But not in the United-Obama-Rezko-Ayers-Wright-Odinga 57 States of America!

Nope - in this country, at least one party dismisses the actual results and puts in who they want. I believe there’s a term for that…Oh, yes - that’s right. Banana Republic. I suppose it is racist to mention banana anywhere in the same paragraph as Obama. Heck, you can’t even mention the guy’s middle name anymore in the land of the “free.” Nosirree Bob - you’ll get the NAACP and the ACLU breathing down your neck. For mentioning his middle name. Nothing else, just his middle name in the context of saying his full name.

Yeah, Okay. (I’m thinking of taking a page from Soldier4Hillary, and calling McCain and Obama by their middle names.) Wow - he really must be The One to make everyone capitulate to his every little tantrum.

Anywho - I digress. So, there’s a mighty interesting ad out by the PAC, “Our Country Deserves Better.” And how. This one is particularly intriguing because it is a series of clips of Hillary Clinton at her rallies. Oh, what she said was good, as you’ll see in the video below. It just highlights what a travesty has occurred in this country by the DNC selecting Obama, and Clinton not just getting back to work,putting all of this behind her. No, she has been (forced to) stump for Obama more than any of the other front runners over the past 40 years combined (according to her husband when he appeared on The Daily Show recently). Yep. I know, I know - she has to do it to have any chance of getting anything accomplished for her state, and the people of this country (has the Senate always been a glorified junior high school?? I mean, really - where else do you have that kind of vindictiveness? Ok, high school, too.), and you know I love Hillary Clinton. But seeing this ad is a double-edged sword: she is the one who won this nomination, not only by the popular vote, but surely would have by delegates had Obama not committed caucus fraud (and you know he did - it has been widely documented - 2,000 cases in Texas ALONE). Had she not had her votes stolen by the DNC - wait, I mean the ODNC, she would be the one running for president right now. But, no. (And this isn’t sour grapes - it is flat out anger at the DNC for betraying 18,000,000 of us, dammit!)

So, without further ado, here is the video:

Good, isn’t it? I bet ol’ Barack will throw a hissy fit about it, too: “Stop showing her on tv! She’s showing me up (again)! Make them stop!!!!” like he always does. You’d sure never catch Johnny Mac making a spectacle of himself over things like this, or claiming that Fox News is being MEAN to him - I mean, really - grow a pair already, Barack. You already have ALL of the other networks behind you - propping you up every time you misspeak (which is, uncannily, as often as Bush), and pushing you across the line. Oh - and would it KILL you to tell the truth - just ONCE???

Ahem. The ad is a good one. Hillary is right on target. And she’s funny, too, I might add. Sigh. I sure miss seeing her, but there is some delight in seeing these tidbits resurrected to bring His Holiness down. Oh, yeah. Now that I think about it, this is pretty awesome. Let’s have some more, “Our Country Deserves Better!” Bring ‘em on! Can I have an “amen”??

In a previous post I suggested that there was an urgent need to make known and make use of the stunning information revealed by TexasDarlin and researchers regarding the potential ineligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States because of certain “technical” matters related to his legal name, birth certificate, and multiple citizenship. 

These mere “technical” issues are those which may result in his removal from the ballot, but unless these are covered and widely reported, Senator Obama/Soetoro will never fully be vetted and a potentially fraudulent candidate will be nominated.  At the same time that I support all efforts to get to the media, print and otherwise, I think it may also have strategic value to work at your state level too, in a way that by-passes the Obots.

This would be our last chance, before the convention, to convince the superdelegates that something is wrong with “The One”–something that is perilously wrong.  So far they have been impervious to solid, factual arguments of policy, his use of the race card, his arrogance, shocking lack of knowledge, his flip flops, misogyny, and friends and associates.  I’d like to send them a little shock and awe…

My thinking is that if we immediately initiate a few state-based efforts to challenge Obama-Soetoro’s technical qualifications–legal name, birth certificate, citizenship–that these efforts will begin to generate calls to the DNC and Obama campaign, and state-based research, that will call attention to weaknesses of Obama-Soetoro.  And if we launch this effort in a few key states-say Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana—and enough questions are raised, Senator Obama-Soetoro and the DNC are going to have to comply with this information or risk having his name removed from the ballot. 

Already there have been efforts initiated to the Secretary of State (SOS) of New York, and suggested efforts to the Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. These letters form good “templates” for work in your state, and are posted at TexasDarlin.

In otherwords, Barack-Barry, it’s put up, or shut up and step down time. You know, fish or cut bait. Lead or be led right out of here. If you can prove it and explain who you are, fine. I still won’t vote for you. But its more than time for you to be forthright with the American people.

Below is a draft of a letter to a Secretary of State of your state that can be used as a template for a letter to your SOS, letters to the editor, letters to delgates, etc.  This letter draws upon and references, as required, the work of TexasDarlin, and would include some of the articles at her site.  Of course, no letter should be copied verbatim, to protect the original author and effort, but it does contain what could be used and a short summary of the findings to date. 

All should modify this letter as a tool with the new information that is posted almost daily at Texasdarlin and here at NOQuarter.  Already I see places this letter could be refined, as you will too. My hope was to put up an “action tool” for your working pleasure.

Depending on how comfortable you feel, you may or may not want  your name publicised with this effort.  It is our right as American citizens to have this information and to know who we are voting for. Good Luck!

Subject: Eligibility of Senator Barack Obama

Dear Secretary___________:

I am writing to express my concerns about, and request your assistance in certifying, whether Senator Barack Obama is eligible under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to be placed on the Presidential ballot in the State of ________. I understand that the Secretary of State’s office (SOS) relies primarily on the state and national republican and democratic parties to certify a nominee’s eligibility, although it retains the final authority on eligibility along with other SOS offices. Respectfully, it appears in the case of Senator Obama, a full verification of eligibility may not have been conducted.

I do not write this letter in frivolity and without basis, and set forth in the pages below and attached references the reasons why I am concerned. I believe that serious questions remain unanswered, and although I am a life-long registered democrat, my pleas for information from the campaign, and local and national headquarters of the Democratic Party have been met with deafening silence.

Respectfully, I seek your review of the following materials, and if you believe it to be significant, your assistance in verifying Senator Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the ballot in __________.

Background

Article II of the U.S. Constitution states , in part, that:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

That “natural born” citizenship can be passed to children who are born abroad by one or more parents who are American citizens is not in doubt. The requirement to be a “Citizen of the United States” is interpreted to mean allegiance: as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President must have only one allegiance, and that is to the United States.

It is my understanding that the singular purpose of Article II is to ensure that the President of the United States has absolute allegiance to the United States. Naturalized citizens are specifically excluded from serving as President by virtue of having had or having citizenship from another country, that is, divided loyalties. U.S. law says nothing about dual citizenship; only that some people have it. However, if naturalized citizens cannot be President because they have previously had another allegiance, then dual citizens by nature would not meet the test of Article II.

Statement of the Problem

Given this background, the major concern I and many others have is whether Senator Obama meets both criteria, as to “natural born” and “American citizenship”. To wit:

1. Falsified Birth Certificate? In June, Senator Obama published an electronic image of his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on his campaign website next to the words “the truth about Barack’s birth certificate.” It is still there (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert). Since that time, at least two independent forensics and documents experts have concluded that this image of a COLB, proffered by Sen. Obama as his true birth certificate, is a forgery (references attached). Furthermore, the image that Senator Obama proffered appears to be a forgery of his half-sister’s Hawaiian birth certificate, although she was actually born in Indonesia. I have attached reference documents containing the original reports.

   a. As you know, the falsification of COLB-style forms is relatively simple because of technological advancements in digital and computer applications. However, the very existence of the computer-generated black block where the Certificate Number should be on the proffered form is suspect and, in accordance with the document’s own language about alterations, would invalidate the certificate. For this reason alone, investigation is warranted.

   b. Researchers believe that Sen. Obama’s birth records in Hawaii may reveal a different legal name—“Barry Soetoro”– as a result of his adoption by an Indonesian citizen; that adoption would have resulted in Mr. Obama’s subsequent acquisition of Indonesian citizenship. I am concerned that Sen. Obama may be intentionally concealing these facts from the electorate.

2. Dual and/or Multiple Citizenship? The Rocky Mountain News reported that Senator Obama had and may still have Kenyan citizenship. Other reports, which are attached, indicate that Senator Obama had at one time, and may still have, Indonesian citizenship resulting from his adoption by an Indonesian citizen in 1965. As is required by Article II, the President must not have divided loyalties; he must have only one allegiance.
3. Use of the 14th Amendment to Claim Eligibility instead of Article II? Senator Obama’s official campaign website states that the Senator “is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment”. Section I of this amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Why was there a need to mention the 14th Amendment instead of Article II as an eligibility criterion? Is Senator Obama a naturalized citizen?

Notwithstanding the fact that Congress cannot change the Constitution, Senator Claire McCatskill, along with Senators Obama and Leahy, sponsored a successful, but unnecessary resolution “certifying” John McCain’s eligibility to serve as President that contained these clauses:

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President ; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Frankly, this resolution, and the use of the 14th Amendment on Senator Obama’s website does not sit well with me; and the disturbing “coincidence” of this information with the forged birth certificate and potential multiple citizenships—without any explanation from Senator Obama or the Democratic National Committee–is what motivated me to write to you.

  Summary

As a voting American, I am not satisfied that I have enough information on Senator Obama to measure whether he is eligible for the Presidency. I worry for our Country should a candidate who does not meet the Article II criteria win the Presidency. Senator Obama must at the very least provide adequate documentation of his background to have his named placed on Wyoming’s Presidential ballot.

Mr. Secretary, I am prepared to accept that my concerns are unfounded if Senator Obama or the Democratic Party can provide these assurances to the voting public, or if your research can prove conclusively that he meets the eligibility criteria. Unfortunately, ordinary citizens like me cannot take on the burden of certifying presidential candidates, and in the presence of compelling information to suggest he may be ineligible for the office he seeks I urge your consideration of the attached materials.

I must emphasize that this request is not racially or religiously motivated, nor is it out of some partisan desire to have another candidate nominated. My concern is that of an American who loves her Country and believes in the rule of law.

Because of the hostility I have already experienced, and the threats to my safety and career that I may incur by openly challenging Senator Obama’s eligibility for the Office of the President, I respectfully request that my name be withheld from the public, democratic or republican party officials, or other public officials in any discussion of this issue. I can be reached by you or your staff at ____________________.

Thank you in advance for consideration of these issues.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures–These are the 12 papers on TexasDarlin’s site by Judah Benjamin & Texas Darlin regarding (a) the birth certificate, and (b) citizenship. See text and list below.

 Footnotes to letter–these were the footnotes to the letter above, mainly documenting references.  I was unable to place them in the text here (unskilled at html!), but you can probably guess where they go in the text of the letter.  I am happy to clarify as needed.

1. This was clarified by the United States Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103,104) stating that the “children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” In this way, birth and allegiance are linked.

 2. “Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Eligibility Problem: Part I”. Author Judah Benjamin. Report attached to this paper.

 3.See Israeli Insider, online edition, August 8, 2008, “Claim: Obama’s birth certificate forged from sister Maya’s.”

 4. Because of the intimidation and threats that Obama critics face, the authors of these articles have thus far remained anonymous. However, your office should have other means of verifying the authenticity of these reports, and could consult with them if required.

 5. Although much is known about Senator Obama’s Kenyan roots from his writings, little is mentioned in his own writing or others about his Indonesian background.

 6.Even if Senator Obama took steps to renounce earlier citizenship, there may still be problems under Article II, but these should be handled in a court of law or some other forum, not concealed from the voting public.

  7.See: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html . Senator McCain’s eligibility to serve as President was challenged and successfully resolved in 2000 and in 2008, and was a matter of U.S. law long before these two challenges. Thus the resolution could not have been solely about Senator McCain. Did the first clause above attempt to create a blanket allowance for foreign born citizens to be labeled “natural born”?

  8.George Romney (Mexico); Barry Goldwater (Arizona Territory). Romney did not advance to nomination, and Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

  9.I have no explanation for why the Democratic Party, the Obama campaign, the mainstream media, or the Republican Party are not forthcoming with all the necessary documentation for an office that requires extreme scrutiny of all personal alliances, health status, selective service registration, eligibility criteria, academic records and publications, and other information. In addition, I am just one of hundreds of thousands of people across the country who are asking for the same information. Perhaps in the excitement of the 2008 primary season, some of these basic questions were overlooked, and perhaps these data will be provided to each SOS once Senator Obama is officially nominated.

Here is the Enclosure disclaimer and list of articles:

ENCLOSURES

The following enclosures are articles representing significant research conducted by various authors that began in June 2008 with the investigation of Senator Barack Obama’s web-posted “official” birth certificate. The research led to more serious questions of Senator Obama’s eligibility, under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, to serve as President of the United States.

Please be aware that throughout the critical examination of Senator Obama on the internet—which has not been covered by the main-stream media—individual authors on Democratic/Progressive blogs have had to remain anonymous, post under pseudonyms; have been threatened physically, stalked over the internet (a federal crime), and have had their websites or personal computers hacked, attacked, or shut down. It appears that there are many people who do not want this information to be made available to the general public.

Therefore, before the information is dismissed automatically because it is internet-based, please take a look at the content. Your office should have the same resources, and more, to independently confirm all of the material herein.

****

Birth Certificate

1. Forensics Expert: Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery, Techdude, July 20, 2008

2. *Breaking* Techdude Finds Original Text on Alleged Obama Birth Certificate, Techdude, August 3, 2008.

3. *Breaking* Obama Hides Indonesian Identity: Fake Birth Certificate Explained, TexasDarlin, July 31, 2008

4. *Breaking*: Sister Maya’s Name Uncovered on Alleged Obama Birth Certificate [Update], TexasDarlin, August 5, 2008

5. Obama: The Forged COLB and a New Mystery, Judah Benjamin, August 5, 2008

Citizenship and Eligibility

6. Divided Loyalties, Obama’s Eligibility Problem—Part I, Judah Benjamin, July 25, 2008

7. Divided Loyalties, Obama’s Eligibility Problem—Part II [Revised], Judah Benjamin, July 26, 2008

8. Links and Bibliography, Divided Loyalties Parts 1 & 2, Judah Benjamin, July 1 2008

9. Obama the Indonesian: Citizen of the World?, Judah Benjamin, July 28, 2008

10. The Paper Trail: Obama’s Indonesian Background [Revised], Judah Benjamin, July 30, 2008

11. Obama: A Disaster Waiting to Happen, Legal Challenges Imminent?, Judah Benjamin, August 2, 2008

12. Obama’s Dual Citizenship Disaster: An Overview, TexasDarlin, August 10 2008

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates’ endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests.

What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC’s, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination.

Since 1987, Nancy Pelosi has represented California’s eighth district– including most of San Francisco. An Italian American, Pelosi was raised on politics. Her father was a Congressman from Maryland and the Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi was elected as Democratic Speaker of the House 2002. Pelosi shattered the glass ceiling in the House of Representatives when she was elected the first female speaker in 2007. A shrewd politician, Madame Speaker exercises a lot of influence over the members of congress. She determines Committee assignments and in conjunction with the DNC and Howard Dean decides how much money and support the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gives to each member of congress in their bid for re-election.

In addition, Pelosi also contributes money directly to the congressional campaigns of certain candidates through her Political Action Committee “PAC to the FUTURE.” Her PAC receives money from other PAC’s such as Service Employees International Union $10,000, American Bankers Assn $10,000, Sheet Metal Workers Union $10,000, International Association of Fire Fighters, $10,000, and Goldman Sachs 10,000. It also receives money from individuals.

In the 2008 election cycle, the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) reports that Nancy Pelosi’s PAC received 585,400 and contributed more than $445,000 of this to 59 congressional candidates. PAC to the FUTURE gave money to 38 incumbents and 21 challengers.

Of the 435 members in the house, Pelosi gave money to 8.5% of them. Of the members who received money from Pelosi, 71% were men; only 29% were women. Only eleven percent of the female members of congress received support from Pelosi’s PAC. It’s disappointing that a female speaker did not symbolically make some contribution to all Democratic women in the house.

But even more important than the gender implications of Pelosi’s behavior was her impact on the Presidential election.

Publicly Madame Speaker did not endorse either Obama or Clinton in the Democratic Primary, but was she was anything but neutral.

Pelosi gave money to the campaigns of thirty-eight members of congress, twenty-eight of these endorsed Obama; ten endorsed Clinton. Pelosi contributed to the campaigns of Obama endorsers almost three to one. Pelosi not only gave to a greater number of Obama supporters, she collectively gave them more money.

Pelosi gave $250,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Obama and only $80,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Clinton. Money talks, and Pelosi and her PAC spoke volumes….in shorthand. She may not have publicly endorsed a candidate, but the members of the House of Representatives knew she supported Obama.

Of the thirty-eight Members of Congress Pelosi gave money to, sixteen went against the grain for Obama. This means, their state voted for Hillary, their district voted for Hillary, yet they endorsed Obama. Why? Follow the money.

By endorsing Obama, all of these Members of Congress went against the will of their constituents, twice, at the state level and at the district level. Only two members who received money from Pelosi’s PAC went against the grain and endorsed Hillary.

Is sixteen against the grain for Hillary and two against the grain for Obama a coincidence?

Pelosi’s contributions to the campaigns of state representatives followed a similar pattern. Sixty-three percent of the state representatives to whom Pelosi gave money, endorsed Obama in a state won by Clinton.

Ten thousand dollars, PAC to the FUTURE’s typical contribution, doesn’t seem like a lot of money but besides getting money from PAC TO THE FUTURE, most of these members got contributions from other PACs.

These contributions were most likely orchestrated by Pelosi and company since the overlap is too startling. Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina has BRIDGE PAC. BRIDGE PAC gave money to all but two of these same members of congress. Steny Hoyer from Maryland has AMERIPAC. AMERIPAC gave money to almost every single one of these same members of congress. Typical donations from both of these PAC’S were $10,000.

And then there is the NATIONAL LEADERSHIP PAC and the NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION, and of course there is the HOPE FUND owned by Barack Obama. All of these PACs donated an average of $10,000 to most of their campaigns. These young representatives got a lot of pressure to endorse Obama no matter which way their district or state voted. The voices of their constituents were irrelevant.

It seems Obama was just posing as a Washington outsider. But in reality—all the real Washington insiders Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Clyburn, Hoyer, and Kerry were on his team all along. Pelosi’s Pac might be named PAC to the Future, but it took direct action to purposely undermine the first significant female candidate for the presidency in history. In so doing, she pushed women back decades.

ACTION: Call Pelosi’s office at 415-556-4862 and let her know how you feel. Let’s not just call her biased against women; let’s call her finished.

FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY, BEFORE IT DISAPPEARS.

(The EXCEL sheet is incorporated into the story.)

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable - and necessary - for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.

I am affiliated with I Own My Vote.

What went wrong?

The representative process of the Democratic Presidential Preference began with the Iowa caucuses and ended with the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Much has been said about the inherent flaws in a process that is not uniform, much of which is very valid and deserves corrective measures.

It is evident that much of the electorate and, in kind, many of our elected officials, do not have a firm grasp of the nominating process: a process that begins at the convention - no sooner and no later. Calls by Democratic Party leaders to have the “nomination” determined on a specific date, has no relevance. Calls to have Super Delegates declare their endorsement before the nominating process begins short-circuits the democratic process.

More importantly, however, we have seen and we know, that our Democracy is in dire need of change. A significant portion of the electorate realizes that our Democracy is at a crossroads: the path we choose today will determine our future with a sense of urgency most generations rarely experience. There is no small reason so many are polarized and refuse to support the “presumptive” Democratic Presidential nominee. The process has been far from normal - if fact, many say it has been undemocratic: Barack Obama was selected, not elected.

We could, and rightfully so, point to a number of factors that lead many to this conclusion:

• Suppression of millions of votes (Florida & Michigan)
• Fraudulent practices in states where caucuses were held
• Media bias
• Discriminatory practices that were allowed to reign free without repudiation

However, there is a much more insidious and covert force working here: George Soros.

The George Soros Factor

George Soros began pouring millions into election finance reform. His millions effectively contributed to the passage of the McCain-Feingold law. While placing a cap on soft-money, it allowed 527’s to secure unlimited donations thereby using these organizations to promote their agenda and support candidates that subscribed to them or message against those that did not.

Soros began a concerted effort to yield influence by acquiring and significantly funding 527s like MoveOn, ACT, Media Matters, and the Center for American Progress. He was a primary backer of the failed Howard Dean Presidential candidacy in 2004. With Howard Dean’s ascension to Democratic Party leader, George Soros was able to yield, through his wealth and in conjunction with the Democratic Alliance, a little known “billionaire’s club”, significant power and influence to alter the make-up of the Democratic Party.

Soros and Nazi Germany

Not known to many, George Soros was the “adopted grandson” of an official in the Nazi government. A 1998 interview with Steve Kroft on “60-Minutes”, Soros explains his upbringing in Nazi Germany and furthermore indicates no sense of “guilt” or remorse for what he not only observed but for that in which he participated.

At the age of 14 he was exposed to the mass shipment of Jews to concentration camps and participated in the looting of personal property. His “formative” years were shaped by the policies of a fascist government; a government whose leader was propelled to the forefront of the national psyche by a phenomenon known as the “Cult of Personality”.

Obama: The Cult of Personality

The Obama campaign is reminiscent of elements of Nazi Germany. For instance, the quid pro quo exchange of volunteerism for “organizational training” offered by the Obama campaign is nothing more than a covert form of assimilation. His campaign’s manipulation of the democratic process, suppression of votes, the infringement on our democratic principles (including free speech), manipulation of the press, and countless other tactics have colluded to expunge the legitimate nominee for the Democratic Presidential candidacy in favor of an illegitimate one.

The briefly paraded but profoundly disturbing “Obama Seal” is yet another indication of the “person” becoming more important than the Party and the United States of America. The arrogance and bold exhibit of ego in using a symbol of our Country for personal gain is indicative of the phenomenon of the “Cult of Personality”. Furthermore, the blind following of his supporters, to discount these assaults on our Democracy, is yet another indicator of this cancerous blight.

Implications for our Democracy

Our Democracy is at stake: period. Many discount the massive outcry to the potential obliteration of our Democratic principles as a fad of “disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters”. But we are the enlightened.: make no doubt about it.

We have seen the injustices to our Democratic process. To gain this insight, however, it takes a true leader to reveal them. Hillary Clinton has done that. We are enamored not only by her and the issues she represents but because she has gone through this process, to show us the truth.

We are acting. What each of does in the voting booth November 4th, 2008, is, we believe, sacred, personal, and the core of our Democracy. However, we must combat this “Cult of Personality”. We must protect the principles that our forefathers died for to form this new form of government: government for the people by the people. A Democracy with is uniquely American.

We cannot allow George Soros, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, and associated cohorts the deny the will of 18 million voters. George Soros, more than any other American, is the greatest threat to our Democracy. While we point the finger to Barack Obama, Howard Dean, David Axelrod, et. al, we need to hold accountable George Soros and his cronies that have manipulated our Democracy to their benefit.

Make no doubt about it: money talks. George Soros has a sacrificial lamb in Barack Obama. It may be a blessing in disguise he does not know it.

______________

Add your name today at the “I Own My Vote” site.

1. When did you first meet unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, one of your early key political fundraisers? As the co-founder of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge wasn’t he instrumental in your appointment as its chairman in 1995? Why haven’t you acknowledged this before? What is your full relationship with Ayers and his influential family?

2. What is your relationship with radical Palestinian Rashid Khalidi, another of your early political fundraisers? Explain why you voted, along with Bill Ayers, on the board of the non-profit foundation, the Woods Fund, to give a series of grants to the Arab-American Action Network, run by Khalidi’s wife, a former PLO official, that featured events propagandizing that Israel is a “catastrophe”?

3. Have you ever met or communicated with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan? According to a report, citing a former close aide of yours, you depended upon Farrakhan’s support in your political campaigns and hired members of the Nation of Islam for your US Senate campaign staff and still maintain a member on your US Senate staff on the federal payroll.

The Nation of Islam, of course, is listed by the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith as a racist and anti-Semitic hate group. Have you employed Nation of Islam members? Do you still?

We’re waiting.

And while you’re answering those questions, how about an update on Tony Rezko. You asked Tony for help buying your new home even though he was facing a Federal investigation for corruption. We know that Tony played a critical role in your fund raising machine in Chicago. And now, if Tony is telling the truth, Federal prosecutors want Tony to dish the dirt on your activities with him. ppm103_060908_rezko_lett_to_st_eve.pdf. Can you come clean on your relationship with Tony?

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Obama supporters will point out that Hillary also take money from oil executives. She freely admits this, saying:

“Well the fact is [Obama] didn’t take money from oil companies, but you can, and we do, take money from people who work for oil companies, they’re Americans, they can contribute, so we both do that,” Clinton admitted.

Why does Obama continue to mislead the public about the source of his contributions? It might come as a shock to his supporters: it polls well. It’s an open secret that Obama spends lavishly on a small army of pollsters, message men, media advisers, public relations experts, and advertising agencies. But in the case of being clean of oil money, Obama’s money machine didn’t speak to his message men:

In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama aired a campaign spot in Indiana and Pennsylvania that sought to reinforce his theme that he would change the Washington culture, while also tapping into voter distress about the high price of gasoline. In the ad, he called for a windfall profits “penalty.”

“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year and we’re paying $3.50 for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore,” says the spot, which aired as recently as April 8.

Obama’s team has carefully crafted a message that he doesn’t take money from political action committees, although he did until recently, and he doles out substantial amounts of money from his own PAC. Instead he takes enormous sums from people who just so happen to all work in that industry. It’s really just a shell game with dummy corporations: These groups of ultra-wealthy donors are not registered and regulated, and therefore Obama can claim that he doesn’t take money from oil companies:

Obama’s ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations.

As the ad aired, Obama took $12,400 from oil company executives and employees in increments of $1,000 or more. Altogether, people who identify themselves as working for oil and gas companies donated $46,000 in March.

Obama’s claims allow him to project a squeaky clean image created by his handlers. The only problem with this poll-tested strategy is that it collides with the reality that wealthy oil executives are pouring money into his campaign. Obama’s chief strategist David Axlerod, in a moment of candor, described his role like this: “I know my business and the technology of politics and polling and focus groups, all of what we do, in some ways contributes to an atmosphere of cynicism. I try to fight that. I can’t say I’m totally blameless.” You think?

Obama’s willingness to say one thing and do another is wearing thin. He continues to lose contests and his favorability ratings have plummeted. Claiming to be clean of oil money is one thing, actually doing it is something else. “From our perspective, if there is a distinction between oil company PACs and lobbyists, and their executives, it is a mighty fine line,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. “They all represent the same interest — oil.”

Today oil prices hit yet another record high. Food prices are soaring. In the United States, stores are beginning to ration the sale of rice, flour and cooking oil due to food shortages. The dollar continues weaken and inflation continues to grow and only threatens to get worse. 80,000 Americans lost their jobs last month, and tens of thousands of layoffs have already been announced this month. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, a mortgage crisis, and a credit and financial crisis. The Fed had to step in and rescue one of the country’s largest investment banks. Homeowners have had their home equity lines of credit shut down. Inventories are up. You can’t pick up the Wall Street Journal each week without seeing the words “recession, depression, or crisis.” The War on Terror is far from won and we continue to suffer major setbacks in Afghanistan. The US military continues to weaken, and the Army and Marine Corps are enlisting convicted felons in order to fill their ranks. People across this country from all demographics are genuinely frightened. Yet, the only thing the House Republicans can talk about is an earmark moratorium. Eliminating earmarks tomorrow won’t solve any of these problems. Arguably, it could make some of them worse. We all know this is a gimmick. Earmark money is not “new” money put in spending bills, so what programs are they going to cut from Bush’s request to create money for a proposed stimulus check? The time for gimmicks has passed. The country has real problems and needs real leaders with real solutions. How many more House seats do they need to lose in order for them to figure this out? Wasn’t the loss of Hastert’s seat a clear signal of what awaits them in November if they don’t start offering the country a real agenda?

I agree with my friend.  Earmarks, in and of themselves, are not evil.  I believe in full disclosure.  My friend’s point is that the Congress, particularly the Republicans, are fiddling while our nation burns.  Think any of these things will be issues in the fall?

But reading all of the reviews of Wednesday night’s debate made me realize that there is more than one use for Teflon. Typically, the phrase has been used to mean that, like Teflon, a candidate has a surface so slick that criticism just doesn’t stick - it slides right off. It serves as armour, so to speak, to deflect incoming fire.

Usually, in today’s world, the media enables this, or it couldn’t happen. How?

1.) They don’t pose a question at all, even though they well know it needs to be asked.

2.) They allow the candidate to just blow the question off with a fluff answer, and then drop the subject. No “wait a minute.” No “do you really mean that….” So the issue just slips and slides off into never-never land — in this case, usually defined by the ending of a news cycle and the beginning of the next.

3.) Finally, sometimes they just accept an answer that they know isn’t true. Even worse, sometimes they report an answer they know to be false without giving equal attention to the alternative point of view, or to the known and documented facts.

In this case, fawning may be involved. Witness MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews’ comment, “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg,” as Obama spoke. (Huffington Post, Feb 13, 2008)

Wednesday evening, though, I realized there could be another function for this Teflon. It might also act as a shield from input. Now input is something a candidate should welcome, isn’t it? If you don’t accept input from your constituents, how can you ably represent them? How can you even answer their questions? How can you learn from experience? How can you grow?

That brings me to the next question. If, in the interest of maintaining your image, you chose to put on a Teflon coating, aren’t you, in truth, hiding yourself from your constituents? And if you are, isn’t that the very essence of deceit? At the very least, it amounts to the ultimate arrogance, because it implies that you don’t want or believe you need that input.

I fear this is the trap into which Barack Obama has fallen. It might be the reason Obama has given such unsatisfying answers to the questions concerning Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, the lobbyists and special interests who are bundling for his campaign, “Bittergate” and a number of other flipflops and inconsistencies. If you are so used to questions and issues just slipping off, perhaps you become immune to the need to give real answers to legitimate questions. How can you be a president who is truly “of the people” if you disdain the people’s input?

Senator Obama, regretfully, has largely succeeded in keeping his teflon coating intact during this primary season. If he succeeds in winning the nomination, however, I fully expect the Republicans will get out the armour-piercing rounds, and he’ll deflate like a punctured balloon. I would much prefer for him to learn big lessons from this primary season, then withdraw and help unite the party behind Senator Clinton. During the next 8 years, he might evolve into a more transparent, more humble, more practical and productive candidate who can occupy the White House for an additional 8 years. That is my hope.

During Tuesday’s Clinton-Obama debate, the candidates were restrained but took a few jabs at each other.  They made some policy statements, and each said that the other could beat John McCain.  Blah, blah, blah.  That’s what I figured I’d blog about.

As Barack Obama delivered the final words of the debate, however, my blogging plans changed because my jaw dove toward the floor over one thing that he said.

Obama reiterated that his campaign has not taken money from "registered federal lobbyists" or PACS, the message being that he isn’t tied to special interests the way other candidates are.

Technically, Obama did not lie about this point. 

In reality, the representation is false, because Obama has taken special-interest connected money.  The Hill had a story about this a year ago.  My co-blogger and I blogged about it earlier this week.  And yesterday, USA Today ran a story about it, which states:

"It’s accurate that Obama doesn’t take money from oil companies; neither do his opponents, because corporate contributions are illegal.

"But Obama, like Clinton and John McCain, has accepted donations from oil and gas company employees — $222,309 in Obama’s case from donors from Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others, according to campaign-finance data. Two oil company CEOs have pledged to raise at least $50,000 each as part of Obama’s fundraising team." (USA Today)

USA Today doesn’t stop there.  It gives a laundry list of evidence that Sen. Obama may be tainted by special interests.  The list includes but is not limited to the following:

• "Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig [the same firm that lobbyist-turned-prison-inmate Jack Abramoff had worked for]….

• "Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show….

• "Obama accepts money from spouses of federal lobbyists. In December, the campaign returned a $250 contribution from lobbyist Thomas Jensen of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, but a few days later, it cashed a $500 check from his wife, Sarah, records show….

• "Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He’s taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "’I don’t take pharma money.’" (USA Today)

This story should have broken widely back in January, as Obama gathered momentum partly based on claims that he was divorced from special interests. 

Instead of questioning Obama’s claims and informing the public about disconnects, many media chose to give Obama a free pass.

After months of such media nonsense, USA Today did a bang-up job of hunting down evidence that casts doubt on Obama’s claims of political purity. 

This story was printed yesterday: hours before the Democratic debate.  Yet, Obama (once again) questionably claimed political purity hours after USA Today’s story was printed.

Apparently, some of Obama’s campaign staffers didn’t read the USA Today story — or maybe they thought we ordinary folks hadn’t read it.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* Signs of Bush Tactics & Hypocrisy in Another Obama Email

* Obama’s Questionable Claims of Political Independence

* Not Technically Fibbing: More on Obama’s Campaign Finances

* The Audacity of … Hypocrisy?

* Obama Took Oil Money but Said He Didn’t

* Obama Took Credit for Others’ Legislative Work, Media Ignored it