An Enigma Named Barackby L. A. Sunset
We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama.
Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions.
Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):
William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years.
Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite.
Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law.
Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies.
Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008.
Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below)
Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II.
Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko.
Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric.
Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground
leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama.
Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.”
Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for
six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”
Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.
The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:
The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process.
Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).
Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this 1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.
From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power.
Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”
Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled, The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here.
Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values.
John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility.
Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations.
Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist.
Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations.
We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics.
We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.
also see..
Always on Watch / And Rightly So / Big Girl Pants / Confessions of a Closet Republican / Farmer’s Letters / GeeeeeZ / Has Everyone Gone Nuts? / Papa Frank / Paleocon Command Center / Pondering Penguin / Social Sense / The Amboy Times / The Crank Files / The Jungle Hut / The Logic Lifeline / The Merry Widow / Political Yen Yang
15 comments:
Heck of a propaganda piece. It really demonstrates how skilled the writer is at standing on a platform of McCarthyite logic: A knows B, so A agrees with B.
The writer should have focused on one angle and provided links to evidence at credible sources. Instead, the writer chose to lazily smear Obama with a variety of today's preferred stereotypes.
This is pretty divisive opinion piece, and it worries me that our political discussion is taking a downturn toward guilt-by-association attacks. I'd much rather us have a discussion about health care, which is one of the leading reasons for bankruptcy across America during this economic crisis, and Obama is the only candidate that has a decent plan for improving access and affordability to health care and preventative care. McCain only offers a 2500 tax coupon, and he doesn't even offer a solution to one of health care's largest problems: coverage for people who have preexisting conditions.
You want to talk about Obama's associations, let's talk about Obama's mother, who lay in her hospital bed fighting cancer and arguing with her insurance company until the very end, trying to get them to cover their part of her medical expenses. That's something a lot of us can relate to.
What's really evil is how we treat our elderly and sick people, and Obama has a plan to change that. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/)
Anyway, I hear his grandmother is dying. My heart goes out to him and his family.
I think this is an excellent article, well written, researched, and I hope it gets spread out across this nation. With L.A. Sunset's permission I can have this published in our local newspaper. I advise others to do the same.
Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth
Debbie, how can you say this opinion piece was well researched, when there are no sources citations for to back up the foundation of the writers' argument?
We need to dig deeper to come up with rational arguments for or against the candidates' policies. We owe it to ourselves to fend off guilt-by-association attacks against people, whether we disagree with those folks or not.
The reality of this situation is that some members of McCain's campaign think it's a good idea to try to win this election by associating Obama with radicalism, and that goes too far. It makes us angry and fearful, not stronger, and it distorts a good, working man's character for the sake of what? Power? We are better than this. Every four years we go through the same divide-and-conquer tactics, and it's up to us, the electorate, to say, Enough.
If Colin Powell (a decorated war hero) and Warren Buffett (a decorated... economist?) thought for a second that Obama was a "radical extremist," do you think they'd endorse him? How many good people's names are we going to drag through the mud before we realize we were being played all along by campaign strategists who are trying to divide the nation and conquer it to win this election?
You've got a choice: a candidate who mongers fear and a candidate who mongers hope. Only one of these is going to unite our country. We have been tearing ourselves apart for too long.
We are a better nation than is implied by our political discourse of late.
Debbie, you have my permission.
McCrap, the piece is riddled with sources. (Pun Intended). I suspect, no matter how many sources you are provided, you have your mind made up already. So I feel safe in surmising that more sources would not be successful in persuading you to believe any of it.
Ergo, it is not written for you.
Debbie, I apologize if I came across as badgering. I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.
Lasunsett, I disagree with the fundamental logic of your argument that Obama agrees with the people to whom you link him. The burden of proof falls on you to provide evidence that these associations have affected Obama's judgment or actions, just as the burden of proof would fall on me if I made the argument that because McCain served the same senate as Strom Thurmond and David Duke, he agrees with their racist philosophies. If I were to make the argument that because McCain is friends with former G. Gordon Liddy, he agrees with Liddy that law officers should be shot in the head if they try to enforce gun ownership restrictions, the burden of proof would fall to me.
Frankly, I respect McCain as much as I respect Obama, so I'm not going to drag his name through the mud. McCain has plenty--PLENTY--of unsavory associations, and good luck finding a politician who doesn't. However, I doubt he agrees on everything with all of them. I feel exactly this way about Obama, and so I'll be focusing on the issues in this election. Obama's economic plan, tax plan, health care plan, education plan, and his plans and judgment on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan match my idea of the kind of president this country needs at this time. He has the steadier hand of the two candidates, and he has won my vote fairly. He won it on the issues, and he solidifies the win with his temperament and thoughtful leadership throughout the bailout negotiations and ongoing economic crisis.
McCrapley,
//I disagree with the fundamental logic of your argument that Obama agrees with the people to whom you link him. //
That's fine. It's your right to disagree. But when you take a moment to think about this, remember something.
There is a reason parents tell their kids not to hang out with the neighborhood trouble makers. The company someone keeps is more likely to be an influence on that person , more so than any influence the person may have on the group.
I have a very difficult time reconciling the fact that Obama had close relationships with these characters, without being influenced. You can choose to disregard it if you wish, but I have been around too long to overlook these things.
lasunsett,
I'm just saying we shouldn't hold Obama to a double standard. You say you have been around too long to overlook people's associations, yet you ignore my argument that Obama's associations are no more troubling than McCain's relationships with Watergate instrument and murder plotter G. Gordon Liddy, segregationist Strom Thurmond, KKK member David Duke, white collar criminal Charles Keating, and former secessionist Todd Palin. What gives?
You say you have a difficult time reconciling the fact that Obama had close relationships with the people you mention, without being influenced. I say that it's not clear that Obama had had close relationships with any of these people. It's also not clear that these people have been fairly characterized. For example, Ayers did some pretty detestable stuff in the 60s, and he has written some pretty crazy stuff since then, but on education reform--the only tangible basis for linking him to Obama--you characterized as radical Ayers' argument that teachers should fight racism and prejudice in their classrooms. As I'm from Nashville, I tend to agree with his argument, even though I quite frankly despise his crimes in the 60s and many aspects of his public persona today. Ultimately, all we can legitimately argue is that Ayers and Obama served on the same charitable commission. (The argument that Obama launched his political career in Ayer's living room has already been debunked).
Similarly, you characterize Wright as a condemner of "white America," but I've read his sermons, and I've come to the conclusion that while his speeches were sometimes over the top, they were aimed at the common goal of fighting hypocrisy and global injustice. They're not the black separatist speeches that the media has characterized them as--and if they were, how do you think they would make Obama feel? I mean, the guy's mother--who reared him--is white, and it's clear from Obama's speech on race that he has a perspective on the race issue that focuses on unity.
Abongo (Roy) Obama: Barack barely knows his half-brother. His father left when he was very young, and Baracka and Abongo grew up separately. If you've ever listened to an interview with Abongo, you can tell that he's a completely different person from Barack. They've pretty clearly lived different life stories. I think I read somewhere that they met once. I'm not sure what else to say about this.
Look, I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but it's fairly important--and it's our job sometimes, as media consumers--to research sounds bites that have been stripped of their context and taken literally by the mass media outlets.
If Colin Powell (a decorated war hero) and Warren Buffett (a decorated... economist?) thought for a second that Obama was a "radical extremist," do you think they'd endorse him? How many good people's names are we going to drag through the mud before we realize we were being played all along by campaign strategists who are trying to divide the nation and conquer it to win this election?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were also decorated war heroes, and were excoriated by the left for stating their opinion of Kerry's fitness to serve.
Powell showed his ignorance of Obama's past by saying Ayers was of no consequence, which is bizarre coming from a man who fought in Vietnam while Ayers was over here fighting America.
The point nobody on the left seems capable of getting is that Ayers is UNREPENTANT. He is not "rehabilitated" and Obama surely knows it--he's patronizing us and getting away with it.
And General Powell, who was given every major promotion of his career by "evil Repubs" has the temerity to say the GOP has gone narrow and too far right? What, by nominating Palin? Please. Powell could care less about Obama's past--he's positioning himself for the future.
BTW McCrapley, for some reason your blogger profile is blocked. Maybe you'd like to share the url?
//yet you ignore my argument that Obama's associations are no more troubling than McCain's relationships with Watergate instrument and murder plotter G. Gordon Liddy, segregationist Strom Thurmond, KKK member David Duke, white collar criminal Charles Keating, and former secessionist Todd Palin. What gives?//
I do not see McCain serving in the Senate with Thurmond, at the same time Duke was in the House, the same as meeting in their houses to launch a campaign. These people were merely associates in a professional setting. The list of characters I provide here, were far more influential on Obama than any of these guys were on McCain.
As for Liddy, he never advocated for people to shoot officers in the head. While his hypothetical commentary was ill-advised, I have not seen anything that resembles him calling for murdering police officers or any other law enforcement agents. I have read the transcripts, I heard the sound bites years ago.
As for Palin, he has no other connection to him other than he chose his wife for a running mate. There is no evidence to suggest that McCain shares any secessionist ideology with anyone.
The only exception I will give is Keating, which was years ago and McCain has owned up to his mistake. By contrast, Obama has not owned up to anything, all he has done is minimize the relationships and complain about those posing these questions, calling them distractions.
If you come to a job interview and I am interviewing you, I have a right to know who you worked for (and with) before. Your resume will tell me about you and it should not be discounted in my decision to hire you. Obama has applied for the position of President of the United States, and we have the right to look at the resume.
This post is a significant part of his resume. You can choose to ignore it and vote for him anyway, I will not ignore it.
Bottom line here, it's always good to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I am not McCain's biggest fan, but from where I sit, there's no comparison between him and Obama, only contrasts.
This is my claim, this is my support for my claim, now it's up to you whether you believe me or not. If you do, fine. If you don't, fine. As I said earlier, it's your right to disagree, if that's your choice. I wont lose any sleep over it, one way or the other.
lasunsett,
"These people were merely associates in a professional setting."
Really? Didn't McCain vote against the establishment of MLK day? Didn't he vote against bills in 1993 and 1994 that were intended to establish federal penalties for domestic terrorism of abortion clinics? I'm sure I could draw all kind of psychological observations about how McCain's associations led him to make his decisions in these matters, but this is politics, not a college English paper. His decisions are what matter, not the people he bumped elbows with in the elevator.
What's the point of arguing about associations? Reps want to exaggerate Obama's connections to someone who blew up some buildings when he was eight years old. Dems want to exaggerate McCain's connection to someone who blew up the American economy when he was 72 years old. It's all the same, in a sense.
In the end, Obama has a health care policy that allows me to get insurance if I develop cancer and can't stay at my job. McCain doesn't.
Obama has a foreign policy plan that gets us out of a war that was founded on misinformation and subsequently mismanaged and restages the conflict back in Afghanistan against the networks that organized the bombing of our country in 2001. McCain wants to stay the course in Iraq. He wants "victory," even when our top commander, Gen. Petraeus, has said he would never use the word "victory" to describe the outcome of Iraq.
McCain has spent decades fighting regulation, and now he's for it... or against it? It's hard to keep track of his position on the economy these days. He thinks a progressive tax is socialism; what does he think his 300B mortgage bailout plan is?
So, I guess we're not going to agree. I'm personally nauseated by his choice of Palin after hearing her interviews (all, like, two of them) and seeing the McCampaign's censorship of the press, so I'll take my vote somewhere else.
I've got to get back to work. Thanks for the interesting conversation. I hope you realize that I respect your opinions, even though we're talking from different sides of the center. I don't categorize anyone as an "evil Republican" in my mind.
(BTW, I don't have a blog or an up to date profile, so that's why it's blocked.)
This one's all I have time to address right now, McCrapley--
Obama has a foreign policy plan that gets us out of a war that was founded on misinformation and subsequently mismanaged and restages the conflict back in Afghanistan against the networks that organized the bombing of our country in 2001. McCain wants to stay the course in Iraq. He wants "victory," even when our top commander, Gen. Petraeus, has said he would never use the word "victory" to describe the outcome of Iraq.
That's because Petraeus isn't a politician and realizes things can go south in a hurry should we suddenly change tactics (like redeploying to Okinawa), which would destabilize an entire region full of terrorist sympathizers.. and perhaps causing us to return one day.
But to suggest he's ever given up on the mission would be a stretch, I think. Just once I'd like to hear Obama express a hope that we'd leave Iraq victorious, but alas, he cannot due to politics.
//Didn't McCain vote against the establishment of MLK day? Didn't he vote against bills in 1993 and 1994 that were intended to establish federal penalties for domestic terrorism of abortion clinics?//
Voting records are different than associations, but also are fair game for debate and consideration. McCain has a long history of them and Obama has very little. When he has voted, he voted with his party over 90% of the time. Since he has made an issue of uniting people, how will that unite us?
You are right, we won't agree on this. But I welcome your debate anytime. Here or on my blog.
(I'm actually asking this question, I'd like reasonable responses please)
How can the left continue to say "it doesn't matter who whom Sen. Obama associates, it doesn't say anything about his values/beliefs"?
We know he is a far left liberal, we know he has talked on a number of occasions about his redistribution plans, etc... We know the New Party endorsed him. We know about Wright, Ayers, Khalidi, Rezko, Farrakhan, Odinga, Meeks, etc...
Are his supporters really trying to establish that all of this is just coincidence (and on top of that, he is a centralist)?
Add in the fact that we know relatively nothing about his years in education (thesis?), nothing published from the law review, and he spent a fair amount of time growing up out of the country.
In the media outlets and the blogs, the left has been defending by saying "let's talk about more important things, like healthcare and the economy".
Yes, those issues are important; but! I think its very important to know about the candidates ties to (extreme) socialist groups, black liberation theology, anti-Semitic figures, etc...
Plus lets not get into the problems with his donations from foreigners on his website.
To me its scary, and even scarier that its hard to get people to question these things. I'd expect the same scrutiny of Sen. McCain's values.
Fact is Connor, we've known McCain a long time. He's basically an open book on the political scene. Most didn't know Obama before 2004, and many until 2006 or later. It's only prudent to ask about associations.
The only reason the left and his supporters (oxymoron) are getting so sensitive is because they know it's a sensitive subject. They know it doesn't look good. But the left are masters at turning around arguments and killing messengers, and they've done it beautifully in this race so far.
Post a Comment