Rezko, Giannoulias and Obama - dominoes?

off topic

Does anyone know what is up with Andy Martin and Operatio Aloha Obama?

http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/

Comment From Gretawire.

PBS is doing a poll on whether or not Palin is qualified to be VP. Bots have been voting in mass.

The poll will be reported on PBS and picked up by mainstream media. It can influence undecided voters

in swing states.

Please do two things — takes 20 seconds.

1) Click on link and vote YES!

Here’s the link: http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

2) Then send this to every McCain-Palin supporter you know, and urge them to vote and pass it on.

The last thing we need is PBS saying their

I’ve heard that Rezko will not rat on Obama. What’s the scoop on that?

At best, you’ve got to think Obama is the most naive fellow on the face of the earth or just a really stupid sumbitch…

Oh this is rich. Obama says,

“It sounds like they hadn’t fully thought that through,” Obama said. “My recommendation to him will be that he needs to have a thorough press conference in which all of this gets completely aired and all of these questions have to be answered. I think that’s what any elected official owes to the voters.”

Glad you feel that way 0bama.

I think you need to have a thorough press conference in which all these questions about your birth certificate, college years, ties to ACORN, Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Odinga, et. al gets completely aired and all of these questions answered. After all, that’s what any elected official owes to the voters. Right?

Wow! Fox is running a detailed story on BO’s connections to ACORN throughout his career, and spelling out each thing ACORN did that added to the lowering of credit standards in the mortgage business —>> financial meltdown.

It’s well done. Each point of connection between ACORN and BO is documented with a copy of a letter, newsletter, newspaper story, etc., and lots of video clips.

Quite the story for someone who may not have heard it before.

“My recommendation to him will be that he needs to have a thorough press conference in which all of this gets completely aired and all of these questions have to be answered. I think that’s what any elected official owes to the voters.”

You first Obama.

Thanks for this post LisaB. This housing story needs to be told over and over. It is easy for folks to understand. We should join the protesters at Obama rallies in asking; what about the black community, Obama?

I heard today that Mr. Obama will be in Chicago campaigning or fundraising (don’t remember which). It never ceases to amaze me even during the primaries when some stink was coming out about Rezco, he hightailed it back to Chicago. Maybe to slip him a note don’t worry man, I got your back, I’ll be the Prez soon. Don’t be hoodwinked, or bamboozled, okey dokey.

And he has the nerve to say Mac/Palin and their supporters are making racist remarks. He makes me sick.

Chicago politics is as corruptive as a third world country.

Obama, if unfortunately elected, will C-H-A-N-G-E this country to be as corruptive as Chicago.

You ALL gotta check out this youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

Obama talks about ACORN and how they shaped his political agenda

Saturday, October 11, 2008
The Bill Ayers James Rosen Knows
Posted by: Duane R. Patterson at 3:11 AM

We know Barack Obama’s line - Bill Ayers lived in my neighborhood, that he met him a couple of times on a board, he thought Ayers had been rehabilitated. Believable?

James Rosen of Fox News conducted a half hour phone interview with Mr. Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist and co-founder of the Weathermen Underground, in May of 2004 as part of his research into his John Mitchell biography, The Stong Man. Listen and read, and then judge for yourself whether Obama’s claim that the radical beliefs of an associate and friend of fifteen year weren’t known to him is believable or not.

Copyright James Rosen, 2004

BA: It’s easy sitting in America with all of our wealth and privilege, and all of our layers and layers of denial. It’s easy to say, to point to all the evil out there in the world and say but we’re good people, we’re good people. And of course, the problem there is that we fail to actually look at our history and our impact on the world. And so if you say something, if you point out what’s happened in the last two weeks, oh, that’s an aberration, and un-American. I love that. Donald Rumsfeld says it’s un-American. When this began, George Bush said we’re going to go in there and shock and awe.

JR: Right.

BA: What the hell is shock and awe? It’s murdering innocents, it’s humiliating people, it’s devastating a country, and so we’re doing it now up close and personal.

JR: Well, it’s interesting, I think that a lot of people, a lot of liberals are galled by George W. Bush, and have a more visceral hatred for him than they did even Richard Nixon, because he is Nixon with a bit of telegenic charm, which Nixon lacked.

BA: Well, he’s very charming, and charm does get you pretty far in American politics. It’s kind of frightening.

BA: I don’t think our move was so much towards violence. I think that what we did was to look at this situation of 2,000 people a day being murdered and try to figure out a couple of things. One is how can be effectively resist the war when we thought our charge was to convince the majority of the American people to oppose it. We did, and still the war went on, and still the murder went on. So what do you do? And in that moment, SDS and every other organization came unglued, and people went different ways. Some people joined the Democratic Party, tried to build a peace wing within it, some people went to factories, some people ran away to Europe, some people ran away to the hills of California. What we did was try to build the capacity to survive what we saw was an impending American fascism. We didn’t want to, we looked at the conspiracy trial, which we were very close to, and we didn’t want to spend two years defending ourselves. That seemed like a complete waste of energy and time. And so we said to ourselves, what are we going to do?

JR: Which, by the way, Mitchell was responsible for, I mean, had authorized in a way that Clark had specifically declined to bring.

BA: Right, exactly. And so this is what we saw. We saw the movement either being targeted like Fred Hampton and shot in the head, or targeted like the Chicago 7, dragged into federal court where they had to spend zillions of resources and energy and people hours defending themselves against this completely corrupt government, and this completely corrupt Justice Department on this completely corrupt charge. So yeah, we found that an appalling alternative, and so we set about building a clandestine organization. And the whole point was to survive them, and then possible to take the fight to them against the war and against empire generally.

JR: Would you say that the, what the lesson of Days Of Rage was, was that this could not be accomplished by a direct confrontation?

BA: No, I don’t think there was, I don’t think we concluded that exactly, but I think we were moving in a direction that said demonstrations, you know, we’ve tried to demonstrate, we’ve tried to petition our government, we’ve gone door to door and knocked on doors, we’ve talked to our neighbors, we’ve talked to, you know, our parents, our Republican parents, and everybody agrees with us. But we can’t stop the war. So what do we do? And I think the Days Of Rage was, in many ways, mis-calibrated top to bottom. I mean, I think we thought that, you know, the militants had to have their day in the leadership, and that we had always provided the shock troops for the big demonstrations, but we’d never actually set the terms and the tone and the slogans, and so on. But I think we had, by that time, so isolated ourselves and alienated ourselves from our allies that it was pretty much an empty exercise.

JR: Is it your understanding that the only people who ever died as a result of any of the WU’s activities were the three who died in the townhouse?

BA: Absolutely.

JR: Is that true?

BA: Absolutely true.

JR: Okay.

BA: And no one else died, and that was both, you know, you could say it was a happy chance, but it was also by design. And I describe in some detail the struggle within us about, within each one of us as well as among us, about how far, how are you willing to take that step into what I consider the abyss of violence. And we really never did, except for that moment in the townhouse. And I try to imagine what went on there, but the reason I don’t completely buy your thing about violence is because I actually think destroying property in the face of that kind of catastrophe is so restrained, and I don’t see it as a big deal. I mean, the Catholic left, when the Berrigan Brothers climb into nuclear silos and hammer on the warheads, is that terrible terrorism and violence? I don’t get it.

JR: Right.

BA: I don’t see where the equivalency is. Yes, they’re crossing a line. Yes, they’re breaking the law. Yes, they’re using weapons. But they’re also not hurting anybody. They’re not killing anybody. Meanwhile, in the background, 2,000 people are being lined up in a pit and shot.

JR: Right.

BA: And where those things become equivalent is, just boggles my mind.

JR: What were your own emotions as you saw the Pentagon, which for you has been for many years a symbol of this kind of horror, you know, when you saw a plane slam into it or…

BA: Well, I never saw that actually, because I don’t think that was broadcast.

JR: That’s true. They had some still photographs, but not…yeah.

BA: The World Trade Center was, I mean, I think my reaction was much like yours unless you, I mean, I don’t know you, but I mean the only group of people that I know who weren’t weeping for the next several weeks were the people who were busy typing legislation into their computers.

JR: Well, and Palestinians were seen dancing in the streets about the two, yeah.

BA: You know, I think that was also a bit overwrought in the American press. I think that’s…but I think there is an indication, I mean, you know, in Chile, there was a demonstration that day about the overthrow of Allende. And you know, we have a bit of, well, everybody in the world knows that Americans are geographically challenged, and historically challenged. We don’t have a sense of who we are or where we are. So I think every American that I know was weeping over the next several weeks and devastated and shocked. And was that an act of pure terror? It absolutely was. And there are many other acts of terror carried out by our government, even recently, that are comparable. And there are other acts of terror that have gone on in places like Bosnia that we forgot to notice. So I have very mixed emotions about how it’s been…well, put it this way, I have no mixed emotions about terrorism being always evil, always wrong. But what I think is crazy is to use that moment to advance a right wing agenda that, on every front, every uterus must be examined, every tree chopped down, every oil well dug. I mean, it’s absolute madness, and September 11th is the answer that’s given to anything that these fanatics would like to do.

JR: When you become so heavily, emotionally, intellectually and physically invested in a goal such as we must stop this war, we must stop the killing…

BA: Right.

JR: …and you fail to achieve it, or at least in a certain time frame, how do you go on living? You know, how do you not succumb from just a complete heartbreak?

BA: Well, I think that that’s a good question emotionally, but I think that, you know, what…one of the problems I think that Americans have, all of us, is that we feel that we ought to be able to have a simple solution to a complex problem, and we ought to be able to cure a virus with a pill, or stop a war because…I mean, one of the things I feel like I’m combating today with young people is the feeling of disappointment and heartbreak that after the largest anti-war mobilization in history on February 15th, 2003, we failed to stop him from going to war. And so the feeling is oh, we were a completely failure. I don’t quite see it that way. I think that in the Vietnam period, that we built a robust, complicated, multi-tiered, multi-faceted anti-war movement. It actually played a very powerful role in limiting the options of the war makers. Had there not been an anti-war movement, I think there would have been nuclear weapons used in Vietnam. They would have flooded the dykes. That was on the drawing boards. General Haig wanted to bomb the dyke system and kill millions more. And I think the anti-war movement both in the United States and in Europe limited that option. So I don’t take it as a complete defeat. The war lasted ten years. That’s ten years longer than it should have lasted. But it didn’t last thirty years. It didn’t last forty years. Three million people were needlessly killed, but not thirty million, and not three hundred million. So you know, it’s horrible, and I was completely invested, I lived and breathed it day and night, and I think I was on the side of justice, and ultimately I think it’ll be seen that way.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog

Btw you can listen to actual interview hughhewitt site

Yes, if Obama thinks full disclosure is necessary then he should release all of his papers before the election not the day after.

Wasn’t it Obama and his camp that berated all of the other candidates until they opened their records? Then why can’t Obama do the same? If there’s nothing there we all move along.

We’ve known for a while that Tony Rezko is likely talking with federal prosecutors, since his sentencing after being convicted of wire and mail fraud, money laundering, aiding and abetting bribery has been indefinitely delayed.

The news reports don’t reveal too much but it seems he might be singing like a canary to save his own ass.

RE:Comment by candymarl | 2008-10-11 20:27:58

That is one more power play, Do as I say not as I do.

Did anybody hear that the McCain campaign will spend 160 million in the last two weeks of the campaign?

Is it just me & my overactive imagination or their a slight change in the press?

Exhibit A: politico.com – two distinctly “cranky-towards-obama” pieces today (ACORN [probe, and calling him out for being vague & indecisive re: economy);

Exhibit B: CNN “special investigation” – into candidate health concluded McCain in excellent shape, based on thousands of pages of doc; Obama’s one pager? What the hell is he playing at?

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/this_could_be_the_game_changer.html

THIS IS A 10 MINUTE YOU TUBE THAT MAY BE THE GAME-CHANGER WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR.

SORRY, I HAVEN’T VIEWED IT (SLOW CONNECTION). IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT BO BEING INELIGIBLE.

IF YOU CAN TAKE A MINUTE AFTER VEIWING AND COMMENT I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. ALSO, PASS IT AROUND.

[DELETED]

[ADMINISTRATOR: ENTIRE TEXT REMOVED AS SPAM. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF OTHER SITES TO POST THESE SMEAR ATTACKS. GO ELSEWHERE]

That one page report was conducted approx. 15 months ago.

I’ve seen the report. It contains little of substance. One page for a 48 year old male is very suspicious. Its not impossible, but not likely either.

WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

Here is what Barack Obama said [quoting from above article] about his banking buddy as Obama was tossing his pal under the proverbial bus [I've taken some editorial license -- think Ayers]:

“I think it is absolutely appropriate for [Obama] to have to explain what exactly the nature of the relationship was, how aware [Obama] was of some of the illegal activities that this gentleman had engaged in in the past,” he said. “I think that is something that, as his campaign goes forward, [Obama's] got to explain to voters.” […]

“It sounds like they hadn’t fully thought that through,” [he] said. “My recommendation to [Obama] will be that he needs to have a thorough press conference in which all of this gets completely aired and all of these questions have to be answered. I think that’s what any elected official owes to the voters.”

How about somebody running for President of the United States?

What’s that old thing about the goose and the gander?

Also, saw on CNN (at the Gym, had no choice) a report on Race in the Race, where they reported studies and polls indicating that there was virtually no difference between the candidates on the issue and the commentator even said there were indications that, on balance, Obama might benefit from the race issue more than he was hurt by it.

I looked for medical attention but managed to stave off the heart attack I’d expected.

Are these people actually waking up?

Of course, somebody came on immediately following and talked about how you really couldn’t tell from a poll (meaning, if it’s NOT confirmed, it MUST be true) and talked about Bradley ago — from 1982 — over a quarter-century ago. That was his evidence to refute the study that CNN itself had just pointed out.

Not much, but maybe a crack in this racial smokescreen being blown out there to obscure the fact that the DNC has nominated the least qualified Presidential candidate in the history of the United States.

Here’s video of attorney Phillip Berg who has filed lawsuit against Obama alleging Obama is not eligible for POTUS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w

Here’s an updated link to Berg’s legal filing: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/18/0.pdf

Also, there’s a post on Hillbuzz about a possible Rico Law investigation involving campaign funds for Mr. O in Chicago:
http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/clinton-supporters-sharing-evidence-for-rico-case-against-obama-campaign/

Stay tuned, ya’ll. This thing ain’t over by a long shot. I don’t care what those polls say. Rumor is pollsters are reporting over 80% hangups instead of usual 40-50%. That means the results are skewed to Obama because Clinton Dems, Indies and Repubs aren’t answering the pollsters. Obots are.

I heard a Gallup pollster interviewed on Michael Medved’s radio show the other day confess that the number of hang-ups is normally around 40%-50%, but that this year an astonishing 80% of the people they call are refusing to talk !

So who are the Gallup people, for example, actually talking to and how can their polls be representative of the actual electorate ? Maybe their party affiliation samples are so skewed (25% Republican, 30% Independent, 45% Democratic) because more McCain than Obama supporters are not willing to disclose their preference ??

Proclaiming an Obama victory ‘inevitable’ before the people have had their say — based on shoddy polling, threats of voter fraud, etc. — is only making more and more disaffected Democrats and Republicans totally pissed off, and the drastically increases the chances for a McCain landslide IMO.

* 8 hours ago
* - 3 days left to answer.

Additional Details

8 hours ago
I find the polls very encouraging for John McCain on two fronts. First, the polls are weighted to show an Obama advantage. Second, this advantage works to McCain’s favor because Obama supporters will feel he is safe and not vote while McCain supporters will be out in full force.

If Obama is buying 30-minute informercials his internals are not showing the same numbers as the polls. If McCain is biding his time he knows that right now he is in the lead.