The Obama everyone is ignoring...

[Backstop]

His sister?!?!

WTF?

[American Patriot]

If you've not been following this... you should be.

I'm beginning to think there was some attempt to hide the fact he was born, not in Hawaii as he and his family claim, but rather in the Philippines.

[samizdat]

If you've not been following this... you should be.

He's a cloak for Hilary. She has more Soviet experience.

[wallis]

Re: Post #9. I read Audacity of Hope, and the lifting of the quote about Muslims is definitely misleading (maybe inflammatory even). He was writing of equality for all Americans. This quote, taken completely out of context, was in line with the way the Native Americans were relegated to reservations, blacks were segregated, and any one of Japanese descent were sent to concentration camps.

[Toad]

I ignore negative ads by both sides. They are almost always out of context and purposefully skewed to manipulate rather than inform. It's like they think you're a child and can't see through the deception.

I just moved states. I'm so put off by the Republicans these last 3-4 years I'm registering Independent. They don't deserve to feel they have me locked in.

[American Patriot]

Barack Obama's 'lost' brother found in Kenya

Senator Barack Obama's long lost brother has been tracked down for the first time living in a shanty town in Kenya, reports claimed.



By Nick Pisa in Rome
Last Updated: 3:54PM BST 20 Aug 2008

George Hussein Onyango Obama, Senator Barack Obama's long lost brother was tracked down living in a hut on the outskirts of Nairobi Photo: Guy Calaf, Vanity Fair, Italy




The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.


Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.


"No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month."


According to Italy's Vanity Fair his two metre by three metre shack is decorated with football posters of the Italian football giants AC Milan and Inter, as well as a calendar showing exotic beaches of the world.
Vanity Fair also noted that he had a front page newspaper picture of his famous brother - born of the same father as him, Barack Hussein Obama, but to a different mother, named only as Jael.


He told the magazine: "I live like a recluse, no-one knows I exist."


Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation.


"If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed," he said.


For ten years George Obama lived rough. However he now hopes to try to sort his life out by starting a course at a local technical college.
He has only met his famous older brother twice - once when he was just five and the last time in 2006 when Senator Obama was on a tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi.


The Illinois senator mentions his brother in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as a "beautiful boy with a rounded head".


Of their second meeting, George Obama said: "It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger."
George added he was no longer in contact with his mother and said:"I have had to learn to live and take what I need.


"Huruma is a tough place, last January during the elections there was rioting and six people were hacked to death. The police don't even arrest you they just shoot you.


"I have seen two of my friends killed. I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists."

[Ryan Ruck]

Wow! Way to look out for family Barry! Leading through example! Your generosity knows no bounds! Way to be!

If McCain's campaign were smart and really wanted to play trench warfare, they'd bring George Obama here and film an interview with him saying all of that above, running the commercials 24/7 on national TV with an underlying message of "If BHO treats family like this, how would he treat our nation?"

[Aplomb]

I'm guessing that this is Obama thread so here's the latest.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4467

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Live-Birth abortion bills


Obama Lied About Vote Against Live-Birth Abortion Ban, Media Mum

By Warner Todd Huston Thursday, August 14, 2008

Jill Stanek has done yeoman’s work on uncovering the fact thatBarack Obama and his surrogates have been outright lying about Obama’s constant votes against the Live-Birth abortion bills when he was in office in the State legislature. His claims have been a staple of Old Media reports from the beginning, but now that Stanek has revealed the truth we will have to see if the Old Media corrects the record or if they suddenly just go mum on the subject like they have so far.


The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) both in the Illinois and Federal legislatures was meant to make illegal death by neglect of born but unwanted infants.



These bills were opposed by the bulk of the Democrat Party because of the fact that the original bills could have been construed to say that a pre-birth fetus was a “person” that was protected by law. So, the bill in Congress was altered to address that concern by adding a “neutrality clause” that made it clear that the bill would not protect a fetus in utero.


As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal “neutrality clause” was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very “neutrality clause” to the very bill he voted against in 2003.


As Stanek found, Obama not only was part of that committee adding the Federal “neutrality clause” to the Illinois bill, he was the chairman of that committee.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the “neutrality clause” (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

It strains credulity to believe that Obama was unaware that the “neutrality clause” was added to the bill if he was the chairman of the committee that put it in there, doesn’t it? So we are forced to realize that Obama knows the truth but is trying to rewrite history and with the willing accomplices in the Old Media he has succeeded in doing so thus far.


Stanek points out that only two years after his “no” vote, Obama had developed his “change” version of history.

Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the “neutrality” clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the “neutrality” clause.

Stanek has the whole sordid history on this affair, with links to the actual bills and umpteen news stories and legislative resources to prove her case. Go on over and take a look at her extensive research.


Now, this story is no matter of mere opinion. There is no possibility that Obama just has a different opinion on a controversial national issue than we do. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said, one is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.



What we have here is Obama simply telling a lie and knowingly doing so. Will the Old Media continue to cover up for him like they have done for the last four years?

[Aplomb]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4528

Obama was caught red-handed in his attempt to deceive the American people


Obama Accuses National Right to Life of Lying

By Christian Newswire Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Last week the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) released documents proving that Barack Obama has been blatantly covering up his actions as an Illinois state senator to actively defeat legislation to protect the lives of born, living, breathing babies who survive abortion attempts.


The documents included records from the Illinois state legislative committee Obama chaired revealing that Obama voted for language clarifying that a Born Alive bill would not in any way affect Roe v. Wade. But shockingly, Obama turned around and voted against the amended bill which contained the language he claims to this day would have made the bill acceptable to him.


“Obama was caught red-handed in his attempt to deceive the American people when NRLC released these documents,” said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director for Wisconsin Right to Life.


Over the weekend, Obama continued the cover-up when he told CBN News correspondent David Brody that NRLC is lying about his actions on the Illinois Born Alive bill. Obama said, “I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported—which was to say—that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born—even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade.”


Then Obama attacked NRLC by telling Brody, “So, for people to suggest that I...somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics we have to get beyond. It’s one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it’s another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they’re wrong.”


Douglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director, has issued the following challenge to Obama: “We now challenge Obama to either declare the two 2003 documents to be forgeries and call for an official investigation, or else apologize for his four years of misrepresentation on the issue of babies who are born alive during abortions—and for calling us liars.”


“This issue is not going to go away,” said Armacost. “Obama is still blatantly trying to cover up his infanticide votes and the American people deserve to know the truth.”

[Aplomb]

Just perhaps by the time we go into those private voting booths, some of the Obama followers will have seen and heard enough to vote against him, kind of like bad karma for the liar, along the lines of what goes around comes around.

[wallis]

I'm an Independent, so please no one get the perception that I necessarily support Obama or am acting as his mouthpiece.

Two things strike me as I read Aplomb's latest. Obama is a politician, because every politician I have watched in the past (almost) 60 years has tried to cover up something, lie his/her way out of something, or just objusicate long enough for a problem to go away. Since so many politicians have "gotten away with it," John Q. Public probably just shrugs its collective shoulders and says: "Oh, well. He is a politician."

If such things or goings on really did upset John Q. Public, then why are Senators and Congress-people still being elected year after year. You'd think that Ted Kennedy would have been outed decades ago.

I cannot think of a President in the past 60 years that did not have some scandalous dirt attached to him, and yet they were still elected President. It would be an interesting study indeed to analyze the voting habits of John Q. But I suspect that since nothing of import has been published is because no one can figure out (exactly) what goes on in the minds of voters once they start pulling levers or making chad.

Secondly, would it not be fair and balanced if we had a similar thread on John McCain? So far, it looks like he could be the second Teflon president.

I feel that "We Need A Change" is going to reverberate throughout America. Despite the latest polls that show both candidates neck and neck or with John slightly ahead, I feel that on vote day people are going vote with their hearts rather than with facts.

I really cannot see how this Pro-Life thing is going to stick to Obama at all. It just isn't major enough to send the masses into John's camp. I feel there is a great resentment towards the Republican party for a number of reasons. One being a desire to live under a Clintonesque America where people felt prosperous and happy. But then sheep will believe anything I guess.

If I may make a prediction here:

Hillary's pictures always reminded me of a "death's head." She's not out of the running as yet, but if she ever does become President, she will be the last President.

If Obama is elected, then we had all better hold on to our wallets--if that really will do any good. Because it is going to cost us plenty to become a welfare state-nation.

If John becomes President, I do not see a rosy picture either. I feel that he will not serve out his first term. Not through assassination but by virtue of his health.

[wallis]

Oh--almost forgot. His brother thing kind of cracks me up. Does anyone remember Jimmy Carter's beer-guzzling brother? Didn't exactly help the "old man's" image.

But then if I were running for office, I wouldn't want to be associated with my brother either. Wouldn't want people to think I was like him in any way.

A campaign using Obama's brother might backfire. "We need to elect Obama so that he can help out his poor lost brother and all of the good people of Nairobi."

[American Patriot]

I cannot think of a President in the past 60 years that did not have some scandalous dirt attached to him, and yet they were still elected President. It would be an interesting study indeed to analyze the voting habits of John Q. But I suspect that since nothing of import has been published is because no one can figure out (exactly) what goes on in the minds of voters once they start pulling levers or making chad.

1) Ronald Reagan
2) George HW Bush

No "scandalous dirt".

[Toad]

Playing Devil's advocate -

1986 and the Iran-Contra scandal muddied both Pres. Reagan and VP Bush, legitimate or not. The perception of "or not" was definately there. Public opinion at the time very much questioned both Pres. Reagan and VP Bush's assertaion of being out of the loop or innocent bystanders.

I remember my grandfather, a lifelong Republican, questioning what was being told to the American public and just how truthful the White House was being.

We may choose to dismiss the event entirely, but at the time, an event it was and very much the talk on main street and around the water cooler questioning the actions of the administration.


Edit: - Actually re-reading, perhaps the question was of "dirt" pre-election, not in a career.

[Aplomb]

What is more important, to each individual--to vote for somebody who has the same views that you have or to vote for somebody who is a more responsible and ethical in their daily and political decision making? This is not just a failing of politicians. All of us being human, nobody is totally guilt-free, that is a given. And generally speaking, when one is caught in a lie, or some naughty deed, the person owns up to it, pretty much because there's no way out if not for a more noble reason of having a repentant heart. That is not always the case, but it is even more difficult to have any respect for somebody who has put their name on a document and claims ignorance and then when properly countered with further evidence, still stands pretending or believing himself innocent in the matter while stating that the one with the truth is a liar. Perhaps this seems like some small matter, but I disagree. This is the substance of a man through and through. His actions in this regard prove that he is the sort of man for whom the end justifies the means. And even worse in character to try to play victim and point a finger elsewhere. I won't go as far as to say that he got this from the Koran; some people are like this from birth.

[wallis]

On Ronald Reagan (God bless 'im), I remember where the Democrats tried to pin a scandal on him for actions he allegedly took as President of the Actors' Union.

[wallis]

Aplomb, me thinks that you have already colored Obama in one hue and found him wanting. Picky as I am with English, I cannot find sympathy with your "This is the substance of a man through and through." I doubt that I could find any person who is completely rotten or completely a saint.

Tricky Dicky came close, perhaps, but he was still a human being who did love someone: his dog, wife, and/or daughter. I think he actually believed "I am not a crook." He had the interests of America at heart, even if he had to crush every dissenting voice that challenged his view of Fortress America.

JFK, our shining knight of neo-Camelot, lied and schemed, and America still loves him. He wasn't allows "yellow," if you want to believe the tales of his heroism during WWII. (roll eyes)

"I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton was "dirty" in so many ways; but I don't think he is of a bad substance through and through. Maybe only 80%. Just be sure to lock up your daughters when he is in town.

G. Bush is kind of a jackass at times: but perhaps a cunning jackass. The scandals people tried to pin on him didn't stick. He might be obstinate on some issues, but he is not a substance through and through. That he likes to pick on weak nations readily doesn't mean that "through and through" he won't challenge bigger nations like the Soviet Union--oops, I mean Russia. (We're still waiting, Georgie!)

I hope that I am not a person of substance either through and through. Only sometimes am I a big asshole. Most of the time I'm a little one, and I only practice being one to get people's attention or think outside the box.

Love to all!

[wallis]

You know, it is so hard to ferret out what is fact and fiction these days. News reporters are not robotic mouthpieces that spit out the news unfettered, unbiased, “fair and balanced.”

#1, the fierce competition to get the news out first leads to errors, falsehoods, and leading biases.


#2, news reporters realize that they have a bully pulpit to convince people to believe their way, to side with them in their thinking. They are not free from taint.

Take a hypothetical situation: Thomas Jefferson wrote that “All men are equal, including Negroes and other people of color.” But the Declaration of Independence only included the words “all men are equal.”

Imagine the field day modern new reporters would have with uncovering the intentions of Jefferson.


“Mr. Jefferson, are you saying that Negroes are not men?”
“No. I did not.”
“Then why did you vote for including Negroes and people of color as being equal as well?”
“I had to vote for the union of the 13 Colonies. I believe that in the near future Americans will embrace that all men include all people of all colors and races.”
“You own slaves, Mr. Jefferson. Are you not a racist? Are you not actually lying to the American public? On one hand, you claim that all men are equal, and yet you actively support that some men are more equal than others based on the color of a man’s skin.”


Headline: Mr. Jefferson lied when he stated he supports all men are equal.


“Mr. Jefferson, are you saying that while men are equal, women are not?”
“I use the generic term ‘men’ to indicate all persons.”
“Would you support women’s rights to vote and hold office?”
“At this time, no. Our society has formulated certain roles for both men and women. In the future, society may change and be more accepting of having women take a more active role in politics and business.”
“So, you are saying that women are incapable of assuming political and business positions.”
“You are twisting my words. I am saying that in today’s society, we have accepted that men have their roles to play, and women have their roles to play. I am also saying that if Americans as a whole wish to change their societal views and allow women to participate more fully outside the home, than I would welcome such change.”
“Mr. Jefferson, why do you prefer to sleep with a Negress than with your own wife?”
“I believe that my private life has nothing to do with my politics. I should not be judged by my personal life but rather how I can govern all Americans to a bright future.”


Headline: Mr. Jefferson is not only a racist but a womanizer as well.


I attest that most of our journalism investigators seek out the worst in our candidates and hold up one-sided or two-sided “proofs” as being the “whole person.”


It is not amazing to me that America elects two so-so candidates for the highest office of the land, not to mention the most powerful position in the world. No one really qualified to be President wants to be splattered across every tabloid in the world, vilified for being human, and humiliated by countless diverse groups for not thinking the “right” way.

Given that we have two so-so candiates again running for President of the United States, we Americans have to choose between the "best of two evils"; "whis kissing my derriere the most and making me believe that he will do what I think ought to be done"; "who can do for me while I don't have to do anything for my country"; "who is going to make me sacrifice my lifestyle the least"; "who looks best in the Oval Office"; and so on and so on.

[Aplomb]

Well, wallis, you certainly wrote a lot there. I do understand your points. What I meant was that this man appears to have a deceit problem. Rather than own up to something, he would rather call somebody who revealed the truth a liar publicly. And yes, personally I do have a problem with somebody voting against the right of a human baby born through an abortion that didn't kill him or her to have medical assistance to save the child rather than ensure that it is killed or left to die. Even so, if he wants to be this pro-choice, he has that right here legally. I'd respect him if he had said that he had that right rather than denying it and then calling somebody a liar for proving he had indeed voted that way. That is how bullies deal with things. When I said that this is the substance of the man I mean exactly this: Obama is a liar. Some people lie from time to time. Some people are liars. He is deceitful. He changes his opinion a lot depending on the audience as anyone can google and see.

[wallis]

After reading his book, Audacity to Hope, I wish that he would quote more of the things he wrote. From the book, I found him to be a nice guy.

Let's agree to disagree. I just can't come out and inclusively state that he is a liar.