The Top 10 Reasons Obama Could Be A Great President

We have summarized here the top ten reasons we feel could make Obama a stellar President for America.

We are impressed by America’s solidarity in this election event.  America was brilliant and convicted as they made their selection.  There were no issues with falling chads or other nonsense that could have clouded the result.  America made its voice heard loud and clear to the entire world.  Those that voted for Obama should commend themselves for having the insight and hope America needs.

It is our intention to follow each reason we list here with an article that sums up our explanation.  If you feel you have more positive reasons you would like to add to our list, please submit them in your comments.  We would be happy to incorporate them if they aren’t something redundant or negative.

If you agree that Obama could be a great president and choose to respond to our poll, please also DIGG the article so others can find it.

[poll id=”55″]

This article has moved to its new home, The Lie Politic. Please continue reading by clicking here and you will be directed to the new site. Thank you!

Muammar Gadhafi Cites Terrorist Contributions To Obama Campaign, Watch Here!

Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, with proven terrorist ties, stated recently “There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama.”

Muammar went on. “All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.”

“We are hoping that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity, and in his faith, and that he has rights in America, and that he will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs”.

A Youtube video of Muammar, a known enemy of America and with known affiliations with terrorists is here, specifically referencing contributions made to Obama from the nations of terror.

Interesting Trivia:

Muammar Gadhafi, Moammar El-Gadhafi, Muammar al-Gaddafi What’s in a name?

For our articles we follow on The Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News use of the spelling of his last name as Gadhafi.

According to Wikepedia:

“Due to the inherent difficulties of transliterating written and regionally-pronounced Arabic, Gaddafi’s name can be transliterated in many different ways. An article published in the London Evening Standard in 2004 lists a total of 37 spellings; a 1986 column by The Straight Dope quotes a list of 32 spellings known at the Library of Congress Muammar al-Gaddafi, used in this article, is the spelling used by Time magazine and the BBC. The Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News use the spelling Moammar Gadhafi, Al-Jazeera uses Muammar al-Qadhafi (Al-Jazeera English uses Muammar Gaddafi the Edinburgh Middle East Report uses Mu’ammar Qaddafi and the U.S. Department of State uses Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi. In 1986, Gaddafi reportedly responded to a Minnesota school’s letter in English using the spelling Moammar El-Gadhafi.”

Barack Obama: Elitism or the Condemnation of Intellect?

During this remarkable U.S. election season, talking points, laced with politically jargoned rhetoric have entered our ears and appeared before our eyes- thanks to the reporting of today’s numerous media sources and user blogs.

Anyone who has attempted to keep stride with the ever morphing events, within and between the presidential campaigns, has by now become acquainted with such keywords and phrases as, “earmarks,” “energy independence,” and “reform.” Additionally, another phrase has become a staple within mostly conservative circles and used as a rhetorical weapon against the opposition- “elitism.”

For the record, a rough definition of a person who embodies elitism is one who believes that he or she is of superior distinction and thus entitled to be treated and considered favorably.

Specifically, elitism is the word that has been pinned to the backside of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. And that pesky little tail has been left to dangle in the minds of voters.

However, this election will not make the first time that many conservative politicians, and citizens alike, have labeled their more liberal counterparts as “elite.” Although ironically, it was Hillary Clinton who first pegged Barack Obama as “elite,” following a speech in San Francisco where he referred to people living in rural America as, “bitter, and clinging to guns and religion.”

The Full Quote:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate, and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” – Barack Obama – 4/6/08

It is obvious to understand why many Americans felt incensed by the above speech. On the surface, it appeared to be judgmental and divisive. However, is it possible that some Americans were upset by Obama’s remark because it hit too close to home?

Art Imitates Life – when in doubt, expound with a movie reference…

Entertainment notwithstanding, all we would need to do is watch the biographical movie, “Boys Don’t Cry,” to witness art imitating life. “Reel” life: where intolerant and disenfranchised communities, such as Richardson County, Nebraska, depicted in the movie, do exist. Of course, the movie in question is an extreme example, perhaps even a controversial one when used in this context, but still relevant.

Barack Obama has been called a rockstar, a snob, and most outrageously, “The Messiah.” Such accusations stem from Obama’s education, to his capacious and reflective oratory style, and popularity.

In May, John McCain urged Barack Obama to take a trip with him to Iraq. The objective would have been for McCain to prove to Obama that U.S. efforts have helped to stabilize Iraq. Obama declined the invitation, but in July, took a trip of his own to several countries in the Middle East, Including Iraq, and Europe.

Due to his popularity overseas, Barack Obama was notably depicted as the “biggest celebrity in the world,” by the McCain campaign. The message was relayed in an ad that aired after his trip to Europe, where he delivered a speech before a crowd of 200,000, in Berlin, Germany.

In August, while Barack Obama and family were on vacation in Hawaii, the RNC sent copies of what was called the “Barack Obama’s Hawaii Travel Guide,” to reporters. In the mock travel guide, a spotlight was focused on the Punahou School, the college preparatory institution that Obama attended in his youth. Conclusions were drawn, indicating that the RNC lampooned Obama’s education in its parody travel guide.

On a side note, Barack Obama attended the aforementioned college preparatory school from grade 5, until he graduated from high school. As a young adult, he attended Columbia and Harvard Law School, where he rose to be president of The Harvard Law Review.

Undoubtedly, the life of Barack Obama represents a classic case of the ever romanticized “American Dream,” no?

We should be comfortable asserting that most every American who was raised by responsible parents, regardless of class, was encouraged to study and do well in school. We should be willing to further assert that those same American children were also encouraged to attend college with goals of absorbing the relevant academia necessary for achieving their personal “American Dream.”

If we are honest with ourselves and subscribe to the above, we will fail to understand how conservatives, the RNC, some of our personal acquaintances, as well as our fellow late-night message board warriors have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is indeed, an “elitist.”

Many Republicans and conservatives have reveled in the pick of Sarah Palin, Vice Presidential Candidate on the Republican ticket. Numerous reasons account for the support Palin has received from conservatives and the GOP. One reason Sarah Palin admirers give to explain their support for her is her “everyday people” appeal. These voters prefer the simple talk of Sarah Palin and John McCain to the poignant speech of Barack Obama- which is of course, their choice. However, much of the McCain/Palin supporters’ beliefs travel beyond the realm of preference- many of those supporters actually condemn the intellect of Barack Obama. This is evident with such statements as, “He (Obama) has so much to say but I just can’t be bothered to try to understand it.” Or, “He (Obama) can’t just say what he needs to without blathering about.” These are actual quotes from everyday people.

Since when has being a highly educated person become something to look down upon in America?

Is it because some of us feel inferior when faced with the apparent intellect of others?

How could this attitude affect how our children view education?

Curiously, a contour of conservative values is self-reliant independence, yet many conservatives demonize education- the fundamental vessel for success in America. How sad and unfortunate it is that so many would rather elevate their egos with the illusion of “relating” to their “neighborly-like” presidential pick, instead of embracing a fine product of education- Barack Obama.

Should Republicans and conservatives support Barack Obama for president? No. They should also cease insulting their own personal intellect and patriotism by condemning a genuine manifestation of the “American Dream,” which is Barack Obama.

The Questionable Sources of Obama’s Campaign Contributions Cloud America’s Future

In the primaries, despite being the underdog, Barrack Obama raised more money in campaign contributions than Hillary Clinton, a much more seasoned veteran with a much more household name. Hillary was forced to contribute monies of her own in the millions to just keep up, but consequently lost both the race for cash, and eventually, for the Democratic nomination itself.

Obama has repeated this feat and will now be in the Guinness World Book of Records for the Presidential candidate that raised the most during a Presidential campaign. According to Newsweek, “The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less.” That is an old quote. More recent statistics show this number to be an astounding 600 million dollars.

Statistically, it is difficult to determine if fund raising has been the direct determination of the outcome of past Presidential elections. We have not been able to find a definitive study that makes the statistical correlation between campaign contributions and victory. But it is apparent in Indiana that money talks. Indiana has primarily been a Republican state. The difference. Obama, with his seemingly infinite reserves, has been able to make 48 appearances in Indiana to McCain’s 2 or 3. This has brought that state into contention. In some states, due to money issues, McCain has had to back away from states, leaving them to Palin to stump for him or severely limiting his campaign in those states. Money is exposure. Exposure translates into votes. It is that simple.

This year, the numbers are significant not only because of the extreme amount of money received, but because of the large number of contributions under $200, the sources of which do not have to be disclosed. Candidates are not required to reveal those contribution sources, and Obama has chosen to not let the American people know where his money is coming from. McCain, on the other hand, has fully disclosed the sources of his contributions.

What is it that Obama is hiding? We cannot get the statistics or demographics of the contributions because Obama won’t tell. Certainly, the average contributor that would send in $100 would not demand nondisclosure. It also is certainly not a constitutional right. Apparently, some contributors to Obama’s campaign have such ridiculous names as Adolfe Hitler.

Where is the money coming from?

These huge sums of money beg the question, could Obama’s contributions be coming from sources other than US citizens?  Obama is receiving a huge number of international contributions. Major sources are said to include Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran certainly has a lot to gain if Obama can force an Iraq withdrawal of our troops so Iran can take control of the country. The Shiites love to kill their brethren with weapons provided by Iran.

In some cases contributions have been made as though they come from contributors that have no knowledge of the source of the contribution. One abused individual used by a fraudulent donor or donors, Diane Beardsley, was quoted as saying, “I have never heard of such an individual”. She worked for Doodad’s Boutique and is the mother of one of the owners. She further stated, “Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute.” As it turns out, Doodad’s Boutique had closed a year ago before the fraudulent donations were made.

In another case of fraud, according again to Newsweek, “the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign’s online store.” The Obama camp tried to claim the men were American citizens, but research later showed the men lived in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp. Once exposed, the campaign returned the funds, but who is to say how many undisclosed funds, undisclosed at Obama’s request, are from such possible terrorist sources?

The Presidential Election is not the first time; Obama has been associated with questionable campaign contributions in his past. According to the Chicago Sun Times, Obama accepted a $10,000 donation from a friend with whom he had executed real estate transactions.  That friend was facing a trial for fraud regarding the acquisition of those contributed funds. According to the Times, Tony Rezko who “was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing ‘at least one other individual’ to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual, in possible violation of federal election law.” Apparently, Obama is familiar with laundering money to hide the sources of his political contributions. The following articles clearly demonstrate a criminal fund raising policy from untraceable sources. One from the Washington Post and the other.

In another contradiction of the Obama group’s lying claims that McCain’s camp has been dishonest, when watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about their small donors, the McCain camp agreed; the Obama campaign did not. “They could’ve done themselves a service” said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics. In all due respect, if such contributions are coming from Iran, Palestinians and Muslim terrorists, it would not have done Obama a service. It would have disclosed Obama for what he is. It does not comfort us that Hamas has publicly endorsed Obama.

Some very enlightening examples of laundering of contribution monies have been exposed by this website.

How is it the man that speaks of only taxing the rich to distribute it to the poor can raise well over $600 million dollars, when the supposedly richer and well connected McCain with vastly more experience can only raise a bit more than half that amount? And how did he also accomplish this same feat against Hillary? Some say it is Obama’s ability to exploit the Internet, but the Internet is also an excellent way to facilitate fraud.

Continue on next page…

Part II: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position

A Strong Military in a Dangerous World

In a dangerous world, protecting America’s national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

While we agree Senator, how many more billions do you think we have to spend on the military and Iraq? Have you thought about asking the Iraqi’s for financial assistance, cuz we are broke guy.

John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth – and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.

We hope you have a bigger wallet than we do Senator. Darn it, wished I married a beer magnate’s daughter. Great tasting and less filling. Whoops, wrong beer, sorry.

The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is clearly talking the talk, and you do have a background in the military, so certainly we can respect your opinion on the matter much more than that of Obama. But these are all things we know and we are going broke defending ourselves.

John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values – and to keep the peace – America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.

We agree to a degree Senator, but the primary reason we need the strongest military in the world is because our national interests are way too dispersed because we don’t use our own resources. We can’t go to war with the entire world every single time our national interest is threatened. We have to make it our national interest to not have to.

John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation’s obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.

As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

This sounds like spending John. Big spending. If you are worried about the spending by Obama, we wouldn’t be talking about a military expansion.

Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics

The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.

America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America’s weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.

In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.

We are figuring this worked Senator along with other policies because we have not had a terrorist attack on US soil since. We think you should bring that up clearly in the debate, although we are thinking you may not want to because it might be seen as taunting the terrorists.

We admire your experience in this area and endorse a continuation of a plan that appears to be working.

As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.

But how do you address Guantanamo and what do you want to do with captured terrorists? Our legal system isn’t going to address terrorism. It will just make lawyers defending them rich.

John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.

As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong – an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

The battleground of ideas is getting pretty sparse right about now. We would like to see a few.

Effective Missile Defense

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

We don’t think Russia and China will be nuking us any time soon. Korea maybe, but we think we have enough deterrents against them, considering several of our missiles could blow away their entire population.

John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the “balance of terror” to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.

With all due respect Senator. We have enough missiles.

Continue on next page…

Part I: Obama Versus McCain on National Security, Obama’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

Since 9/11, there has been much political talk about national security. There is much talk by the Democrats about the failings of the Bush administration and much talk from the Republicans accusing the Democrats of being soft on security issues.

Before we begin discussing the issue, we would like to make one salient point, we have had no significant terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. We consider that, regardless of what either side claims or says, a very important statistic.

The positions on both sides are lengthy. Unlike some issues, where the two sides seem to avoid the issue entirely or only gloss over it, this issue appears to draw major attention.

Obama’s Position is the most lengthy, here it is dispersed with our comments.

“After 9/11, our calling was to devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad,” Barack said. “Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won.”

How does the President misrepresent our enemies? Would it be to affiliate with terrorist organizations like the Weather Underground?

“Obama declared that the war in Iraq and Bush’s failed foreign policy had made us less safe than we were before 9/11, and outlined a new, comprehensive strategy to fight global terrorism:

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences…

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

If Bush is giving terrorists what they want, why have there been no major terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

“The Senator’s plan has already drawn glowing reviews from leading foreign policy experts.”

Mind giving us one that isn’t a Democrat supporting your candidacy or one of your advisors?

Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:

Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.

Did you expect a top Democrat to support McCain, or were you hoping we wouldn’t look it up?

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command:

Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.

Isn’t Gration one of your political advisors? Would you expect him to speak negatively of your plan acting in that position?

Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy:

At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration’s handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military’s pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.

A clearly liberal author? Wow, we would not expect her to support a liberal agenda.

Do you have anyone of any consequence at all that is not completely biased towards your campaign backing your strategy?

Let me also say that my thoughts and prayers are with your colleague, Haleh Esfandiari, and her family. I have made my position known to the Iranian government. It is time for Haleh to be released. It is time for Haleh to come home.

Aren’t you just following the dozens of calls for her release since her initial detention?

Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”

It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland. Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.

And you were just ending your tenure with a radical group working alongside terrorists.


Continue on next page…

Obama Coverup, Affiliation With Known Terrorists Questions Candidate’s Ideology

During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton became aware of an association between a known terrorist, Bill Ayers, and Senator Barrack Obama.  She stated that this association could be used by the Republican party to discredit Obama if he became the Democratic nominee for President. As more news on this relationship comes to light, it appears she may well have been correct.

Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were known terrorists for a group called the Weather Underground. Ayers claims to have set bombs at the US Capitol and the group was involved in the bombing of government buildings in the 60s and 70s.   Among those bombings was an attack on the Pentagon in 1972. Ayers has been repeatedly unrepentant about the attacks.  In 2001, this article appeared with Ayers standing on the American Flag as it lies in the dirt.

There are reasons to be concerned, primarily because Obama has made sincere efforts to conceal or downgrade his relationship with Ayers.  Obama, when asked about his relationship with Ayers in one of the debates during the Democratic Primary responded,

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.”

Obama left it at that, but as it turns out, that was hardly the entire story.  We find it amazing that Obama could brush off bombing of the US Capitol and the Pentagon so lightly!!! And this was much more than a casual acquaintance between the two, according to this article in the Wall Street Journal,

“From 1995 to 1999, he (Obama) led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.”

This demonstrates a  5 year relationship between Obama and Ayers, who was one of the original grantees of the CAC and was co-chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one of the two operational arms of the CAC.”

Obama obviously had not been forthcoming in the debate and has not answered to his affiliations to Ayers, and, according to this article, looks to be attempting to cover up that relationship.

Andrew McCarthy, former federal prosecutor that led the investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing when asked about Ayers had this to say, “Of all the people that have ever bombed the Pentagon, the State Department and a New York City Police Department headquarters, I am certain he is one of the best”.

We are disturbed with these allegations and would like a clear explanation from Senator Obama regarding his affiliation with CAC.  We do not wish to have the President of our nation, especially after 9/11, affiliated in any way with terrorists.  Such a tie would be a disgrace to America and endorse terrorist activities world-wide.

Beyond the implied associations with terrorism, it also brings into question Obama’s ideology.  Certainly such an affiliation implies Obama’s leanings are much more radical than they would otherwise appear.

The 2008 Presidential Debates: It’s Energy Independence Stupid!

The candidates need to focus. We believe there is one primary cause of America’s current problems. It isn’t Wall Street. It isn’t Main Street. It isn’t corruption. Quite simply, it is dependency on foreign oil and natural resources.

There are many nations we purchase oil from; they are not all rogue.  But what nations have led to problems for the US and yet still profit from selling us their oil directly or indirectly?  Iran, and for every barrel we purchase, we support their nuclear endeavor. Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists were born. Russia, which is now invading Georgia.

Now we even talk about attacking Iran or defending Georgia when it is OUR OIL money that is supporting Iran and Russia.

We are allies of Israel. It puts us at odds with ourselves and our own policies supporting Israel while we depend on her worst enemies for the bulk of our oil.

We realize that we purchase much or our oil from allies and local nations.  Please read our series on natural resources to find out who we depend on the most for our oil, but even those nations have seen their currencies advance strongly in the face of our dollar’s collapse as our economy weakens and our deficit rises.

This election could still go either way, but the advantage is currently with Obama.  We believe, however, there are many closet voters just waiting for their opportunity to elect McCain instead. It is popular to say you are for Obama, or to just hate Bush, but we believe that many Americans that take these positions are really not in favor of Obama’s policies, inexperience and lack of spending discipline.

When Clinton ran for President the first time, he came up with a slogan. It narrowed the issues and allowed America to identify with his ideals and his campaign. That slogan was, “It’s the economy stupid”. It focused his objectives and gathered a nation around him to fix our economic problems.

We face a myriad of problems, but most have been brought on by our dependency on foreign oil.

1. 9/11 brought on by our presence in the Middle East to protect our interests with respect to foreign oil.
2. War in Afghanistan against the Taliban.
3. Two attacks on Iraq, the second of which led to occupation. There is little doubt that many consider this a war over oil. Well, if we didn’t need their oil, it wouldn’t be an issue, would it?
4. A huge Federal deficit.
5. More pollution outside the US because we don’t use our own advanced technologies to tap the resources we need.

It’s energy independence, stupid!