Obama: Surrounded by Terrorists, Corruption

The steps bloggers and other onliners must take for McCain-Palin to win in November . . . Note, if you'd like to read my pieces on Hillary Clinton as a classic "Abused Woman," please go to http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/.

For the most part, I couldn't agree more with Paul Z. -- bloggers need to be coordinated rather than consolidated. I would add that we also need to be more focused, not trying for revelations on 100 different issues. Obama's murky position on Jerusalem is one of those that will take 10,000 hours to decipher and get us 100 votes.

In a sense, we need to be brtual with OURSELVES, determining if our "pet" issue is really one that matters outside ur household. We have to know exactly what we're doing and be able to determine if it's going to win us votes. With me, it has been the Rev. Wright issue. Wright is an America-hater, a hater of White People, and a malicious liar. Obama spent 20 years in his Church, pressumably hooting and hollering along with the rest of the congregation.

Frankly, we can't assume that something that may be important to some pro-Isreael voters (Israel-hater Rashid Khalidi, for example) is significant to anyone else. I fear the same is true with Raila Odinga -- almost no one knows who he is. If he lived in Chicago, we'd be fine. When we have to tell people that they "should be interested in this or that," we've lost the battle.

The fact that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (and Biden was the third-most liberal) is clear and easy for people to understand. They are both socialists whose political philosophies are basically to buy votes with other people's money.

i suggest we also, focus on Obama's connections with unsavory characters, primarily Ayers and Wright. I do believe it's also an issue that Obama and his main allies in Congress have been recipients of huge donations from most of the housing and financial services companies connected with the financial crisis.

But again, Obama's "birth certificate" is not going to decide votes, even if it should. Obama's huge donations from Tony Rezko are important as part of his connection with unsavory characters throughout his political lifetime.

Obama's long connections with voter fraud -- ACORN -- could become a major issue. Sean Hannity has a program on it tonight (Sunday) on FOX News. It's already viral on the Internet.
Voter fraud is important because it's a way of stealing the value of honest people's votes.

As bloggers, we have to stop trying for exotic "home runs." We need to focus on a few issues that can determine the election. Obama/Axelrod would dearly love to send us on wild goose chases. We must resist the temptation.

Willie Horton, ONE issue, destroyed the Dukakis candidacy. The Swift Boat allegations, really one issue, destroyed Kerry. I'm sure there were hundreds of other "issues" in those campaigns. None of them amounted to a hill of beans. On the image above: I'd leave out Khalidi and Mansour, except in passing. Ayers and Wright should be the focus.

Pennsylvania: Ominous Signs for Obama

Hillary Clinton giving advice to her door-to-door campaign workers in Philadelphia, April 19: "Well, I think, just knock on the door and say 'She's really nice,' or you could say it another way, 'She's not as bad as you think.'"

"Seventeen percent of Pennsylvania voters said they will either not vote if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination or will vote for Mr. McCain; 25% said they will do likewise if Mr. Obama wins the nomination." (The Economist, April 26 - May 2, 2008)

If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, he absolutely must prevail in Pennsylvania -- the nation's sixth largest state -- if he hopes to win the election. But the exit polls in the recent primary show that the Illinois Senator is unlikely to win the Keystone State.

Consider the views of Catholic voters -- about one-third of registered Democrats -- in Pennsylvania. Of the ones who voted in the primary, six-out-of-10 say they'd vote for Obama in the general election. However, more than two-out-of-10 (21%) say they'll vote for John McCain.

Among white voters, almost one-in-six (16%) said that race had an influence on their vote. And of those, nearly one-in-twelve (8%-plus) said they would not vote for Obama in November. When Gov. Ed Rendell make a similar observation months ago, he was condemned as uttering racially insensitive comments. Insensitive? Perhaps. Correct? Absolutely.

In the Pennsylvania exit polls, many Democrats made reference to Obama's "bitter" comments (about people clinging to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia). Some of those voters joked that they were much too "bitter" ever to vote for Obama. Others, according to The Economist, accused Obama of "clinging" to a religious figure (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) notable for hating America and white people.

Especially in Rust Belt States (including Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan), Obama has a real problem attracting white voters. According to the Senator's campaign managers, that's because the the voters don't "know" him. But whose fault is that?

Many Caucasians are evaluating Obama on the principle that you know a man by the company he keeps. As long as that company includes Rev. Wright, terrorist William Ayers, and influence-buyer Tony Rezko, the electorate doesn't like what it sees.

Chicago Corruption & Pennsylvania Corruption

This weekend, Saturday and Sunday, I'll be writing about the supposed need of John McCain to "shore up the conservative base." Frankly, any conservative who isn't yet backing McCain against far-left opponents (Obama and Clinton) probably needs resuscitation more than "shoring up." If McCain is to win in November, he needs -- as even Rush Limbaugh understands -- to remain . . . John McCain, an independent-mind Republican who's "nobody's boy." Currently, there are a lot more moderate Independents and moderate Democrats than there are conservatives "trying to make up their minds." John McCain, please be yourself. In a recent Pew Research Poll, 25% of the Democrats supporting Hillary Clinton said they would consider voting for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination.


Picture of Barack Obama, Tony Rezko (now being tried for political corruption and bribery), and the mock Georgian Mansion that Rezko helped his political protege Obama purchase.

I hope you'll take a look at the previous column (scroll down) regarding my home state, Pennsylvania, and its role in determining who will be the next President of the United States. I will do a lot more on Pennsylvania as we move toward the state's primary on April 22, a contest that Hillary Rodham Clinton should win handily.

I wrote about Pennsylvania's governor, one Edward Rendell, a politician so devious and corrupt that he would be right at home in Barack Obama's Chicago. Every day I learn more about Windy City politics by reading the superb Chicago Tribune reporter John Kass, who may be the world's leading expert on corruption in his city.

Two pieces by Kass that I highly recommend are his Sunday column (March 2) entitled "GOP is Caught Looking as the Rezko Trial Begins," which you can find at: http://chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-rezko-trial-blago-column,1,6062021.column. Kass points out how Republicans in Illlinois have learned well from their Democratic counterparts when it comes to corruption.

Also take a look at Kass's column today (March 6) about what he calls "The Chicago Way," which refers to the city's politicians perpetually having their hands out for bribes. Regarding Senator Obama, who probably should have kept his hands in his pockets when it came to political fixer Tony Rezko, Kass says:

"Naturally, there are some squares who don't think taxpayers should pave the Chicago Way to make it easy for Rezko to help purchase the senator's dream house in a kinky deal exposed by the Tribune and still not fully explained."

"'It's really the Old Chicago Way,'" said Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association. 'In the old days they would pretty much admit it up front, and now they deny it. It's essentially about power, access to government jobs, government contracts and taking care of your own.'"

You can see the entire article at: http://chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-john-kass-mar06,1,4070424.column.

In my previous column, I mentioned that Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania also has a corruption problem. In The Almanac of American Politics, Michael Barone notes (p. 1378) that, in 2006, "Rendell spent $740,000 (out of a total campaign expenditure of $42 million) on Election Day activities, including $450,000 cash to be handed out in [Philadelphia's] 66 wards."

I'm sure you're shocked (or not?). In other words, Rendell basically handed out bribe money to make sure he won my huge majorities in Philadelphia. But isn't that illegal? Apparently, it's not in Pennsylvania (or, for that matter, Illinois). I'm not certain how much money Rendell passed to political fixers in Pittsburgh, but I'm sure it was a tidy sum.

Rendell is a former Mayor of Philadelphia, and in his first campaign he ran as the architect of something called "The Philadelphia Miracle." In fact, Philadelphia is a "leader" among American cities in homicides and overall crime per capita, as well as in unemployment and overall misery. Its educational system is among the worst in the nation.

Apparently, the Philadelphia Miracle is the fact that the city, under Rendell's leadership, didn't fall into the Atlantic Ocean.

In many ways, Chicagoan Barack Obama should feel right at home here in the Keystone State. However, Rendell favors Hillary Clinton, and what Rendell wants he generally gets. When it comes to generating political results, Gov. Rendell pays top dollar.

Much more about PA to follow . . .

Whither Goest Hillary Rodham Clinton?

8 p.m.: CBS News tonight mentioned that the early exit polls (ones from this a.m.?) indicated that, in Texas, the Hispanic vote (mainly going to Hillary Clinton) was way up over 2004, while the Black vote (mainly going to Obama) was DOWN. Caution: Exit polls taken during the day (remember 2004 when the exit polls suggested a President John Kerry?) are sometimes misleading. For example, Democrats (and liberal) tend to vote early, while Republicans (hey, somebody has to be at work!) tend to vote later. But if the CBS results hold throughout the day, Barack Obama is not going to win the majority of the Democratic primary vote in Texas. CNN is announcing that the vote in Texas is "competitive." Trust me, Hillary Clinton will win a majority of the vote in Ohio. She will also win a majority in Rhode Island.

Above: Obama's soaring rhetoric puts pastor (in Red State garb?) sound asleep.

Even though I expect Hillary Clinton to do well in today's voting in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont, it's nearly impossible for her to do well enough to reduce substantially Obama's 150-vote lead in "pledged" delegates. So, as far as "whither," her campaign -- an ill-conceived one -- may go, it will continue to "wither."

The wild card is this: She may have some damaging information on Barack Obama, perhaps regarding his relationship with Chicago political "fixer" and fundraiser Tony Rezko. The big question is: will she release the material to the media? Her problem is that some Democratic voters regard any criticism of Obama as somehow "unfair."

Today, it looks as if Mrs. Clinton will have a big win in Ohio and a narrow win in Texas, as well as a solid win in Rhode Island. When it comes to "The People's Republic of Vermont," who knows?

Mrs. Clinton has an extremely narrow window leading to the nomination, and if she doesn't have substantial wins in both Ohio and Texas, that window will slam shut. People in the main-stream-media (MSM) still have a hard time grasping that fact, because they're the ones who long ago proclaimed Hillary The Inevitable Winner. So much for inevitability.

Obama would be the most under-qualified presidential candidate since Ohio's Warren Gamaliel Harding, also a silver-tongued orator but an exemplar of cluelessness when it came to being President. He was, however, wise enough to die during his first (and last) term, thereby enabling a better man to become President: "Silent" Calvin Coolidge of Vermont.

If Mrs. Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas tonight, it probably won't help her much in the delegate count. Obama should remain approximately 135-140 votes ahead in pledged delegates. However, if Mrs. Clinton wins three-of-the-four states that vote today, it's unlikely she will withdraw from the race (or "suspend" her campaign). Like Mike Huckabee in the Republican race, she will be hoping for a miracle.

The Pennsylvania Primary is on April 22. If the race between Obama and Clinton continues into the Keystone State, there will be a lot of breathless coverage by the MSM. However, in Pennsylvania the Democratic vote will likely mirror the contest in Ohio. In other words, one of the candidates may pick up 4-5 "extra" delegates. For Mrs. Clinton, that would not be enough. To win the nomination, she's have to win PA by something like 90% to 10%, and that's just not going to happen.

Look for Hillary Clinton to make a fierce effort to gain an advantage in the "Super Delegates." But it's probable such delegates will vote their own self-interest, which increasingly appears to mean a majority will cast their votes for Barack Obama. It's hard to see Mrs. Clinton winning the Democratic nomination.

Will she get the V-P nod? Not unless Barack Obama has lost his mind. As the V-P choice, she would end up costing him more votes than she would attract.

____________________________

Why America Would be Headed for Disaster Without John McCain

By Yomin Postelnik

Canada Free Press

Sunday, March 2, 2008

For the past 25 years one voice has fought tirelessly to reduce congressional spending, often fighting members of his own party to do so. This is no small feat. Opposing the spending projects of your fellow members does not generally win you any friends.
It touches on the issues most important to them and their individual records, bringing money to their district or their state. Only someone who can put the good of the nation as a whole ahead of the interests of his friends and colleagues, colleagues he needs in order to pass any legislation that he or she wishes to enact, will care to enter this fight. Few will win and even those who do win a few rounds will be easily tempted to back down in the long run. Yet in spite of the consequences, John McCain has fought spending with a remarkable consistency.
The issue is of primary importance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if we do not curb the level of spending immediately, the only alternatives in 20 years will be to either double taxation while slashing spending by at least a half (and those projections assume a sustained level of economic growth) or to watch our dollar become worthless abroad and soon after at home, as few will want to save, trade and invest in a currency considered to be of little value worldwide. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office is equally open about the fact that no member of Congress will do anything about this matter until people realize the necessity to act. Few politicians want to embrace unpopular positions like huge rollbacks and caps on spending. That’s the difference between them and leaders. Leaders work for five, ten, twenty years to alert the public to important realities and awaken their hearts and minds to problems and propose solutions that have little support before the public realizes their need. When it comes to the all important issue of wasteful spending, an issue that can mean the difference between continued growth and expansion or economic collapse, John McCain is such a leader. Remarkably, his battles against pork and pork’s favorite barbeque chefs on both sides of the congressional aisle, haven’t tarnished his ability to work with members of congress. Though a lesser man would have alienated himself from members of both sides with his steadfast campaign against their habits, John McCain’s sincere devotion to this cause, his steadfastness and his reasoned approach to all other issues have earned him a level of respect and cooperation from members of both parties than most senators can ever hope to achieve. The fight against spending is simply another battle the scars of which John McCain wears well. Even more than the need to cut spending is how we go about doing so. John McCain deserves much praise for the way he’s gone about this as well. McCain recognizes the need to invest in education, that every dollar spent on it is of immeasurable benefit to society. From a purely economic standpoint, in the long run funding education saves much more on fighting crime and a whole host of societal problems that correlate with low education. Educational funding also gives our nation’s children the ability to harness opportunity and develop new products and services that will both better society and keep us economically strong. John McCain favors a reasoned approach to spending. While he wholeheartedly supports funding education, the military and our intelligence community that are absolutely crucial to our safety in dangerous times, with equal passion he opposes wasteful spending and unnecessary projects that favor a particular region or special interest. It is these projects that have the potential to cripple the economy and eventually lead to funds being drying up, even for needed projects. To protect our education, economy, safety and security, we need to act now. The national debt is out of hand and we cannot continue to borrow money forever. We are closer than almost anyone realizes to losing our current credit rating and to having our debt turn to junk bond status. The United States has maintained a triple A bond score since 1917, but this year Moody’s attached an asterisk to the rating, a note of caution. The Congressional Budget Office worries about a real decline in rating. This is all thanks to the reckless spending of both parties. There’s one candidate who’s willing to do something about it. His name is John McCain and he’s been fighting ruinous pork barrel spending for over 25 years. This is one of the reasons I suggest that entrepreneurs and all who care for the nation’s economy support John McCain for President. He understands the need to invest in education, defense and technology and brings concrete solutions to the table as opposed to empty platitudes. But most of all, his career-long battle against reckless spending shows him for the man of integrity, sound judgment and leadership that he is.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2106

Barack Obama's Unsavory Financial Dealings

TOMORROW: I'LL HAVE A COLUMN CALLED "WHITHER GOEST HILLARY CLINTON?", a discussion of the diminishing number of options available to her. As far as "whither," her campaign, an ill-conceived one, is slowly "withering." However, I believe she has some very damaging information Obama, and the question is: will she release it? I expect she will have a big win in Ohio and a narrow win in Texas, as well as a solid win in Rhode Island. As far as "The People's Republic of Vermont," who knows? (I used to live in Vermont.) Mrs. Clinton has a very narrow window leading to the nomination, and if she doesn't win both Ohio and Texas that window will slam shut. People in the MSM still have a hard time grasping that fact, because they are the ones who long ago proclaimed Hillary The Inevitable Winner. So much for inevitability. Obama would be the most under-qualified presidential candidate since Ohio's Warren Gamaliel Harding, also a silver-tongued orator but an exemplar of cluelessness when it came to being President. He was, however, wise enough to die during his first (and last) term, thereby enabling a better man to become President: "Silent" Calvin Coolidge of Vermont. On the strange picture below, is it just me, or is Obama appearing increasingly anorexic? If he drops below 100 pounds, that could hurt his chances.

Tim Russert, Keith Olberman, Wolf Blitzer, and Chris Matthews award Barack Obama 2008 Heisman Trophy! Michelle Obama is early favorite in Las Vegas odds for Mrs. America! This site provides some of the best humorous pictures of the wildly overrated Senator Obama. If you have any good photos, please send them along to me at: TalkTop65@aol.com.


Today, Chicago political "fixer" Tony Rezko, Obama's friend since 1990, goes on trial in Chicago for federal corruption charges. You probably haven't heard much about Mr. Rezko, a major contributor to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate. In a recent debate, Mrs. Clinton correctly mentioned Rezko as a Chicago "slumlord" and a buddy of Obama. That was the first time most Americans had heard of the man, who's been a constant political presence during the Illinois Senator's career.


How corrupt are Illinois politics? In fact, three of the previous seven governors have spent time in federal prison. The current governor looks as if he's trying hard to make it four-out-of-eight.


MSNBC had a story this morning (Monday) about Rezko's trial. Of course, the network had a banner indicating that Senator Obama of course had nothing to do with the bribery and sweetheart deals engaged in by Rezko. However, aside from the the two Chicago dailies and a Boston weekly paper, the media generally have avoided any careful examination of the relationship between Rezko and Senator Obama.


Recently, Cincinnati talk-show host Willie Cunningham called Obama "a Chicago political hack." John McCain repudiated Cunningham's remarks, but they don't appear to be far from the truth. In his Senate campaign, Obama raised an amazing amount: $14.5 million.


Much of that money came from unsavory characters, including the relentlessly anti-American Soros family, billionaires who "earned" their money through financial speculation. (See information about Obama's fundraising at http://opensecrets.org/. At opensecrets.org you can also find records of the millions the Soros family has poured into the campaigns of left-wing Democrats over the past decade-and-a-half.)


Here's the link to the Soros families' massive contributions: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=CB5VB&txtName=Soros&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N


Of course, Obama's national finance director in his presidential effort is one Penny Pritzker, a member of a fabulously wealthy Chicago family. As a board member of a major Chicago financial institution (Superior Bank), Ms. Pritzer played a significant role in the subprime mortgage crisis. Check the following link re Ms. Pritzker: http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/oldmole/2008/02/12/obama-campaign-finance-chair-involved-in-superior-bank-sampl-scandal


If you want to read more about Obama's interesting financial dealings, please go "Samantha's" site at: http://democratsforsale.blogspot.com/.


Obama has received heavy contributions from organized labor, which is the biggest donor in American politics. What do the Senator's union buddies receive for their money? If you go to the section on Obama in Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics, you'll find that Obama's AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) rating for 2005-2007 is 100%. That means he never deviates from the public employees' stance on issues.


Of course, one of Obama's main tactics in soliciting votes is to suggest that he will "reach across the aisle" to work with Republicans. However, his record demonstrates no such tendency. He is the farthest left-wing member of the U.S. Senate in a country that's relentlessly moderate in its views.


Of course, Obama claims Tony Rezko didn't get anything for his contributions and a sweetheart land deal. Yeah, sure, right. The place to look in Obama's record is the 130 times he voted "present" in the Illinois State Senate, something that's never been clarified. The question is: how many of those votes benefited Tony Rezko?