FREE US' Blog
•
All
HOW OBAMA WINS ELECTIONS
"Obama's Democratic rival for the Illinois US Senate Marson Blair Hull was heavily favored to defeat Obama in that primary. But Hull's campaign was torpedoed by a barrage of well timed media charges that he had abused his former wife. Hull was therefore obliged to drop out of the race. Thus Obama won the nomination."
"After Hull had been eliminated, Obama still had to face his Republican opponent Jack Ryan. Ryan had divorced his wife Jeri (Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9) in 1999, and the case was sealed at their mutual request. Suddenly the Chicago Tribune and WLS television began undertaking mighty exertions to get these divorce records made public, even though they involved a dispute about child custody. On June 22, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Robert Schneider released the court documents in question. They revealed an accusation by Jeri Ryan against her husband, now Obama's political competitor, to the effect that Jack Ryan had induced her to frequent sex clubs in a number of locations, and had attempted to coerce her into sexual intercourse in the presence of third parties. Judge Schnider's decision was all the more extraordinary because it was made in the face of the direct opposition by both parties to the divorce, and bore on a Family Court matter that is normally kept vigorously secret. It was as if some totalitarian invisible hand were intervening in favor of the beleaguered Obama candidacy. At this point Jack Ryan was compelled to abandon his candidacy at the urging of Dennis Hastert, then Speaker of the House."3.
And thus Barack Obama won his current US Senate seat.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/20638
Pls check out the Poll Related to this Blog
http://www.sodahead.com/poll/87125/
"After Hull had been eliminated, Obama still had to face his Republican opponent Jack Ryan. Ryan had divorced his wife Jeri (Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9) in 1999, and the case was sealed at their mutual request. Suddenly the Chicago Tribune and WLS television began undertaking mighty exertions to get these divorce records made public, even though they involved a dispute about child custody. On June 22, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Robert Schneider released the court documents in question. They revealed an accusation by Jeri Ryan against her husband, now Obama's political competitor, to the effect that Jack Ryan had induced her to frequent sex clubs in a number of locations, and had attempted to coerce her into sexual intercourse in the presence of third parties. Judge Schnider's decision was all the more extraordinary because it was made in the face of the direct opposition by both parties to the divorce, and bore on a Family Court matter that is normally kept vigorously secret. It was as if some totalitarian invisible hand were intervening in favor of the beleaguered Obama candidacy. At this point Jack Ryan was compelled to abandon his candidacy at the urging of Dennis Hastert, then Speaker of the House."3.
And thus Barack Obama won his current US Senate seat.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/20638
Pls check out the Poll Related to this Blog
http://www.sodahead.com/poll/87125/
Obama Backers Vote Rigging...Threaten Clintons
Unimpeachable sources very close to the Clintons have reported that the morning after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, calls were made by individuals, recognized as high-ranking members of the U.S. political elite, informing the Clintons that, "while this was not necessarily [their] position," they wanted it passed along that under no circumstances would Hillary Clinton be permitted to take the Democratic nomination, and that, if by some miscalculation, she did take the nomination, she would never be permitted to take the Presidency. Apparently, the messages concluded that, if, by some unanticipated occurrence, she were to actually go ahead and win the Presidency, it would be the shortest-lived Presidency in the history of the United States. The message was explicit...
The point seemed to be underlined in a none-too-subtle cartoon in the May 9 online edition of the London Times. It shows Hillary Clinton laying face down, arms spread, eyes bulging. The American flag is the backdrop, but one of the stars has fallen, its point lodged deep in her back...
May 9, 2008 (LPAC)--"There is a new Middle East crisis being orchestrated," Lyndon LaRouche stated today, "which is using this very peculiar kind of action going on in Lebanon right now. The obvious implication is the targetting of Iran as well. It's a London-steered threat of a new general war in South West Asia, and whatever the hell that means."
"The U.S. operations against Hillary Clinton," LaRouche added, "and the London side of the operation against Hillary, and the threat of a new Middle East war, are all one and the same thing, and they are immediately triggered by what was done, a massive fraud which was orchestrated in the recent primary election in North Carolina and Indiana. It was massive. Because the voters to back up those vote numbers don't exist.
"This is strategic. That election operation was run to set something up. That set-up includes not only the escalated campaign against Clinton, steered from London as well as the U.S., and steered from high-level financial political circles, but also is stirring up, almost unexpectedly, a crisis in Lebanon which actually involves everything, and leads directly to the prospect of an Anglo-American attack on Iran."
"The plan is to get international fascism, fast. This is a fascist operation, and it involves an attempted coup d'etat against the Constitution of the United States--very much like what was planned by the British interests in trying to prevent Franklin Roosevelt from being nominated and elected. It's the same kind of operation. It's a British operation, aimed at destroying the United States as a Constitutional form of government, run by the Anglo-Dutch liberal financial faction, very much the same kind of people who put Hitler into power, and Mussolini into power earlier in Europe. It's the same crowd; they're at it again, and the U.S. is the target. And there are many Americans who are complicit in this criminal activity, including some very well known ones."
"The same kind of thing was done against Roosevelt. And the problem are the London forces and traitorous pigs in the United States who see Hillary as a potential replication of FDR, and therefore they want to kill her.
"This is World War III, buddy," LaRouche emphasized. "That's what they are headed for right now. The intensity of the financial crisis is what's driving them. That's their timetable, which is based on the fact that they know they've run out of time. They are going to go in for the kill right now."
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/05/09/larouche-warns-the...
Obama's Backers
Make Their Threat
By Debra Hanania-Freeman
Executive Intelligence Review
5-11-8
As it stands at this moment, unless Sen. Hillary Clinton continues her campaign for the Democratic nomination until the Party's convention, there is no presently visible chance that the U.S. will come out of the presently skyrocketting hyperinflationary crisis in any form easily recognized as being, still, our Constitutional republic. The attempt by the powerful, and also predatory financier groups which have sought to crush Senator Clinton, as they had attempted to destroy the nomination of President Franklin Roosevelt in Hoover's favor in 1932, has the smell of a serious attempt at fascist dictatorship all over it.
What is most alarming about this today, is the mafia-style pressure which Howard Dean's office, and the super-rich Obama campaign have put on Senator Clinton to resign here and now, at a time when the tallies on primaries to date, including that in Florida, show her to be still very much a leading contender. There is the smell of something very evil in the role which Obama and others are playing on this account.
The facts of the matter as they stand on Friday morning, May 9, are as follows.
The Numbers Just Don't Add Up
In the period between Hillary Clinton's overwhelming defeat of Barack Obama in the critically important state of Pennsylvania on April 22, and the opening of the polls in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, every poll in the nation showed that momentum was very clearly on Clinton's side. Obama, whose candidacy had yet to face a serious defeat, was clearly badly shaken. Things only grew worse for Obama when his longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made a highly publicized appearance at the National Press Club, and uttered some of his most controversial remarks to date. Obama did ultimately cut the wrong Rev. Wright lose, but did so only after Wright turned his polemics against Obama for not defending him more strongly. In the eyes of both the press and the pundits, Obama handled the affair badly and appeared to be melting down.
That view seemed to be proven by both public and private polls. Clinton held an unwavering double-digit lead over Obama in Indiana, a state that shares a border with his home state of Illinois, and which he had long been expected to win. In North Carolina, where Obama was once as much as 30 points ahead, opinion polls showed that Clinton had whittled that seemingly insurmountable lead down to 6-7%. Then, the election polls opened.
There were some very troubling features to the way voting was structured in each state-features that should have served as red flags to ballot security experts. In North Carolina, largely as a result of a massive drive by the Obama campaign, a record 272,000 registered to vote for the first time this year. Eighty percent of them were Democrats and independents, both eligible to vote in the Democratic primary; in fact, those who registered as "unaffiliated" or independent, comprised the vast majority of the new voters. Another 31,250 voters switched their party affiliation so they, too, could vote in the Democratic primary. The vast majority of those individuals switched to "unaffiliated" status.
Isn't bringing new voters into the process a good thing? Of course it is. But, what should have been troubling to those charged with guaranteeing fair and honest elections, especially in a state that is still under the watch of the Voting Rights Act, is that over 300,000 new voters were now eligible to vote (and by all accounts did vote) in a Democratic primary election where ultimately 1.5 million voted, and the vast majority of those 300,000 were not Democrats. Ultimately, contrary to press reports that secret Republicans in both Indiana and North Carolina were casting ballots for Hillary Clinton, when the votes were tallied in North Carolina, Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary supported Obama by a startling 13-to-1.
For those monitoring the vote count after the polls closed, things grew more and more confusing. From very early in the evening, as expected, Obama had, and held, a solid lead in the Raleigh-Durham area, which is dominated by colleges and universities. But Raleigh-Durham only accounts for 29% of the voters eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. For most of the night, both candidates were within a point of each other in both eastern North Carolina, which accounts for 23% of the vote, and in Charlotte (22%). In Greensboro (17%), although Obama took an early lead in the city itself, Clinton was winning in the surrounding area. In the less densely populated western part of the state (10%), Clinton held a double-digit lead. In fact, in the rural areas (western North Carolina is included in this group), that comprise some 47% of the vote in the state, Clinton was either leading Obama or within one point of him. Then, suddenly, within approximately 17 minutes, all the numbers, save those in the West, inexplicably changed and Obama gave one of the earliest victory speeches in North Carolina history, claiming 56% of the vote. Election analysts are still trying to figure out how the sudden shift occurred, and some are still arguing that the numbers just don't add up. But, the nation's attention has already shifted to Indiana.
Indiana Vote Stumps the Experts
The Indiana Democratic primary was open to all voters, regardless of party affiliation. 1.6 million voters ultimately cast ballots-of the 1.3 million votes cast in the Democratic primary, 200,000 of them were voters of "undetermined" party affiliation. Despite the bellowing from Rush Limbaugh, who is presumably drug-free following his latest stint in rehab, that he was leading a charge of Republican voters for Clinton in an effort to "sabotage" the Democratic primary, the results show that in Indiana, as in North Carolina, the independents and Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Despite the fact that Clinton held a solid lead of 7-9% all night long, the TV networks inexplicably refused to declare her the winner, arguing that they would not do so until the votes came in from several counties in the northwest corner of the state, one of which included the city of Gary, which was expected to go to Obama. It seemed odd. The total population of Gary is about 103,000, half of them under 18. Even if every registered voter in the city voted for Obama, it would not have been enough to change the ultimate outcome of the election.
Obama conceded Indiana to Hillary long before the networks did, and she gave her victory speech at about 11:30 p.m. EDT. Long after all the speeches were given and everyone turned in for the night, the tally shifted. An attempt to deprive Clinton of a win would have been too reckless, but her lead somehow diminished to just two percentage points. Again, election analysts were stumped. Clinton took 84 of the state's 92 counties. Although Obama won the urban areas, those areas only comprise about 30% of the vote. In the suburban and rural counties, which comprise 70% of the vote, Clinton's lead ranged from 8% to 32%. The next morning, when Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (who is, admittedly, a Clinton supporter) was asked on CNN how he could account for such a close race between Clinton and Obama, Bayh said that he couldn't account for it at all, and asserted that a recount would likely show that Clinton had indeed taken the state by a far larger margin.
One could argue that, ultimately, the results were what everyone expected. Obama took North Carolina and Clinton took Indiana. However, the press played it as a crushing defeat for Clinton and began speculating on when and how she would make a "dignified" exit from the race. And, according to all reports, the pressure on undeclared superdelegates to declare for Obama, and for those already pledged to Clinton to switch allegiance, became excruciating.
Despite the clamor, Hillary Clinton, looking bright, refreshed, and nothing like a loser, appeared before a rally in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, and continued to hammer away at the issues that have defined her campaign, "This election is about solutions, not speeches," she declared. When she continued, shouting out "High-speed rail! Mass transit! Water systems!" the crowd roared its approval. She's expected to win the next round of primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky by very sizeable margins. Yet, the calls for her to drop out continue to build, arguing that the numbers show she can't win. But, those arguments aren't based on reality.
The Threat of Disenfranchisement
By the close of business on Friday, May 9, Obama had picked up the support of five additional superdelegates. ABC-TV declared that Obama had taken the lead among the superdelegates and most of the pro-Obama blogs carried banner headlines asserting the same. In fact, though, Obama now has 1,592 elected delegates and 268 superdelegates for a total of 1,860, to Clinton's 1,424 elected delegates and 272 superdelegates for a total of 1,696 delegates, making it a very close race.
Clinton detractors had argued from the start that she could not take the nomination without a significant vote from the superdelegates. And, while that is true, the fact is, that neither can Obama. The nominating process is designed in such a way that any presidential nominee must attain a majority of the elected delegates and a significant portion of the superdelegates. Just what that number is, however, has become the source of major controversy. Obama, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard "Scream" Dean, have declared the threshold number of delegates to take the nomination to be 2,025 (based on a total number of 4,049 delegates), and Obama has indicated his intention to declare himself the Democratic nominee on May 20, after the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, where it is expected that he will reach that number.
If Obama does so, it will be a premature declaration. The 4,049 delegate count does not include some 368 delegates from Michigan and Florida. In January, Clinton won both states by very wide margins, but Dean stripped both states of their delegates, for holding early primaries that he did not sanction. Democrats from Michigan, where Obama took his name off the ballot, have proposed a compromise, in which delegates would be apportioned between the two candidates, that is currently under consideration. The Florida case is far more problematic.
Both Clinton and Obama were on the Florida ballot, which accounts for 185 elected delegates and 26 superdelegates. Florida Democrats had no say in the setting of the date, which was established by the Republican-dominated legislature and governor, and turned out to vote in record numbers. They also voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. But, regardless of whether one supports Clinton or Obama, to disenfranchise some 2 million Florida Democratic voters who came out to participate in the electoral process in good faith, is not only unfair, it is illegal. Also, given that Florida Democrats feel that they have been disenfranchised in the past, they are unwilling to allow it to happen again.
A vocal group of some 600 Floridians, led by their Congressional representatives, the Hispanic organization LULAC, and members of the Building Trades union rallied in front of the DNC's Washington headquarters May 7, and have scheduled additional demonstrations in major Florida cities throughout the month of May. The speakers at the Washington, D.C. rally made clear that if the Florida delegation is not seated intact, they will disrupt the convention. There is also the very real possibility that Hispanic delegates from other states would join such floor demonstrations.
Best Interest of the Nation?
The issue is the key item on the agenda when the DNC's Rules and By-Laws Committee meets on May 31. Based on the nature of the issue, and the composition of the committee, it is expected that, at the very least, they will seat the Florida delegation. If that occurs, it is likely that the Obama campaign will take the issue before the Credentials Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the question beginning in mid-June. But, until the issue of Florida and Michigan is resolved, nobody knows what the threshold number of delegates needed to secure the nomination is.
The other issue, of course, is the question of how the approximately 850 superdelegates vote. At first, the Obama camp attempted to discount their role, since they seemed to heavily favor Clinton. Then, the argument was put forward that the superdelegates must follow the lead of the pledged delegates in their respective districts. That argument was joined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But, it seems that they only apply that argument to states in which Obama won the majority of the elected delegates.
But, the Party rules on the question of the "automatic" delegates, as the superdelegates are called, couldn't be clearer. Whether the automatic delegates publicly or privately support a candidate, they are outside of the rule that binds the elected delegates to vote (at least on the first ballot) for the candidate whom they were elected to represent. When political analyst James Carville was asked to comment on the scramble for superdelegate endorsements, he explained that "A superdelegate commitment today and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at the Ritz-Carlton." Not only are they not bound to vote for any candidate, regardless of what they may or may not promise at any point prior to the convention, the very purpose of designating automatic delegates in the first place, according to party rules, "is to give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, especially when those changing circumstances might make the voters' mandate less clear. The automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party."
That would seem to make a strong argument for Hillary Clinton to remain in the race until the convention in August. She is expected to make a strong showing in the remaining primaries, and regardless of whom the superdelegates endorse today, the convention is a long way off, and it would seem that they are expected to cast their votes based on the circumstances at the time of the convention, and not before it. In the midst of the rapidly worsening economic conditions, given Clinton's continued focus on economic issues, and the lack of any substantive economic policy proposals to date by Obama, the automatic delegates might do well to abide by their own rules.
Additionally, if they are indeed to "exercise their best judgment in the interest of the Democratic Party," given that virtually all polls show that Clinton can beat Republican John McCain while Obama cannot, one would conclude that, at the very least, they should remain publicly uncommitted until the convention.
Although all these arguments seem rational enough, none of them are reflected in the news media, or the statements by so-called leading Democrats. If one were to draw a conclusion based on their utterings, "Hillary Clinton is toast."
Why So Desperate?
One cannot help but wonder why Clinton's opponents seem so recklessly desperate. Why not just let the electoral process run its course? Why not let all of the voters have their say and then proceed to the August Convention? If the Obama camp is so confident of a win, then why are automatic delegates, particularly African Americans, coming under such excruciating pressure? Why are so many promises of money and appointments (most of which will never be met) being made?
Unimpeachable sources very close to the Clintons have reported that the morning after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, calls were made by individuals, recognized as high-ranking members of the U.S. political elite, informing the Clintons that, "while this was not necessarily [their] position," they wanted it passed along that under no circumstances would Hillary Clinton be permitted to take the Democratic nomination, and that, if by some miscalculation, she did take the nomination, she would never be permitted to take the Presidency. Apparently, the messages concluded that, if, by some unanticipated occurrence, she were to actually go ahead and win the Presidency, it would be the shortest-lived Presidency in the history of the United States. The message was explicit: The combination of Hillary and Bill Clinton in the White House meant a Presidency that would simply wield more independence and more power than they were willing to tolerate. Undoubtedly, Clinton's continual pledge to represent the lower 80% of the U.S. population, and the unspoken fear that some of her policies seem to lean too far in the direction of the proposals put forward by Lyndon LaRouche, have lowered their toleration level.
The point seemed to be underlined in a none-too-subtle cartoon in the May 9 online edition of the London Times. It shows Hillary Clinton laying face down, arms spread, eyes bulging. The American flag is the backdrop, but one of the stars has fallen, its point lodged deep in her back.
Note also, the widespread, and undisputed, reports that top officials of the Obama campaign have offered to pay off the financially strapped Clinton campaign's $15 million campaign debt as well as the $11.43 million that Clinton has loaned her campaign organization, in return for her shutting down her campaign. The offer comes at the same time that Clinton's finance committee has insisted on a meeting with the candidate next week, in what some believe will be an attempt to force her to withdraw.
The fact is that Obama, although his campaign has raised sizeable funds, does not have the capability to make good on an offer of that magnitude. A payoff of that size could only be made by the powerful financial forces tied to the City of London that have backed the Obama candidacy. It is a blatant and illegal attempt to shut down Clinton's candidacy and to proceed with a completely orchestrated U.S. election.
So far, Clinton has remained steadfast in her commitment to continue her campaign. Individuals close to the Clintons don't see her bowing out at this point. James Carville, who is personally close to both Bill and Hillary, told Newsweek, "If Hillary Clinton gave Obama just one of her cojones, they'd both have two." Hillary Clinton is tough and she is certainly no quitter. But the issues at stake here are far bigger than any individual's candidacy or even the election itself. Those who are attempting to shut down the Clinton campaign and control this Presidential election have no allegiance to Democratic Party, or to the United States. They are acting as agents of a dangerous foreign influence. If they were to succeed, the U.S.A. will have lost its sovereignty, and there would be very little hope for the continuation of civilized life on this planet.
The point seemed to be underlined in a none-too-subtle cartoon in the May 9 online edition of the London Times. It shows Hillary Clinton laying face down, arms spread, eyes bulging. The American flag is the backdrop, but one of the stars has fallen, its point lodged deep in her back...
May 9, 2008 (LPAC)--"There is a new Middle East crisis being orchestrated," Lyndon LaRouche stated today, "which is using this very peculiar kind of action going on in Lebanon right now. The obvious implication is the targetting of Iran as well. It's a London-steered threat of a new general war in South West Asia, and whatever the hell that means."
"The U.S. operations against Hillary Clinton," LaRouche added, "and the London side of the operation against Hillary, and the threat of a new Middle East war, are all one and the same thing, and they are immediately triggered by what was done, a massive fraud which was orchestrated in the recent primary election in North Carolina and Indiana. It was massive. Because the voters to back up those vote numbers don't exist.
"This is strategic. That election operation was run to set something up. That set-up includes not only the escalated campaign against Clinton, steered from London as well as the U.S., and steered from high-level financial political circles, but also is stirring up, almost unexpectedly, a crisis in Lebanon which actually involves everything, and leads directly to the prospect of an Anglo-American attack on Iran."
"The plan is to get international fascism, fast. This is a fascist operation, and it involves an attempted coup d'etat against the Constitution of the United States--very much like what was planned by the British interests in trying to prevent Franklin Roosevelt from being nominated and elected. It's the same kind of operation. It's a British operation, aimed at destroying the United States as a Constitutional form of government, run by the Anglo-Dutch liberal financial faction, very much the same kind of people who put Hitler into power, and Mussolini into power earlier in Europe. It's the same crowd; they're at it again, and the U.S. is the target. And there are many Americans who are complicit in this criminal activity, including some very well known ones."
"The same kind of thing was done against Roosevelt. And the problem are the London forces and traitorous pigs in the United States who see Hillary as a potential replication of FDR, and therefore they want to kill her.
"This is World War III, buddy," LaRouche emphasized. "That's what they are headed for right now. The intensity of the financial crisis is what's driving them. That's their timetable, which is based on the fact that they know they've run out of time. They are going to go in for the kill right now."
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/05/09/larouche-warns-the...
Obama's Backers
Make Their Threat
By Debra Hanania-Freeman
Executive Intelligence Review
5-11-8
As it stands at this moment, unless Sen. Hillary Clinton continues her campaign for the Democratic nomination until the Party's convention, there is no presently visible chance that the U.S. will come out of the presently skyrocketting hyperinflationary crisis in any form easily recognized as being, still, our Constitutional republic. The attempt by the powerful, and also predatory financier groups which have sought to crush Senator Clinton, as they had attempted to destroy the nomination of President Franklin Roosevelt in Hoover's favor in 1932, has the smell of a serious attempt at fascist dictatorship all over it.
What is most alarming about this today, is the mafia-style pressure which Howard Dean's office, and the super-rich Obama campaign have put on Senator Clinton to resign here and now, at a time when the tallies on primaries to date, including that in Florida, show her to be still very much a leading contender. There is the smell of something very evil in the role which Obama and others are playing on this account.
The facts of the matter as they stand on Friday morning, May 9, are as follows.
The Numbers Just Don't Add Up
In the period between Hillary Clinton's overwhelming defeat of Barack Obama in the critically important state of Pennsylvania on April 22, and the opening of the polls in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, every poll in the nation showed that momentum was very clearly on Clinton's side. Obama, whose candidacy had yet to face a serious defeat, was clearly badly shaken. Things only grew worse for Obama when his longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made a highly publicized appearance at the National Press Club, and uttered some of his most controversial remarks to date. Obama did ultimately cut the wrong Rev. Wright lose, but did so only after Wright turned his polemics against Obama for not defending him more strongly. In the eyes of both the press and the pundits, Obama handled the affair badly and appeared to be melting down.
That view seemed to be proven by both public and private polls. Clinton held an unwavering double-digit lead over Obama in Indiana, a state that shares a border with his home state of Illinois, and which he had long been expected to win. In North Carolina, where Obama was once as much as 30 points ahead, opinion polls showed that Clinton had whittled that seemingly insurmountable lead down to 6-7%. Then, the election polls opened.
There were some very troubling features to the way voting was structured in each state-features that should have served as red flags to ballot security experts. In North Carolina, largely as a result of a massive drive by the Obama campaign, a record 272,000 registered to vote for the first time this year. Eighty percent of them were Democrats and independents, both eligible to vote in the Democratic primary; in fact, those who registered as "unaffiliated" or independent, comprised the vast majority of the new voters. Another 31,250 voters switched their party affiliation so they, too, could vote in the Democratic primary. The vast majority of those individuals switched to "unaffiliated" status.
Isn't bringing new voters into the process a good thing? Of course it is. But, what should have been troubling to those charged with guaranteeing fair and honest elections, especially in a state that is still under the watch of the Voting Rights Act, is that over 300,000 new voters were now eligible to vote (and by all accounts did vote) in a Democratic primary election where ultimately 1.5 million voted, and the vast majority of those 300,000 were not Democrats. Ultimately, contrary to press reports that secret Republicans in both Indiana and North Carolina were casting ballots for Hillary Clinton, when the votes were tallied in North Carolina, Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary supported Obama by a startling 13-to-1.
For those monitoring the vote count after the polls closed, things grew more and more confusing. From very early in the evening, as expected, Obama had, and held, a solid lead in the Raleigh-Durham area, which is dominated by colleges and universities. But Raleigh-Durham only accounts for 29% of the voters eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. For most of the night, both candidates were within a point of each other in both eastern North Carolina, which accounts for 23% of the vote, and in Charlotte (22%). In Greensboro (17%), although Obama took an early lead in the city itself, Clinton was winning in the surrounding area. In the less densely populated western part of the state (10%), Clinton held a double-digit lead. In fact, in the rural areas (western North Carolina is included in this group), that comprise some 47% of the vote in the state, Clinton was either leading Obama or within one point of him. Then, suddenly, within approximately 17 minutes, all the numbers, save those in the West, inexplicably changed and Obama gave one of the earliest victory speeches in North Carolina history, claiming 56% of the vote. Election analysts are still trying to figure out how the sudden shift occurred, and some are still arguing that the numbers just don't add up. But, the nation's attention has already shifted to Indiana.
Indiana Vote Stumps the Experts
The Indiana Democratic primary was open to all voters, regardless of party affiliation. 1.6 million voters ultimately cast ballots-of the 1.3 million votes cast in the Democratic primary, 200,000 of them were voters of "undetermined" party affiliation. Despite the bellowing from Rush Limbaugh, who is presumably drug-free following his latest stint in rehab, that he was leading a charge of Republican voters for Clinton in an effort to "sabotage" the Democratic primary, the results show that in Indiana, as in North Carolina, the independents and Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Despite the fact that Clinton held a solid lead of 7-9% all night long, the TV networks inexplicably refused to declare her the winner, arguing that they would not do so until the votes came in from several counties in the northwest corner of the state, one of which included the city of Gary, which was expected to go to Obama. It seemed odd. The total population of Gary is about 103,000, half of them under 18. Even if every registered voter in the city voted for Obama, it would not have been enough to change the ultimate outcome of the election.
Obama conceded Indiana to Hillary long before the networks did, and she gave her victory speech at about 11:30 p.m. EDT. Long after all the speeches were given and everyone turned in for the night, the tally shifted. An attempt to deprive Clinton of a win would have been too reckless, but her lead somehow diminished to just two percentage points. Again, election analysts were stumped. Clinton took 84 of the state's 92 counties. Although Obama won the urban areas, those areas only comprise about 30% of the vote. In the suburban and rural counties, which comprise 70% of the vote, Clinton's lead ranged from 8% to 32%. The next morning, when Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (who is, admittedly, a Clinton supporter) was asked on CNN how he could account for such a close race between Clinton and Obama, Bayh said that he couldn't account for it at all, and asserted that a recount would likely show that Clinton had indeed taken the state by a far larger margin.
One could argue that, ultimately, the results were what everyone expected. Obama took North Carolina and Clinton took Indiana. However, the press played it as a crushing defeat for Clinton and began speculating on when and how she would make a "dignified" exit from the race. And, according to all reports, the pressure on undeclared superdelegates to declare for Obama, and for those already pledged to Clinton to switch allegiance, became excruciating.
Despite the clamor, Hillary Clinton, looking bright, refreshed, and nothing like a loser, appeared before a rally in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, and continued to hammer away at the issues that have defined her campaign, "This election is about solutions, not speeches," she declared. When she continued, shouting out "High-speed rail! Mass transit! Water systems!" the crowd roared its approval. She's expected to win the next round of primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky by very sizeable margins. Yet, the calls for her to drop out continue to build, arguing that the numbers show she can't win. But, those arguments aren't based on reality.
The Threat of Disenfranchisement
By the close of business on Friday, May 9, Obama had picked up the support of five additional superdelegates. ABC-TV declared that Obama had taken the lead among the superdelegates and most of the pro-Obama blogs carried banner headlines asserting the same. In fact, though, Obama now has 1,592 elected delegates and 268 superdelegates for a total of 1,860, to Clinton's 1,424 elected delegates and 272 superdelegates for a total of 1,696 delegates, making it a very close race.
Clinton detractors had argued from the start that she could not take the nomination without a significant vote from the superdelegates. And, while that is true, the fact is, that neither can Obama. The nominating process is designed in such a way that any presidential nominee must attain a majority of the elected delegates and a significant portion of the superdelegates. Just what that number is, however, has become the source of major controversy. Obama, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard "Scream" Dean, have declared the threshold number of delegates to take the nomination to be 2,025 (based on a total number of 4,049 delegates), and Obama has indicated his intention to declare himself the Democratic nominee on May 20, after the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, where it is expected that he will reach that number.
If Obama does so, it will be a premature declaration. The 4,049 delegate count does not include some 368 delegates from Michigan and Florida. In January, Clinton won both states by very wide margins, but Dean stripped both states of their delegates, for holding early primaries that he did not sanction. Democrats from Michigan, where Obama took his name off the ballot, have proposed a compromise, in which delegates would be apportioned between the two candidates, that is currently under consideration. The Florida case is far more problematic.
Both Clinton and Obama were on the Florida ballot, which accounts for 185 elected delegates and 26 superdelegates. Florida Democrats had no say in the setting of the date, which was established by the Republican-dominated legislature and governor, and turned out to vote in record numbers. They also voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. But, regardless of whether one supports Clinton or Obama, to disenfranchise some 2 million Florida Democratic voters who came out to participate in the electoral process in good faith, is not only unfair, it is illegal. Also, given that Florida Democrats feel that they have been disenfranchised in the past, they are unwilling to allow it to happen again.
A vocal group of some 600 Floridians, led by their Congressional representatives, the Hispanic organization LULAC, and members of the Building Trades union rallied in front of the DNC's Washington headquarters May 7, and have scheduled additional demonstrations in major Florida cities throughout the month of May. The speakers at the Washington, D.C. rally made clear that if the Florida delegation is not seated intact, they will disrupt the convention. There is also the very real possibility that Hispanic delegates from other states would join such floor demonstrations.
Best Interest of the Nation?
The issue is the key item on the agenda when the DNC's Rules and By-Laws Committee meets on May 31. Based on the nature of the issue, and the composition of the committee, it is expected that, at the very least, they will seat the Florida delegation. If that occurs, it is likely that the Obama campaign will take the issue before the Credentials Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the question beginning in mid-June. But, until the issue of Florida and Michigan is resolved, nobody knows what the threshold number of delegates needed to secure the nomination is.
The other issue, of course, is the question of how the approximately 850 superdelegates vote. At first, the Obama camp attempted to discount their role, since they seemed to heavily favor Clinton. Then, the argument was put forward that the superdelegates must follow the lead of the pledged delegates in their respective districts. That argument was joined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But, it seems that they only apply that argument to states in which Obama won the majority of the elected delegates.
But, the Party rules on the question of the "automatic" delegates, as the superdelegates are called, couldn't be clearer. Whether the automatic delegates publicly or privately support a candidate, they are outside of the rule that binds the elected delegates to vote (at least on the first ballot) for the candidate whom they were elected to represent. When political analyst James Carville was asked to comment on the scramble for superdelegate endorsements, he explained that "A superdelegate commitment today and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at the Ritz-Carlton." Not only are they not bound to vote for any candidate, regardless of what they may or may not promise at any point prior to the convention, the very purpose of designating automatic delegates in the first place, according to party rules, "is to give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, especially when those changing circumstances might make the voters' mandate less clear. The automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party."
That would seem to make a strong argument for Hillary Clinton to remain in the race until the convention in August. She is expected to make a strong showing in the remaining primaries, and regardless of whom the superdelegates endorse today, the convention is a long way off, and it would seem that they are expected to cast their votes based on the circumstances at the time of the convention, and not before it. In the midst of the rapidly worsening economic conditions, given Clinton's continued focus on economic issues, and the lack of any substantive economic policy proposals to date by Obama, the automatic delegates might do well to abide by their own rules.
Additionally, if they are indeed to "exercise their best judgment in the interest of the Democratic Party," given that virtually all polls show that Clinton can beat Republican John McCain while Obama cannot, one would conclude that, at the very least, they should remain publicly uncommitted until the convention.
Although all these arguments seem rational enough, none of them are reflected in the news media, or the statements by so-called leading Democrats. If one were to draw a conclusion based on their utterings, "Hillary Clinton is toast."
Why So Desperate?
One cannot help but wonder why Clinton's opponents seem so recklessly desperate. Why not just let the electoral process run its course? Why not let all of the voters have their say and then proceed to the August Convention? If the Obama camp is so confident of a win, then why are automatic delegates, particularly African Americans, coming under such excruciating pressure? Why are so many promises of money and appointments (most of which will never be met) being made?
Unimpeachable sources very close to the Clintons have reported that the morning after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, calls were made by individuals, recognized as high-ranking members of the U.S. political elite, informing the Clintons that, "while this was not necessarily [their] position," they wanted it passed along that under no circumstances would Hillary Clinton be permitted to take the Democratic nomination, and that, if by some miscalculation, she did take the nomination, she would never be permitted to take the Presidency. Apparently, the messages concluded that, if, by some unanticipated occurrence, she were to actually go ahead and win the Presidency, it would be the shortest-lived Presidency in the history of the United States. The message was explicit: The combination of Hillary and Bill Clinton in the White House meant a Presidency that would simply wield more independence and more power than they were willing to tolerate. Undoubtedly, Clinton's continual pledge to represent the lower 80% of the U.S. population, and the unspoken fear that some of her policies seem to lean too far in the direction of the proposals put forward by Lyndon LaRouche, have lowered their toleration level.
The point seemed to be underlined in a none-too-subtle cartoon in the May 9 online edition of the London Times. It shows Hillary Clinton laying face down, arms spread, eyes bulging. The American flag is the backdrop, but one of the stars has fallen, its point lodged deep in her back.
Note also, the widespread, and undisputed, reports that top officials of the Obama campaign have offered to pay off the financially strapped Clinton campaign's $15 million campaign debt as well as the $11.43 million that Clinton has loaned her campaign organization, in return for her shutting down her campaign. The offer comes at the same time that Clinton's finance committee has insisted on a meeting with the candidate next week, in what some believe will be an attempt to force her to withdraw.
The fact is that Obama, although his campaign has raised sizeable funds, does not have the capability to make good on an offer of that magnitude. A payoff of that size could only be made by the powerful financial forces tied to the City of London that have backed the Obama candidacy. It is a blatant and illegal attempt to shut down Clinton's candidacy and to proceed with a completely orchestrated U.S. election.
So far, Clinton has remained steadfast in her commitment to continue her campaign. Individuals close to the Clintons don't see her bowing out at this point. James Carville, who is personally close to both Bill and Hillary, told Newsweek, "If Hillary Clinton gave Obama just one of her cojones, they'd both have two." Hillary Clinton is tough and she is certainly no quitter. But the issues at stake here are far bigger than any individual's candidacy or even the election itself. Those who are attempting to shut down the Clinton campaign and control this Presidential election have no allegiance to Democratic Party, or to the United States. They are acting as agents of a dangerous foreign influence. If they were to succeed, the U.S.A. will have lost its sovereignty, and there would be very little hope for the continuation of civilized life on this planet.
Obama the Mimeses-Elite Phony
The misery, injustices and disenchantments that are experienced by countless millions of Americans has created a sense of crisis. Every community in the country has concerns and challenges that impede their progress and trouble their lives. A nonstop media barrage of misery and crisis adds to the sense of woe.Throughout its history minorities in these lands, specifically the Black and American Indian communities, have been literally drowned in sorrow. White Americans have also suffered tremendously. In fact a majority of unemployed poverty stricken Americans are White. Thousands of White Americans paid the ultimate price and laid down their lives for the cause of Emancipation. History proves that sacrifice, suffering, misery and destitution are truly equal opportunity affairs.
That being said, the struggle of those Americans that were brought here, tortured, sold and enslaved is a tragedy that is recognized by all. America has spent generations coming to grip with this reality. In a Nation built on the highest ideals of human liberty, justice and equality, it is disconcerting to note America's repeated pattern of inhumanity towards its own people. Thus it is no surprise that many Americans, of all races, have long struggled to correct these injustices.
People had a dream, long before King's famous speech, of a time when America will truly become the Promise Land its Founder's visualized. Though the American dream has long ago been visualized it has yet to be realized. It is this effort to realize the American dream that is at the heart of all our political and social efforts. The very language of our campaigns spells it out loud and clearly...Hope, Change, Peace, Strength, and Yes we can, on and on. In other words, we are still looking for that America where all have an equal chance to prosper and thrive.
Amongst us, the Black Americans that came here as captives, have had a long and challenging journey to freedom and equality. Long have they dreamt of an America that truly lived up to its Noble testament of Freedom and Liberty. Long have they dreamt of a time when one of their own would complete the journey from the depths of captivity to the pinnacle of dignity. Long have Black Americans dreamt of one of their own at that pinnacle of human dignity and respect that is represented by the office of the President of the United States of America.
At first glance, it is no surprise that the Presidential campaign of Barack Hussein Obama has attracted so much interest and support amongst Black America. Obama represents a strange phenomenon. He is being championed as a representative of the Black American Struggle. He has been presented as Martin Luther King's dream come true. After years of hopeful desperation, Obama is being presented as the culmination of the struggle. However the irony is that Obama appears to have very little in common with Black America. Beyond the obvious African racial commonality, Obama and the average Black America have very little in common.
To be historically accurate Obama does have a connection to the Black American struggle and the tragedy of American slavery. Barack Obama's American ancestors were slave owners. "The research traces the Duvalls to Mareen Duvall, a major land owner in Anne Arundel County in the 1600s. The inventory of his estate in 1694 names 18 slaves, according to a family history published in 1952." 1.
A political scientist who is director of the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland, College Park, Ronald Walters says it perfectly, "The twist is very interesting. It deepens his (Obama's) connection with the experience of slavery, even if it deepens it on a different side of the equation."2.
Obama is also a descendant of former Confederate President Jefferson Davis who led half of America in a bloody war in defense of slavery. Along with his family connection to Dick Cheney, his slave owning ancestors and Kenya's Luo tribal leader Odinga the Prime Minister of Kenya, its obvious that Obama represents something different and unique. Rather than the down-home boy from the hood, Obama is a member of the privileged elite. Despite this Obama jackets himself in JFK and MLK while having nothing to do with them and their vision of America.
The Obama phenomenon beggars the question. Why in a Nation with millions of Noble and worthy Black Americans could we not find even one, not even one to symbolize Black America's journey from captivity to dignity? Surely the cultural descendents of George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Anderson Ruffin Abbott, John Parker, Dr. Anderson Ruffin Abbott, Josiah Henson, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King have at least one man or woman to stand up and lead America. What is wrong with our Nation? Is it that we require an outsourced approach to fulfilling the dream and promise of an America that will once and for all right the wrongs of its past?
So perhaps Obama is a leader. Perhaps Obama is more than an empty suit, high on hope with a major dose of lip service and little action. Yet to categorize him as the culmination of the Black American struggle and the fulfillment of our collective American dream is not historically accurate nor is it appropriate. Obama is no King.
Unlike Obama, Martin Luther King, overcame nearly insurmountable obstacles and rose up to prominence in a hostile environment hounded by enemies and an extremely biased media. As Martin Luther King invoked Gandhi, he challenged the status quo and in the end paid with his life. Barack Hussein Obama, on the other hand, invokes Reagan, lives in luxury, was raised in the non-hostile environment of Hawaii and attended privileged schools. Obama's path to political power was built, not upon his own talents, but rather upon the scandals of his rivals.
As reported by John Hankey,.."Obama's Democratic rival for the Illinois US Senate Marson Blair Hull was heavily favored to defeat Obama in that primary. But Hull's campaign was torpedoed by a barrage of well timed media charges that he had abused his former wife. Hull was therefore obliged to drop out of the race. Thus Obama won the nomination."
"After Hull had been eliminated, Obama still had to face his Republican opponent Jack Ryan. Ryan had divorced his wife Jeri (Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9) in 1999, and the case was sealed at their mutual request. Suddenly the Chicago Tribune and WLS television began undertaking mighty exertions to get these divorce records made public, even though they involved a dispute about child custody. On June 22, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Robert Schneider released the court documents in question. They revealed an accusation by Jeri Ryan against her husband, now Obama's political competitor, to the effect that Jack Ryan had induced her to frequent sex clubs in a number of locations, and had attempted to coerce her into sexual intercourse in the presence of third parties. Judge Schnider's decision was all the more extraordinary because it was made in the face of the direct opposition by both parties to the divorce, and bore on a Family Court matter that is normally kept vigorously secret. It was as if some totalitarian invisible hand were intervening in favor of the beleaguered Obama candidacy. At this point Jack Ryan was compelled to abandon his candidacy at the urging of Dennis Hastert, then Speaker of the House."3.
And thus Barack Obama won his current US Senate seat.
It is quite obvious that rather than a quaint story of a Black American rising from the rubble of American history, Obama is a phony construct. He has been designed by the very same powers that continue to pillage the Nation and the World. After years of disastrous government, a new face and idea had too be foisted upon the people. This has been done in order to insure the continued domination of the people by the elites. Obama fulfils the goals and agenda of those dedicated to the status quo. By presenting himself as an agent for change while riding on the hopes of millions in the cause of racial equality,
Obama is committed to the continued incarceration of millions of his fellow Americans. Despite his own experimentations with drugs Obama is committed to the war against the people in the name of the War on Drugs. Obama has been bought off and he is now being sold to the American people. The prison industry and Judicial system have created a Prison Nation. Thus 1 out of every 100 Americans is currently a prisoner . Despite all his talk of hope, Obama has not said a word against this outrage. He will not lift a finger to put an end to this insanity. Despite his alleged sympathy for the Black American struggle, Obama fully supports the destruction of the Black family trough this draconian war on drugs.
Many Black American activists are also disturbed by Barack Obama's stance on abortion. The number of black babies aborted is staggering. Many community leaders have labeled it as a Black Genocide. Shockingly Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act FIVE times.
In this regard, Black American Community activist Day Gardner stated, “Senator Obama doesn't care that abortion has obliterated the rights of more than 15 million black children since 1973. He doesn't care that abortion is the No. 1 killer of African-Americans surpassing deaths caused by accidents, heart disease, stroke, crimes, HIV-AIDS and all other deaths – combined! He won't make one of his powerful speeches decrying the injustice of abortion providers as they plant killing centers firmly in black communities – making it easier to kill black children. Instead, he actually applauds their efforts! These children are denied their most basic human right, which is the right to life, a right which our ancestors so proudly worked for, marched for and many of them died for. Unfortunately, Barack Obama supports the ruthless culture of death – one that includes killing the smallest Americans – too small to flee or fight back."
The evidence is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a phony. Unlike Ron Paul who is an authentic people's candidate, Obama is something different. Obama is a Mimesis. Mimesis refers to an organism that mimics the properties of another organism and the imitative representation of nature and human behavior. This describes Barack Hussein Obama perfectly as he expertly jackets himself in any guise that suits his ambitions. Sure he emotes and bloviates in a manner that sounds good at times but words really are just words. Despite Obama's defense of words, his defense falls flat when logic is applied. If words are good enough for Obama, I suggest we all give him words instead of our votes. The fact is Obama talks a good talk but he is nothing more than an impersonator unable and unfit for the role of being the first Black American to rise from captivity to the dignity and honor of becoming the President of the United States of America.
1. A new twist to an intriguing family history
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te....
2. A new twist to an intriguing family history
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te....
3. John Hankey Barack Obama - The Devil's Spawn
http://www.rense.com/general80/spawn.htm
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/20638&Itemid;=1
That being said, the struggle of those Americans that were brought here, tortured, sold and enslaved is a tragedy that is recognized by all. America has spent generations coming to grip with this reality. In a Nation built on the highest ideals of human liberty, justice and equality, it is disconcerting to note America's repeated pattern of inhumanity towards its own people. Thus it is no surprise that many Americans, of all races, have long struggled to correct these injustices.
People had a dream, long before King's famous speech, of a time when America will truly become the Promise Land its Founder's visualized. Though the American dream has long ago been visualized it has yet to be realized. It is this effort to realize the American dream that is at the heart of all our political and social efforts. The very language of our campaigns spells it out loud and clearly...Hope, Change, Peace, Strength, and Yes we can, on and on. In other words, we are still looking for that America where all have an equal chance to prosper and thrive.
Amongst us, the Black Americans that came here as captives, have had a long and challenging journey to freedom and equality. Long have they dreamt of an America that truly lived up to its Noble testament of Freedom and Liberty. Long have they dreamt of a time when one of their own would complete the journey from the depths of captivity to the pinnacle of dignity. Long have Black Americans dreamt of one of their own at that pinnacle of human dignity and respect that is represented by the office of the President of the United States of America.
At first glance, it is no surprise that the Presidential campaign of Barack Hussein Obama has attracted so much interest and support amongst Black America. Obama represents a strange phenomenon. He is being championed as a representative of the Black American Struggle. He has been presented as Martin Luther King's dream come true. After years of hopeful desperation, Obama is being presented as the culmination of the struggle. However the irony is that Obama appears to have very little in common with Black America. Beyond the obvious African racial commonality, Obama and the average Black America have very little in common.
To be historically accurate Obama does have a connection to the Black American struggle and the tragedy of American slavery. Barack Obama's American ancestors were slave owners. "The research traces the Duvalls to Mareen Duvall, a major land owner in Anne Arundel County in the 1600s. The inventory of his estate in 1694 names 18 slaves, according to a family history published in 1952." 1.
A political scientist who is director of the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland, College Park, Ronald Walters says it perfectly, "The twist is very interesting. It deepens his (Obama's) connection with the experience of slavery, even if it deepens it on a different side of the equation."2.
Obama is also a descendant of former Confederate President Jefferson Davis who led half of America in a bloody war in defense of slavery. Along with his family connection to Dick Cheney, his slave owning ancestors and Kenya's Luo tribal leader Odinga the Prime Minister of Kenya, its obvious that Obama represents something different and unique. Rather than the down-home boy from the hood, Obama is a member of the privileged elite. Despite this Obama jackets himself in JFK and MLK while having nothing to do with them and their vision of America.
The Obama phenomenon beggars the question. Why in a Nation with millions of Noble and worthy Black Americans could we not find even one, not even one to symbolize Black America's journey from captivity to dignity? Surely the cultural descendents of George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Anderson Ruffin Abbott, John Parker, Dr. Anderson Ruffin Abbott, Josiah Henson, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King have at least one man or woman to stand up and lead America. What is wrong with our Nation? Is it that we require an outsourced approach to fulfilling the dream and promise of an America that will once and for all right the wrongs of its past?
So perhaps Obama is a leader. Perhaps Obama is more than an empty suit, high on hope with a major dose of lip service and little action. Yet to categorize him as the culmination of the Black American struggle and the fulfillment of our collective American dream is not historically accurate nor is it appropriate. Obama is no King.
Unlike Obama, Martin Luther King, overcame nearly insurmountable obstacles and rose up to prominence in a hostile environment hounded by enemies and an extremely biased media. As Martin Luther King invoked Gandhi, he challenged the status quo and in the end paid with his life. Barack Hussein Obama, on the other hand, invokes Reagan, lives in luxury, was raised in the non-hostile environment of Hawaii and attended privileged schools. Obama's path to political power was built, not upon his own talents, but rather upon the scandals of his rivals.
As reported by John Hankey,.."Obama's Democratic rival for the Illinois US Senate Marson Blair Hull was heavily favored to defeat Obama in that primary. But Hull's campaign was torpedoed by a barrage of well timed media charges that he had abused his former wife. Hull was therefore obliged to drop out of the race. Thus Obama won the nomination."
"After Hull had been eliminated, Obama still had to face his Republican opponent Jack Ryan. Ryan had divorced his wife Jeri (Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9) in 1999, and the case was sealed at their mutual request. Suddenly the Chicago Tribune and WLS television began undertaking mighty exertions to get these divorce records made public, even though they involved a dispute about child custody. On June 22, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Robert Schneider released the court documents in question. They revealed an accusation by Jeri Ryan against her husband, now Obama's political competitor, to the effect that Jack Ryan had induced her to frequent sex clubs in a number of locations, and had attempted to coerce her into sexual intercourse in the presence of third parties. Judge Schnider's decision was all the more extraordinary because it was made in the face of the direct opposition by both parties to the divorce, and bore on a Family Court matter that is normally kept vigorously secret. It was as if some totalitarian invisible hand were intervening in favor of the beleaguered Obama candidacy. At this point Jack Ryan was compelled to abandon his candidacy at the urging of Dennis Hastert, then Speaker of the House."3.
And thus Barack Obama won his current US Senate seat.
It is quite obvious that rather than a quaint story of a Black American rising from the rubble of American history, Obama is a phony construct. He has been designed by the very same powers that continue to pillage the Nation and the World. After years of disastrous government, a new face and idea had too be foisted upon the people. This has been done in order to insure the continued domination of the people by the elites. Obama fulfils the goals and agenda of those dedicated to the status quo. By presenting himself as an agent for change while riding on the hopes of millions in the cause of racial equality,
Obama is committed to the continued incarceration of millions of his fellow Americans. Despite his own experimentations with drugs Obama is committed to the war against the people in the name of the War on Drugs. Obama has been bought off and he is now being sold to the American people. The prison industry and Judicial system have created a Prison Nation. Thus 1 out of every 100 Americans is currently a prisoner . Despite all his talk of hope, Obama has not said a word against this outrage. He will not lift a finger to put an end to this insanity. Despite his alleged sympathy for the Black American struggle, Obama fully supports the destruction of the Black family trough this draconian war on drugs.
Many Black American activists are also disturbed by Barack Obama's stance on abortion. The number of black babies aborted is staggering. Many community leaders have labeled it as a Black Genocide. Shockingly Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act FIVE times.
In this regard, Black American Community activist Day Gardner stated, “Senator Obama doesn't care that abortion has obliterated the rights of more than 15 million black children since 1973. He doesn't care that abortion is the No. 1 killer of African-Americans surpassing deaths caused by accidents, heart disease, stroke, crimes, HIV-AIDS and all other deaths – combined! He won't make one of his powerful speeches decrying the injustice of abortion providers as they plant killing centers firmly in black communities – making it easier to kill black children. Instead, he actually applauds their efforts! These children are denied their most basic human right, which is the right to life, a right which our ancestors so proudly worked for, marched for and many of them died for. Unfortunately, Barack Obama supports the ruthless culture of death – one that includes killing the smallest Americans – too small to flee or fight back."
The evidence is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a phony. Unlike Ron Paul who is an authentic people's candidate, Obama is something different. Obama is a Mimesis. Mimesis refers to an organism that mimics the properties of another organism and the imitative representation of nature and human behavior. This describes Barack Hussein Obama perfectly as he expertly jackets himself in any guise that suits his ambitions. Sure he emotes and bloviates in a manner that sounds good at times but words really are just words. Despite Obama's defense of words, his defense falls flat when logic is applied. If words are good enough for Obama, I suggest we all give him words instead of our votes. The fact is Obama talks a good talk but he is nothing more than an impersonator unable and unfit for the role of being the first Black American to rise from captivity to the dignity and honor of becoming the President of the United States of America.
1. A new twist to an intriguing family history
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te....
2. A new twist to an intriguing family history
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te....
3. John Hankey Barack Obama - The Devil's Spawn
http://www.rense.com/general80/spawn.htm
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/20638&Itemid;=1
Who is this Man with Obama?
click link for image of Obama and Odinga
That is Raila Odinga. Who is Odinga? Odinga is Obama’s cousin. Odinga and Obama are from the same Kenyan Luo tribe. Odinga supporters are the people that are burning christians alive, trapped inside churches … most of Odinga's fanatical followers are radical Islamists who have pushed for Islamic Sharia Law, total banning of other religions and closing of co-ed schools, night clubs and ‘public dressing style considered immoral’. Odinga was educated in Former Soviet controlled East Germany and maintains a strong loyalty to the vision of his ‘Educators’ and has allied with Islamist in order to gain their political support.
In 2006 Obama took a trip to Kenya and voiced his support for his fellow tribesman and political ally, Odinga.
Obama also directly attacked the sitting Kenyan leadership (Kibaki) calling them ‘corrupt’ (Kenya is one of the most stable places in Africa).
Odinga is the cat that ran on the socialist democrat ticket in Kenya and lost to sitting president Kibaki.
It’s not getting reported in the media that the looting and burning of businesses in Kisumu was targeted to both Kikuyus and Kenyan Indians. The economy of Kenya is controlled by these two groups because they are Entrepreneurial. But Kenyan Indians rarely get involved in Kenyan politics, they do not vote by choice, yet the Luos in Kisumu do not like them, that’s why their stores were getting burnt too.
Tribe of 540,000 Kikuyu, rivals of the Luo for Power, All but Vanishes From Kenyan City ethnically cleansed and massacred by Odinga’s butchers.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQprfiiJTXP7rSL3Qvr4lcG3Tt...
Yet Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaigning to speak by phone with Odinga, his cousin. He did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki.
Odinga has now made a deal for support with Muslim fundamentalists… A photograph copy of a Memorandum of Understanding, dated and signed on August 29, 2007, between Raila Odinga and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya…
http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8
Here is a summary on the agreement which was signed:
* It pledges the support of Kenyan Moslems for Raila’s election. In return, as President of Kenya, Raila agrees to 14 actions, listed a) through n) on page two.
* Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions.
* Within one year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters. [Note: everywhere in Kenya, not just in “Muslim declared regions.”]
* “Popularize Islam, the only true religion… by ordering every primary school in Kenya in the regions to conduct daily Madrassa classes.”
* “Impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades by worshippers of the cross…”
* “Outlaw gospel programs… on KBC, the National Broadcaster.”
* “Impose a total ban on the public consumption of alcoholic beverages…”
* “Impose an immediate ban on women’s public dressing styles that are considered immoral and offensive to the Muslim faith…”
http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8
Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a “close personal friendship” with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior. When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi… Obama’s bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila’s “stooge.” http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=149_1199587542
In the recent elections in Kenya, violence broke out as Raila lost the elections:
This past weekend, women and children — entire families — were burned alive as a crowd of Kenyans torched a church where they had gathered to protect themselves.
The cause of the violence was Odinga’s inflammatory comments about the election:
When Raila Odinga lost the presidential election last week (12/27) to Mwai Kibaki, he claimed the vote was rigged, whereupon his tribal followers went on murderous rampages such as in the town of Eldoret, where on New Years Day dozens of people were burned to death in a church set on fire… Throughout Kenya, hundreds of people have been politically murdered in the last few days.
At first a million man march was planned but Obama put in some frantic 11th hour calls to his cousin to call that off, since it would reflect badly on his campaign at home, (he is locked in a battle with Hillary and it was the day of the N.H. primary), to have the media filled with images of angry Blacks rioting over a diputed election result. Odinga agreed to hold off, but now he is getting impatient. The agreement is probably to try to give Obama enough time to get his own candidacy flowing smoothly among Democrats before unleashing the violence.
But Odinga can only hold off for so long, since he faces likely criminal charges over the organized slaughter of Kikuyu by his (and Obama’s) Luo tribesmen.
Odinga who is challenging the current Kenyan President Kubaki. It was established by references to an article in Time Magazine that Obama has a ‘very close friendship’ with Odinga. There are links in Wikipedia which show that Odinga has initiated coups in the past, been accused of corruption and is an all-round troublemaker. What’s worse, it became clear that Odinga’s supporters were killing and burning property on a rampage across Kenya to support Odinga’s bid to take over Kubaki’s presidency. However, now further, more shocking details have come out:
There appears to be growing evidence that the violence in Kenya was organized in advance, perhaps with Obama’s knowledge.
Bishop Cornelius Korir of Eldoret confirms the killings were organized and planned. It is believed Odinga and his ODM Pentagon members had planned it all, long before elections, and especially William Ruto the MP for Eldoret North (the burning of women and children in a church).
He is tearing through the country using murder and rape as his weapons of choice. Justice Minister Martha Karua tsaid Odinga’s group (Orange Democratic Movement has planned to carry out systematic ethnic cleansing.This is a dangerous man in what has up until now been a pretty stable country on an unstable continent.
His ‘opposition party’ is opposed to democracy and free elections. Refusing to accept the result of the national election, Odinga will break the country, beat, “cleanse” rape until this depraved savage gets the power. Raila Odinga rejected a presidential invitation for talks.
The left wing media has been played by brilliantly by Odinga - this is part of his strategy.
Obama’s older brother still lives in Kenya. Abongo “Roy” Obama is a Luo activist and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must “liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture.” He urges his younger brother, Barack Hussein Obama to embrace his ‘African’ heritage.
The way Barack Obama describes his oldest half-brother in his book, Abongo (Roy) Obama inherited their father’s hard-drinking ways but straightened his life out by embracing Islam and his African heritage.
Abongo Obama began using his Luo tribal first name and had sworn off pork, smoking and drinking by the time of his younger brother’s 1992 wedding.
“Abongo’s new lifestyle has left him lean and clear-eyed, and at the wedding, he looked so dignified in his black African gown with white trim and matching cap that some of our guests mistook him for my father,” Obama wrote in Dreams From My Father.
Barrack Obama wrote about his brother. “But the magic of his laughter remains…..”
As for his Cousin Odinga: Obama’s tacit support for this ruthless leader of the insurgent rebellion in Kenya is shaping up to be the 800 lb gorilla in the Obama ‘08 campaign.
In the latest development in the deepening ties between Obama’s pal Odinga (ODM party) and the Islamists. “Obama’s “cousin” the ruthless violent Raila Odinga now nominates the radical Sheikh he signed MOU with as a Member of Parliament (MP) ODM has presented six names to the Electoral Commission of Kenya for nomination as MPs. This will in effect raise their numbers in the House to 105. The proposed nominees include Sheikh Ahmed Dor, the cleric who spearheaded the MoU between ODM presidential candidate Raila Odinga and some Muslim leaders.”
The Media presents Odinga and his supporters in such a way that they look like angels even as they kill people.
Obama’s Pal uses “Rape as a Weapon”
More brutal and gory details of the man Obama unequivocally supports. Obama is so busted. This is more than bad judgment, this is scary. Odinga’s has nefarious Arab ties and his hand in the ongoing violence that has all of Kenya in its barbaric clutches. Inconceivable horror. Gang rapings, murders and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Obama has backed Odinga unequivocally going so far as telling big media (out of TIME Magazine’s Joe Klein here),
Obama has had near-daily conversations with the U.S. Ambassador in Kenya or with opposition leader Raila Odinga.
Obama BACKS THIS MONSTER ODINGA UNEQUIVOCALLY? How on earth does he justify this?
All this points to a very different Obama than the Obama we see and hear in the media. Rather than being the new JFK he is the smiling face of the terror that is now sweeping Kenya. Are these the DREAMS FROM HIS FATHER that he has in store for America?
OBAMA A STOOGE FOR ODINGA
Kenyan Government calls Obama 'stooge' for Odinga.
Odinga and Obama are from the same Kenyan tribe.
In 2006 Obama took a trip to Kenya and voiced his support for his fellow tribesman and political ally, Odinga.
Obama also directly attacked the sitting Kenyan leadership (Kibaki) calling them 'corrupt' (Kenya is one of the most stable places in Africa).
Odinga is the cat that ran on the socialist democrat ticket in Kenya and lost to sitting president Kibaki.
The people that are burning christians alive, trapped inside churches are Odinga supporters...Odinga (and most of his fanatical followers) are a Muslims who have pushed for Sharia Law, total banning of other religions and closing of co-ed schools, night clubs and 'public dressing style considered immoral'.
Here is a 2006 report on that trip to Kenya:
Obama's Criticism Irks Kenyan Government
Government Says Obama Is A Stooge For Political Opposition
by Mike Flannery
(CBS) There are signs of tension between Sen. Barack Obama and African leaders. On Monday, Obama stepped up his criticism of government corruption in Kenya.
But as CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, the government fired back, saying Obama is a stooge for an opposing political party.
A surprise raid that seized and burned copies of Kenya's oldest newspaper, The Standard, still prompts journalists there to call last March 2 the darkest day in the more than 100 years they've been publishing.
"For us as an institution, I think it was the lowest point in the history of this newspaper," News Editor Douglas Okwatch said.
It was because of that raid that Sen. Barack Obama went to the Standard's offices. He declared that democracy can't work without freedom of the press and freedom of information.
"It is not just a loss for the Standard. It's a loss for the people of Kenya. So my hope is that this is one episode that won't be repeated," Obama said.
At the University of Nairobi two hours later, the senator offered more pointed criticism, something he's done almost every day since arriving last week. After remaining largely silent, the government of President Mwai Kibaki is beginning to respond, suggesting that Obama may have fallen under the spell of opposition leader Raila Odinga.
A potential presidential candidate himself, Odinga's been at Obama's elbow here fairly often and is a member of the Obama family's Luo tribe.
"Sen. Obama has to look at critically about where he's receiving his advice from," said government spokesman Dr. Alfred Mutua. "Just because somebody, somewhere wants to run for president and is using Sen. Obama as his stooge, as his puppet to be able to get to where he wants to get to."
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=149_1199587542
Odinga and Obama are from the same Kenyan tribe.
In 2006 Obama took a trip to Kenya and voiced his support for his fellow tribesman and political ally, Odinga.
Obama also directly attacked the sitting Kenyan leadership (Kibaki) calling them 'corrupt' (Kenya is one of the most stable places in Africa).
Odinga is the cat that ran on the socialist democrat ticket in Kenya and lost to sitting president Kibaki.
The people that are burning christians alive, trapped inside churches are Odinga supporters...Odinga (and most of his fanatical followers) are a Muslims who have pushed for Sharia Law, total banning of other religions and closing of co-ed schools, night clubs and 'public dressing style considered immoral'.
Here is a 2006 report on that trip to Kenya:
Obama's Criticism Irks Kenyan Government
Government Says Obama Is A Stooge For Political Opposition
by Mike Flannery
(CBS) There are signs of tension between Sen. Barack Obama and African leaders. On Monday, Obama stepped up his criticism of government corruption in Kenya.
But as CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, the government fired back, saying Obama is a stooge for an opposing political party.
A surprise raid that seized and burned copies of Kenya's oldest newspaper, The Standard, still prompts journalists there to call last March 2 the darkest day in the more than 100 years they've been publishing.
"For us as an institution, I think it was the lowest point in the history of this newspaper," News Editor Douglas Okwatch said.
It was because of that raid that Sen. Barack Obama went to the Standard's offices. He declared that democracy can't work without freedom of the press and freedom of information.
"It is not just a loss for the Standard. It's a loss for the people of Kenya. So my hope is that this is one episode that won't be repeated," Obama said.
At the University of Nairobi two hours later, the senator offered more pointed criticism, something he's done almost every day since arriving last week. After remaining largely silent, the government of President Mwai Kibaki is beginning to respond, suggesting that Obama may have fallen under the spell of opposition leader Raila Odinga.
A potential presidential candidate himself, Odinga's been at Obama's elbow here fairly often and is a member of the Obama family's Luo tribe.
"Sen. Obama has to look at critically about where he's receiving his advice from," said government spokesman Dr. Alfred Mutua. "Just because somebody, somewhere wants to run for president and is using Sen. Obama as his stooge, as his puppet to be able to get to where he wants to get to."
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=149_1199587542
