed the House.
Last week, the issue came to a head as the House got bogged down deliberating the budget for the Department of Homeland Security Department.
Republicans accused the Democratic leadership of attempting to bypass debate on questionable earmarks when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, said he would not attach them to legislation until those bills had passed the Senate and House and had been sent to conference committees to work out differences.
Obey said there wasn't time to scrutinize the 32,000 earmark requests and keep the legislation moving. He blamed having to "clean up after" the Republican-controlled Congress for why the requests wouldn't be examined in time. (Watch Obey tell the GOP that Dems had to clean up "your mess" before addressing earmarks )
But House Republicans pointed out that position was counter to Democratic campaign promises and Obey was forced to back down and allow Republicans weeks to examine the earmark requests.
Critics said that doesn't play well with reform-minded taxpayers.
"Their behavior isn't better than the last Congress and in some ways worse because they know they have those requests," said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "We know they have more than 30,000 letters asking for specific earmarks and they're not letting us see them."
Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste, said the compromise is a step in the right direction but short of promised reforms -- all requests won't be made public, only the ones for which spending requests are approved.
Originally there was going to be no disclosure, now we have some disclosure," Schatz said. "And yet again the judgment will be made by the Appropriations Committee staff."
But others like Public Citizen say the compromise is far from what was promised.
"It violates the whole spirit of the reform, said Craig Holman, legislative representative for the nonpartisan group's Congress Watch.
"We really did expect that earmark requests would be an open book so that all of America could sit there and take a look at who's requesting what earmarks," Holman said.
CNN staffers Amanda Sealy and Todd Schwarzschild and interns Rachel Zelkowitz, William Hudson, Rachel Reynolds, Chamise Jones, Haley Van Dyck and Brittany Edney contributed to this report.
THIS IS ME AGAIN. IN SHORT, THE LEADER OF THE DEM PARTY IS JUST AS 'CROOKED' AS EVERYBODY ELSE IN WASHINGTON. SO, IF YOU PULL UP THE RECORDS, WHY CAN YOU FIND 'EARMARKS' IN ABUNDANCE FOR OBAMA & NOT FOR MCCAIN? SHOULDN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING &, THEY ARE NOT BEING HIDDEN FROM YOU. WHERE WAS HIS VOICE-IN-OBJECTION TO THIS SPENDING?
&, what disturbs me the most is, you are about to elect the most liberal, passive & deceptive person there is, to the office of PRESIDENT without challenging him on his past or his record.
america, in bringing you the truth, i have not & will not erase anything from the source that i got it from, so, please bear with me & scoll through the crap. eventually, you will get to where you need to be.
this is the second article posted in reference to obamas community service, &, it's no better then the first one. in fact, all you have to do is type "altgeld gardens" in the google box, hit enter & read for yourselves. i don't make this stuff up.
at the completion of my reading i was struck with why didn't obama get the waters cleaned up &, why didn't he get the air cleaned up? he brought up his work as a community organizer & said that is what makes him qualified to lead america (amongst other things) but, he only particapated in the removal of asbestos---why didn't he challenge the factories & those governing the waters? why hasn't he helped these people still stuck in altgeld gardens?
read on reader---you be the judge
Return to Protein Wisdom homepage « Why Keith Olbermann is the future of NBC News [Karl] Home Friends like these [Darleen Click] »
June 17, 2008Barack Obama: The Undistinguished Gentleman [Karl] A commenter with a fondness for science-fiction writes:
why does it drive u into a frenzy that ppl believe in O and admire him?
The short answer is that it doesn’t, though it strikes me as somewhat irrational and disproportionate to his supposed public accomplishments.
From June 1985 to May 1988, Obama was a community organizer with the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, working primarily to organize a housing project called Altgeld Gardens. According to the Boston Globe:
For all its impact on Obama, Altgeld Gardens today seems far from the kind of success story politicians like to tout.
Dozens of buildings are boarded up, with fences surrounding much of the property. The roads are a potholed mess. Blinking lights illuminate a series of towers where police have mounted cameras.
That’s change you can believe in. Moreover, Hazel Johnson, who has lived at Altgeld Gardens since 1962 – and was an organizer long before Obama appeared on the scene – claims Obama has exaggerated his role in getting asbestos removed from the projects. Otherwise, Obama did not get much done — and even had difficulty explaining what a “community organizer” did.
He then departed for Harvard Law School, where he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. The title gained him notoriety, as reported by the New York Times:
He was approached by an agent, Jane Dystel, who got him a contract for a book. Obama missed his deadline, and Dystel promptly got him another contract and a $40,000 advance for the same book.
Obama finished the book while living in Bali.
Obama returned to Chicago, where he directed Illinois Project Vote! from April-October 1992. This was a project for ACORN — an ostensibly non-partisan (but actually partisan) voter registration group often charged with voter registration fraud. Nor was his involvement altruistic; the group would later provide the shock troops for his political campaigns.
In his first race for the state Senate in 1996, Obama employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers, thus running unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district:
“That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice.”
Nothing illegal about it, but nothing particularly inspiring about it, either.
Though Obama served in the Illinois Senate for seven years, he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year, when Illinois Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. During this period, he lost the 2000 Democratic primary run for the US House of Representatives to incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.
Obama then ran for an open US Senate seat in 2004, winning after Democrat Blair Hull and Republican Jack Ryan turned out to have scandal lurking in newly-unsealed divorce records.
In the Senate, Obama points mostly to his role in the 2007 overhaul of Congressional lobbying and ethics rules — a role he has repeatedly overstated. Indeed, Obama was called out publicly by his colleagues for trying to take undeserved credit on the recent immigration reform and housing bills.
Obama also points to the Lugar-Obama nuclear non-proliferation bill — a bill so non-controversial that it was passed into law by unanimous consent. Indeed, when not trying to take credit for the work of others, Obama’s Senate record is almost entirely minor legislation, usually passed by unanimous consent or voice vote.
Obama’s presidential campaign, recognizing how threadbare his record really is, and how utterly conventional his paltform is within left-leaning politics, insists that what matters is judgment, especially with regard to invading Iraq. Jonah Goldberg recently summed up the issue of Obama’s judgment:
The problem is that it doesn’t reflect reality. Obama, who was a junior Illinois state senator from a very liberal district in Chicago and a star parishioner of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.’s Trinity United Church of Christ when the country was debating invading Iraq, would have voters believe that he carefully weighed the pros and cons and concluded it would be a bad idea.
***
But, even if you want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, it’s hard to give him the benefit of the facts.
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama said he would “unequivocally” oppose President Bush on the war. But once in office, he voted for every war-funding bill — until he decided to run for president.
After the invasion, Obama did not favor an immediate pullout from Iraq. On July 27, 2004, the day after he delivered his brilliant keynote address to the Democratic National Convention, he told the Chicago Tribune that when it came to the war, “there’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” In other words, while he opposed the war, he was now committed to seeing it through. That was hardly the position of Moveon.org and other progressive outfits at the time.
During the long battle for the Democratic nomination, however, Obama’s position evolved (or devolved) into a consistent call for withdrawal in order to differentiate himself from Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I would add that his position in 2004 just coincidentally dovetailed with support for the Kerry-Edwards ticket; both had voted to authorize the invasion. But when it came time to run for higher office, he constantly attacked Hillary Clinton for having made the same votes as Kerry and Edwards. That is very conventional politics, not “change we can believe in.” His flexibility here says as much about his judgment as his 20-year membership at what he knew was a radical church from the outset.
This leaves Obama’s organizational skill, which I have praised before — though not without noting that his campaign was seeded with venture capital from George Soros and the usual Wall Street wheelers and dealers. He was able to defeat Hillary Clinton — another candidate with much more name recognition than record — by putting together a coalition of Hart and Jackson voters against the remainders of a Mondale coalition, with a strategy lifted from the 1972 McGovern campaign. It was no small feat, though the incompetence of the Clinton campaign was also a factor here.
Finally, there is his oratorical skill. Much of Obama’s lofty message of unity and hope really came from campaign consultant David Axelrod, who “long ago hatched the idea that Democrats’ campaigns should revolve more around personality than policy.” Indeed, much of the rhetoric was already test-driven in 2006 by one of Axelrod’s other clients, Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. Not that such themes are in any way unique to American presidential politics, as demonstrated by Bill “The Man from Hope” Clinton and George W. “Uniter, not a Divider” Bush.
As I have repeatedly noted here at pw, the candidacies of Obama and John McCain are driven by voters pursuing a mirage of changeyness where bipartisanship reigns and the “moneyed special interests” vanish. And we should Hope that it is a mirage:
The appeal is vague precisely because it is illusory… The Framers of the US Constitution recognized – as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10 – that factions are one of the costs of liberty. There is nothing high-minded about selling the notion that faction can be magically eliminated — a notion that is equal parts snake oil and tyranny.
Again, there is not much to admire in either snake oil, tyranny or flowery speeches trying to sell either. Moreover, remove Obama from a TelePrompTer and he is every bit the gaffer as any other average politician, though few have had the audacity to base their foreign policy on a debate gaffe.
In sum, Barack Obama’s record, judgment and message are at best entirely undistinguished in the field of presidential politics. At worst, we have Axelrod’s campaign of personality attracting a cult of followers so creepy that even many Obama backers are put off by it, to a man who admits he is a “blank screen,” with a message that is either illusory or tyrannical. It is in those people that I find little to admire.
Update: HotAir-lanche!
Update x2: Tom Maguire fills in Obama’s similarly undistinguished record in reforming Chicago’s public schools in the 1980s and 1990s.
Update x3: Insta-lanche!
Update x4: Corner-lanche!
Posted by Karl @ 7:28 am Trackback ShareThis
423 Comments ::: Post a comment »
this is the second article posted in reference to obamas community service, &, it's no better then the first one. in fact, all you have to do is type "altgeld gardens" in the google box, hit enter & read for yourselves. i don't make this stuff up.
at the completion of my reading i was struck with why didn't obama get the waters cleaned up &, why didn't he get the air cleaned up? he brought up his work as a community organizer & said that is what makes him qualified to lead america (amongst other things) but, he only particapated in the removal of asbestos---why didn't he challenge the factories & those governing the waters? why hasn't he helped these people still stuck in altgeld gardens?
read on reader---you be the judge
Return to Protein Wisdom homepage « Why Keith Olbermann is the future of NBC News [Karl] Home Friends like these [Darleen Click] »
June 17, 2008Barack Obama: The Undistinguished Gentleman [Karl] A commenter with a fondness for science-fiction writes:
why does it drive u into a frenzy that ppl believe in O and admire him?
The short answer is that it doesn’t, though it strikes me as somewhat irrational and disproportionate to his supposed public accomplishments.
From June 1985 to May 1988, Obama was a community organizer with the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, working primarily to organize a housing project called Altgeld Gardens. According to the Boston Globe:
For all its impact on Obama, Altgeld Gardens today seems far from the kind of success story politicians like to tout.
Dozens of buildings are boarded up, with fences surrounding much of the property. The roads are a potholed mess. Blinking lights illuminate a series of towers where police have mounted cameras.
That’s change you can believe in. Moreover, Hazel Johnson, who has lived at Altgeld Gardens since 1962 – and was an organizer long before Obama appeared on the scene – claims Obama has exaggerated his role in getting asbestos removed from the projects. Otherwise, Obama did not get much done — and even had difficulty explaining what a “community organizer” did.
He then departed for Harvard Law School, where he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. The title gained him notoriety, as reported by the New York Times:
He was approached by an agent, Jane Dystel, who got him a contract for a book. Obama missed his deadline, and Dystel promptly got him another contract and a $40,000 advance for the same book.
Obama finished the book while living in Bali.
Obama returned to Chicago, where he directed Illinois Project Vote! from April-October 1992. This was a project for ACORN — an ostensibly non-partisan (but actually partisan) voter registration group often charged with voter registration fraud. Nor was his involvement altruistic; the group would later provide the shock troops for his political campaigns.
In his first race for the state Senate in 1996, Obama employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers, thus running unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district:
“That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice.”
Nothing illegal about it, but nothing particularly inspiring about it, either.
Though Obama served in the Illinois Senate for seven years, he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year, when Illinois Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. During this period, he lost the 2000 Democratic primary run for the US House of Representatives to incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.
Obama then ran for an open US Senate seat in 2004, winning after Democrat Blair Hull and Republican Jack Ryan turned out to have scandal lurking in newly-unsealed divorce records.
In the Senate, Obama points mostly to his role in the 2007 overhaul of Congressional lobbying and ethics rules — a role he has repeatedly overstated. Indeed, Obama was called out publicly by his colleagues for trying to take undeserved credit on the recent immigration reform and housing bills.
Obama also points to the Lugar-Obama nuclear non-proliferation bill — a bill so non-controversial that it was passed into law by unanimous consent. Indeed, when not trying to take credit for the work of others, Obama’s Senate record is almost entirely minor legislation, usually passed by unanimous consent or voice vote.
Obama’s presidential campaign, recognizing how threadbare his record really is, and how utterly conventional his paltform is within left-leaning politics, insists that what matters is judgment, especially with regard to invading Iraq. Jonah Goldberg recently summed up the issue of Obama’s judgment:
The problem is that it doesn’t reflect reality. Obama, who was a junior Illinois state senator from a very liberal district in Chicago and a star parishioner of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.’s Trinity United Church of Christ when the country was debating invading Iraq, would have voters believe that he carefully weighed the pros and cons and concluded it would be a bad idea.
***
But, even if you want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, it’s hard to give him the benefit of the facts.
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama said he would “unequivocally” oppose President Bush on the war. But once in office, he voted for every war-funding bill — until he decided to run for president.
After the invasion, Obama did not favor an immediate pullout from Iraq. On July 27, 2004, the day after he delivered his brilliant keynote address to the Democratic National Convention, he told the Chicago Tribune that when it came to the war, “there’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” In other words, while he opposed the war, he was now committed to seeing it through. That was hardly the position of Moveon.org and other progressive outfits at the time.
During the long battle for the Democratic nomination, however, Obama’s position evolved (or devolved) into a consistent call for withdrawal in order to differentiate himself from Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I would add that his position in 2004 just coincidentally dovetailed with support for the Kerry-Edwards ticket; both had voted to authorize the invasion. But when it came time to run for higher office, he constantly attacked Hillary Clinton for having made the same votes as Kerry and Edwards. That is very conventional politics, not “change we can believe in.” His flexibility here says as much about his judgment as his 20-year membership at what he knew was a radical church from the outset.
This leaves Obama’s organizational skill, which I have praised before — though not without noting that his campaign was seeded with venture capital from George Soros and the usual Wall Street wheelers and dealers. He was able to defeat Hillary Clinton — another candidate with much more name recognition than record — by putting together a coalition of Hart and Jackson voters against the remainders of a Mondale coalition, with a strategy lifted from the 1972 McGovern campaign. It was no small feat, though the incompetence of the Clinton campaign was also a factor here.
Finally, there is his oratorical skill. Much of Obama’s lofty message of unity and hope really came from campaign consultant David Axelrod, who “long ago hatched the idea that Democrats’ campaigns should revolve more around personality than policy.” Indeed, much of the rhetoric was already test-driven in 2006 by one of Axelrod’s other clients, Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. Not that such themes are in any way unique to American presidential politics, as demonstrated by Bill “The Man from Hope” Clinton and George W. “Uniter, not a Divider” Bush.
As I have repeatedly noted here at pw, the candidacies of Obama and John McCain are driven by voters pursuing a mirage of changeyness where bipartisanship reigns and the “moneyed special interests” vanish. And we should Hope that it is a mirage:
The appeal is vague precisely because it is illusory… The Framers of the US Constitution recognized – as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10 – that factions are one of the costs of liberty. There is nothing high-minded about selling the notion that faction can be magically eliminated — a notion that is equal parts snake oil and tyranny.
Again, there is not much to admire in either snake oil, tyranny or flowery speeches trying to sell either. Moreover, remove Obama from a TelePrompTer and he is every bit the gaffer as any other average politician, though few have had the audacity to base their foreign policy on a debate gaffe.
In sum, Barack Obama’s record, judgment and message are at best entirely undistinguished in the field of presidential politics. At worst, we have Axelrod’s campaign of personality attracting a cult of followers so creepy that even many Obama backers are put off by it, to a man who admits he is a “blank screen,” with a message that is either illusory or tyrannical. It is in those people that I find little to admire.
Update: HotAir-lanche!
Update x2: Tom Maguire fills in Obama’s similarly undistinguished record in reforming Chicago’s public schools in the 1980s and 1990s.
Update x3: Insta-lanche!
Update x4: Corner-lanche!
Posted by Karl @ 7:28 am Trackback ShareThis
423 Comments ::: Post a comment »
if the truth be told
i have spent months researching obama & the more i look, the more i find that convinces me he is not only not right for me but, he's not right for america. the following info comes from wikipedia & it's one of the first places obama worked at as a community organizer. if this is a sample of his 'CHANGE' we are all in trouble if he's elected. america, do yourself a favor & do your own research on obama & mccain, & then, make your decision. don't take anybodies word---this election is too important for someone to slip into office because he was popular & appealing. read for yourself. i will be posting another article on this as soon as i finish this one.
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Altgeld Gardens is a housing project located on the south side of Chicago, Illinois, USA. The residents are 97% African American according to the 2000 US Census.[1] Built in 1945 with 1,498 units, the development consists primarily of two-story row houses spread over 190 acres. It was built to satisfy the need for African American veterans returning from World War II and was originally owned by the federal government, but was granted to the Chicago Housing Authority in 1956. Located in an industrial area on Chicago’s far South side, Altgeld was named after John Peter Altgeld an Illinois governor in the 1890s. As one of the first public housing developments ever built in the United States, it is considered an historic landmark.
Contents[hide]
1 Existing conditions
2 Notable residents
3 External links
4 References
//
[edit] Existing conditions
There are 3,400 residents currently living in the Altgeld / Murray complex. This complex includes its own schools, maintenance staff, on-site social services and medical facilities.
Altgeld Gardens' boundaries are 130th Street on the north and 138th Street on the south, from the Bishop Ford Freeway on the east and the Calumet River on the west. Altgeld Gardens is located near numerous manufacturing plants, former steel mills, waste dumps and landfills. The residents have a growing concern about the number of deaths annually from cancer and other diseases that may be related to their environment.[2]
Altgeld Gardens was named after Democrat John Peter Altgeld, who was the governor of Illinois from 1893-1897. Altgeld Gardens opened for occupancy in September 1944. Altgeld is a low-rise housing development consisting of approximately 1,400 row houses. It was built on land at the edge of the city so many amenities had to be built for the residents, such as schools, stores and medical facilities.
Altgeld Gardens contained a great deal of asbestos in its construction materials - asbestos that remained there until a grassroots campaign in the 1980s advocated for its removal. Future US presidential candidate Barack Obama participated in this campaign, and wrote about it at length in his book Dreams From My Father.
It is one of the densest concentrations of potentially hazardous pollution sources in North America. Many of the landfills that surround them are unregulated, and some of those are still being used. Since most of these landfills as well as many industrial plants are located along the waterways surrounding the area, of the 18 miles of rivers and lakes surrounding Altgeld Gardens, 11 miles of them are unfit for human consumption and recreation, though many residents still fish in them citing that “something’s going to kill them anyway.”
Over the years, Altgeld Gardens (www.altgeldgardens.com) has experienced various gang problems -- yet the community is not regarded as ridden with the sort of bloody rivalries endemic to the North Side's Cabrini Green community nor to the Robert Taylor Homes, near the historic Bronzeville neighborhood.
[edit] Notable residents
Tim Hardaway
Scoop Jackson
Terry Cummings
[edit] External links
Images of the project
[edit] References
^ "Journey Through Calumet". Retrieved on 2007-08-17.
^ "PCR, What is PCR?". Retrieved on 2007-08-17.
Coordinates needed: you can help!
http://www.ALTGELDGARDENS.com www.altgeldgardens.com]
This Chicago-related article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altgeld_Gardens,_Chicago"
Categories: Chicago housing projects Buildings and structures in Chicago, Illinois Chicago, Illinois stubs
Hidden category: United States articles missing geocoordinate data
Views
Article
Discussion
Edit this page
History
Personal tools
Log in / create account
if (window.isMSIE55) fixalpha();
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Search
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
This page was last modified on 11 October 2008, at 16:46.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Altgeld Gardens is a housing project located on the south side of Chicago, Illinois, USA. The residents are 97% African American according to the 2000 US Census.[1] Built in 1945 with 1,498 units, the development consists primarily of two-story row houses spread over 190 acres. It was built to satisfy the need for African American veterans returning from World War II and was originally owned by the federal government, but was granted to the Chicago Housing Authority in 1956. Located in an industrial area on Chicago’s far South side, Altgeld was named after John Peter Altgeld an Illinois governor in the 1890s. As one of the first public housing developments ever built in the United States, it is considered an historic landmark.
Contents[hide]
1 Existing conditions
2 Notable residents
3 External links
4 References
//
[edit] Existing conditions
There are 3,400 residents currently living in the Altgeld / Murray complex. This complex includes its own schools, maintenance staff, on-site social services and medical facilities.
Altgeld Gardens' boundaries are 130th Street on the north and 138th Street on the south, from the Bishop Ford Freeway on the east and the Calumet River on the west. Altgeld Gardens is located near numerous manufacturing plants, former steel mills, waste dumps and landfills. The residents have a growing concern about the number of deaths annually from cancer and other diseases that may be related to their environment.[2]
Altgeld Gardens was named after Democrat John Peter Altgeld, who was the governor of Illinois from 1893-1897. Altgeld Gardens opened for occupancy in September 1944. Altgeld is a low-rise housing development consisting of approximately 1,400 row houses. It was built on land at the edge of the city so many amenities had to be built for the residents, such as schools, stores and medical facilities.
Altgeld Gardens contained a great deal of asbestos in its construction materials - asbestos that remained there until a grassroots campaign in the 1980s advocated for its removal. Future US presidential candidate Barack Obama participated in this campaign, and wrote about it at length in his book Dreams From My Father.
It is one of the densest concentrations of potentially hazardous pollution sources in North America. Many of the landfills that surround them are unregulated, and some of those are still being used. Since most of these landfills as well as many industrial plants are located along the waterways surrounding the area, of the 18 miles of rivers and lakes surrounding Altgeld Gardens, 11 miles of them are unfit for human consumption and recreation, though many residents still fish in them citing that “something’s going to kill them anyway.”
Over the years, Altgeld Gardens (www.altgeldgardens.com) has experienced various gang problems -- yet the community is not regarded as ridden with the sort of bloody rivalries endemic to the North Side's Cabrini Green community nor to the Robert Taylor Homes, near the historic Bronzeville neighborhood.
[edit] Notable residents
Tim Hardaway
Scoop Jackson
Terry Cummings
[edit] External links
Images of the project
[edit] References
^ "Journey Through Calumet". Retrieved on 2007-08-17.
^ "PCR, What is PCR?". Retrieved on 2007-08-17.
Coordinates needed: you can help!
http://www.ALTGELDGARDENS.com www.altgeldgardens.com]
This Chicago-related article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altgeld_Gardens,_Chicago"
Categories: Chicago housing projects Buildings and structures in Chicago, Illinois Chicago, Illinois stubs
Hidden category: United States articles missing geocoordinate data
Views
Article
Discussion
Edit this page
History
Personal tools
Log in / create account
if (window.isMSIE55) fixalpha();
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Search
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
This page was last modified on 11 October 2008, at 16:46.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
ONLY THE TRUTH
with most of the media & entertainment sector jumping on the obama bandwagon, someone has to tell the news that they won't & don't expose you to. in their eyes, obama has done no wrong &, can do no wrong &, they shield him from negative coverage. america, sadly, i am here to tell you differently.
but, prior to all that, let me set the record straight. i honestly like & admire obama, & i respect him as a person. he's come a long way & i wish him continued good health, & i extend this wish to his family. however, i will not vote for him. there is a lot more to obama then what the press wants you to see &, i am taking it upon myself to expose him as best i can for what he really is...
for those of you stuck in obama land & hanging on every word he utters, prepare yourselves to meet the other obama...
but, prior to all that, let me set the record straight. i honestly like & admire obama, & i respect him as a person. he's come a long way & i wish him continued good health, & i extend this wish to his family. however, i will not vote for him. there is a lot more to obama then what the press wants you to see &, i am taking it upon myself to expose him as best i can for what he really is...
for those of you stuck in obama land & hanging on every word he utters, prepare yourselves to meet the other obama...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)