What follows are my findings that I drafted on November 23, 2008, relating to this question, along with numerous articles, books, blogs and/or videos used to support my answer to this question-You Decide:
After reading and digesting the information contained in this article, along with others that I have outlined below, to include their supporting documents and/or resources, I would like to share my concerns about our President Elect and our, supposedly, unbiased Main Stream Media with all of you:
Disgusting’ Bias for Obama, Time Writer Admits: On Sunday, November 23, 2008:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_bias_halperin/2008/11/23/154417.html?s=al&promo_code=71E0-1
How Did Sen. Obama Get Elected?: Posted on howobamagotelected.com? You Decide:
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
These are pertinent quotes from this web site:
“On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama’s limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States.
For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple… the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.
On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience.
The rather shocking video above seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.”
Question: Do you, as an American citizen, feel that we have just experienced an extremely unfair, slanted and blatantly biased political news coverage by our Main Stream Media (MSM) during our Historical Presidential election?
And, if your answer happens to be a resounding “YES”, my question to you is, how long do you think this has gone on with any other major issues (e.g., Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, Financial Crises. etc.) and should we be concerned about what we get from them in the future? You Decide:
I’d like to share my, NOT all inclusive, concerns about our MSM with you:
“Most “average American citizens” (e.g., the new politically correct definition for those of us that are NOT considered to be “ELITISTS”, the likes of Bill Ayers, by our President elect, his appointed staff and some of his supporters, etc.), who either didn’t take the time or didn’t have the time and/or resources (Internet access) to conduct their own research, as a means of educating themselves prior to this and other elections.
Mainly because, their priority in life and, rightfully so, happens to be going to “work”, as a means of putting food on the table for their loved ones, and are, thereby, forced to rely solely on the integrity of our MSM to do it for them, not knowing that what they get from them may be false and/or biased.”
What follows are questions, along with pertinent articles, videos and other resources, that are shared with you, as a means of giving you some sense of my own concerns with, not only, our MSM, but with our President Elect Obama and are in no way, intentionally, meant to slant your own views on this issue-You Decide:
Question: Who Controls The Media?
Media Needs To Keep Its Own Identity-By Daniel Ucko, Editor-in-Chief at Polypost.com Issue-On November 18, 2008:
The following are pertinent excerpts from this article:
“Corporate power in the world we live in has amassed to an extreme level; a global level. Seven corporations – Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Bertelsmann, Sony, Vivendi Universal and News Corp – rule the media.
It’s been like this for over a decade now, as large corporations have eaten up small businesses, and more and more companies merge together to increase profits, creating biased media behemoths and far too much control over what we see, hear and know.
And the average citizen probably has little idea to the extremity of this media conglomeration.
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, for example, owns The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, 20th Century Fox, HarperCollins, TV Guide and MySpace Records.
Another giant, Viacom, has a significant chunk of the airwaves and Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, Blockbuster Video, CBS, MTV, VH1, BET, Comedy Central and Spike TV are all assets under this conglomerate.
“Whoever controls the media, controls the peoples’ minds,” conspiracists often say.
When such a small number is controlling such a large amount of media organizations, the messages we see as the public and the advertising that infiltrates our lives is utterly unfair and puts independent media at a disadvantage.”
Additionally, the following articles, along with their resources, seem to have provided me with more fair, unbiased and factual information that assisted me in coming up with an answer to this question and/or supported my concerns-You Decide:
Web Sites That Dig for News Rise as Watchdogs-By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA Published: November 17, 2008 (NYT):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/business/media/18voice.html?em
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“SAN DIEGO — Over the last two years, some of this city’s darkest secrets have been dragged into the light — city officials with conflicts of interest and hidden pay raises, affordable housing that was not affordable, misleading crime statistics.”
“Investigations ensued. The chiefs of two redevelopment agencies were forced out. One of them faces criminal charges. Yet the main revelations came not from any of San Diego’s television and radio stations or its dominant newspaper, The San Diego Union-Tribune, but from a handful of young journalists at a nonprofit Web site run out of a converted military base far from downtown’s glass towers — a site that did not exist four years ago.”
“Here it is VoiceofSanDiego.org, offering a brand of serious, original reporting by professional journalists — the province of the traditional media, but at a much lower cost of doing business. Since it began in 2005, similar operations have cropped up in New Haven, the Twin Cities, Seattle, St. Louis and Chicago. More are on the way.”
Question: Once formally appointed, are we going to see more of our President Elect’s campaign tactics that were put into play, at his direction, by his campaign staff, as outlined below, as a means of minimizing the possibility of our MSM loosing their clout and to avoid these type of Internet investigations targeting him and/or someone else in his newly appointed Presidential Staff?
Mainly due to the fast growing number of serious and original investigating and reporting operations conducted by professional journalists and others (e.g. conservative radio talk shows, FOX News, average American citizens, etc.), who are aggressively delving into some of our politicians’ darkest kept secrets and dragging them into the light,
And, if your answer to my question happens to be a resounding “YES”, then my next two (2) questions for you are:
1) how long is it going to take for us to permanently loose our Constitutional 1st Amendment Rights of “FREEDM OF SPEECH”; and/or, even more tragic,
2) are we, As American Citizens, going to have a working Constitution in place after this New Administrations’ tenure, and, thus, be a “Third World Country”?
These were, what I consider as disgusting, tactics that were employed during our Presidential Election Campaign by our now President Elect Obama’s Staff-You Decide:
Obama’s Campaign Opens a New Web Site to Strike Back at ‘Dishonest Smears’ By JULIE BOSMAN and JOHN M. BRODER Published: June 13, 2008 (NYT):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13war.html
The following are pertinent quotes from this article:
”..the Obama campaign has tried to confront Internet rumors with a more local, less visible approach, quietly encouraging supporters to forward misleading e-mail messages to their local field organizers, who in turn would notify the campaign’s research department. Then the research department would respond with a factual rebuttal, which would then be e-mailed back to every recipient of the original e-mail message.
While the campaign considered this tactic effective in the early primaries, especially in the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses in January, the general election was seen as requiring a more robust response mechanism, so the campaign created the Fight The Smears Web site. Details of fightthesmears.com were first reported by Time magazine.
The campaign unveiled the new Web site amid indications the general election could be as much of a slash and burn affair as any of its recent predecessors, despite assertions from both Mr. Obama and his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, that they intend to elevate the political discourse.
On Wednesday, James A. Johnson, a longtime fixture in Democratic political and business circles, stepped down as the head of Mr. Obama’s vice-presidential search committee after Republicans used news reports about Mr. Johnson’s business dealings to suggest that he had ethical problems.
On Thursday, Mr. McCain, at a news conference, raised questions about another member of the search committee, Eric Holder, noting that he had played a role in President Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich in 2001.”
These is a recent blog and article that I feel are pertinent to this question-You Decide:
Blog: UN, Saudis Conspire to Stifle Free Speech Published By Islamic Watch (IW) By David J. Rusin On Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 10:40 AM:
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2008/11/un-saudis-conspire-to-stifle-free-speech.html
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
As if the endless tales of corruption, ineptitude, and financial waste were not enough to sully one’s view of the United Nations, here is another reason to look askance at Turtle Bay: the organization is pushing a global blasphemy law designed to thwart criticism of the Islamic faith:
United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann said on Tuesday [November 11] that the world body should ban defamation of all religions and disagreed that such a move would impinge upon freedom of speech.
“Yes, I believe that defamation of religion should be banned,” he said in response to a question at a press conference to highlight the interfaith conference at the UN headquarters. No one should try to defame Islam or any other religion, he said, adding:
“We should respect all religions.”
President d’Escoto, a former Sandinista foreign minister and recipient of the International Lenin Peace Prize, was speaking prior to the UN’s Culture of Peace Conference, held on November 12 and 13 at the behest of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah. As the Middle East director of Human Rights Watch noted,
“There is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, yet the kingdom asks the world to listen to its message of religious tolerance.”
The meeting intended to build on a Saudi-led forum in Madrid earlier this year that issued a declaration touting “respect for religions.”
That sounds pleasant enough. Yet there is a thinly veiled agenda at work here: “a global law to punish blasphemy — a campaign championed by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference that puts the rights of religions ahead of individual liberties.
Indeed, the details of last week’s UN get-together are maddening:
Consider one key draft resolution at the event. Introduced jointly by the Philippines and Pakistan, it openly seeks to limit press freedoms.
Sure, as read by Philippine President Gloria Arroyo, the language pays lip service to the notion of freedom of expression.
But the document then goes on to emphasize the “special duties and responsibilities necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, or of public health and morals.”
Translation: Don’t even think of publishing those Danish cartoons or anything even close to them. And forget about questioning authorities in places like, say, Riyadh.
Of course, this is just the latest attempt to silence critics of radical Islam. Proposed blasphemy laws will fail to win much support from Americans or Europeans, but they underscore the agenda that Islamists are already enacting through politically correct appeals and soft intimidation.
Culture of peace?
This is the culture of censorship and the West should have none of it.”
Iran Suppresses Free Speech: Posted By Iran Press Service-By Amit Pyakurel Published Saturday, February 10, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04memo.html?th&emc=th
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“Ohmynews While observers speculate about the risk of Iran developing nuclear weapons and the possibility of a U.S. military attack against Iran, we seem not to be giving adequate attention toward the actual situation of ordinary Iranian citizens. Iranians live under significant oppression from their government, including restrictions on the freedom of expression and many instances of suppression of other basic democratic norms.
During the presidency of Mohammad Khatami (from August 1997 to August 2005), the government of Iran did significantly relax press censorship. There were some hard-line fundamentalists who vehemently refuted the government’s decision, saying that it “encouraged immorality.” However, despite the opposition, many literary works and other books managed to get published uncensored during his presidency.
Reports suggest that the media is seeing a significant rise in censorship from the present government led by President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad, more than under any government in the past. Such suppression has come about systematically, in the name of abiding by the “law” of the country, due to which several journalists and editors have been imprisoned and a considerable number of press and broadcast media have been closed down. Due to the suffocation of not being able to express their opinions freely, many journalists and writers have left the country, and the remaining few independent media houses have ceased their dissents against the government.
The media restriction includes the banning of satellite television, student publications, books, newspapers, or magazines from criticizing the government, and filtering and limiting the materials available on the Internet. According to the Press Freedom Index compiled by the international journalism monitoring group, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Iran stands 162nd out of 168th counties among the violators of the international norm of free speech.
Currently, in an intention to increase control over the information dissemination through the Internet, the Iran’s government has made it compulsory for all the websites and bloggers to register with the proper authorities by the first of March. This has instantly invited resentment from Iranian bloggers and other media personnel in the country, who called it yet another attack against free speech.”
Reports suggest that the media is seeing a significant rise in censorship from the present government led by President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad, more than under any government in the past. Such suppression has come about systematically, in the name of abiding by the “law” of the country, due to which several journalists and editors have been imprisoned and a considerable number of press and broadcast media have been closed down.
Due to the suffocation of not being able to express their opinions freely, many journalists and writers have left the country, and the remaining few independent media houses have ceased their dissents against the government.
Question: How Does Obama Use Alinsky’s Rules To Out Maneuver His Opponents: By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT?-You Decide:
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306977141583041
“Election ‘08: Barrack Obama’s mocking of John McCain, while urging his followers to “get in their face,” are tactics right out of his radical hero Saul Alinsky’s playbook: ridicule and agitation.”
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
At a recent Las Vegas rally, Obama poked fun at Sen. McCain for what he described as bragging about “how as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, he had oversight of every part of the economy.”
“Well, all I can say to Sen. McCain is, ‘Nice job. Nice job,’ “ Obama said in a sarcastic tone. “Where is he getting these lines? It’s like a ‘Saturday Night Live’ routine.”
Then he belittled the 72-year-old McCain for vowing to take on the old boys network. “In the McCain campaign, that’s called a staff meeting,” he sneered.
The late Alinsky, a trench-warfare socialist who despised American capitalism, advised community organizers like Obama to “laugh at the enemy” to provoke “irrational anger.” “Ridicule,” he said, “is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
At another rally in Nevada, Obama called on the crowd of about 1,500 to join him in sharpening their elbows against McCain and his supporters. “I want you argue with them and get in their face,” he said, in a naked attempt to “fan hostilities” in the tightening race, something Alinsky also advised from his bag of agitation tricks.
Obama doesn’t look or talk like an angry radical. He speaks in measured tones and is rarely seen out of business attire. That, too, is borrowed from Alinsky’s playbook. “Don’t scare” the middle class, he guides urban revolutionaries in his 1970s manual, “Rules for Radicals” (which he dedicated to mankind’s “first radical, Lucifer”).
Instead, look like them, talk like them, act like them. And work for radical change from the inside — “like a spy behind enemy lines,” as Obama said in his first memoir.
He wrote it before entering politics, while still working with hard-left Alinsky groups and training street agitators known as “community organizers.”
As he wrote, he became a community organizer in 1983 because of “The need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds.”
That’s when he set out to “organize black folks” for social revolution, first in Harlem, then the South Side of Chicago. Now he wants to do it on a “large scale.”
Though most average voters wouldn’t know it, he’s applying Alinsky’s radical rules to achieve his goal.
Alinksy stressed that his rules be translated into real-life tactics responsive to the situation at hand — which right now happens to be something he never could have dreamed of: a disciple who would find himself in a viable battle for the most powerful job in the world.
Obama has already translated several of Alinsky’s rules into battle tactics, including:
- Rule: “Rub raw the resentments of the people; search out controversy and issues.” In the mortgage meltdown, for instance, Obama vows to prosecute “predatory lenders” for “abusing” minority borrowers. He’s also stoking class resentment by painting Wall Street and other executives as villains.
- Rule: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” In an ad to woo Hispanic voters, Obama demonized Rush Limbaugh by falsely claiming he made racist statements against immigrants.
- Rule: “A mass impression can be lasting and intimidating.” This explains why Obama moved his acceptance speech to a football stadium and bussed in 85,000 supporters. Alinsky’s son was so impressed, he praised Obama for learning his father’s “lesson well.”
- Rule: “Multiple issues mean constant action and life” for the cause. This is why Obama never harps on one issue, as Hillary did with health care. His platform is packed with grievances from “economic justice” to “reproductive justice” to “environmental justice.”
Obama is following almost to the letter the blueprint for socialist revolution drafted by the father of community organizing.
While Alinsky may help him behind the scenes, however, he becomes a liability when brought out of the shadows. Sarah Palin proved this in St. Paul when she ridiculed his community organizing. Within hours, Obama surrogates whined about how just bringing up the phrase was racist code for “black.”
No, it’s code for communist. And McCain should make that point instead of legitimizing such radicalism, as he did recently when he said, “I respect community organizers; and Sen. Obama’s record there is outstanding” — which contradicted his running mate.
There’s nothing to respect about such anti-American radicals, even if they have traded their tie-dye for business ties.”
These are pertinent questions, along with articles that support my answer to this and the other outlined questions on this issue-You Decide:
Question: What were the effects of President Elect Obama’s application of Alinsky’s Rules in the west?
Inside Politics: The New West: Published By Washington Times By: Greg Pierce (Contact) On Thursday, October 16, 2008:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/16/inside-politics-the-new-west/?page=2
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“AN EMBARRASSMENT
“As Obama lengthens his lead, the Republicans are praying that the election becomes close enough for the Democrats to steal,” Dick Morris writes in the Hill newspaper. “But, meanwhile, ACORN, the radical community group, is becoming an embarrassment for Obama.
It is not as if its shenanigans are likely to tip the result, with the Democrats so far ahead, but as they are raided by the FBI in state after state (11 so far) they are becoming identified as the electoral equivalent of Greenpeace – extremists who will stop at nothing to get their way,” Mr. Morris said.
“What makes ACORN particularly embarrassing for Obama is that he used to be one of them. He served as general counsel for ACORN in Illinois, channeled millions to the organization from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (whose funds he distributed), and has lately spent $800,000 of his campaign money to subsidize the group’s activities.
For this emolument, ACORN has registered voters 15 times over, canvassed the graveyards for votes and prepared to commit electoral fraud on a massive scale.”
While such Obama albatrosses as William Ayres and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright can lie low until November, ACORN cannot.
“But, as Election Day approaches and early balloting proceeds in many states, ACORN’s tactics will get more and more media attention.
As election officials discover ACORN frauds, the association will become more injurious to Obama, particularly when it is his own campaign that is funding many of the fraudulent activities. “
At the very least, the negative publicity ACORN will attract will paint Obama as a radical with questionable judgment. At the most, it might cause voters to wonder if he is not involved in electoral fraud.”
This article seems to be pertinent to this issue-You Decide:
Obama Sued Citibank On Behalf Of Radical Group “ACCORN”:
http://crippy.me/2008/10/09/obama-sued-citibank-on-behalf-of-radical-group-acorn.aspx
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“In 1994, Barack Hussein Obama, sued Citibank on behalf of the radical, extremist, group ACORN under the Community Reinvestment Act. From Media Circus dot com:
In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink .
This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?
This is the audacity of Obama. He’s a member of a socialist party, files bogus lawsuits against banks and mortgage companies on behalf of radical, left wing groups, to intimidate the companies into making bad loans. After the loans, and the industry collapse, he screams for more regulation, decries the failure of “capitalism”, and blames republicans for the carnage he and his buddies created. That’s audacity.”
Question: How does the continued application of Alinsky’s Rules by President Elect Obama affect our Constitution’s 1st Amendment Rights?
These articles seem to answer this question-You Decide:
Obama-Alinsky Democrats Will Tilt the Battlefield:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125104.guest.html
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“RUSH: Quin Hillyer today in the American Spectator: “Conservatives may not realize just how difficult it might be to recover from this week’s elections. … Too many conservatives think we’ve seen all this before—in 1964 and 1974 and 1992 — and that we know how to handle it. … We’re not dealing with the same sorts of opponents
These New Alinskyites who are taking over the White House, combined with the most leftist congressional leadership in memory, will not let us play by the same rules under which conservatives recovered from those earlier debacles.
They will try to drastically tilt the playing field, seed our side of the field with land mines and, in short, rig the process to make it next to impossible for the political right, or Republicans, to recover.
And they are likely to succeed in at least some of these designs. It will begin with their efforts to secure a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (including the two independents).
“We’ve seen this game before. They did it in Indiana’s ‘Bloody Eighth’ congressional district in 1984. They almost succeeded in 2000 in Florida. They did succeed, outrageously so, in the Washington State governor’s race in 2004,” where a recount produced more votes for the governor than there were people who lived there.
‘Those are just the most obvious of many similar examples. And now they are even more ruthless, more lawyered-up, and in a more powerful position to pull it off than they were in any of those instances,’” ‘64, ‘74, and ‘92.
“Next, watch what happens if they regularly can’t peel off enough Republicans (or hold their own semi-fair minded people like Nelson and Joe Lieberman) to overcome whatever filibuster attempts Republicans do mount.
Watch for an assault on the filibuster itself. Watch how they use as precedent the GOP a nuclear/constitutional option’ on judges in 2005 — except instead of just using it for judges, watch them use it against all filibusters. It’s easy: Make the ruling from the chair that the filibuster is out of order for some reason. Instruct the parliamentarian to rule in their favor. Win the appeal of the parliamentarian’s ruling by simple majority vote.
And watch the courts pronounce it an internal matter of the legislative branch and thus outside of courtroom purview,” and, bam, they’ve got the filibuster.
“Watch a cheerleading establishment media — the Fourth Estate as a veritable Fifth Column — actually back these lefty maneuvers. It’s all in the name of one-man/one-vote democracy, dontcha know?
The filibuster once served its purpose, they’ll say, but as a vestige of Southern ‘massive resistance’ to integration it is now being used for massive resistance to the first black president, which invalidates it (suddenly) as a legitimate tool.
Watch the left use these tactics and others to pass even more liberalized voting laws — an open invitation to even more fraud that is more creative, easier to hide, and less challengeable in court.
Other ways the Obama axis will tilt the playing field: ‘card check’ legislation to eliminate secret ballots in unionizing and to force union victories in contract negotiations. Provision after provision giving favors to the trial bar so it can sue enemies into submission. … only when the time is right and the ground (or air) has been well prepared, will come the grand-daddy of all fights, the re-enactment of the misnamed ‘Fairness Doctrine.’
“Oh, they’ll be clever. They’ll pick their spot. They’ll wait until Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Mark Levin says something innocent they can twist out of context and call ‘hate speech’ — and then they’ll highlight some schoolyard fight where a member of a ‘victim group’ gets the worst of it as if the ‘attack’ were caused by talk-rad…no, make that ‘hate radio,’ which will be the new moniker the Fifth Column/Fourth Estate hangs on the talkmeisters. (Even before imposing the Fairness Doctrine, they’ll use the Federal Communications Commission in other ways to put a muffler on their opponents.).”
By the way, speaking of that, Henry Waxman, who is a partisan leftist radical, apart from that, this guy holds more hearings and investigations than anybody in Congress, and he has entered into a battle now, he’s asked Pelosi to give him oversight over the FCC and take it away from John Dingell, who’s already had global warming taken away from him by Pelosi.”
Saul Alinsky Takes the White House: By Quin Hillyer on 11.6.08 @ 6:09AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/saul-alinsky-takes-the-white-h
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“The erosions of conservative rights will be incremental. Each one will have its own justification. Each one will be supported by the establishment media. Each one will be timed so as to allow the general public to become accustomed to it, to accept it as unremarkable, or even to come to regard it as a public good for the sake of keeping conservative “troublemakers” from fomenting disorder.”
And the Obamessiah, still speaking frequently to stadia full of admirers, will provide a tone of reasoned moderation, combined with further appeals to hope, in order to justify it all.
These are the sorts of things Alinskyites do. These are the sorts of tactics used by ACORN, at whose conferences Obama himself regularly taught seminars on “power.”
These are the sorts of policies favored by the academic left, Obama’s old milieu—the policies that favor speech codes and stolen campus newspapers and the firing of faculty for “offensive” remarks.
Conservatives have fought things like this for years already, of course. But they’ve never fought it while the left controlled so many of the levers of power, and certainly not when the left was led by such a charismatic and near cult-inspiring leader who was so smart, so well steeped in these stratagems, and so fully supported by a Fourth Estate up whose legs warm feelings run every time he waxes eloquent.
It will take very focused, very intelligent, very skillful action by conservatives to stop this creeping subversion of a free society. This is a whole different political battlefield than any on which we’ve fought before. And we haven’t yet found our Omar Bradley.”
Question: Did the Obama Campaign apply these disgusting tactics prior to the election and are they currently applying these same tactics in the Georgia run offs, as they did in Alaska because, this is the only thing that stands between the Democrats and 60 votes in the Senate — a Senate that would be filibuster-proof?
The following articles seems to answer this question-You Decide:
“Obama Targets Chambliss in Ga. Runoff” Published By Newsmax,com On Friday, November 21, 2008 8:59 AM-By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann:
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/chambliss_georgia_runoff/2008/11/21/153758.html
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“Rasmussen reports that Saxby Chambliss is clinging to a narrow lead of only 4 points in the Georgia runoff election scheduled for Dec. 2.
With Ted Stevens defeated for the Alaska Senate seat and Al Franken within 200 votes of overtaking Norm Coleman with the Minnesota recount yet to even begin, the Chambliss seat is all that stands between the Democrats and 60 votes in the Senate — a Senate that would be filibuster-proof.
Chambliss’ narrow lead — within the margin of error — could be easily overcome through a major left-wing get-out-the vote effort by Obama allies like ACORN. Four points is a mighty slim lead on which to hang the ability of the Republican Party to stop or even to debate Obama’s radical program.
The independent expenditure group, www.GOPtrust.com, has raised $700,000 to pour into the Georgia contest on behalf of Chambliss to warn voters about how defeating Chambliss would eliminate any check or balance on Obama’s program. But they need more money.
Obama is funneling massive resources into the Georgia race and Rasmussen warns that with the polls this tight, the race could be tipped by a swelling of black turnout motivated by the enthusiasm over Obama’s win.
Everything depends on Georgia!”
Obama Pressures Stations to Drop NRA Spot: Posted on CNSNews.com On Tuesday, September 30, 2008-By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36590
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“(CNSNews.com) – The Obama campaign’s effort to pressure TV stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio to stop airing a National Rifle Association ad is “frightening” and “dangerous,” a campaign finance expert said.
“When a candidate threatens a broadcaster with government sanction over the content of an ad, it is very worrisome to the First Amendment and the guarantee of free political debate,” said Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Campaigns, an organization that focuses on money in politics.
The controversy began last week after the NRA, a defender of the Second Amendment, began airing political ads accusing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of wanting to ban certain guns and put a tax on others.
According to the Obama campaign, the ad (one of a series) makes numerous false statements and misinformed the public, and therefore they should not be aired.
“The advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama’s position on the Second Amendment,” wrote Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Obama campaign in a letter dated Sept. 23 to various TV stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio. (See letter).
“For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement,” Bauer continued.”
Question: Have The Soviet’s KGB Brainwashed Americans and, If The Answer Is “YES”, Why?
What Did This Have To Do With Our Historical Presidential Election and our now President Elect and his appointed staff? You Decide:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvcZiNt6ypI&NR=1
These are pertinent quotes from this video:
“In 1985, During An Interview With G. Edward Griffin, Yuri Bezmenov, A Former Soviet KGB Operative, Who Defected To The US In 1968, Explains The Soviet’s Strategy For The Subversion of The USA and Canada.
He Also States That This Subversion Process Has Been In Place Here In The US For The Last 25 Years and Is Being Carried Out In Four Distinctive Stages, which Are:Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis, and Normalization.”
These are a few examples of how book novels, political news coverage by our MSM or other news outlets, to include conservative radio talk shows, FOX News, etc., that may be perceived by the American public as negative and which could impact our President Elect’s and/or his new appointments, rightfully so, and seem to be factual-You Decide:
This is an Amazon.com Editorial Review that initially sparked my concerns and, thereby, caused me to initiate my month long intensive investigation into, what I soon discovered to be, Sen. Obama’s non-transparent personal and career background, as a means of educating myself prior to casting my vote on election day-You Decide:
The Case Against Barrack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate (Hardcover) by David Freddoso (Author):
These are pertinent quotes from this Editorial Review:
“REVIEW:
“If find yourself believing that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for”, or that “this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow” or even, tout court, that “yes we can”, the chances are that you are suffering from a severe case of Obamamania.
Tens of millions of Americans and an even larger number of Europeans have fallen victim to the syndrome, which involves a belief that a young black senator from Chicago can cure the world’s ills, in part because of his race, in part because of his obvious intelligence and rhetorical skill; but in no part because of any record of achievement in the past. Fortunately, an inexpensive remedy is at hand.
The best part of the book concentrates on Mr. Obama’s record in Chicago, his home town and the place from which he was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, before moving to the United States Senate in 2004.
The book lays out in detail how this period began in a way that should shock some of Mr. Obama’s supporters: he won the Democratic nomination for his Illinois seat by getting a team of lawyers to throw all the other candidates off the ballot on various technicalities. One of those he threw off was a veteran black politician, a woman who helped him get started in politics in the first place.
If Mr. Obama really were the miracle-working, aisle-jumping, consensus-seeking new breed of politician his spin-doctors make him out to be, you would expect to see the evidence in these eight years. But there isn’t very much. Instead, as Mr. Freddoso rather depressingly finds, Mr. Obama spent the whole period without any visible sign of rocking the Democratic boat.
He was a staunch backer of Richard Daley, who as mayor failed to stem the corruption that has made Chicago one of America’s most notorious cities. Nor did he lift a finger against John Stroger and his son Todd….Cook County, where Chicago is located, has been extensively criticized for corrupt practices by a federally appointed judge….”
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: He’s the media’s darling, the fresh face of the Democratic ticket. But what does Barrack Obama really stand for–and will his extreme liberal agenda and complete inexperience in global affairs endanger the country? That’s what David Freddoso, investigative reporter and National Review Online columnist, examines in The Case Against Barrack Obama. In this shocking exposé, Freddoso explores the reality behind the rhetoric, the plans behind the promises, and the faults behind the façade, revealing:
- Why Obama’s inexperience and extreme left-wing voting record is more dangerous than any threat we face today
- Why the Rev. Wright debacle reveals Obama’s poor judgment of character and deceitful nature
- Why it won’t be politics of change with President Obama–it will be liberal politics as usual
Freddoso exposes the real Barrack Obama: a typical big-government politician, the #1 most liberal U.S. senator, and–if he were commander in chief–a serious threat to our national security.”
These are points that seem to support this Editorial Review-You Decide:
I sense that, at least, 50% of those Individuals that voted for Presidential Candidate Obama, in my opinion, along with numerous others, seemed to be “mesmerized” by him because, Sen. Obama does come across as being an extremely intelligent, high spirited, eloquent, meticulous and charismatic leader and/or speaker.
And, he also promised the American people everything under the sun during his Presidential Election Campaign, which, on the surface, seems to be all encompassing, and, convincingly, what our country is perceived to be starving fo, according to him and the MSM.
But I considered his promises to be impractical and/or unachievable when you consider our current financial economic crisis, which I also find as being very suspicious because of the timing of it (e.g., just before we prepared to elect our next President, which tipped the concerns from the Wars abroad to the financial crisis that gave Obama the edge needed to win the election, etc.)
Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7742455.stm
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2008/11/us-treasury-prepares-its-submission-to-sharia.html
and
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445829,00.html
Along with two (2) ongoing volatile wars, growing tensions around the globe and the elevated and ongoing terrorist threats here at home and abroad.
Additionally, my intuition, along with the combination of his lack of executive experience, seemingly non-transparent and shady background, elusiveness, evasiveness and deception, have all, to this date, led me to be extremely concerned about him as our next President.”
This article seems to speak to the issue of his lack of executive experience-You Decide:
LA Times Only Just Now Notices That Obama Has An, Extremely, Thin Resume? Posted By: Warner Todd Huston-November 18, 2008 – 04:43 ET:
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“Interestingly, Dan Morain of the L.A. Times has just discovered that Barack Obama has a pretty thin resume prior to being elevated to the presidency.”
“This is a central part of his life and story,” says David Axelrod, who served as Obama’s chief campaign strategist. “He could have written his ticket at any law firm in the country. . . . . He decided instead that he wanted to be a civil-rights attorney, and he signed up with a small firm that had a reputation for doing this kind of work.”
This article seems to speak to the issue of his lack of executive experience and his seemingly non-transparent and shady background-You Decide:
Obama’s Challenge: The Campaign Speaks To “Radicalism National Review Online (NRO): By: Stanley Kurtz-Posted On September 23, 2008:
http://xn--obamas%20challengethe%20campaign%20speaks%20to%20radicalism-4f44amf.xn--ivg/
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure.
And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise.
The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama.
Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts. Ayers’s terrorist history aside that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.”
Note: Doesn’t it seem ironic to you that in our country’s history we have witnessed numerous individuals that have also, unknowingly, been ”mesmerized” by other shady individuals-the likes of Rev. Jones (e.g., the likes of Jones (Jones Town Group Suicide), etc.), but not in the numbers that we witnessed during and, tragically, after this Historic Presidential Election-You Decide:
In my opinion, these individuals seemed to be aggressively searching for miracles in their lives because, they seemed to be starving for something and/or someone that could possibly help them in their journey that would, ultimately, make positive changes to their surroundings and, subsequently, their lives.
They also, more than likely, perceived their lives and, more important, their country to be in an irreversible downward spiral and/or possible demise (e.g., financial economic crises, two (2) ongoing volatile wars, growing tensions around the globe, elevated terrorist threats here at home and abroad, etc.).
And, sadly enough to force them gravitate to and blindly follow someone that makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, especially someone that has been called the “One” or the “Messiah” by Rev. Wright, his twenty (20) year pastor, along with Farrakhan, a family acquaintance and recently he was also compared to “Jesus” by “Time Magazine.”
These are articles that are pertinent to this issue-You Decide:
The Obama Messiah Effect:
http://joeklempner.wordpress.com/messiah/#comment-103
Farrakhan on Obama: ‘The Messiah is absolutely speaking’ ‘Barack has captured the youth,’ will bring about ‘universal change’”:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77539
Sen. Obama’s Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Is A Former Muslim and Black Nationalist Who Studied At Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s Guiding Principles–What The Church Calls The “Black Value System”–Included A “Disavowal of The Pursuit of Middleclass ness.’”:
http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/04/07/jeremiah-wright-former-muslim/
”Genius, Thy Name Is Obama” Published By Human Events: Posted By Ann Coulter On 11/19/2008:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29572
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“With Time magazine comparing Obama to “Jesus”, I guess we should be relieved that, this week, liberals are only comparing him to Abraham Lincoln.
The one thing every liberal on TV seems to know about Lincoln is that he put rivals in his cabinet, as subtly indicated in the title to historian and plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book: “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.” Like Lincoln, Goodwin is always open to contributions from her rivals, although Lincoln was better at crediting their words.
And hasn’t Obama talked to former rival Hillary about becoming his secretary of state?
Hasn’t he had a sit-down with Sen. John McCain?
Did I imagine this, or is he even now brokering peace talks between Joy Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck?”
After my intensive research into Sen. Obama’s personal and/or career background, these Points have further fueled my initial concerns about voting for him and continue, to this date, because of the numerous issues that have come to light and, not surprisingly, continue to linger long after the election campaign is over and done with-You Decide:
POINT: President Elect Obama’s Birth Certificate Continues To Be An Issue That The Main Stream Media (MSM) Still Does Not Report Concerning The Lawsuits Regarding The Issue: By Douglas V. Gibbs On Political Pistacho Radio On Sunday, November 16, 2008.-You Decide:
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html
To Date, There Continues To Be Numerous Pending Law Suits That Have Been Filed Around The Country And Seem To Grow Day-By-Day, To Include Hawaii, Accusing Our Now President Elect Obama of Defrauding The American People By Denying Access To The Original Copy of His Typewritten 1961 Birth Certificate (e.g., Original (Vault) Birth Certificate With The State of Hawaii’s Official Seal etc.), Which, To Date, He Has Adamantly Refused To Provide-You Decide:
http://contrariancommentary.wordpress.com/
Obama’s Hawaii Birth Certificate Confirmed: Posted By Pacific Business News (Honolulu) On Friday, October 31, 2008:
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2008/10/27/daily60.html
In My Opinion, This Article Still Does Not Answer My Question Because, His Half Sister, Who Was, In Fact, Born In Indonesia, Also Has A Birth Certificate Issued By The State of Hawaii.
Former Obama Opponent Now Suing to Prove President-Elect’s Citizenship By Rich Roger rogers@nbcaugusta.com and NBC Augusta Staff-Story Published On November 18, 2008 and Updated November 19, 2008:
http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/local/34587804.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/11/race-revisited.html
Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are ‘garbage’ Legal challenges spring up across U.S., demand proof of eligibility for office: Posted By WorldNetDaily On: November 13, 2008 10:30 pm Eastern-Published By Chelsea Schilling:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.
An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.
“All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”
U.S. Supreme Court To Review Barack Obama’s Citizenship On Dec. 5,2008: Posted By GayWired.Com: Published By Jonas Oliver | Article Date: 11/20/2008 4:46 PM:
http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ID=20943
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“On December 5, 2008 the United States Supreme Court is expected to meet to review a case being brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, which challenges whether or not Barack Obama is a “natural-born citizen” and thus qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s to become president. Ironically Donofrio’s suit also claims that Sen. John McCain’s name should not have been on the election ballot for the same reason.
The case, which was unsuccessful at the state level, is not expected to find much success with the Supreme Court. However if four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.
Questions linger regarding Barack Obama’ s citizenship despite the fact that his campaign has posted the President-Elect’s live certificate of birth at FightTheSmears.com.
Another action questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship has been filed in the State of California by Alan Keyes, a former presidential candidate and rival of Obama’s, who along with a series of other organizations including the United Justice Foundation, are petitioning the California secretary of state asking that the state’s 55 Electoral College votes slated to be cast in the 2008 presidential election on behalf of Barack Obama be withheld until he verifies his eligibility to hold the office of president.
According to conservative website World News Daily, the California case states, “There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process.”
“Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United States of America is received by her,” the document said.
“This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.
Taking on the issue of the “certificate of live birth” posted by the Obama campaign, the California case alleges that it cannot be viewed as authoritative, given that:
“Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence,” the document said.
“The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama’s original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.”
The case also raises questions about the circumstances of Obama’s time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama’s mother having given up his U.S. citizenship, according to World News Daily.
“The Audacity of Hope” or “The Audacity of Ambition”: Posted by Steve Marquis on October 29, 2008:
http://www.peoplespassions.org/documents/Citizenship101.html
This is a pertinent quote from this article:
“So much has been debated about whether or not Barack H. Obama II is or is not a Natural Born US citizen. The problem is that so many people are totally uninformed as to the law as it existed in 1961 as it relates to the transmission of citizenship to a child born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions (OLP).”
More Detail on Obama and the Law: Posted by Steve Marquis on November 11, 2008:
http://www.peoplespassions.org/documents/Citizenship101.html
Exhibits supporting Dual citizenship and Non-Native Born Status of Mr Obama “Yet unheard in the Courts who swat at a Gnat while Swallowing the Camel”:
http://www.peoplespassions.org/Exhibits/List_of_Exhibits.html
HYMAN: Obama’s Kenya Ghosts: Posted By Mark Hyman On October 12, 2008 (Washington Times):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/12/obamas-kenya-ghosts/
My Question To President Elect Obama: Why don’t you just provide proof of your US Citizenship to put this lingering issue to rest, once in for all, and stop all the suspicion and negative gossip that this issue has stirred up? “Something Smells”
POINT: Ties to ACCORN-You Decide:
Question: What Makes President Elect Obama Run?
Lawyer, teacher, philanthropist, and author Barack Obama doesn’t need another career. But he’s entering politics to get back to his true passion–community organization.” Published By: Chicago Reader By Hank De Zutter December 8, 1995:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“I want to do this as much as I can from the grass-roots level, raising as much money for the campaign as possible at coffees, connecting directly with voters,” said Obama. “But to organize this district I must get known.”
And this costs money. I admit that in this transitional period, before I’m known in the district, I’m going to have to rely on some contributions from wealthy people–people who like my ideas but who won’t attach strings. This is not ideal, but it is a problem encountered by everyone in their first campaign.
“Once elected, once I’m known, I won’t need that kind of money, just as Harold Washington, once he was elected and known, did not need to raise and spend money to get the black vote.”
In 1992 Obama took time off to direct Project Vote, the most successful grass-roots voter-registration campaign in recent city history. Credited with helping elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the U.S. Senate, the registration drive, aimed primarily at African-Americans, added an estimated 125,000 voters to the voter rolls–even more than were registered during Harold Washington’s mayoral campaigns. “It’s a power thing,” said the brochures and radio commercials.
Obama’s work on the south side has won him the friendship and respect of many activists. One of them, Johnnie Owens, left the citywide advocacy group Friends of the Parks to join Obama at the Developing Communities Project. He later replaced Obama as its executive director.
Woods was the first foundation to underwrite Obama’s work with DCP. Now that he’s on the Woods board, Rudd says, “He is among the most hard-nosed board members in wanting to see results. He wants to see our grants make change happen–not just pay salaries.”
Another strong supporter of Obama’s work–as an organizer, as a lawyer, and now as a candidate–is Madeline Talbott, lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization, a group that’s a thorn in the side of most elected officials. “I can’t repeat what most ACORN members think and say about politicians. But Barrack has proven himself among our members. He is committed to organizing, to building a democracy. Above all else, he is a good listener, and we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.”
Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side. Conducting a session in a New Horizons classroom, Obama, tall and thin, looks very much like an Ivy League graduate student. Dressed casually prep, his tie loosened and his top shirt button unfastened, he leads eight black women from the Grand Boulevard community through a discussion of “what folks should know” about who in Chicago has power and why they have it. It’s one of his favorite topics, and the class bubbles with suggestions about how “they” got to be high and mighty.
POINT: President Elect Obama’s ties to radical individuals and/or groups-You Decide:
Obama’s “Sex Rebel” Communist Mentor: The “Naked Truth” About Frank Marshall Davis: Sex Specialist:
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Rpt_Davis_Sex.pdf
This is a pertinent quote from this article:
Frank Marshall Davis [was] an activist in Hawaii who died in 1987. Barack Obama met Davis when he was just 10 years old and sought his advice throughout his teen years…Who was he and what kind of an influence did he have on young Barack Obama?
Communism In Hawaii and the Obama Connection:
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf
Communists,” Progressives,” Obama, and the Media:
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Column_on_Communism_ASI.pdf
Campaign Bogeyman William Ayers Talks to ‘GMA”Good Morning America’s ‘Chris Cuomo Grills’60s Radical Bill Ayers-On 11/14/08:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=6251086&page=1
Obama’s Connection to Sirhan Sirhan: By Daniel Pipes Sunday Nov. 2, 2008:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2008/11/obamas-connection-to-sirhan-sirhan.html#continued
This is a pertinent quote from this article:
”Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism,” co-authored by William Ayers and dedicated to, among others, Sirhan Sirhan”
Question: Were You Aware That Terrorists Held Fundraisers To Help Get Sen. Obama Elected
And, if your answer happens to be resoundingly “NO.”
Then, I’d to share the following web sites and articles with you, which, tragically, seem to answer this question-You Decide:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29709_Terrorist_Fundraisers_for_Obama/comments/
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6203178D-C782-42E2-8D56-765A3D7EDCD7
These are pertinent quotes from these articles:
“Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause – Barack Obama for President.
El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama’s official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 – two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends (one of her 224 listed friends).
But his leadership of Kindhearts is not the only thing that has brought him scrutiny by federal law enforcement officials. Last summer, El-Hady was questioned by the FBI concerning his knowledge of possible conspirators in a UK-based terror plot…Hatem El-Hady’s interest in “change” is understandable. Following the closure of Kindhearts, he said in response to the government’s closure of his organization:
“It’s dirty politics,” said Dr. Hatem Elhady, chairman of the board of KindHearts, which raised $5.1 million in 2004. “They do not like the way things are going in Palestine. They do not like the election results. But that is not our problem. Our problem is providing aid to people in desperate need of help.”
The Department of Justice had a very different version of events. According to the DOJ, Kindhearts assumed the role of lead terrorist fundraising in the US after the government had closed other such Islamic “charities”:
“KindHearts is the progeny of Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation, which attempted to mask their support for terrorism behind the façade of charitable giving,” said Stuart Levey, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.”
This recent article is pertinent to this issue-You Decide:
Charity convicted in terrorism financing trial: By PAUL J. WEBER, Associated Press Writer:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081124/ap_on_re_us/muslim_charity_trial
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“DALLAS – A Muslim charity and five of its former leaders were convicted Monday of funneling millions of dollars to the Palestinian militant group Hamas, finally handing the government a signature victory in its fight against terrorism funding.
U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis announced the guilty verdicts on all 108 counts on the eighth day of deliberations in the retrial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, once the nation’s largest Muslim charity. It was the biggest terrorism financing case since the attacks of Sept. 11.
The convictions follow the collapse of Holy Land’s first trial last year and defeats in other cases the government tried to build.
President George W. Bush had personally announced the freezing of Holy Land’s assets in 2001, calling the action “another step in the war on terrorism.”
Sen. Obama Campaign Takes in Foreign, Excessive Donations, RNC Complaint Alleges-On October 07, 2008-By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=36996
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“(CNSNews.com) – Barack Obama’s fundraising has been fueled by contributions in excess of the legal limit and from foreign nationals, alleges a campaign finance complaint by the Republican National Committee (RNC).
The RNC filed the 49-page complaint Monday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in light of reports of questionable contributions coming into Obama’s campaign.
The complaint says Obama has received 11,500 questionable contributions from foreign nationals, totaling about $33.8 million.
It is illegal for foreign nationals to donate to U.S. political campaigns.
The complaint further says that Obama has raised untold amounts from people giving more than the $2,300 contribution limit because these contributors – some with listed names such as “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro” – have given in increments of less than $200, which does not have to be itemized on candidate FEC filings.
These small increments allowed some donors to circumvent the legal contribution limit, the RNC says.”
Question: Do you know who the Obama Presidential Campaign’s National Finance Chairperson, who, by the way, is now being investigated by the FEC?
And, if your answer happens to be resoundingly “NO.”
Then, I would like to share the following article with you that seems to further support my ongoing concerns about the Obama Presidential Election Campaign’s, seemingly, suspicious foreign donations-You Decide:
Obama Fund-Raiser Knocks Down Cabinet Rumors-Posted on By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published On November 20, 2008-Posted On The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/politics/21pritzker.html?nl=pol&emc=pola2
These are pertinent quotes from this article:
“WASHINGTON — When Barack Obama was looking for an entree into Chicago’s elite business community, he had the perfect door-opener: Penny S. Pritzker, a billionaire from one of the city’s dynasties.
Ms. Pritzker, 49, went on to become the Obama presidential campaign’s national finance chairwoman, raising record-breaking sums. And after Mr. Obama won the election, she was widely reported to be a leading contender for commerce secretary.
But the same business holdings and connections that made Ms. Pritzker so vital to Mr. Obama’s ability to raise campaign money also came under sharp scrutiny.
On Thursday, she released a statement declaring that she would not be a candidate for the job.
“I think I can best serve our nation in my current capacity: building businesses, creating jobs and working to strengthen our economy,” Ms. Pritzker said.
“It has been my great privilege to serve in the Obama campaign. I look forward to helping our new president in every way possible and am excited about the future under his leadership.”
Ms. Pritzker is one of three cousins who manage their family’s fortune, which includes Hyatt hotels, casinos and other ventures. She oversees a chain of luxury retirement communities, an airport parking company, a realty group and the credit-rating agency TransUnion.
The talk of a cabinet post, which would require Senate confirmation, had cast a spotlight on her secretive family’s empire and her past business dealings, including episodes that might prove politically embarrassing.
Earlier in her career, Ms. Pritzker was involved in running and overseeing Superior Bank, in a Chicago suburb, which focused on bundling subprime mortgages into securities, the practice that later helped set off the current financial crisis. The institution collapsed in 2001.
Moreover, Ms. Pritzker’s family is renowned for finding ways to avoid paying taxes on its wealth. The Pritzkers were pioneers in using tax loopholes to shelter their holdings from the Internal Revenue Service, and many of their dealings have never been made public.”
Question: Does America face a jihadist threat that’s even bigger than terrorism? You Decide:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Stealth-Jihad/Robert-Spencer/e/9781596985568/?itm=1
Question: Is Obama’s Mission to Destroy America? Obama’s Messianic Mission “Radical and Occult Beliefs of Barack Obama (The Messiah) and Accomplices”?-You Decide:
http://joeklempner.wordpress.com/helter-skelter/
Question: Is President Elect Obama “An Islamic Puppet “ and, As A Result, Is Being Black Mailed By Other High Ranking Officials Here At Home And Abroad, Who Seem to Know The Answer To This Question? You Decide:
http://blog.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel
Final Question: Why in the world didn’t the RNC and the popular conservative talk show hosts get on-board with this?” Posted by Steve Marquis on October 29, 2008? You Decide:
http://www.peoplespassions.org/documents/Steve_Kirby.htm
Note: Thanks, again, to our blatantly biased Main Stream Media (MSM), that continues, to this date, to ignore this and other critical issues, simply because, they may be perceived by the American public, as issues that could have negatively impacted their candidate during his Presidential Election Campaign and now their President Elect-You Decide.
I feel that they have all, unequivocally, gone out on the limb to have him elected, through their slanted and blatantly biased political Presidential Election news coverage, which is probably nothing new because, it may have happened in prior elections, but were not discovered until now.
And, in my opinion, mainly because, the public had always relied solely on them to provide them with factual and unbiased information and, more than likely, they were not as internet literate in past elections, but, thank God and much to their dismay, they are today, which means that this and other critical issues are not going away any time soon or, at least, not until these and numerous other issues and/or unanswered questions are factually proven to be unfounded.
This recent article supports my statement that the majority of the American public was not Internet literate in past elections, but they are today-You Decide:
The ’08 Campaign: Sea Change for Politics as We Know It: Posted By The New York Times-Published By: By ADAM NAGOURNEY-On: November 3, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04memo.html?th&emc=th
Bottom Line: If my concerns are proven to have MERIT, which, tragically, the American people may NOT even find out until after President Elect Obama takes office and governs our country for the next four years, all I can hope and pray for, this late in the game, is that my concerns are unfounded, but if they are NOT:
“Good Bless Our United States of America.”
“Food For Thought”
Semper Fi!
