Who Is Obama? Where Is The Press?
By Tony Blankley
June 11, 2008

How would one sneak a left-wing radical into the Oval Office in broad daylight? Perhaps the same way that President George W. Bush got two strong conservatives on the Supreme Court: Find a candidate without a paper trail on the most controversial issues. For those of us who suspect but cannot yet prove that Barack Obama is a genuine radical leftist, his lack of much of a voting record is going to make it difficult to prove what his real values, policies and motives are to be president.

This is particularly the case because the media is so obviously going to give Obama cover not only for his current revelatory gaffes but also for embarrassing bits from his past.

For example, back on June 2, National Review Online ran an extraordinary article by Stanley Kurtz that closely assessed a 1995 article about Obama by Hank De Zutter titled "What Makes Obama Run?" The essence of his thesis is the following:

"De Zutter's article shows us that the full story of Obama's ties to Pfleger and Wright is both more disturbing and more politically relevant than we've realized up to now. On Obama's own account, the rhetoric and vision of Chicago's most politically radical black churches are exactly what he wants to see more of. True, when discussing Louis Farrakhan with De Zutter, Obama makes a point of repudiating anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Asian sermons. Yet having laid down that proviso, Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like Pfleger and Wright. In 1995, Obama didn't want Trinity's political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials.

"So Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama's ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama's religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism."

Now, given how much the media has covered both the Pfleger and Wright matters, when a respectable journal, such as National Review, runs an article by a journalist of established credibility, such as Stanley Kurtz, that suggests a different and far more disturbing interpretation of Obama's relationships with Wright and Pfleger, a responsible mainstream media would seek out Obama and, at the minimum, ask him whether the things the 1995 De Sutter article quotes him as saying are, in fact, things he said. They might even ask him to explain himself. Because if the 1995 article is an accurate reflection of what Obama said, then most of what he has said in the past few months about the Wright affair and Trinity United Church of Christ could not continue to be viewed as believable.

A much more recent example of the media not even going through the motions of being responsible is their almost complete avoidance of a recent statement Obama made:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Is there absolutely no curiosity at The Washington Post, The Associated Press or even The New York Times about the assertion by the man who is considered likely to be president of the United States come noon Jan. 20, 2009, that letting Americans eat as much as they want is "not going to happen"? Doesn't that shockingly dictatorial assertion deserve comment and inquiry? Yes, it is true that Obama was saying explicitly that what wasn't going to happen was "other countries (saying) OK" to Americans eating as much as we want. But a fair reading of the whole passage suggests that Obama agrees with those other countries. And as president, what exactly would he try to do regarding Americans who want to eat as much as they want (or drive SUVs or set their own thermostats)?

Dictator or democrat? Radical or liberal? Who in the world is this man? Where in the world is the responsible media? What's going on?

My Reply

06-11-2008, 09:47 AM

WhoBeen Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3

Re: Who Is Obama? Where Is The Press? Haven't you guys figured it out? It's right there in front of you; like the forest before the trees. The New York Times and the left wing media have a global agenda...their Brave New World or New World Order, if you will. Obama is just another Saul Alinsky platitude distributor that fits the needs of the Times (and/or times...with a small 't'). I first recognized this trend (and you should have also) back in the 90's when the New York Times' Hedrick Smith admitted their global agenda (see "The New Russians" in the introductory). This is a well concieved plan...a long time in the making and not just some simple conspiracy theory;it's real!

"...the cancer of Islam" GO GET 'EM BB !

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

Brigitte Bardot found guilty of speaking the truth

Even when she was young, Brigitte never went clubbing

Brigitte Bardot, who some of you older guys will certainly remember, has been fined £11,500 and ordered to pay damages to two anti-free speech groups in Paris.

The court said that BB, had been found guilty of racial hatred when she wrote to Nicolas Sarkozy before he was President of France saying that the Moslems were destroying France. She also wrote;

"tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts."

A few sites have spoken out about the courage of Ms Bardot who has campaigned for many years against "France invaded by sheep slaughtering Muslims" and against the the cruel and barbaric practice of Halal in which the animals throat is hacked through whilst still conscious.

Ms Bardot has now been fined four times for speaking the truth/inciting racial hatred since 1997 and Dhimmi Prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court she was seeking a tougher sentence than usual, adding: "I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot."

Ms Bardot who is not in the best of health, did not attend the trial and wrote saying;

"I'm sickened by how (these organisations) are harassing me.''

"I will not shut up until stunning is carried out on animals before their ritual slaughter."

Well done Brigitte. A pity our own RSPCA did not have the courage to speak out as bravely. But then again the RSPCA has been controlled by the marxists for years and they are only ever going to attack farmers for what they see as class reasons. More about the RSPCA later.

Now I fail to see how Ms Bardot, who also received a two month suspended prison sentence, can be charged with inciting racial hatred. She was attacking the Cult of the Dead Paedophile over the way millions of sheep are slaughtered in France every year at the Moslem celebration of Aid el-Kebir. And the last I heard, the cancer of Islam was a pretend religion, not a race.

For those of you with a strong stomach you can see images over at this French site. Incidentally this festival of death also takes place in Our Country every year at many different locations. Eventually they will consolidate these events and then the slaughter will be on a grand scale. British Farmers have already been approached.

Of course France these days is run by cowards who have caved into the wishes of the five million(conservative estimate) moslems that have been allowed to infect their country. In fact, they caved in quicker than their army did back in 1939.

France, like Our oppressed Country does not have the courage to uphold freedom of speech and neither does any other country in Western Europe today. The only way to get Freedom of Speech back is to vote for the British National Party. Then people, in this country at least will be able to speak their mind without fear of imprisonment and finally outlaw this evil festival from Our Land.

France: Brigitte Bardot convicted of racial hatred
Islam in Europe

No Freedom of Speech in France
No More Spin

France:Young Muslims courted by US
Islam in Europe

France: Prisons Filled With Muslims
Islam in Europe

France: Muslim countries vying for influence on local Muslims
Islam in Europe

Tags: Brigitte Bardot, Aid el-Kebir

Hey you! Yeah, you! You're not paying enough for gasoline...the weasel wants every last dime...

	Reid Energy Tax Increase Bill – Increasing Taxes and Prices

With energy prices reaching record highs, Congress continues its attempts to manipulate healthy market forces through additional tax increases. The Senate will vote TODAY, June 10th, on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) "Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008." This bill is a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, signed by 41 current Senators.

The Reid Energy Tax Increase Bill invokes a 1970's-era windfall profit tax on domestic energy companies. Congress should not look to the dismal economic period of the 1970's for guidance. After successful deregulation and shrinking of government control in this sector, Congress, through this bill, seeks to increase price controls in order to further micromanage domestic energy markets. The Reid Energy Tax Increase Bill does not place consumers first. In fact, the bill will hurt American energy consumers directly through higher energy prices and indirectly through increased taxes.

Take action here: http://capwiz.com/atr/issues/alert/?alertid=11470691&type=CO
Right now! Today!

You say you're not complacent...

Then why is this TRAITOR still in office?

Another time, another place this poor excuse for an American would be brought before firing squad.

From :http://www.nypost.com/seven/06092008/postopinion/letters/pelosis_putdown__playing_nice_with_iran_114669.htm

PELOSI'S PUTDOWN: PLAYING NICE WITH IRAN


June 9, 2008 -- If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks that we're now winning in Iraq because of "the good will of [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," maybe she thinks we won Word War II because Hitler became compassionate ("Nancy's Iran Nonsense," Editorial, June 3).
David Farbman

Manhattan


Pelosi, hallway heroine of the Capitol, is a disaster, pure and simple.

A doyen of the Iraq defeatists, this Democratic leader now credits the mad mullahs of Iran for the remarkable progress our troops and Iraqi allies have made in the war against our terrorist enemies.

We should have expected this servile posturing toward our enemies. It was on display early in her tenure as speaker when she went to pay obeisance to the anti-American Syrian dictator, cooing about how all roads lead to Damascus.

Is there not a clear-thinking Democrat left who will censure this embarrassing politician?

Paul Bloustein

Cincinnati

Pelosi is an airhead, elected by nitwits. She should do nothing more challenging than play tiddlywinks.

James J. Ring

Ossining


Once again, the Democrats prove that the word "Democrat" is synonymous with "traitor." Pelosi is the latest Democrat to verge on committing treason.

Her comments about Iran prove that Democrats do indeed hate the military and their country.

What other conclusion can you come up with when she praises Iran, but not Gen. David Petraeus?

Bret Wallach

Hicksville

Thinking as far back as the Eisenhower administration, I don't remember any politician, on either side of the aisle, hating America and praising the enemy as much as Pelosi does.

Such foolish and disparaging remarks embolden our enemy's propaganda machine.

Pelosi obviously made an error in judgment in January 2007 when she condemned the surge in Iraq and sent a letter to President Bush. She claimed that "there is no purely military solution in Iraq" and that the way forward is to begin a phased redeployment of our forces - not exactly words to live by when uttered by people who have a vested interest in an American defeat.

Pelosi's gaffe is the reason why military matters should be left in the hands of military personnel and not in the hands of incompetent mouthpieces.

Expect Pelosi to continue her efforts to discredit our military, since an American victory on the battlefield amounts to a Pelosi defeat at home.

Elio Valenti

Brooklyn


Pelosi is an idiot and should not be in the House.

She is an embarrassment and knows nothing about foreign policy or war. But she's still pretty hot for a 60-something grandmother. Charlie Honadel

Staten Island

The New York Times can run story after story on isolated acts of misconduct by our troops and denigrate them, their mission and the commander-in-chief, and the Congressional Democrats also don't celebrate the military's heroic acts around the world.

So why any thoughtful American with any common sense would continue to support or vote for today's Democratic Party is beyond me.

John LaPorte

Whitestone

How Did He Get This Far?

Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street

Presidential Politics 2008 - Obama

Wednesday, 07 May 2008

by Pam Martens The candidate that claims to be the only presidential contender who doesn't take money from lobbyists is in fact the biggest recipient of lobby-related contributions. Barack Obama rakes in millions from law firms serving the interests of Wall Street, including the financial institutions that gave us the subprime lending crisis. Lawyers that work for firms that earn hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbying may technically not be lobbyists, but they share in their colleagues' earnings as influencers of Congress - a legal loophole that allows Obama to claim his hands are clean of lobby loot. "The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans." Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street by Pam Martens This article is the result of a special investigation undertaken by Counterpunch, orignally printed in 2 parts, here and here.. "The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans." Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it's marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn't the press curious about this? Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you'll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers - this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms. The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared in February on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don't. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn't compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government. Why is the "yes, we can" candidate in bed with this cartel? How can "we," the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard? Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime. "How can ‘we,' the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?" These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season. But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement? Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina on January 22, 2008: "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president." Barack Obama, in an email to supporters on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe: "Candidates typically spend a week like this - right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline - on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees." The Center for Responsive Politics website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists, registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering. Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying. Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them. The political publication, The Hill, reported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations. (The Obama campaign said they had stopped lobbying since joining the campaign.) Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie. That law firm is also a registered lobbyist. What might account for this persistent (but non-reality based) theme of distancing the Obama campaign from lobbyists? Odds are it traces back to one of the largest corporate lobbyist spending sprees in the history of Washington whose details would cast an unwholesome pall on the Obama campaign, unless our cognitive abilities are regularly bombarded with abstract vacuities of hope and change and sentimental homages to Dr. King and President Kennedy. "Many of these individual donors share in the profits generated from lobbying." On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005. Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation: "Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights...." Three days before Senator Obama expressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama's home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and House, pleading to stop the passage of this corporate giveaway: The AGs wrote: "State attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens... In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions...." The Senate also received a desperate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Alliance for Justice. They wrote as follows: "Under the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005], citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law." This legislation, which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign. "The Civil Justice Reform Group, a business alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumental in drafting the class-action bill," says Public Citizen. One of the hardest working registered lobbyists to push this corporate giveaway was the law firm Mayer-Brown, hired by the leading business lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce spent $16 million in just 2003, lobbying the government on various business issues, including class action reform. According to a 2003 report from Public Citizen, Mayer-Brown's class action lobbyists included "Mark Gitenstein, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leading architect of the Senate strategy in support of class-action legislation; John Schmitz, who was deputy counsel to President George H.W. Bush; David McIntosh, former Republican congressman from Indiana; and Jeffrey Lewis, who was on the staffs of both Sen. John Breaux (D-La) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La)". While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown's partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.) Senator Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials, one assumes that he understood the ramifications to the poor and middle class in this country as he helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms. The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured that might not otherwise have a voice. "Obama helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms." Those rights should have been strengthened, not restricted, at this dangerous time in our nation's history. According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern history: "According to federal data, people of color are more than three times more likely to have subprime loans: high-cost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites." If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower. "This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism." Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further. So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called "Rocopoly Money" (like a sick board game), after "blitz" nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle? Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation's poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline. Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer. But be assured of one thing: this country will not countenance any more grand illusions. Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at \n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it " href="mailto:%20%3Cscript%20language='JavaScript'%20type='text/javascript'%3E%20%3C!--%20var%20prefix%20=%20'ma'%20+%20'il'%20+%20'to';%20var%20path%20=%20'hr'%20+%20'ef'%20+%20'=';%20var%20addy50955%20=%20'pamk741'%20+%20'@';%20addy50955%20=%20addy50955%20+%20'aol'%20+%20'.'%20+%20'com';%20document.write(%20'%3Ca%20'%20+%20path%20+%20'\''%20+%20prefix%20+%20':'%20+%20addy50955%20+%20'\'%3E'%20);%20document.write(%20addy50955%20);%20document.write(%20'%3C\/a%3E'%20);%20//--%3E\n%20%3C/script%3E%3Cscript%20language='JavaScript'%20type='text/javascript'%3E%20%3C!--%20document.write(%20'%3Cspan%20style=\'display:%20none;\'%3E'%20);%20//--%3E%20%3C/script%3EThis%20e-mail%20address%20is%20being%20protected%20from%20spam%20bots,%20you%20need%20JavaScript%20enabled%20to%20view%20it%20%3Cscript%20language='JavaScript'%20type='text/javascript'%3E%20%3C!--%20document.write(%20'%3C/'%20);%20document.write(%20'span%3E'%20);%20//--%3E%20%3C/script%3E">pamk741@aol.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . Comments (14) Subscribe to this comment's feed BAR, the link you embedded to counterpunch is the wrong story written by gess , May 07, 2008 Here are the two parts: Part one http://tinyurl.com/462hpq Part two: http://tinyurl.com/4ucuw4 Grassroots? written by mozella , May 07, 2008 I've always suspected that Obama's grassroots internet fundraising is a smokescreen to cover huge infusions of corporate cash. It's hard to understand how any relative unknown could organize a machine of the size and efficiency that he has right out of the gate. Lies!! written by Tone , May 07, 2008 Tell it like it is, Obama, clinton, mccain are all apart of the same stage play. When it's said and done, corporations will continue to make profits and american primacy will continue to prevade throughout the world. More and more common people will struggle while we argue over who's the better candidate. I know we have to have someone in the white house, but the history of voting has shown the american people what the powers that be really think about the people. When it comes to elections, no matter what the popular vote is, the electorial college and so-called super delegates can still vote whatever candidate they choose. MY question is; is this a true democracy? Just because you can go to the mall and buy expensive irrelevant clothing does not mean you are free. They have a disregard for the american people and your favorite candidate is apart of the same scheme. When someone really steps up and question the amount of aid going to corporations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Colombia, Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia, etc.., then I would say that's a great candidate. Most of that aid going to those countries I've mention, does not reach the common people. It goes to the coffers of those incompetent leaders who is doing nothing but draining their own country for the sake of money. That aid could be used right here in america. When a real candidate speaks on those issue's, that's your man, or woman. thank you, BAR writers, for your voices & truths written by vbonnaire , May 07, 2008 When I read about what he had signed into law I couldn't believe it, not for the working class of any color. You have written this so perfectly, and I want to tell you that in my lifetime, I have never seen an election as corrupt as this one. Somehow, this corruption is denigrating the entire Civil Rights movement. It's the Presidents value systems that matter most to me. Skin color has nothing to do with it. I hope you don't mind if I quote from this piece in my blog. I hope to drive other intelligent readers over here. Thinkers of all colors who care what happens to the poor in this country. When I worked as a therapist for homeless mothers and children, I saw the face (many colored) of something so horrific you cannot believe it. Children being born under shrubs by the side of the road. Second generation. Thank you. And thank you Glen Ford too. Once I said I wished it were him or Colin Powell for Pres. I said it because they seem to be "Black Americans." What I mean is that they understand the Black Experience that the Obamas do not speak for. As each day goes by, I lose respect for his principles. His principles do not speak for the America I know, and love. Ain't it beautiful how the corporate media works? written by Brian , May 07, 2008 On the basis of this story alone, Obama is a massive hypocrite who would be exposed in any honest media publicity system. This issue carries so much potential to knock him out of the race for the fraud and con that he is that in any credible media system he would have fallen by the wayside with Dodd and Biden. Isn't is neat how the media works? Nobody up on the big stage or with the big microphone asks him about the issues Pam Martens raises. And the beauty of it all: they don't have to be told to avoid it. Orwell would be impressed. Media blackout written by Leisa , May 08, 2008 I am so perplexed by the media. Why are they not reporting these things?? Money is the great corrupter. Remember how everyone thought Bush Jr. was great because he could raise huge sums of $$. Politicians love money as much if not more than power... I am concerned that the interests of the American people are being sidelined by the interests of BIG $$ and international companies. It is not just corporate America that wants access to our coffers. Thanks for the great article. We have patriots working to bring light in this time of media blackout. amazing written by mark , May 09, 2008 great article, more people need to read it and ponder on the fate of Obama the fraud. Typical written by Mary , May 09, 2008 Lotta hoodwinking and bamboozling going on in the Obama campaign. Would that his own "people" would see it for what it is. 30% interest rates on credit cards DESTROY the very people on the Southside of Chicago that Obama purports to have cared about. He's playing the big leagues, now, and he'll toss those people as irrelevant the same way he has tossed the "white working class." It's not about race. It's about $$$$$$$ and power. Obama is the new boss, same as the old boss. Money Trail written by S. Murph , May 09, 2008 Thank you Pam Martens for shining the light of truth on the Obama black hole. As one commenter said quote” It's hard to understand how any relative unknown could organize a machine of the size and efficiency that he has right out of the gate” unquote. Now we know how he has been able to compete with the Clinton machine. The connection is real clear. Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and was president of the of the Harvard Law Review. When you are part of the magna cum laude crowd and they are connected to the Wall Street Big Ballers who are the REAL SHOT CALLERS and they start throwing tons of money at you, ambition/submission takes over and you dance to the tune that they want. This is where he forged friendships/relationships with the people who helped organize, fund and manage his campaign. Ms Martens article exposes the MONEY trail that has propelled Obama’s campaign to where it is at now. This IS NOT A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT by any stretch of the imagination. It is a well financed well packaged and well choreographed marketing campaign masquerading as a movement. The problem for lot of us is ether we do not know or do not want to know the difference between a movement and a marketing campaign (think stuck on STUUUUUPID). Being a child of the sixties I know the difference between a movement and a marketing campaign. MOVEMENTS are not funded by Wall Street law firms and investment bankers. Movements are not managed by image makers and stylists. MOVEMENTS are not framed and projected with all the media hype and saturation that all that Wall Street money and image making can buy. MOVEMENTS happen when people stop falling for the same ole divide and conquer game that is being pushed on all of us non stop. MOVEMENTS happen when people finally start thinking and acting on ONE accord. MOVEMENTS happen when people stop beating each other up about our differences and start embracing all the things that we all have in common. Peace S Murph Movements written by mozella , May 09, 2008 Movements don't come with their leaders in place, already selected by others. Meet President Obama... written by Karim B , May 14, 2008 The future President of a crumbling empire. Just how Prez Obama will react when foreigners stop using dollar as reserve currency and stop funding US expenditures? Another black president at the head of another ruined and bankrupt state all thanks,once again, in great part to the greediness and stupidity of Wall street traders and western imperialist policy makers. Thanks Pam and Keep THIS Up!!! written by jack , May 25, 2008 I believe it is very important for all of us who care to stay informed and connected, to remain vigilant. The last remaining bastion for peace lies within all of us, not as individuals, but as a collective. The internet is where this is possible, though THEY are constantly attacking this effective tool of communication. The corporate cronies have once again hoodwinked the masses and it looks as if there power grows every day despite our efforts to slap the sleepy 'messes' we call citizens of The 'United' States of America to attempt to revive them from their comatose state of apathy. There plan has been carefully orchestrated over a long period of time and will not be disassembled over night, as THEY control over half of the worlds resources. This IS what this is all about. There is a great book for anyone who wishes to take a crash course in geopolitics and the way it has developed over the past two centuries to become the juggernaut Iron Triangle we all know exists today. It is an Anthology, called, "The Way the World Really Works". I suggest this book to every American, nay I THRUST it in your face and use it to hit you harder, you sandy eyed dopes I love so dearly. I am currently teaching in China yet I have never been more interested in learning about the U.S.... quite paradoxical no doubt. Good Luck All Keep up the good fight Pam!!! I am always for questioning our candidates.... written by Xavier , June 04, 2008 and speaking truth to power, but I must say this article, regardless of its veracity, amounts to a weak argument. If you take a look at the donor list on opensecrets.org, all the contributions were from individuals. The site explains that contributors who donate over $200 must declare where they are employed. So if an employee of Goldman Sachs contributes more than $200, they are tallied under Goldman Sachs. This does not mean he is taking corporate money in this campaign. This is America after all and an individual may contribute to any campaign regardless of where they work or who they work for. I think it would be rather drastic for Obama to single out individuals based on where they are employed. It's easy to be cynical in this day and age, but you must give someone credit when they are pushing boundaries by not only abiding by current campaign finance law, but going above and beyond it. He has not taken a dime from 527s, PACs in this campaign. He has also requested David Brock (of mediamatters.org) to shut down his 527 group designed to attack McCain. That move shows Obama is quite different from the status quo. The argument put forth of a quid pro quo in regards to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 is tenuous at best. Congress members vote yes or no based on a variety of reasons, sometimes they are influenced by special influences, sometimes it is a high minded symbolic action, sometimes local spending projects are attached, and sometimes it is just the basic politics of compromise. Can you really tell from this article what the circumstances of this vote were? No. It's obvious that the bill passed overwhelmingly, so technically his vote did not make a difference to the final result. Was he compromising on this bill in order to get something else from someone? The could be a situation where he voted yes in order to get Republican support on a bill such as the "Obama, Lugar Secure Funding for Implementation of Nonproliferation Law." The questions raised in this article are legitimate, but Ms. Martens argument seems flimsy and one dimensional. Flimsy? Not by a long shot. written by wondering , June 08, 2008 This is anything but one dimensional. That seems more of a diffusement statement than an informative one, unless you’re saying he didn’t take the money mentioned above. If anything, this should make us look more closely at this man called Obama. If you add up the dollars, it means something, so the argument that he is "not different" is anything but flimsy. For one thing, many "quit" their full time lobbying professions to help Obama figure out how to work this money machine. Also, if he pandered the above bill damaging his constituents, to get another passed that he wanted, then he is “playing politics”, as he said he does not. He is no different than any other politician in any genuine good sense, in the best case scenario. In the worst case, he is actually denigrates the advances Dr. King strived to help us achieve us as a nation, and any exploited person, or person who cares about them should have nothing to do with the man. It’s not that blacks should be better, but it would be regretful if the first black president reaches new paramounts of deceit against the people. There is a subtle contract that the other candidates are lying. Obama is basing his bid on the case that he is the only one that is not. Yea, right.