Hillary's plan for fixing NAFTA included a series of steps which required legislation to regularly review trade agreements every five years. She had spoken out against manipulation of currency by China as well as other unfair practices.
Senator Obama plan was the Obama two-step. The one step was to oppose NAFTA and the second step was not to oppose it - or so it would appear because he presented himself as a staunch opponent of NAFTA while his economic advisor told the Canadians, "not to worry" - his opposition to NAFTA were just words. And it is no surprise that this was all part of the two-step - just pure political rhetoric, Obama style.
In Ohio in 2004 before an agricultural group he provided a much different story. As reported by (AP) Associated Press on September 8th, 2004, it said: "Obama said the United States should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." (AP - Sept 8, 2004)
And in The Decatur Herald and Review on September 9th, 2004, it is reported: "Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA."
So who is the REAL Barack Obama? What is he and what does he stand for? He stands for whatever is politically expedient at the moment.
In the Illinois Senate, Barack Obama voted present - meaning he was taking no position, about 130 times. Some of these "present" votes involved abortion. What did Barack Obama not want to take a position on? The ban on certain late-pregnancy abortions, or a requirement that a minor's parents be notified and restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. He was not willing to support a women's right to choose. Obama was the only "present" vote on the legislation which allowed the victims of rape and other sex crimes to have their court records sealed. Why? Obama now says he wasn't sure about the bill's constitutionality which however became law and has NEVER been struck down by the courts. Obama also voted "present" on legislation making it easier to send juveniles to adult court, a position which cannot be considered by any stretch of logic to be progressive.
Obama was untruthful about NAFTA. In a campaign mailer in Ohio, (per AP, Feb 26, 2008) the Obama campaign mailer said, "Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was a 'boon' to our economy," and "Only Barack Obama consistently opposed NAFTA." None of which is true, as I have previously pointed out. In his 2004 Senate campaign Obama said the U.S. should pursue more deals like NAFTA and as reported in AP, he "argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for U.S. workers."
"In a speech to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council in 2002, she (Hillary) said this of her husband's record: "The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady bill. Family leave. NAFTA. Investment in science and technology. New markets...."" (AP)
Hillary never said NAFTA was a "boon." That was a lie. She supported her husband's position overall, but had misgivings and was uncomfortable with many aspects of NAFTA (as witnessed and previously mentioned).
Obama claims he stands up to special interests. That claim was fallacious. With regard to the housing crisis, Senator Obama has received $1.18 million from subprime lenders and has taken more campaign contributions from the top ten issuers of subprime loans.
Obama artfully LIES and gets away with it. Hillary just misspeaks and is nailed for it. Hillary visits a real war zone and she is "swift boated" for tripping over her description of conditions on the ground. Let there be no mistake about it; her trip to Bosnia was frought with risk and she was accompanied by sharpshooters for her protection. She was not on holiday. She admitted to her misstake. It was an exaggeration based on her memory of the events and she admitted to it. She said she misspoke but never meant to lie; she felt endangered but her real concern was for the troops and she went there to thank them, which she did. For that she did not deserve Obama's disparagement.
But it is nothing like the consistent lying of Barack Obama and his campaign staff and advisers. Obama's policy advisers, Austan Goolsbee and Samantha Power, who blew it for Obama with NAFTA, the Iraq War and the untruthful claim that Obama does not resort to negative campaign tactics.
As a reminder, Goolsbee and Powers admitted that Obama's rhetoric doesn't match the truth and it is obvious that it never will. We got it! Some of us always knew it. Some are still in denial. And he still gets a free pass.
Obama's academic advisers may be good at their job; they are just not good enough at altering facts to fit political exigency. Obama never met a truth he could relate to because he constantly leaves out essential truths, or what is really going on around him, as with Rezko and that whole gang of deceivers and crooks.
Obama has his groupies on Facebook and MySpace and upper-class Liberals and his Black supporters but not even the Wright video was a real wake-up call for Obamaholics. How can you sit in pew in the same church every Sunday, year in and year out, holidays and at other times and not be aware of the hate against America, for Whites and for Israel, that is being spewed out of the mouth of your beloved minister, the guy who you call your mentor, and the person who even married you and Michelle and is close enough to you for you to call him uncle?
And then throw your own grandmother under the bus (figuratively speaking of course)?
During a recent interview with Chicago journalist, Lynn Sweet, Obama made the admission (how many does that make?) that he received much more from Rezko than previous admitted. Publicly it was, he said about a quarter million dollars, but privately it was more because there was that secret "private" campaign dinner[s] held for Barack Obama by Rezko and his associates. And Obama does not pin himself down to an exact amount. He said, "Its hard for me to know precisely...I may not know who are friends of his." Anybody who believes that will believe anything. Of course he knows who the friends were because he met them.
He admitted to talking to Rezko daily during his political campaigns. Everyday during each campaign Rezko was important enough to Obama to be in direct, daily contact. He and Michelle had dinners with them. Obama says it was 'two or three dinners' but you can bet, based on past history - how Obama has a tendency to leave certain things out, that it was much more than that. And he admitted to Lynn Sweet that he and Michelle visited the Rezkos at their other home in Lake Geneva.
Under a lot of pressure to meet with journalists Obama finally agreed to give the interview to reporters at the Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune. It does seem strange that a state Senator and now a U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate would refuse to meet with home town newspapers for so long. And we can only wonder what he neglected to tell them when he finally did meet with them?
Only when Rezko became a thorn in his campaign did Obama agree to be interviewed for a little typical Obama spin control.
We know the influence peddling charges against Rezko and Gov Blagojevich administration involvement and kickbacks, but Obama was not officially implicated because Obama always gets a pass. But, what we do know is the huge contributions Obama received from the Syrian, Tony Rezko who has been indicted for influence peddling and kickbacks, including influence to control jobs and appointments to state boards, etc. There is nothing subtle about appearance of impropriety by Obama, if not actual impropriety, which went on between Obama and Rezko and their associates. While Hillary and her staff were reluctant to bring it up (because of pressure from the party bosses not to further muddy the environment for Obama. If the truth really surfaced, the secrets and his involvement with Rezko and a whole slew of other low-life Chicago characters, it would have damaged the Obama campaign beyond repair and Obama's corporate sponsors already decided this was not going to be Hillary's time.
These are more than just red flags about Obama's behavior. In the same corruption trials other Chicago reporters, including Tim Novak, were telling us there was a strong chance Obama's name will come up during the trial.
On February 26th, they reported in the Chicago Tribune
"Obama's name was not mentioned, but U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve said she would allow prosecutors to present evidence about a portion of a $375,000 finder's fee that a Rezko associate, Joseph Aramanda, obtained through an alleged kickback scheme orchestrated by Rezko."
"`Prosecutors, she ruled, will be allowed to ask about how money from that fee allegedly was used "to make a political contribution" in Aramanda's name "because Rezko had already donated the maximum amount by law.'"
Obama has received contributions from Aramanda and other associates, such as Elie Maloof, as directed by Rezko.
Obama has denied everything. But why is it then that each time the story changes and the contributions to his campaigns get larger and larger from Rezko and associates? He still doesn't know who his campaign contributors are nor can he be sure of the EXACT money he received from them nor did he keep a record of transactions that can be traced. There is no paper trail for him in the state Senate? Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said he believes Obama has a "records problem" Fitton says no one knows where the records are "if they exist at all." It is all very mysterious, if not also very unorthodox and questionable behavior.
All (if any) quoting per the Fair Use
for educational and discussion purposes pursuant to
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, Copyright Law.
Today is Friday May 24, 2013