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.”

Is A Large Portion of Obama’s Fundraising Illegal?

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.

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…

In Retrospect, Palin Is NO NIMBY. Heroic Speech Questions Obama’s Double Speak

In her September 3rd speech accepting her selection as the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, Palin astutely stated, “U.S. reliance on imported oil poses a national security risk, and energy policy should include everything from expanding domestic drilling to finding alternative fuels”. 

The Democrats appear to think we should continue to import our resources while we take decades to bring on alternative fuels, but with the NIMBY attitude of the US, that isn’t going to happen any time soon. We need to break the ecology extremists that would save a chicken at the expense of a human life. These liberals would see our economy crushed before they would stop sending huge amounts of American currency to the home of the terrorists that executed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Palin went on, “”We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”

Palin showed that she has more savvy and is more cognizant of America’s situation than the Democrats which are still planning on addressing our national deficit by blocking energy advances in America and continuing to import foreign oil at huge expense.

We are NIMBY’s. It has to stop. It has to stop now. the Democrats support NIMBYism and are desperate to continue to add to our national deficit and to discourage the tapping of US resources and inherent creation of US jobs.

These policies, combined with a set of programs that would cost nearly the national deficit with no logical explanation of how to pay for them, has driven us away from Obama.

Obama has a chance to sway the moderates like us to his side, but it isn’t lying in his commercials. He has to answer several questions.

1. How do we reduce our dependency on foreign oil ASAP? We have a hint. It isn’t ethanol.

2. How do we pay for 400 billion dollars worth of Democratic programs with only what Obama states is a small tax increase on those making over $250,000?

3. How do you roll back Bush Tax Cuts without raising taxes? Aren’t raising taxes and rolling back tax cuts the exact same thing?

4. How can you say you will solve Social Security Problems by taxing people a decade from now, when you know you can’t possibly even be in office by then? Wouldn’t that just be deferring responsibility to your successor?

Those would be our questions to Obama in the debates, and we are not CBS, a pandering network in Obama’s pocket.

If you, our readers, can provide the answers to any of these questions above, we welcome your input, because we sure can’t.

John McCain’s RNC Speech Shows No Real Direction

We feel last night Senator McCain had an opportunity to lay out a clear direction for America. We believe he turned mostly to hyperbole and avoided the issues that face America, and because of this, his speech failed. Here are some primary issues from that speech and our replies.

1. We lost their (Americans) trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.

Our Response: OK, we need to know what the heck you are talking about Senator. If a bill was passed that was a welfare bill for oil companies, what was it, and how will you have it repealed? That is a big issue, don’t gloss over it.

2. We believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We’re all God’s children and we’re all Americans.

Our Reponse: Uh, no kidding. You are just paraphrasing the US Constitution. We are figuring the US citizens get that by now. But yet we appear to be doing everything we can to inhibit migration of new immigrants that could help this nation and economy going forward. That Latino daughter likely had parents that came to this country illegally because of the bureaucracy we create to block desirable immigrants from making our shores.

3. We believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.

Our Response: OK, but there a policy in there somewhere right? These statements are too broad-based. Open Markets scare Americans because it has led to a huge migration of jobs out of the US and because we continually allow countries like China to export cheap, knock-offs of our products, often patented or name-brand products, to the US. Free trade is one thing. It means we do not charge duties and taxes on imports. But cheating trade is another. And those nations that continually hurt Americans do not deserve carte blanche access to our markets.  Certainly, we want to keep the “fruits of our labor”, but we want to have jobs so there is some fruit!

4. We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities.

Our Response: OK. But this is just filler right Senator?

5. My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them

Our Response: Senator. With all due respect, we have kept taxes low or cut them over the past eight years and destroyed our economy. We went from a nation in 2000 with a surplus to once again having a massive deficit. And despite all those tax cuts and Republican efforts, we are facing an economic meltdown as banks and mortgage companies fail.

6. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

Our Response: We fail to see how a health care system that pools the purchasing power of all Americans can hurt America. So far, the health care insurance companies are raking in unheard of revenues and profits, all the while telling us it is because the expense of health-care has gone up. Yes, it has, primarily because of these institutions that fight, not for health-care, but against paying for it while steadily raising premiums. On a regular basis, these insurance companies reject health-care claims for obscure reasons and make each and every American fight for every visit to their doctor or for every prescription. It is no longer up to your doctor to decide what is appropriate for your personal care; it is up to the insurance companies. That is not health-care. That amounts to insurance bean-counters trying to keep Americans from getting the care they pay for, and it has placed the US well behind curve in terms of quality nation-wide health-care.

In addition, your policy of removing the tax deduction for employer provided health-care benefits replacing it with a $5000 tax credit for family coverage is totally misguided. It penalizes people in higher cost of living areas.  It also rewards only families, implying single people were not worth government’s time (remember, all men/women were created equal, the constitution says nothing about “married only”), and essentially does nothing to address the furious rise in the cost of health insurance.  That is the true issue here.  It comes down to how much we are charged for medical coverage, not the cost of health-care artificially inflated by these insurance companies.

For example, when I get a bill for a test from the hospital, it is three times what the insurance company has told the hospital they would approve.  That is totally unfair to uninsured Americans, to pay many times the cost of the actual service and many times what large insurance companies pay for the same service.  A simple law to ban this practice would assist greatly in the artificially increasing cost of health-care.

7. Cutting the second highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas.

Our Response: It is not the tax rate that drives companies out of America, it is the expense of labor. Our cost of living is higher, so we have to pay our workforce more money. You argue for free trade, but fail to protect us from cheap and often illegal knock off imports that damage those companies that support our jobs. If you want to support jobs in America, make it less profitable for companies to locate outside the US, take away their tax breaks and take away the ability of foreign companies to export knock-off products into the US so easily that one can purchase illegal copies of copyrighted software and patented products on the streets of New York 24 hours a day.

8. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3500 to $7000 will improve the lives of millions of American families. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit. Opening new markets and preparing workers to compete in the world economy is essential to our future prosperity.

Our Response: Again, you are discriminating against the unmarried man or woman. That does not improve their lives, it makes them pay for the children of others. We are all for reducing government spending, but so far, we haven’t seen a specific policy regarding that. Opening new markets for us internationally is great. The US Market is too open already. Free trade so far is better than “free” for other nations, but is very expensive for America and its labor force.

9. My opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We’re going to help workers who’ve lost a job that won’t come back, find a new one that won’t go away.

Our Response: Words are cheap. This is repetitive nonsense we have heard before. Where are those jobs? We don’t want to wish away the global economy Senator, we want to make it a fair playing field, not just allowing foreign countries to steal from our investors while marketing illegal products in our nation. That is not free trade; that is stupid trade.

10. We will prepare them for the jobs of today. We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities.

Our Response: Sounds good. But it implies you think that other nations aren’t already training their workforces as well, and as long as you make it more advantageous for them to steal work from America in a so-called global market place, they are doing the training cheaper and delivering cheaper labor, which is killing even trained jobs in America.

If we are going to do that, at least immigrate trained labor from other nations so those people can at least pay American taxes and support Social Security going forward, instead of wasting billions trying to fight off immigration.

11. Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I’m President, they will.

Our Response: More useless verbiage with no plan.

12. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. It’s an ambitious plan, but Americans are ambitious by nature, and we have faced greater challenges. It’s time for us to show the world again how Americans lead.

Our Response: Here we agree with the Senator 100%. We are a “prima donna” nation that thinks we have the right to not use our resources as the rest of the world charges us for theirs. We think that by paying others to do the dirty work, we somehow brush off responsibility on them. We can no longer, with our massive deficit, continue to enrich the nations rich in oil resources. We have our own resources, we must find ways to tap them.

We as a nation cannot be responsible alone for the “health of the planet”. Our population is only 1/3 that of China, and that is only one other nation in the world. You speak of a global economy where the US takes all responsibility for “health of the planet” while you offer those countries taking advantage of cheap resources at the expense of the environment free trade with the US on a totally unfair playing field. We need to drill. We need to build better and more modern energy plants. We need to mine those resources available to us. If we do not, other nations will, we will pay them to do it, and they will not care about what they destroy in the process of taking our money.

We are done listening to speeches like this Senator. We want a plan. We want specifics. This speech was disheartening because it lacked content, it lacked a plan we can buy into, and it is clearly not going to get you elected president no matter how many years you spent in a prison camp.

We have a new idea.  How about making Iraq the 51st US State?  Wow, that is radical.  Anybody with any guts out there?