Obviously as demonstrated all the time there is a wide gap between what politicians say and what they do and what they do and what they and that has never been different. All these young kids who are out there being inspired by Barack Hussein Obama have no experience so this is all new to them. They have not been betrayed and they tend to believe the spin and even contribute to it. A little double-talk may even be no big deal - until they learn that the double-talk is as much a part of American politics as are hamburgers and "french" fries, which aren't French at all.
The Obama way is typical. You can't really get mad at a crook who is doing what crooked politicians always do but you can get annoyed with the ignorance of people you would think would know better - who line up on the side of this faker - who may just turn out to be the mole many of us think him to be. If he is just half as bad as he appears that is enough to doom all that "hope and change" and sink this country after only 200 years of trying to do better.
Obama exaggerates, embellishes, overstates, double-talks and outright deceives. He is an effective politician. When Obama lies, which is most of the time, it is no surprise and has become standard. That is not saying others are not doing it too, but as stated here before, they don't mean us harm a mole would. There is a big difference between self-promotion and political double-talk and wanting to destroy America from within.
Obama LIED about his involvement in ethics-reform legislation. He LIES about a consistent record on the Iraq War. He zigzags whenever it suits him. He manipulated the public perception on NAFTA and is often more to the right than Bush, but the image is being a centrist who is slightly more left that center. He LIED about taking money from lobbyists. He took more money from oil companies than McCain even after accusing McCain of taking money from oil companies. The media tends to look the other way. He LIED about Selma and how the 65 "Bloody Sunday" was the inspiration for his parents to get married. He LIES about everything.
He overstated his accomplishments. He wrote two autobiographies and they were full of lies. They have been debunked on the net so many times I don't need to mention the lies here. Just search google for it.
He is where he is at because he is BLACK and because he plays patronage politics as well as anyone ever has. It won't help him. He won't win in November.
Too bad Jesse Jackson doesn't just come out and say what he knows to be true and was caught saying on that open mic. BUT Jesse knows the power Obama now has and if Obama didn't get the nomination in Denver there would be race riots like we haven't seen since Watts.
He may as well be the boss of the Mafia and maybe the Chicago boss of the Mafia is backing Obama because this feels like a heist not a political campaign.
An article in National Journal summed it up. It said the vote lead which gave him the edge in delegates came from over 92 percent of Blacks and from Chicago.
Fred Siegel in the National Review (May 5, 2008) in "The Obama way..." wrote:
"...Some of this advantage came from the efforts of Obama's political ally, the flame-throwing reverend James Meeks, a political force in his own right. Meeks, who mocks black moderates as "niggers," is an Illinois state senator, the pastor of a mega-church, and a strong supporter of Jesse Jackson's powerful political operation, which has put its vote-pulling muscle squarely behind the Obama campaign."
It was only with Obama's remarks about "bitter," white, working-class, small-town voters that we saw his difficulties appealing beyond the machine's reach. He won his U.S. Senate race in 2004 not only because his opponents self-destructed, but also because of the machine's ability to deliver votes (this minimized his need to campaign among working-class whites downstate). In Pennsylvania he has lacked such assistance--and the campaigning has not gone nearly so well. First Obama pretended to be a bowler and scored a 37. Then, appearing before a supposedly closed San Francisco audience, he complained that small-town Pennsylvanians "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations."" (ibid)
"This is the man who belongs to a church built around bitterness, rancor, and conspiratorial fear. During the Reverend Wright affair, Obama not only repeatedly lied about what he knew and when, but violated the spirit of the civil-rights movement in its mid-1960s glory. When as a young man I was on the periphery of the movement, there was an unwritten rule that if people told racist jokes or speakers engaged in defamatory rhetoric, you needed to register your immediate disapproval by confronting the speaker or ostentatiously walking out." (ibid)
Wright's "black theology" is essentially a Christianized version of Malcolm X's ideology of hate. But for 20 years Obama, who had planned to run for mayor of Chicago, kept silent about the close if at times competitive relationship between Reverend Wright, whose 8,000-member mega-church gave him his political base, and Louis Farrakhan. His ambition overrode his moral integrity." (ibid)
"As part of his "black value system," Reverend Wright attacked whites for their "middle classism," "materialism," and "greed in a world of need." Obama sounded similar notes in his recent address at the Cooper Union, in which he laid the blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis on those who had "embraced an ethic of greed, corner cutting, and inside dealing." But that's exactly what Obama did in buying his luxurious house. Given the choice of purchasing a less expensive home or getting into bed with his fundraiser-cum-slumlord-cum-fixer Tony Rezko, Obama chose the latter. Then again, the oppressed of Trinity Church are building Wright a $1.6 million, 10,340-square-foot home complete with four-car garage, whirlpool, and butler's pantry. This house, which backs onto a golf course, is to sit in Tinley Park, a gated community that is 93 percent white." (ibid)
"The Obamas' charitable giving is consistent with Reverend Wright's talking left while living right. Obama and his wife are quite well-off. They had an estimated income of $1.2 million from 2000 to 2004. But the man who preaches compassion and mutuality gave all of 1 percent of that income to charity during those years. Most of that went to subvent Wright's church." (ibid)
Words are not deeds, but it is his words which have been scamming his supporters. His deeds are either non-existent. Can anyone here tell me what a Community Organizer does? OR his wife, who is Director of Community Outreach (what the hell is that) is paid OFF almost $400,000 a year by the hospital where she does her outreaching.
He does do one thing very well. In the Illinois legislature he has voted "present" so often he probably holds the record for being a do-nothing legislator - not much different than his couple of hundred days in the U.S. Senate.
John McCain was aware of the problem and tried to stop it with regulatory legislation which was rejected by Democrats while Obama was in Chicago pushing home ownership to those who couldn't afford it; Obama, as incompetent then as he is now to be the president.
Those who are paying attention, who are not blindedsided by the propaganda from the left, some of whom were even part of the "older left" have been "mugged by reality" and joined along with the the neocons to support the country first, not the party and not Obama.
Obama is a fake. When he was adopted by his Indonesian father his old birth certificate was sealed and a new one issued with his African-Muslim name and that is what he has been trying to deny. He traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when the country was under martial law and ONLY Muslims were permitted to enter that country (Bhutto was in charge). He could not have gotten into Pakistan unless he was Muslim.
A forensics expert has identified the birth certificate presented by Obama as his own, as an easily detectible forgery of his sister's birth certificate. Why a forgery? Why else, but to cover up that he is really a Muslim. Even if he was a former Muslim, there is no evidence that he has ever renounced Islam but if he did he would then still be an apostate which is a capital crime under Islamic law - unless he is secretly a Muslim.
What else did he do in Pakistan, which backed the Taliban. Did he train with al-Qaeda? Is he an al-Qaeda mole Muslim mole with a very high statistical probability that he has adopted Kenya as his African homeland.
He obviously admires some former terrorists and has a suspicious relationship with Syrian and Iraqi financiers. What else? Was he trained at an al-Qaeda base in Pakistan or Afghanistan?
Hank Roth
###
Excerpts provided here are pursuant to the Fair
Use Doctrine
for educational and discussion purposes per
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
Copyright Law.
Today is Thursday March 11, 2010