AUDIO: "Yea We Can!" President Elect Barack Obama

UPDATE:

APFN

GERMANY: Concert Before Obama's Berlin Speech?

Tue Jul 29, 2008 15:53

Will Media Report Concert Before Obama's Berlin Speech?
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 24, 2008 - 13:38 ET
SOURCE:

Remember back in May when media gushed and fawned over a
huge crowd in Portland, Oregon -- supposedly gathered to
hear the words of Democrat presidential candidate Barack
Obama -- but chose not to report the free concert given
before his speech?

Well, it has been learned that before the presumptive
Democrat nominee spoke to a crowd in Berlin Thursday, two
popular German acts -- reggae artist Patrice and rock band
Reamonn -- entertained the gathering audience.

Will media report this tonight, or just gush and fawn over
the huge crowd again?

While you ponder, here's what was reported by Spiegel Online
moments ago (h/t Hot Air and Gateway):

++ Pop Concert for Obama Fans ++

6:33 p.m.: The tens of thousands of Obama fans are being
entertained as they await the senator. The reggae musician
Patrice kicked things off, followed by the rock band Reamonn.

I'm sure this will be part of ALL media reports concerning
this speech...not!

========================================

Obama's Berlin Rock Concert Offered Free Pizza, Brats & Beer ...
MORE:>>

==============================

(CNN) – Add a few more stars to the long list of celebrities
lining up behind Barack Obama.

The celebrated indie rock group Arcade Fire will perform two
concerts for Obama in Ohio on Sunday and Monday in advance
of the state’s crucial primary contest, CNN has learned.
They’re set to perform at an Obama rally on Sunday in
Nelsonville, southeast of Columbus, and again on Monday in
Cleveland.

The Montreal-based group consists mostly of Canadians, but

is fronted by Texas native Win Butler, who initially reached
out to the campaign to organize the gig.

Butler made his support for Obama public in January after
the New Hampshire primary, when he blogged a pointed, if
somewhat profane, critique of Clinton's victory speech on
the band's web site.

According to the music web site pitchforkmedia.com, the
Arcade Fire frontman isn't the only high-profile indie celeb
to endorse Obama: Jeff Tweedy of Wilco and Conor Oberst,
a.k.a Bright Eyes, have also jumped on the Illinois
senator's bandwagon.
SOURCE:

====================================================================

flohoff60@woh.rr.com

PLEASE READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT IT.

Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:36

PLEASE READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT IT.

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of "Change" or that he says he will be a “Uniter”. The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore.

Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

· He voted against banning partial " birth abortion.

· He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

· Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.

· In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.

· Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.

· Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

· His religious convictions are very murky.

· He is willing to meet with Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

· Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.

· He opposed the Patriot Act.

· First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.

· Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.

· Supports universal health-care.

· Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

· Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

· Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.

· Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.

· Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

· Wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage".

· Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.

· Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.

· Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.

· He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax

· He voted No on repealing the "Death" Tax

· He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.

· Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.

· He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama’s and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride. If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save the United States of America and the Supreme Court . Inaction is action.

Obama Bless America
By: J.J. Jackson

Wanted: Millions of adoring fans to follow presidential candidate to the end of the Earth and do whatever he says. Must be willing to obey without question and applaud at the drop of a hat. To apply contact the Barack Obama Campaign.

In a nutshell that is what the Obama Campaign is asking for and, by all indications, getting in terms of followers. And no, I’m not exaggerating.

Recently it has come to light that there seems to be a rash of people fainting in the presence of Obama at his rallies. This is something that often happens when people become so excited that they just can no longer take it. Maybe this is nothing to get too concerned about on its own, but when you couple this with many other bizarre occurrences? You get the impression of being at a religious revival at some mega church rather than a political event whenever Barack Obama is in the house.

When Barack Obama announced recently that he was going to simply blow his nose, the crowd went wild. Why? Is it because he had never been able to successfully do so before? Had all his previous attempts ended in embarrassing miscues? Like him placing the handkerchief to various other parts of his body only to result in mucus being blown all about? Were they happy that he finally got it right?

No. They were just excited to be in the presence of Barack Obama and will cheer at almost anything he says or does. Next week he will probably announce that he has to take a potty break and the crowd will go equally nuts over the announcement.

The only thing missing from the nose blowing incident was throngs of adoring followers rushing the stage in order to claim his discarded snot rag and wipe it on their face to bask in his glory. Perhaps even a claim of miraculous healing that resulted from touching his bodily fluids would have been a nice touch.

At these events you have people dangling perilously over railings and crying out about their love for Barack Obama. You have people crushing themselves upon barricades just to try and get close enough to touch him or even get a whiff of his cologne.

I thought we were electing a President and not the next American Idol. Heck, I wish it was only something akin to a silly television reality show. It’s looking more and more like we are preparing to elect the next messiah. Are messiah’s elected?

As the crowds of loyal followers continue to gather at his campaign events we are left with a growing impression that Barack Obama is not so much a man but a divine savior in the eyes of the masses. Or perhaps more accurately he could be described as the anti-Christ when you consider that his populist rhetoric breaks very important Commandments of the Christian faith such as not coveting what others have and not taking it from them without it being given to you. That’s ok though, because you will just be asked to keep believing that government confiscation under threat of force should you dissent is not really theft.

All this however is of minor concern for the crowds of adoring fans that gather around Barack Obama wherever he goes. They just want to bask in his glory. George Clooney, said of Obama that, “you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,” which makes you wonder if Barack Obama said, “Hey George, jump off a bridge to prove your faith in me,” would he?

Halle Berry said the same thing. “I’ll do whatever he says to do,” she said even throwing out something that she would do specifically. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear,” Ms. Berry gushed. Would she also place rose pedals on the ground so that his pure feet may not touch the dirt?

I hope that there are some things that she will not do for Obama. But then again she is from Hollywood. Do these Hollywood yummy brains ever really think about what they are saying and how silly they sound?

The who thing is all so very eerie. You almost expect to some time soon hear God Bless America rewritten as Obama Bless America and sung at these congregations. Maybe something like this:

Obama Bless America
Man that we love!
Stand beside us, and guide us
To Paradise with your light from above!

With Free Health Care,
And change for change sake,
Tax the vile rich,
And heal our souls!

Obama Bless America
He’ll bring us hope!
Obama Bless America
Our sa-av-iour!

Sometimes I really, really, really wish I was making this sort of stuff up.
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author who has been writing about politics, America and in support of liberty since 1993. His weekly articles are available at Liberty Reborn. http://www.thelandofthefree.net:80/conservativeopinion/2008/02/22/obama-bless-america/

Jeremiah Wright God Bless America!

By: Devvy

OBAMA'S RACE SPEECH: INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE

Thu Mar 27, 2008 21:29

72.201.65.179

OBAMA'S RACE SPEECH: INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE
http://www.newswithviews.com:80/Devvy/kidd351.htm

By: Devvy
March 26, 2008

"Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary “mole,” not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through." The People's Weekly World, an on-line communist propaganda rag

On March 18, 2006, Barack Obama gave what dullards in the dominant media have dubbed as his "race" speech in response to the fire storm over his long time association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This speech was damage control, a carefully crafted oration full of all the right words and phrases in an effort to stop Caucasian voters from running away from his campaign.

Obama's speech on race is being called "brilliant." Some gas bags on cable networks are comparing Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Really? Abraham Lincoln was an open racist, a white supremacist who hated the Negro race and cared nothing about freeing slaves. As a matter of fact, he wanted to ship anyone with black skin out of this country. What, you say? How can that be? I was taught in school that Honest Abe Lincoln (the mascot for the Republican Party) is a hero who bravely took on the south to free the slaves!

There are two books everyone should read and should be required reading in all schools throughout this country. I know time is an issue for everyone, but I promise you, these two books are well worth the time invested. The first is Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe by Thomas DiLorenzo. The second is Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream by Lerone Bennett, Jr. The hero image of Abraham Lincoln is as tarnished and fake as the one hanging on John McCain.

With a great amount of pushing by his handlers, Obama has now gone to great lengths to distance himself from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, basically saying he didn't know Wright is a racist and hates America. Despite the clever word smithing of his race speech, this simply does not sell as truth. How can you attend a church for 20 years and not be exposed to the agenda hawked by Rev. Wright? Obama has been sold as an "African-American," yet his church under Wright clearly and without apology states their complete allegiance is to the continent of Africa. Fine, Rev. Wright. Pack your bags, go to Africa, pick any country you like, and spew your hatred of Caucasians and America from your beloved land. I'm sick of hyphenated Americans. Either we're all together as Americans or divided we will fall. Obama and others have tried to prop up Rev. Wright with how much his church has done for AIDS victims, outreach and other good deeds. Sorry, Obama, it doesn't wash. All of these altruistic undertakings can be done without hating America, other races or religions, i.e., Wright's admiration for a bigot like Louis Farrakhan.

Obama said in his speech he wouldn't disown Rev. Wright. Why would he? Obama has put his real feelings out into the public domain and they are in harmony with the Rev. Wright:

"Beneath this bland Good Obama lies a more interesting character, one that I like far better—the Bad Obama, a close student of other people's weaknesses, a literary artist of considerable power in plumbing his deep reservoirs of self-pity and resentment, an unfunny Evelyn Waugh consumed by indignation toward his own mother's people. He has been hiding out on the bestseller lists for the last two years in his enormously revealing, but little understood, 1995 “autobiography”—a more accurate term might be “autobiographical novel”—Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance....

"He cherishes every cause for complaint he can discern against white folks. He is constantly distressed at being half-white. Obama says he “ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites,” even though he surely realizes that his media-sensation status stems from how much white people love highly accomplished blacks who speak with white accents. He wouldn't be a serious candidate for president at age 45 if he weren't part black.

"Obama's teenage self-consciousness is perpetually crucified by contact with stereotypes about blacks. When his grandmother wants a ride to work because the day before, while awaiting the bus, she was threatened by a black panhandler, he is outraged—at his grandparents."

While, Steve Sailer, the author of the column above seems to find Obama fascinating, I find him to be just another closet communist, using being a mulatto to hide his racism. Obama recently referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person" which drew even more criticism. Fact: Obama attended Wright's church for the past twenty years. He darn straight knew the racist, anti-American agenda of that church. Anyone who thinks Obama could have attended a church for twenty years and not been aware of the agenda of that church is in denial. Fact: Obama has made it crystal clear how he feels about Caucasians. He holds them in contempt. How can anyone continue to support this deceptive individual, the mole "burrowed so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface"?

Obama decries playing the race card, but has embraced the endorsement of a loser like New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson. Former failed Secretary of Energy under Marxist Bill Clinton and Ambassador to the communist UN. Richardson is of Mexican ancestry. Obama believes Richardson's endorsement will bring him the Hispanic/Latino vote, which is why he and Richardson were up in Oregon the past few days. There are no Hispanic, Latino or Mexican issues regarding the U.S. Constitution, specifically, Art. 1, Section 8. The president of these united States of America is constrained by Art. II, of the U.S. Constitution. An American president is not a king, he is a public servant. All of these empty promises spewed by Obama and Hillary Clinton are just that. During the pretend primaries, Marxist Clinton took New Mexico (Richardson's state) because according to seditious, militant LaRaza mouth pieces, Hispanics "don't trust blacks." And, let's not forget Marxist Clinton has declared "no woman is an illegal." Music to the ears of all the illegals voting in New Mexico.

Obama picked up another endorsement yesterday. The big splash over this endorsement is because Mr. Kmiec is a Republican with impressive credentials. Kmiec states in his endorsement he doesn't want to denigrate any of his sodomite friends, but supports traditional marriage. He also says he's Catholic and goes on to say, " I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement." Kmiec knows the Church forbids the filthy practice of sodomy and the murdering of unborn babies. If Kmiec believes that life begins at conception, how on earth can he endorse someone like Barack Obama who not only supports abortion on demand, but also supports the barbaric practice of murder called partial birth abortion? How can any Catholic or Christian who professes they believe in God's word and laws endorse such a morally bankrupt individual like Barack Obama?

Because he's promised 'change'? Anyone who has listened to him and read his official web site understands that Obama represents no change, only a continuation of failed policies. He has thrown out this clever marketing plan about 'change' and 'hope' to desperate Americans, especially regarding health care and his message that we can all transcend racial lines. The reality is this man harbors hatred of America, Caucasians and the U.S. Constitution. All his flowery words and promises cannot change what's right in front of your face. Anyone who thinks Obama knows anything about constitutional government is in denial. Obama has ZERO experience with our military. He would immediately get rid of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy regarding sexual deviants serving in our military. Barack Obama knows nothing about being Commander in Chief. He's never served in uniform and has surrounded himself with war mongers and individuals who are working to bring America under world government; see links at bottom. In his own words, Obama desires a one world order - no more sovereign U.S.; see video here.

Americans have little understanding as to how the communitarian (communist) morality is being sold to the American people, but Obama knows. A couple of his mentors are hard core commies and Obama has learned well. Below are links that you might wish to read and consider. One thing that has surfaced over Obama and Rev. Wright is what the media calls the "theology of black churches" in America. I've watched a number of Internet videos and representatives of so-called "black churches" this past week and some of this stuff has shocked even an old war horse like me. Where does this hate come from? The old chant about slavery is a favorite for these 'sermons.' How much longer will Negroes in this country flog this disgraceful episode in America's history? There isn't a person alive right now that had a single thing to do with importing Negroes from the continent of Africa and making them slaves. I would say that with a few exceptions, every American in this country finds the idea of owning another human being totally repugnant. We should never forget, but using slavery as an excuse to whine about every challenge in life has long worn itself out.

Oppression has been a tragic staple of governments since the beginning of time. My grand parents on both sides of the family fled Europe to escape tyranny in the form of Mussolini and Hitler, but they never used it as an excuse to hate America, anyone of another race or grovel for welfare programs. They had nothing to do with slavery. None of us had anything to do with any of the holocausts, Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Dufar and tens of millions of Catholics slaughtered in Russia. Slavery is alive and well in this world, yet little attention is given to this on-going tragedy.

Race hucksters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright want equality, yet their 'black churches' are filled with hatred against Caucasians. They mock and slap all Americans in the face who have worked to make this country color blind. Take a good look around this country. Americans of all races are friends and colleagues, no matter our skin color or professions, we get along just fine. Yes, there is racism out there and I've seen it, particularly from those of Mexican and Latin origin against 'gringos.' What shocks me is the number of reverends who boldly proclaim Wright's toxic message isn't racism, it's a "liberation theology":

Transcript, Anderson Cooper, CNN, March 18, 2008:

"Dr. Gail Anderson Holness, Greater Washington Council of Churches: He is not preaching hate theology. And that should be a clear statement. It's not hate theology. It is a liberation theology. When Jesus was around, they didn't respect Jesus. They were angry with him. When he spoke the beatitudes on the mountain. They were angry with Martin Luther King when he was around, and they didn't respect him. And now he's a great hero."

Martin Luther King was a drunk, a womanizer and was communist trained. This accurate, factual description of a media created icon like King is always met with death threats and hate mail, but Alan Stang's column on King is 100% factual. Like Abraham Lincoln, both have been reinvented for political games.

The crutch of racism and slavery is the propaganda tool that's been hyped for decades to give special treatment and plundering the people's treasury for social causes for a particular race of people; same show transcript:

"The AME Church ascribes to a black liberation theology, and it can lead to some passionate sermons. But hate?

"Reverend Ronald Braxton, Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church: Yes and no. Yes, it's hate. It is hate of a system, of a society, of a politics that will not treat all persons equal, that will -- will spend billions of dollars to fight a war, but will not spend half of that amount of money to make sure that children have health care.

"When you see, day to day, when people come into your office or come to your church looking for a loaf of bread, mothers come in: "Can you do anything for me, Reverend? I need some help." They come to your Bible studies. They come to your prayer services at night. And they stand at your door when you get there. It is hate for that kind of a system, because you know within your heart that this country, the richest country in the world, can provide for her people. But she will not."

The U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate in the area of health care, education, the environment or any welfare programs. Churches are one of the private sector organizations where a helping hand is there for those who need it. Charity begins at home, but not in Congress. Of course, this doesn't sit well with Americans who have been brain washed into the communitarian (community, communist) morality that mother government is there to see to all your needs. Reverend Braxton's comment that America is the richest country in the world is just more hog wash. This republic is completely bankrupt. Our treasury is over drawn $9.4 TRILLION dollars while Congress continues to write hot checks to fund unconstitutional social programs and endless, wasteful wars.

I've heard ad nauseum that we need to have a dialogue on race in this country. How many more words need to be written or talking heads do we need to hear on the issue of race? It seems to me that while tens of millions of us of different races are oblivious to a person's skin color, it's "black churches" in this country, politicians and media mouth pieces who seem to have a problem with becoming color blind. After all, the lucrative business of race baiting would go away if not continually fanned by special interest groups, the lame stream media and politicos. While some are afraid to say it, I'm not. There is a huge double standard going on in this country and it shouldn't be tolerated. As for racist organizations in this country like the KKK, who pays any attention to those idiots? Give them the media spot light and you empower their destructive rhetoric. Ignore them and eventually, their numbers will dwindle into nothing more than small groups of people with hate in their hearts.

The Democrats will choose their nominee at their convention in a few months and shove their choice down the throats of the party faithful who will vote for that nominee regardless of how corrupt or evil they are "for the party." Those will be the votes of America's destruction. It is no different than Republicans who have already accepted their chains of bondage and will hold their nose and vote for a rotten, corrupt man like John McCain, if God forbid, he's still in the race come September. Those will be the votes of America's destruction. As for me, I will wait to see what happens at the GOP convention in September. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, I will write his name on my ballot in November, but I will not vote for any corrupt, morally bankrupt candidate for any political party. My conscience will be clear.

Research links:
http://www.newswithviews.com:80/Devvy/kidd351.htm

1 - Democrats for Ron Paul - video
2 - Democrats for Ron Paul web site
3 - Talk Show Host Reveals Obama Connection to Terrorists
4 - Obama’s words as troubling as pastor's
5 - Obama's communist mentor
6 - Pastor Manning on Obama's Bra 54 Double "D"
7 - Obama's New Spin Doc Is Gen McPeak, The 'Bomb Now, Die Later' Butcher Of 1991 Iraq War
8 - Obama Campaign Linked To Chechen Terrorism
9 - Beyond Obama's Beauty
10 - How key is Wright to Obama?
11 - Obama the hypocrite
12 - All about Obama

BREAKING NEWS

Talk Show Host Reveals Obama Connection to Terrorists

Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:41

Listen: http://www.therothshow.com/demos/recent/hour1mar2108.mp3

BREAKING NEWS
Talk Show Host Reveals Obama Connection to Terrorists

There is a far-reaching scandal brewing for presidential
hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, thanks to a radio talk show host
based in Oregon. Syndicated talk host Laurie Roth's
revelations make the news story about Obama's relationship
with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child's play. A
top official at the Pentagon during former-President George
H. W. Bush's Administration and a former CIA intelligence
officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather
Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor
Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.
http://www.newswithviews.com/BreakingNews/breaking55.htm

by NWV News

Listen: http://www.therothshow.com/demos/recent/hour1mar2108.mp3

Judicial Watch

Obama’s Records Problem

Fri Mar 14, 2008 14:53

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Obama’s Records Problem

Hillary is not the only one with a “records problem.”

Judicial Watch has been trying to get a hold of Barack Obama’s records while he served in the Illinois state legislature from 1996-2004. With his suspicious connections to indicted political fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, and his “friendly” relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers, we think the public ought to have a look at his official papers from this time period.
The problem?

Nobody knows where they are, if they exist at all. And Obama’s story keeps changing.

During a campaign stop last fall, Obama said he didn’t have any records of his eight years in the Illinois state legislature. “I don't have — I don't maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records.”

(Apparently they don’t have boxes in Chicago.)

However, when questioned on the records by Meet the Press host Tim Russert on November 11, 2007, Obama said: “Well, let’s be clear. In the state Senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois…every document related to my interactions with government is available right now.”

Contrast this “version of the truth” with what the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State recently told Judicial Watch, in response to our open records request: “The ISA does not maintain Senator Obama’s personal records or papers. [Nor] does the ISA maintain records generated by his office. In addition, the ISA has received no requests from Senator Obama to archive any records formerly in his possession.”

(Judicial Watch also contacted Obama’s successor, Kwame Raoul, who stated in a March 5 letter to JW: “Any documents I would have inherited from Senator Obama would have been constituent work files, and those were reviewed and discarded upon me taking office.”)

So, do these records exist or not? It appears that Obama never kept records of his time in the Illinois state legislature, or he discarded them. Either way, he clearly intended to leave no paper trail. Certainly, our investigation now suggests Senator Obama could now have or could have had his state legislator records archived so that they are available to the public, but has chosen not to do so. So Hillary is not the only one with a “records” issue.

Nonetheless, Judicial Watch will continue its investigation of Obama’s record(s). The more we learn about the Illinois Senator, the more obvious it becomes that he is anything but the ethically upright outsider he purports to be. Stay tuned…

Regarding Hillary’s records, JW should have her daily schedule records in hand within the next week. The National Archives notified the court that it expects to have the records to Judicial Watch by March 20, the date of a status hearing in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit. I’ll have more regarding this next week.

House Approves Watered-Down Ethics Reform

From the moment Judicial Watch became a part of the discussions surrounding ethics reform in the new Congress, I’ve had the same concern: That any rules changes would not change the corrupt culture on Capitol Hill.

It looks like my fear will be realized.

According to the Associated Press: “House Democrats…pushed through a measure Tuesday to create an outside panel to review possible ethical lapses by its members. The new office would be composed of six people appointed jointly by the House speaker and the minority leader. They could not be current members, federal employees or lobbyists. Recommendations of censure or punishment, including expulsion, would still rest with the ethics committee.”

Before I bash, let me be fair and note the positives – non-members of Congress on the new oversight body might be able to initiate ethics investigations and there would be more public disclosure regarding any ethics investigations that are pursued. But there’s much wrong with this reform.

• Outside citizens and organizations are prohibited from filing ethics complaints. Yes, the House is thinking of Judicial Watch when it leaves in place the rule preventing outside entities from filing ethics complaints.

• The so-called “independent” panel can include former members of Congress, the very people responsible for the breakdown in the House ethics system.

• The Office of Congressional Ethics has no power to enforce ethics rules and has no subpoena power. They can only recommend the House Ethics Committee initiate its own investigation. This leaves us at square one, as the committee is in meltdown.

• If the Office of Congressional Ethics dismisses a complaint, there is no public disclosure, which means scandals can be swept under the rug without any public knowledge.

Ironically, House Democrats reportedly violated House rules in order to pass their ethics bill. Again, according to the Associated Press: “Republicans yelled in protest as Democrats held the 15-minute vote open for 27 minutes while Democratic leaders urged holdouts in the party to support the party position.”

Ultimately, these strong-arm techniques worked, and the measure passed 229-182. However, it still has a way to go before it is implemented.

The Congressional Quarterly reported on Thursday: “House Minority Leader John A. Boehner made clear Wednesday that he sees little likelihood of joining Speaker Nancy Pelosi anytime soon to name members of a new outside ethics board the House has reluctantly agreed to create…Under the amended plan authored by Rep. Michael E. Capuano , D-Mass., the investigative board that would refer cases to the existing House ethics committee cannot get off the ground unless Pelosi and Boehner agree on its six members, three from each party. That led some advocates of the plan to suspect that Boehner will drag his feet on proposing his three appointees.”

Democrats promised serious ethics reform upon seizing control of Congress and they did not deliver. Republicans don’t want ethics reform either, so they’re going to obstruct even the most minor “improvements.” The Senate won’t be doing any “reform” at all, by the way. Given the shared interests of both political parties to avoid accountability, I seriously doubt the new Office of Congressional Ethics will do anything to address the problem of corruption on the Hill. It will be up to the Department of Justice (if the courts will let it), independent groups and citizens to force corrupt members of Congress to change their ways.

NY Governor Spitzer Resigns for Involvement in Prostitution Ring

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned on Thursday. By now, you probably know why. But here’s a quick review.

According to Bloomberg: “Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor of New York, brought down by allegations that he patronized a ring of high-priced prostitutes…The beginning of the end of his governorship came with a March 10 article on The New York Times Web [sic] site reporting that he was caught on a federal wiretap planning to meet a prostitute in Washington after arranging for her to travel from New York. The Times [sic], citing a person familiar with the federal investigation, said Spitzer was the individual identified in a federal affidavit as ‘Client 9,’ who federal prosecutors said paid $4,300 to have sex with a prostitute named ‘Kristen’ in the Mayflower Hotel.”

“People regardless of their position or power take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself,” Spitzer said in his farewell press conference.

Isn’t it interesting that public officials seem ready to take responsibility for their conduct only after they got caught? Apparently, it did not occur to Spitzer at any point over the last 10 years – the amount of time this top law enforcement official for the Empire State has reportedly been using prostitutes – to come clean or at least stop his law-breaking.

At least Spitzer resigned rather than use his public office to obstruct justice and avoid prosecution, as the terrible Bill (and Hillary) Clinton did.

Though Spitzer was reportedly trying to use his resignation as a bargaining chip with prosecutors. Apparently, this tactic did not work. U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said in a statement to the press: "There is no agreement between this office and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, relating to his resignation or any other matter." In addition to the obvious prostitution-related charge, Spitzer could find himself indicted on charges of money laundering, tax evasion, and misuse of state and campaign resources. If the facts and the law warrant it, he ought to be prosecuted. He was a prosecutor, state attorney general, and governor. If public officials like Spitzer can flout criminal laws with impunity, the rule of law is weakened and we all suffer. You can be sure there are some seriously criminal public officials, as of yet uncaught, who are quietly rooting that Spitzer get off scot-free from criminal charges. Spitzer thought he was above the law, as do too many other politicians. At every opportunity, our legal system needs to remind them otherwise.

Until next week…

Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life.

APFN

Obama's Earmarks - $1 Million Michelle Obama

Thu Mar 13, 2008 16:54

Obama's Earmarks - $1 Million Michelle Obama

Thursday, March 13, 2008
SOURCE:

BARACK OBAMA

One of Obama's Earmarks Went to Hospital That Employs
Michelle Obama

Dan Riehl notes, via Amanda Carpenter, that in the list of
earmarks he requested, $1 Million was requested for the
construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of
Chicago. The request was put in in 2006.

You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital?

Michelle Obama. She's vice president of community affairs.

As Byron noted, "In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that
Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago
Hospital, where she is a vice president for community
affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her
husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just
after he took office."

Looks like that raise was worth it.

-------------------------
hawks-cafe@hotmail.com wrote:

It appears that Barack Obama, allegedly decent guy and agent
of "change" in Washington, requested an earmark in 2006 for
$1 million taxpayer dollars for the hospital where his wife
works. Said hospital, by the way, gave Michelle Obama a huge
raise (nearly $200,000, more than doubling her salary) in
2005 after Barack got elected to the United States Senate.

Now, I know that there are lots of ways to talk about
transactions like this involving public officials - quid pro
quo, etc., but I prefer to call a crook a crook and just say
that we're dealing with good, old fashioned, public
corruption here. I am having an especially hard time
distinguishing Obama's actions here from those of, say, Duke
Cunningham, who is currently in prison. I suppose you might
say that Obama injected some more efficiency into the process
by eliminating the middle man, but while I'm a big fan of
efficient markets, generally speaking, I happen to think that
there should not be any sort of market at all for the votes
of public officials. Perhaps these silly notions of ethical
propriety are what Obama intends to "change" if he is elected
President. If that's the case, I'll take the status quo,
thanks. Without the quid.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985316/posts

Michelle Obama's Writings Display Disturbing Racism

Americans must ask: 'Do we really want this woman in the White House'?

By Pat Shannan

Just what kind of "change" is Barack Obama offering and just how much influence has his wife, Michelle had over him in their married life the past two decades? It appears that Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people, eternally conflicted with one another.

In her senior thesis at Princeton University, Michelle LaVaughn, the future wife of the Democratic presidential candidate, stated that America was a nation founded on "crime and hatred." Moreover, she stated that whites in America were "ineradicably racist."

The 1985 thesis, entitled Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community, was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn. Michelle Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society, never becoming a full participant."

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but emphatically elevates black over white in her world. As first lady, would she insist the White House be painted black? That's been a standard joke in this venue since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but this next ominous quote from her thesis suggests that she would in fact urge her husband toward just such an extreme position.

"There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost."

She seems to justify those feelings with what she claims to see on the other side of the issue: "Predominantly white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students, comprising the bulk of their enrollments."

Michelle added in her thesis that to "whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, [I] will always be black first." However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, "if those 'whites at Princeton ' really saw Michelle as one who always would 'be black first,' it seems that she gave them that impression."

Michelle Obama's poll of black alumni concludes that other black former students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skins.

"I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility," she wrote.

Most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire. Only 89 students responded, out of 400 who were asked for input.

The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. For a potential first lady, this is a very divisive view that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Hussein Obama administration.

During this presidential election year in which the term "transparency" has been frequently bandied about, candidates have buried a number of potentially revealing documents and papers. In Hillary Rodham Clinton's case, there's been a clamoring for tax records, White House memos and other material the candidate's team has chosen to keep from release.

The 96-page, 1985 Princeton thesis, restricted from release by the school's Mudd Library, has also been the subject of recent scrutiny. Commentator Jonah Goldberg remarked on National Review Online, "A
reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama's thesis is unavailable until Nov. 5, 2008, at the Princeton library. I wonder why."

"Why a restricted thesis?" asked Pastor Louis Lapides on his website,
Thinking Outside the Blog. "Is the concern based on what's in the thesis? Will Michelle Obama appear to be too black for white America or not black enough for black America?"

Will an Obama administration really offer constructive "change" or just an intellectually refined racism?

Pat Shannan is the assistant editor of American Free Press. He has been working in the alternative news business for more than 30 years.

(Issue # 16, April 21, 2008)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/michelle_obama_racism132.html

Family Research Council

Stop Sen Obama's S.2433 - Forces U.S. to Give 'Til It Hurts

Sun Mar 9, 2008 13:19

Stop Sen Obama's S.2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007-Bill Forces U.S. to Give 'Til It Hurts

This is Sen Obama. From the Family Research Council

Less than a day after the President agreed to put more money in taxpayers' pockets, the U.S. Senate is attempting to take some of those dollars back. The Global Poverty Act, while seemingly charitable and big-hearted, sounds nicer than it really is. Under a guise of Good Samaritanism, the bill would require our government to spend $845 billion above and beyond what America already spends on global aid! In addition to surrendering more dollars, the U.S. would also be required to surrender some of its own sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "banning small arms and light weapons," but also to ratifying a series of objectionable treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming), the Convention on Biological Diversity, and so on. Considering the magnitude of the legislation, one would think that the Senate would proceed with caution. Not so! In an effort to fast-track the bill, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has yet to hold a single hearing. Instead, S. 2433 is scheduled for a vote in the Committee as early as today. Currently, the bill has just seven sponsors, who include Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Richard Durbin, (D-Ill.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Contact your senators and tell them to oppose S. 2433! Impoverishing Americans through oppressive taxation and regulation will never succeed in enriching the world.

Unreal. If that does not scare you, I don't know what will. Take action to stop this bill now.

Go read what UCV has up about this.
Technorati Tags: Barack Obama

posted by Carl Kilo at 10:12 AM
http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2008/02/stop-sen-obama-s2433-global-poverty-act.html

Atimes.com

Obama's women reveal his secret

Tue Feb 26, 2008 16:26

Obama's women reveal his secret
By Spengler

"Cherchez la femme," advised Alexander Dumas in: "When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman." In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama's women reveal his secret: he hates America.

We know less about Senator Obama than about any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard Law Review he edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him. But there is a real Barack Obama. No man - least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father - can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife.

America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America is the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Between half and nine-tenths of the world's 6,700 spoken languages will become extinct in the next century, and the anguish of dying peoples rises up in a global cry of despair. Some of those who listen to this cry become anthropologists, the curators of soon-to-be extinct cultures; anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama's mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice.

Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised.

Ann Dunham died in 1995, and her character emerges piecemeal from the historical record, to which I will return below. But Michelle Obama is a living witness. Her February 18 comment that she felt proud of her country for the first time caused a minor scandal, and was hastily qualified. But she meant it, and more. The video footage of her remarks shows eyes hooded with rage as she declares:

For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.

The desperation, frustration and disappointment visible on Michelle Obama's face are not new to the candidate's wife; as Steve Sailer, Rod Dreher and other commentators have noted, they were the theme of her undergraduate thesis, on the subject of "blackness" at Princeton University. No matter what the good intentions of Princeton, which founded her fortunes as a well-paid corporate lawyer, she wrote, "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."

Never underestimate the influence of a wife who bitch-slaps her husband in public. Early in Obama's campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator. "I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There's Barack Obama the phenomenon. He's an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there's the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy's a little less impressive," she told a fundraiser in February 2007.

"For some reason this guy still can't manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesn't get stale, and his five-year-old is still better at making the bed than he is." New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported at the time, "She added that the TV version of Barack Obama sounded really interesting and that she'd like to meet him sometime." Her handlers have convinced her to be more tactful since then.

"Frustration" and "disappointment" have dogged Michelle Obama these past 20 years, despite her US$300,000 a year salary and corporate board memberships. It is hard for the descendants of slaves not to resent America. They were not voluntary immigrants but kidnap victims, subjected to a century of second-class citizenship even after the Civil War ended slavery. Blackness is not the issue; General Colin Powell, whose parents chose to immigrate to America from the West Indies, saw America just as other immigrants do, as a land of opportunity. Obama's choice of wife is a failsafe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother's milk.

Michelle Obama speaks with greater warmth of her mother-in-law than of her husband. "She was kind of a dreamer, his mother," Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. "She wanted the world to be open to her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because sometimes dreams don't pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like most of us don't in this country." How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to raise her children on the thin fair in pursuit of a political agenda.

"Naivete" is a euphemism for Ann Dunham's motivation. Friends describe her as a "fellow traveler", that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice. Ann Dunham met and married the Kenyan economics student Barack Obama, Sr, at the University of Hawaii in 1960, and in 1967 married the Indonesian student Lolo Soetero. It is unclear why Soetero's student visa was revoked in 1967 - the fact but not the cause are noted in press accounts. But it is probable that the change in government in Indonesia in 1967, in which the leftist leader Sukarno was deposed, was the motivation.

Soetero had been sponsored as a graduate student by one of the most radical of all Third World governments. Sukarno had founded the so-called Non-Aligned Movement as an anti-colonialist turn at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia. Before deposing him in 1967, Indonesia's military slaughtered 500,000 communists (or unfortunates who were mistaken for communists). When Ann Dunham chose to follow Lolo Soetero to Indonesia in 1967, she brought the six-year-old Barack into the kitchen of anti-colonialist outrage, immediate following one of the worst episodes of civil violence in post-war history.

Dunham's experience in Indonesia provided the material for a doctoral dissertation celebrating the hardiness of local cultures against the encroaching metropolis. It was entitled, "Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving against all odds". In this respect Dunham remained within the mainstream of her discipline. Anthropology broke into popular awareness with Margaret Mead's long-discredited Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which offered a falsified ideal of sexual liberation in the South Pacific as an alternative to the supposedly repressive West. Mead's work was one of the founding documents of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and anthropology faculties stood at the left-wing fringe of American universities.

In the Global South, anthropologists went into the field and took matters a step further. Peru's brutal Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerilla movement was the brainchild of the anthropologist
Efrain Morote Best, who headed the University of San Cristobal of Huamanga in Ayacucho, Peru, between 1962 and 1968. Dunham's radicalism was more vicarious; she ended her career as an employee of international organizations.

Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. In the Muslim world of the 1960s, nationalism rather than radical Islam was the ideology of choice among the enraged. Radical Islam did not emerge as a major political force until the nationalism of a Gamal Abdel Nasser or a Sukarno failed.

Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.

There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley. The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech.

America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point.

Since the Ronald Reagan boom began in 1984, the year the American stock market doubled, Americans have enjoyed a quarter-century of rising wealth. Even the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2000 did not interrupt the upward trajectory of household assets, as the housing price boom eclipsed the effect of equity market weakness. America's success made it a magnet for the world's savings, and Americans came to believe that they were riding a boom that would last forever, as I wrote recently [1].

Americans regard upward mobility as a God-given right. America had a double founding, as David Hackett Fischer showed in his 1989 study, Albion's Seed . Two kinds of immigrants founded America: religious dissidents seeking a new Promised Land, and economic opportunists looking to get rich quick. Both elements still are present, but the course of the past quarter-century has made wealth-creation the sine qua non of American life. Now for the first time in a generation Americans have become poorer, and many of them have become much poorer due to the collapse of home prices. Unlike the Reagan years, when cutting the top tax rate from a punitive 70% to a more tolerable 40% was sufficient to start an economic boom, no lever of economic policy is available to fix the problem. Americans have no choice but to work harder, retire later, save more and retrench.

This reversal has provoked a national mood of existential crisis. In Europe, economic downturns do not inspire this kind of soul-searching, for richer are poorer, remain what they always have been. But Americans are what they make of themselves, and the slim makings of 2008 shake their sense of identity. Americans have no institutionalized culture to fall back on. Their national religion has consisted of waves of enthusiasm - "Great Awakenings" – every second generation or so, followed by an interim of apathy. In times of stress they have a baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen.

Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word "hope", they instead hear, "handout". A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as "something for nothing". Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over.

The George W Bush administration has squandered a great strategic advantage in a sorry lampoon of nation-building in the Muslim world, and has made enemies out of countries that might have been friendly rivals, notably Russia. Americans question the premise of America's standing as a global superpower, and of the promise of upward mobility and wealth-creation. If elected, Barack Obama will do his utmost to destroy the dual premises of America's standing. It might take the country another generation to recover.

"Evil will oft evil mars", J R R Tolkien wrote. It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother, and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard. He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career.

The senior Obama died in a 1982 car crash. Kenyan government officials in those days normally spent their nights drinking themselves stupid at the Pan-Afrique Hotel. Two or three of them would be found with their Mercedes wrapped around a palm tree every morning. During the 1970s I came to know a number of them, mostly British-educated hollow men dying inside of their own hypocrisy and corruption.

Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A LEADER

By Frosty Wooldridge
February 28, 2008
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty341.htm

On November 4, 2008, Americans step into voting booths with two choices: Barack Obama will take us out of the Iraq War, but he will give amnesty to 20-30 million illegal aliens. In other words, he will legalize and give voting rights to an invading armada of people from a foreign country. Additionally, he will continue chain migration, 400,000 anchor babies and their mothers annually, diversity visas and double legal immigration from one to two million annually. That means America’s borders will suffer relentless immigration for another four years. Why? He already voted for exactly those items with S.B. 1639 in June of 2007.

John McCain promises to continue the Iraq War forever and he will give amnesty to 20-30 million illegal aliens. Additionally, he will continue chain migration, 400,000 anchor babies and their mothers annually, diversity visas and double legal immigration from one to two million annually. Again, that means America’s borders will be overrun for another four years. Why? He already voted for S.B. 1639 in June of 2007.

The PEW Report last week showed that immigration will grow the U.S. population by 138 million people in 40 years. Because of immigration, in forty years, 1 in 5 Americans will be foreign born. The Mexican population will triple—which means they will become the dominant ethnic group in America. Immigration displaces the American people right out of their own country.

Within 40 years, we shall have run out of our ability to provide water, energy and resources to an added 138 million people.

Bottom line: we are a country in search of a leader, but we won’t elect one that will address America’s most ominous dilemma: unrelenting, massive and unending immigration. Either man will accelerate it!

“What frustrates me more than anything is that people like you write all kinds of protests and people like me read and applaud your work...but yanno, it’s all just TALK!” said Barbara L., a frustrated reader of my columns.

When are we going to do something to stop it?

”It’s time to circle the wagons!” Barbara said. “Why isn’t anyone putting out the call to organize? There are hundreds of conservative groups out there, but they all seem independent of one another.

“When Paul Revere did his ride, people RESPONDED! It’s Revolution time! Ron Paul isn't giving up, God bless him, but how are we going to get him elected? I just hear/read a lot of rhetoric but no one seems to be doing anything!

“After a quick review or Orwell's '1984' last night... it all seems to be happening right under our noses, while we yip & yipe, but still go back to sleep! This is NOT the America of 1776! We have all become so fat, sassy & lazy, that we have no drive to survive!

”All I want to see is a PLAN. Come up with something we can DO. How do we stop this runaway train without bloodshed? I'm tired of all the whining.”

To Barbara and every frustrated American watching the disintegration of our nation, take heart! Patriots of the 21st century add their names daily to our cause.

You take action by joining these organizations below:

1. Join www.numbersusa.com with Roy Beck, Ann Manetes, Rosemary Jenks and their dedicated staff. At 550,000 members, this organization leads with millions of faxes and phone calls that have defeated the last 10 amnesty bills and more since 1999. It’s bi-partisan, informative, educational and powerful. I invite you to become the 1 millionth member, then, the 2 millionth member or 10 million member. The more that join magnifies our power in the halls of Congress. NumbersUSA became the principle player in the defeat of S.B. 1639 amnesty last June. Additionally, they defeated the Dream Act as well as the Ags Bill amnesty. Therefore, tell ten of your friends who tell ten of their friends to make Numbersusa.com the most powerful citizen advocate group on immigration. Send out Roy Beck’s “Bubble Gum Balls” 14 minute video demonstration to all your friends and their friends to educate them. The video graphically illustrates our population dilemma if we allow ourselves to add 100 million people via immigration.

2. Join www.fairus.org with Dan Stein for much of the same action.

3. Join www.webscap.org with Dr. Diana Hull for powerful action, faxes, directions and ‘how to’ phone calls.

4. Join www.firecoalition.com with Jason Mrochek for powerful action against employers of illegals, community action and more. www.wehirealiens.com helps you report illegals working.

5. Join www.alipac.us with William Gheen for powerful action on several fronts on illegal immigration. www.patriotunion.org with Xelan Bonn will bring you added impact and information. www.grassfire.org with Steve Elliot
6. Join www.carryingcapacity.org and www.balance.org with David Durham to show you what we face as to sheer population dilemmas.

How do we move toward THE plan?

1. We must stop massive, relentless and unending legal and illegal immigration into the United States before it turns us into an overpopulated quagmire.

2. We must push top TV media to interview national leaders like Governor Richard D. Lamm, Tom Tancredo, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Roy Beck, Terry Anderson, William Gheen, Jason Mrochek, David Durham, Dr. Diana Hull, Rosemary Jenks, Fred Elbel, Mike McGarry, Russell Pearce, Don Collins, David Pimental and others to speak on what we face.

3. We must create ‘critical mass’ of millions of active Americans involved at the local level in such numbers that we overcome the corporate elites plan to flood this country with unending immigration.

4. Call the candidates:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com
Ph. 703 469 2008

http://www.johnmccain.com
Ph. 703 418 2008

http://www.barackobama.com
Ph. 866 675 2008

Next column: U.S. National Vision and Strategic Plan

Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Tuesdays and Thursdays as he interviews top national leaders on his radio show “Connecting the Dots” at republicbroadcasting.org at 6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your time zone. He interviews Minutemen activist Jim Shaffer out of Denver, CO tonight, Thursday, February 28, 2008.

© 2008 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty341.htm

OBAMA AND HILLARY EXPOSED!

.....Bill & Hillary Clinton: Their Secret Life....

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

Washington, DC –Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll. While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training. Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful. Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID): In one of the most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom during the summer. Senator Craig reportedly “sent signals” to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed 'No!'” When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?” The power play didn’t work. Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea. Despite enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA): As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty. Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing.

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby: Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. Libby was found guilty of four felonies -- two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice – all serious crimes. Unfortunately, Libby was largely let off the hook. In an appalling lack of judgment, President Bush issued “Executive Clemency” to Libby and commuted the sentence.

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi's earmark. Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon. And under Pelosi’s leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which protects members in both parties from accountability.

10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different. According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.” Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office. For more information, visit www.judicialwatch.org.

Obama Supports Homegrown Terrorism Bill
December 10, 2007 | Posted in IndyBlog | Email this article

By Jessica Lee, The Indypendent

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama says that he will support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959). According to the automatic email responses constituents are receiving from his office, Obama appears to be straddling the fence between preserving civil liberties and being tough on terrorism.

“The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe. They also insist that our responses to threats respect the constitution and do not violate the basic tenets of our democracy,” Obama’s email said. Several people who have written to Obama have posted his response on various blogs, including “Justin” who’s personal blog was picked up on diggs.com.

“I wrote Senator Obama (my senator from Illinois) about this act, which is now in a committee of his

(the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs).

I asked that he read the bill (not to insult his intelligence, but after the Patriot Act it appears this is a necessary request for most senators), and that he recognize the dire consequences that could result from its vague language,” Justin wrote Dec. 6 below the post of Obama’s email. “He’s quite eloquent, you’ve got to give him that. This act ‘includes provisions prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts from violating civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. citizens.’ Didn’t we used to have something like that? What was it called? Oh right… The Constitution.”

The House version of the bill, H.R. 1955, passed Oct. 23 by a vote of 404-6 under the “suspension of the rules,” a provision that is available to quickly pass bills considered “non-controversial.”

Obama is on the 17-member Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where S. 1959 was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) Aug. 2. “I will keep your important comments in mind as I work with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. I will work to ensure that this legislation helps to achieve our domestic security objectives while protecting civil liberties and constitutional rights,” Obama stated in his email to Justin.

Many scholars, historians and civil liberties experts say they fear that the proposed bill will set the stage for future criminal legislation that be used against U.S.-

based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations.

“This bill fits the pattern we are seeing coming out of Congress – both Republican and Democratic –

of a continued campaign of fear, which gets into heads of Americans that we now need to start criminalizing ideology,” said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. He said he is very concerned about the bill’s vague definitions of “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and the terms within the definitions including “extremist belief system,” “violence” and “force.”

“What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this?” Queral questioned. “Planes flying into the World Trade Center is an extremist belief, but are anti-abortion activists extremists? Are individuals who liberate mink extremists? These are broad definitions that encompass so much, which need to rather be very narrowly tailored. It is criminalizing thought and ideology, rather than criminal activity.”

Jules Boykoff, an assistant professor of politics and government at Pacific University and author of Beyond Bullets: The Suppression of Dissent in the United States, told The Indypendent said he is concerned about how the government is broadening the definition of terrorism.

“Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act is a law that created a new brand of terrorists, the ‘domestic terrorist.’ Under this definition, the civil rights work Martin Luther King, Jr. did could have been construed as an act of ‘domestic terrorism,” Boykoff said.

In a Nov. 30 Common Dreams article, ‘Homegrown’ Suppression of Dissent,’ Boykoff provided a historical-based critique of who could be included under the umbrella definition of terrorism. “Even a cursory look backward through U.S. history reveals heroic figures who could be dubbed ‘violent radicals’ or ‘homegrown terrorists’ under the proposed bill, from U.S. revolutionaries like Sam Adams to gun-toting slavery abolitionists like John Brown to militant civil-rights organizers like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.”

Kamau Franklin, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), also expressed concern that H.R. 1955/S. 1959 will foster a legislative momentum on criminalizing a broad range of dissident voices. “The Commission’s broad mandate can lead to the ability to turn civil disobedience, a form of protest that is centuries old, into a terrorist act,” he said. “My biggest fear is that they [the commission] will call for some new criminal penalties and federal crimes,” says Franklin. “Activists are nervous about how the broad definitions could be used for criminalizing civil disobedience and squashing the momentum of the left.”

“It’s possible that someone who would have been charged with disorderly conduct or obstruction of governmental administration may soon be charged with a federal terrorist statute,” Franklin said.

Many activists and civil liberties advocates have expressed concern across the nation on blogs and radio shows about how the bill’s use of vaguely defined terms can be seen within a historical pattern of sweeping government repression of dissenting voices throughout the history of the United States where citizens have been targeted for their political beliefs. Two generations of Americans experienced first hand the two “Red Scares”

(1917-1920 and 1940-50s)

and the FBI’s secret Counter Intelligence Program, nicknamed COINTELPRO, which enabled the FBI to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” domestic protest groups for “subversive activities” and “potential crimes.”

To many, the similarities between COINTELPRO and the bill are unsettling. The proposed legislation calls for the National Commission to “examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence in the United States” in order to develop policy for “prevention, disruption and mitigation.” This investigation is needed, according to stated Congressional findings, due to possible threats to national security.

The secret program continued until it was discovered COINTELPRO was investigated by a U.S. Senate select committee on intelligence activities (commonly known as the Church Committee)

which convened in 1975. The Church Committee found that from 1956 to 1971, “the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.”

In the last 30 years, significant evidence has surfaced about how the FBI and local law enforcement disrupted non-violent social and political movements, even “neutralizing” individuals through target assassinations. The secret program was vast, with agents monitoring and agitating people involved in the “New Left,” including anti-Vietnam War efforts, the civil rights movement, the Black Panthers, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the American Indian Movement, Puerto Rican independence groups, popular musicians and counter-cultural and revolutionary independent newspapers.

OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE VIEWS ON THE BILL

Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said that he believes the proposed bill is unconstitutional.

Speaking to a crowd of supporters in New York City Nov. 29, Kucinich took several questions from the audience, including my question asking why he voted against the bill. Kucinich was one of only six representatives to oppose the bill on Oct. 23.

“If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Kucinich said. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.”

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was one of the 22 House members not present for the vote.

A small demonstration against S. 1959 took place outside Senator Hillary Clinton’s office in New York City Dec. 10. Her office did not return an Indypendent’s call for comment.

–

Read Jessica Lee’s Nov. 16 article on HR 1955:

“Bringing the War on Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How to ‘Disrupt’ Radical Movements in the United States.”

Blog Update Dec. 2 — Kucinich Opposes H.R. 1955

Blog Update Nov. 27 — Opposition to the Bill and how the Legislation would Target the Internet

Read the proposed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act:

H.R. 1955
S. 1959
http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/10/obama-supports-homegrown-terrorism-bill/

Barack Obama: The Most Dangerous Man in America
by Doug Patton (more by this author)

Posted 10/23/2006 ET
Updated 10/23/2006 ET

If I were a liberal Democrat tasked with finding the ideal candidate to take back the White House in two years, I would try to find an extremely intelligent, well-educated individual with a fresh face, an articulate voice, a charming manner and no political baggage.

This person would be male and a member of a minority group. He would not yet be a household name, but would be in a position to become one. He would be in his forties, not unlike John F. Kennedy in 1960 or Bill Clinton in 1992. He would come across as the only candidate talking about new approaches to old problems. He would have the ability to get lots of press without appearing to crave the spotlight.

Most important to the liberal extremists who run the Democratic Party, this man’s moderate demeanor would successfully belie his leftist political ideology.

In short, this dream candidate would be exactly like Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.).

Barack Obama is a savvy, charismatic, articulate liberal who could very well be the Democratic Party’s best hope for recapturing the White House. His background is intriguingly diverse. Born in Hawaii in 1961 to a black father and a white mother, his early education took place in the most densely populated Islamic country in the world, Indonesia. He holds an undergraduate degree from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard, where he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

His impressive performance as a speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention made the party’s presidential nominee, John Kerry, seem dull by contrast.

In case you missed Obama’s flawless performance on “Meet the Press” (his performances are almost always flawless), his appearance will no doubt be lauded as “refreshingly frank,” and as “not politics as usual.” Asked by NBC’s Tim Russert to define what makes a great president, Obama said that a great president causes the people to think differently about their country. He then used two Republicans and a Democrat as his examples: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

Barack Obama is the anti-Hillary Hillary. His positions on the issues of the day are every bit as radical and leftist as hers. The difference lies in his ability to sell it. In an age when political baggage can kill a candidate’s chances of success on the national stage, Hillary Clinton is dragging around overloaded steamer trunks filled with negative poll numbers. Obama is encumbered by no such weight. Should he decide to seek the presidency in 2008, he will have served as a U.S. senator for a mere four years, preceded by two terms as an Illinois state senator. Yet he comes across as wiser than his experience would suggest. He answers coyly to Russert’s question, “Are you ready to be president?”

“I don’t think anyone is ready to be president until he becomes president,” Obama replied.

Clearly, Obama is beginning to think he is ready. But let’s take a look at just where he stands on a few of the key issues.

Abortion: Barack Obama is a radical, pro-abortion liberal. He believes that American women should have an unfettered right to destroy the babies in their wombs at any stage and for any reason.

Gun control: Again, Obama is among the more extreme members of the U.S. Senate. In the last year, he has voted against shielding firearms manufacturers from lawsuits due to gun violence and in favor of legislation that would ban the sale or transfer of any and all semi-automatic firearms.

Health care: Obama has said he believes that health care is a basic human right. (Funny, I must have missed that one in the Bill of Rights.)

Immigration: As an Illinois state senator in 1998, Obama voted to give welfare and Medicaid to immigrants.

Judges: Obama voted against the nominations of both John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, and participated in the filibuster of Alito.

National security: The junior senator from Illinois voted against reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act.

Obama is smart enough to dance around these votes should he decide to run for president, cloaking his liberal positions in reasonable sounding rhetoric about a new generation with new ideas, etc., but he is also liberal enough to be the most dangerous man in America if he is elected.

Mr. Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy adviser. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including The Conservative Voice and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=17666

Subject: 38 Senators Vote Against English
38 SENATORS VOTED TODAY (Oct. 27, 2006) AGAINST MAKING ENGLISH THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF
AMERICA.

HERE THEY ARE.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menedez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
REMEMBER THIS THE DAY YOU VOTE.

In a message dated 5/24/2006 11:34:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time, hawk@perdidokey.com writes:

Subject: SEND THIS TO EVERY ONE YOU KNOW

THESE ARE THE SENATORS WHO VOTED TO GIVE ILLEGAL ALIENS SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY, THESE POLITICIANS NEED TO BE DEFEATED IN 2006, 2008 OR 2010 WHENEVER THEY COME UP FOR OFFICE. (McCain, Clinton & Obama voted "Yea")! SEND THIS TO ANYONE YOU KNOW IN ANY OF THE STATES LISTED. THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES NEED TO KNOW THIS INFORMATION. THAT IS UNLESS THEY DO NOT MIND SHARING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY WITH FOREIGN WORKERS WHEN AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE BEING LEFT OUT.

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:

Alaska:
Stevens (R-AK), Yea

Arizona:
McCain (R-AZ), Yea

Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea

California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Colorado:
Salazar (D-CO), Yea

Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea

Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea

Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea

Georgia:

Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea

Idaho:

Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea

Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea

Iowa:
Harkin (D-IA), Yea

Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea

Kentucky:

Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea

Maine:

Alabama:
Alaska:		Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona:		McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas:	Lincoln (D-AR), Yea	Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California:	Boxer (D-CA), Yea	Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:		Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:	Dodd (D-CT), Yea	Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware:	Biden (D-DE), Yea	Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida:	Martinez (R-FL), Yea
Georgia:
Hawaii:	Akaka (D-HI), Yea	Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:
Illinois:	Durbin (D-IL), Yea	Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana:	Bayh (D-IN), Yea	Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa:		Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:	Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky:
Louisiana:	Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Maine:

Barack Obama, our next president, "Yes We Can!" Change has come to America

.....Bill & Hillary Clinton: Their Secret Life....

Obama Supports Homegrown Terrorism Bill