John Edwards Drops Out, Endorses McCain
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace ·
(2008-01-30) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards today quit the race for the Democrat presidential nomination, and immediately endorsed Republican frontrunner Sen. John McCain.
“As the presidential field narrows,” Sen. Edwards will reportedly say at an afternoon news conference, “I just didn’t feel there would be room in the race for two white males who favor leniency for illegal aliens, who opposed Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, who fight man-made global warming, who support limits on so-called free speech in political campaigns, who have worked to hinder approval of conservative judicial nominees, and who stand against the Bush administration’s desire to torture terror suspects with waterboarding.”
Mr. Edwards added that, while he’s young enough to run for president 10 more times, the septuagenarian Sen. McCain “may have only five or six more shots at it.”
While Mr. Edwards played down speculation that he might bring balance to the ticket as Sen. McCain’s running mate, he noted that it would be “a once-in-a-lifetime thrill to team up with an actual Vietnam war hero.”
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
SOTU 2008
President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address Chamber of the United States House of RepresentativesUnited States Capitol
9:09 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Seven years have passed since I first stood before you at this rostrum. In that time, our country has been tested in ways none of us could have imagined. We faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens. These issues call for vigorous debate, and I think it's fair to say we've answered the call. Yet history will record that amid our differences, we acted with purpose. And together, we showed the world the power and resilience of American self-government.
9:09 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Seven years have passed since I first stood before you at this rostrum. In that time, our country has been tested in ways none of us could have imagined. We faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens. These issues call for vigorous debate, and I think it's fair to say we've answered the call. Yet history will record that amid our differences, we acted with purpose. And together, we showed the world the power and resilience of American self-government.
All of us were sent to Washington to carry out the people's business. That is the purpose of this body. It is the meaning of our oath. It remains our charge to keep.
The actions of the 110th Congress will affect the security and prosperity of our nation long after this session has ended. In this election year, let us show our fellow Americans that we recognize our responsibilities and are determined to meet them. Let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time. (Applause.)
From expanding opportunity to protecting our country, we've made good progress. Yet we have unfinished business before us, and the American people expect us to get it done.
In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives for their futures.
To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy. As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America has added jobs for a record 52 straight months, but jobs are now growing at a slower pace. Wages are up, but so are prices for food and gas. Exports are rising, but the housing market has declined. At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future.
In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth. But in the short run, we can all see that that growth is slowing. So last week, my administration reached agreement with Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner on a robust growth package that includes tax relief for individuals and families and incentives for business investment. The temptation will be to load up the bill. That would delay it or derail it, and neither option is acceptable. (Applause.) This is a good agreement that will keep our economy growing and our people working. And this Congress must pass it as soon as possible. (Applause.)
We have other work to do on taxes. Unless Congress acts, most of the tax relief we've delivered over the past seven years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I'm pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders. (Laughter and applause.)
Most Americans think their taxes are high enough. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about their federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There's only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: Make the tax relief permanent. (Applause.) And members of Congress should know: If any bill raises taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it. (Applause.)
Just as we trust Americans with their own money, we need to earn their trust by spending their tax dollars wisely. Next week, I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion. The budget that I will submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012. American families have to balance their budgets; so should their government. (Applause.)
The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks -- special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. Last year, I asked you to voluntarily cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. I also asked you to stop slipping earmarks into committee reports that never even come to a vote. Unfortunately, neither goal was met. So this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I'll send it back to you with my veto. (Applause.)
And tomorrow, I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote. (Applause.)
Our shared responsibilities extend beyond matters of taxes and spending. On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market. My administration brought together the HOPE NOW alliance, which is helping many struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. And Congress can help even more. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. (Applause.)
These are difficult times for many American families, and by taking these steps, we can help more of them keep their homes.
To build a future of quality health care, we must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options. We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. (Applause.) The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control. (Applause.) So I have proposed ending the bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would put private coverage within reach for millions, and I call on the Congress to pass it this year. (Applause.)
The Congress must also expand health savings accounts, create Association Health Plans for small businesses, promote health information technology, and confront the epidemic of junk medical lawsuits. (Applause.) With all these steps, we will help ensure that decisions about your medical care are made in the privacy of your doctor's office -- not in the halls of Congress. (Applause.)
On education, we must trust students to learn if given the chance, and empower parents to demand results from our schools. In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams -- and a decent education is their only hope of achieving them.
Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results. Last year, fourth and eighth graders achieved the highest math scores on record. Reading scores are on the rise. African American and Hispanic students posted all-time highs. (Applause.) Now we must work together to increase accountability, add flexibility for states and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts, provide extra help for struggling schools.
Members of Congress: The No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan achievement. It is succeeding. And we owe it to America's children, their parents, and their teachers to strengthen this good law. (Applause.)
We must also do more to help children when their schools do not measure up. Thanks to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships you approved, more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our Nation's Capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other non-public school. Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America's inner cities. So I will convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening these lifelines of learning. And to open the doors of these schools to more children, I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential. Together, we've expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let us apply that same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools. (Applause.)
On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas. Today, our economic growth increasingly depends on our ability to sell American goods and crops and services all over the world. So we're working to break down barriers to trade and investment wherever we can. We're working for a successful Doha Round of trade talks, and we must complete a good agreement this year. At the same time, we're pursuing opportunities to open up new markets by passing free trade agreements.
I thank the Congress for approving a good agreement with Peru. And now I ask you to approve agreements with Colombia and Panama and South Korea. (Applause.) Many products from these nations now enter America duty-free, yet many of our products face steep tariffs in their markets. These agreements will level the playing field. They will give us better access to nearly 100 million customers. They will support good jobs for the finest workers in the world: those whose products say "Made in the USA." (Applause.)
These agreements also promote America's strategic interests. The first agreement that will come before you is with Colombia, a friend of America that is confronting violence and terror, and fighting drug traffickers. If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere. So we must come together, pass this agreement, and show our neighbors in the region that democracy leads to a better life. (Applause.)
Trade brings better jobs and better choices and better prices. Yet for some Americans, trade can mean losing a job, and the federal government has a responsibility to help. (Applause.) I ask Congress to reauthorize and reform trade adjustment assistance, so we can help these displaced workers learn new skills and find new jobs. (Applause.)
To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. (Applause.) Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.)
Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.)
Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.) Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. (Applause.)
This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. (Applause.) The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology. (Applause.)
To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth. (Applause.)
On matters of life and science, we must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries. In November, we witnessed a landmark achievement when scientists discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. This breakthrough has the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life. (Applause.)
So we're expanding funding for this type of ethical medical research. And as we explore promising avenues of research, we must also ensure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves. And so I call on Congress to pass legislation that bans unethical practices such as the buying, selling, patenting, or cloning of human life. (Applause.)
On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. (Applause.) I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Many of these nominees are being unfairly delayed. They are worthy of confirmation, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote. (Applause.)
In communities across our land, we must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need. Over the past seven years, more of our fellow citizens have discovered that the pursuit of happiness leads to the path of service. Americans have volunteered in record numbers. Charitable donations are higher than ever. Faith-based groups are bringing hope to pockets of despair, with newfound support from the federal government. And to help guarantee equal treatment of faith-based organizations when they
compete for federal funds, I ask you to permanently extend Charitable Choice. (Applause.)
Tonight the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast. America honors the strength and resilience of the people of this region. We reaffirm our pledge to help them build stronger and better than before. And tonight I'm pleased to announce that in April we will host this year's North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans. (Applause.)
Tonight the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast. America honors the strength and resilience of the people of this region. We reaffirm our pledge to help them build stronger and better than before. And tonight I'm pleased to announce that in April we will host this year's North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans. (Applause.)
There are two other pressing challenges that I've raised repeatedly before this body, and that this body has failed to address: entitlement spending and immigration. Every member in this chamber knows that spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing faster than we can afford. We all know the painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits. I've laid out proposals to reform these programs. Now I ask members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and our grandchildren. (Applause.)
The other pressing challenge is immigration. America needs to secure our borders -- and with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings. We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents. Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. (Applause.) This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm. We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals. (Applause.)
This is the business of our nation here at home. Yet building a prosperous future for our citizens also depends on confronting enemies abroad and advancing liberty in troubled regions of the world.
Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace. In the last seven years, we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty. We've seen citizens in Georgia and Ukraine stand up for their right to free and fair elections. We've seen people in Lebanon take to the streets to demand their independence. We've seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban and choose a new president and a new parliament. We've seen jubilant Iraqis holding up ink-stained fingers and celebrating their freedom. These images of liberty have inspired us. (Applause.)
In the past seven years, we've also seen images that have sobered us. We've watched throngs of mourners in Lebanon and Pakistan carrying the caskets of beloved leaders taken by the assassin's hand. We've seen wedding guests in blood-soaked finery staggering from a hotel in Jordan, Afghans and Iraqis blown up in mosques and markets, and trains in London and Madrid ripped apart by bombs. On a clear September day, we saw thousands of our fellow citizens taken from us in an instant. These horrific images serve as a grim reminder: The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists -- evil men who despise freedom, despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule.
Since 9/11, we have taken the fight to these terrorists and extremists. We will stay on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to our enemies. (Applause.)
We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear. Yet in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on: In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny. And that is why the terrorists are fighting to deny this choice to the people in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Palestinian Territories. And that is why, for the security of America and the peace of the world, we are spreading the hope of freedom. (Applause.)
In Afghanistan, America, our 25 NATO allies, and 15 partner nations are helping the Afghan people defend their freedom and rebuild their country. Thanks to the courage of these military and civilian personnel, a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school, new roads and hospitals are being built, and people are looking to the future with new hope. These successes must continue, so we're adding 3,200 Marines to our forces in Afghanistan, where they will fight the terrorists and train the Afghan Army and police. Defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda is critical to our security, and I thank the Congress for supporting America's vital mission in Afghanistan. (Applause.)
In Iraq, the terrorists and extremists are fighting to deny a proud people their liberty, and fighting to establish safe havens for attacks across the world. One year ago, our enemies were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. So we reviewed our strategy and changed course. We launched a surge of American forces into Iraq. We gave our troops a new mission: Work with the Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in its strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country.
The Iraqi people quickly realized that something dramatic had happened. Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw tens of thousands of American forces flowing into their country. They saw our forces moving into neighborhoods, clearing out the terrorists, and staying behind to ensure the enemy did not return. And they saw our troops, along with Provincial Reconstruction Teams that include Foreign Service officers and other skilled public servants, coming in to ensure that improved security was followed by improvements in daily life. Our military and civilians in Iraq are performing with courage and distinction, and they have the gratitude of our whole nation. (Applause.)
The Iraqis launched a surge of their own. In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising called "The Anbar Awakening." Over the past year, similar movements have spread across the country. And today, the grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists. The government in Baghdad has stepped forward, as well -- adding more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year.
While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago. (Applause.) When we met last year, many said that containing the violence was impossible. A year later, high profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down.
When we met last year, militia extremists -- some armed and trained by Iran -- were wreaking havoc in large areas of Iraq. A year later, coalition and Iraqi forces have killed or captured hundreds of militia fighters. And Iraqis of all backgrounds increasingly realize that defeating these militia fighters is critical to the future of their country.
When we met last year, al Qaeda had sanctuaries in many areas of Iraq, and their leaders had just offered American forces safe passage out of the country. Today, it is al Qaeda that is searching for safe passage. They have been driven from many of the strongholds they once held, and over the past year, we've captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives.
Last month, Osama bin Laden released a tape in which he railed against Iraqi tribal leaders who have turned on al Qaeda and admitted that coalition forces are growing stronger in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated. (Applause.)
When we met last year, our troop levels in Iraq were on the rise. Today, because of the progress just described, we are implementing a policy of "return on success," and the surge forces we sent to Iraq are beginning to come home.
This progress is a credit to the valor of our troops and the brilliance of their commanders. This evening, I want to speak directly to our men and women on the front lines. Soldiers and sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen: In the past year, you have done everything we've asked of you, and more. Our nation is grateful for your courage. We are proud of your accomplishments. And tonight in this hallowed chamber, with the American people as our witness, we make you a solemn pledge: In the fight ahead, you will have all you need to protect our nation. (Applause.) And I ask Congress to meet its responsibilities to these brave men and women by fully funding our troops. (Applause.)
Our enemies in Iraq have been hit hard. They are not yet defeated, and we can still expect tough fighting ahead. Our objective in the coming year is to sustain and build on the gains we made in 2007, while transitioning to the next phase of our strategy. American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission. As part of this transition, one Army brigade combat team and one Marine Expeditionary Unit have already come home and will not be replaced. In the coming months, four additional brigades and two Marine battalions will follow suit. Taken together, this means more than 20,000 of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)
Any further drawdown of U.S. troops will be based on conditions in Iraq and the recommendations of our commanders. General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in the "disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground, [and] a marked increase in violence." Members of Congress: Having come so far and achieved so much, we must not allow this to happen. (Applause.)
In the coming year, we will work with Iraqi leaders as they build on the progress they're making toward political reconciliation. At the local level, Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds are beginning to come together to reclaim their communities and rebuild their lives. Progress in the provinces must be matched by progress in Baghdad. (Applause.) We're seeing some encouraging signs. The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces. The parliament recently passed both a pension law and de-Baathification reform. They're now debating a provincial powers law. The Iraqis still have a distance to travel. But after decades of dictatorship and the pain of sectarian violence, reconciliation is taking place -- and the Iraqi people are taking control of their future. (Applause.)
The mission in Iraq has been difficult and trying for our nation. But it is in the vital interest of the United States that we succeed. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will show millions across the Middle East that a future of liberty is possible. A free Iraq will be a friend of America, a partner in fighting terror, and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world.
By contrast, a failed Iraq would embolden the extremists, strengthen Iran, and give terrorists a base from which to launch new attacks on our friends, our allies, and our homeland. The enemy has made its intentions clear. At a time when the momentum seemed to favor them, al Qaida's top commander in Iraq declared that they will not rest until they have attacked us here in Washington. My fellow Americans: We will not rest either. We will not rest until this enemy has been defeated. (Applause.)
We must do the difficult work today, so that years from now people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight, and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America. (Applause.)
We're also standing against the forces of extremism in the Holy Land, where we have new cause for hope. Palestinians have elected a president who recognizes that confronting terror is essential to achieving a state where his people can live in dignity and at peace with Israel. Israelis have leaders who recognize that a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state will be a source of lasting security. This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year. The time has come for a Holy Land where a democratic Israel and a democratic Palestine live side-by-side in peace. (Applause.)
We're also standing against the forces of extremism embodied by the regime in Tehran. Iran's rulers oppress a good and talented people. And wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it. Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land. Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon.
Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you. We respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home, cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops. We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf. (Applause.)
On the home front, we will continue to take every lawful and effective measure to protect our country. This is our most solemn duty. We are grateful that there has not been another attack on our soil since 9/11. This is not for the lack of desire or effort on the part of the enemy. In the past six years, we've stopped numerous attacks, including a plot to fly a plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles and another to blow up passenger jets bound for America over the Atlantic. Dedicated men and women in our government toil day and night to stop the terrorists from carrying out their plans. These good citizens are saving American lives, and everyone in this chamber owes them our thanks. (Applause.)
And we owe them something more: We owe them the tools they need to keep our people safe. And one of the most important tools we can give them is the ability to monitor terrorist communications. To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they're planning. Last year, Congress passed legislation to help us do that. Unfortunately, Congress set the legislation to expire on February the 1st. That means if you don't act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We've had ample time for debate. The time to act is now. (Applause.)
Protecting our nation from the dangers of a new century requires more than good intelligence and a strong military. It also requires changing the conditions that breed resentment and allow extremists to prey on despair. So America is using its influence to build a freer, more hopeful, and more compassionate world. This is a reflection of our national interest; it is the calling of our conscience.
America opposes genocide in Sudan. (Applause.) We support freedom in countries from Cuba and Zimbabwe to Belarus and Burma. (Applause.)
America is leading the fight against global poverty, with strong education initiatives and humanitarian assistance. We've also changed the way we deliver aid by launching the Millennium Challenge Account. This program strengthens democracy, transparency, and the rule of law in developing nations, and I ask you to fully fund this important initiative. (Applause.)
America is leading the fight against global hunger. Today, more than half the world's food aid comes from the United States. And tonight, I ask Congress to support an innovative proposal to provide food assistance by purchasing crops directly from farmers in the developing world, so we can build up local agriculture and help break the cycle of famine. (Applause.)
America is leading the fight against disease. With your help, we're working to cut by half the number of malaria-related deaths in 15 African nations. And our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is treating 1.4 million people. We can bring healing and hope to many more. So I ask you to maintain the principles that have changed behavior and made this program a success. And I call on you to double our initial commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS by approving an additional $30 billion over the next five years. (Applause.)
America is a force for hope in the world because we are a compassionate people, and some of the most compassionate Americans are those who have stepped forward to protect us. We must keep faith with all who have risked life and limb so that we might live in freedom and peace. Over the past seven years, we've increased funding for veterans by more than 95 percent. And as we increase funding -- (applause.)
And as increase funding we must also reform our veterans system to meet the needs of a new war and a new generation. (Applause.) I call on the Congress to enact the reforms recommended by Senator Bob Dole and Secretary Donna Shalala, so we can improve the system of care for our wounded warriors and help them build lives of hope and promise and dignity. (Applause.)
Our military families also sacrifice for America. They endure sleepless nights and the daily struggle of providing for children while a loved one is serving far from home. We have a responsibility to provide for them. So I ask you to join me in expanding their access to child care, creating new hiring preferences for military spouses across the federal government, and allowing our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children. (Applause.) Our military families serve our nation, they inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them. (Applause.)
The strength -- the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. (Applause.) When the Federal Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation, which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." When Governor Morris was asked to draft a preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."
By trusting the people, our Founders wagered that a great and noble nation could be built on the liberty that resides in the hearts of all men and women. By trusting the people, succeeding generations transformed our fragile young democracy into the most powerful nation on Earth and a beacon of hope for millions. And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our Union will remain strong. (Applause.)
So tonight, with confidence in freedom's power, and trust in the people, let us set forth to do their business. God bless America. (Applause.)
END 10:02 P.M. EST
Our military families also sacrifice for America. They endure sleepless nights and the daily struggle of providing for children while a loved one is serving far from home. We have a responsibility to provide for them. So I ask you to join me in expanding their access to child care, creating new hiring preferences for military spouses across the federal government, and allowing our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children. (Applause.) Our military families serve our nation, they inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them. (Applause.)
The strength -- the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. (Applause.) When the Federal Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation, which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." When Governor Morris was asked to draft a preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."
By trusting the people, our Founders wagered that a great and noble nation could be built on the liberty that resides in the hearts of all men and women. By trusting the people, succeeding generations transformed our fragile young democracy into the most powerful nation on Earth and a beacon of hope for millions. And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our Union will remain strong. (Applause.)
So tonight, with confidence in freedom's power, and trust in the people, let us set forth to do their business. God bless America. (Applause.)
END 10:02 P.M. EST
Senator UBL your budy is arrested your next.
Tony Rezko arrested
1/28/2008
Chicago Sun-Times
Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a key fundraiser for Gov. Blagojevich and other Illinois politicians, was arrested early today by federal agents after prosecutors alleged he had violated terms of the bond in his fraud case.“Tony Rezko was arrested without incident at his home in Wilmette,” FBI spokesman Tom Simon said. “It was pursuant to a warrant issued following a government motion to revoke his bond.”Rezko appeared briefly this morning before U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve, who is to preside over his fraud trial next month.
Another hearing will be held at 12:30 p.m. today; Rezko remains in federal custody.Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges that he joined with another major political fundraiser, businessman-attorney Stuart Levine, to shake down money management companies wanting to invest state pension funds.Rezko is charged in a separate case with defrauding the General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million.
He was released on bond last year after $1.5 million in properties were posted.Rezko has recently become an issue in the presidental campaign, with Sen. Barack Obama under fire over his long relationship with Rezko.
1/28/2008
Chicago Sun-Times
Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a key fundraiser for Gov. Blagojevich and other Illinois politicians, was arrested early today by federal agents after prosecutors alleged he had violated terms of the bond in his fraud case.“Tony Rezko was arrested without incident at his home in Wilmette,” FBI spokesman Tom Simon said. “It was pursuant to a warrant issued following a government motion to revoke his bond.”Rezko appeared briefly this morning before U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve, who is to preside over his fraud trial next month.
Another hearing will be held at 12:30 p.m. today; Rezko remains in federal custody.Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges that he joined with another major political fundraiser, businessman-attorney Stuart Levine, to shake down money management companies wanting to invest state pension funds.Rezko is charged in a separate case with defrauding the General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million.
He was released on bond last year after $1.5 million in properties were posted.Rezko has recently become an issue in the presidental campaign, with Sen. Barack Obama under fire over his long relationship with Rezko.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Defending America's Honor
DEFENDING AMERICA'S HONOR Here are a few military comebacks... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building' by George Bush. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent manyof its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return. It became very quiet in the room.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?' A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power toshore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of freshwater from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?' Once again, dead silence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that includedAdmirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At acocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, 'whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French? Withouthesitating, the American Admiral replied 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.You could have heard a pin drop
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on atour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in hiscarry on. 'You have been to France before, monsieur?' the customs officer askedsarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. 'Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.' The American said,'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it.' 'Impossible! Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France!' The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. 'Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in'44 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find any Frenchmen to show it to.'
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building' by George Bush. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent manyof its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return. It became very quiet in the room.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?' A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power toshore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of freshwater from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?' Once again, dead silence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that includedAdmirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At acocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, 'whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French? Withouthesitating, the American Admiral replied 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.You could have heard a pin drop
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on atour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in hiscarry on. 'You have been to France before, monsieur?' the customs officer askedsarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. 'Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.' The American said,'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it.' 'Impossible! Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France!' The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. 'Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in'44 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find any Frenchmen to show it to.'
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Opps Senator UBL Cant Vote
Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes 1/24/2008
Peter WallstenLA Times
Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed."I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."That was not the only misfire for the former civil rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996.
During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry.
But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."No one has accused Obama, now a U.S. senator and a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, of changing votes to play both sides, and an Obama spokesman called that idea "absurd."But Obama has come under fire from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina for his frequent use of another oddity of Illinois politics: voting "present" rather than casting up-or-down votes on controversial measures."It is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern,"
Clinton told him in a debate Monday.Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, said the mistaken votes were not meaningful. "In Illinois, legislators often have just a few seconds to cast a vote, so after thousands of votes they're bound to make a few mistakes," he said. Referring to Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her support for a bankruptcy measure, Vietor added, "The real problem is when Democrats vote like Republicans."Four of Obama's admitted flubs drew little controversy.
On March 19, 1997, he announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6: "I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no," he said.
The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote.He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics.
On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later.
But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure,
Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops,
I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony" in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting."A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.Obama asked that the record reflect that he meant to vote yes. Then he requested that Hendon "ask me about a vote before he names me on the floor."Hendon declined to discuss the episode. "
I try to block out unpleasant memories," said Hendon, who has endorsed Obama. "If I tried really hard to remember it, I probably could, but I'm not going to try hard because I'm supporting the senator all the way."Hendon said "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it."
Peter WallstenLA Times
Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed."I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."That was not the only misfire for the former civil rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996.
During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry.
But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."No one has accused Obama, now a U.S. senator and a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, of changing votes to play both sides, and an Obama spokesman called that idea "absurd."But Obama has come under fire from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina for his frequent use of another oddity of Illinois politics: voting "present" rather than casting up-or-down votes on controversial measures."It is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern,"
Clinton told him in a debate Monday.Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, said the mistaken votes were not meaningful. "In Illinois, legislators often have just a few seconds to cast a vote, so after thousands of votes they're bound to make a few mistakes," he said. Referring to Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her support for a bankruptcy measure, Vietor added, "The real problem is when Democrats vote like Republicans."Four of Obama's admitted flubs drew little controversy.
On March 19, 1997, he announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6: "I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no," he said.
The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote.He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics.
On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later.
But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure,
Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops,
I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony" in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting."A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.Obama asked that the record reflect that he meant to vote yes. Then he requested that Hendon "ask me about a vote before he names me on the floor."Hendon declined to discuss the episode. "
I try to block out unpleasant memories," said Hendon, who has endorsed Obama. "If I tried really hard to remember it, I probably could, but I'm not going to try hard because I'm supporting the senator all the way."Hendon said "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it."
8 Things about UBL
8 things you need to know about Obama and Rezko 1/24/2008 Tim NovakChicago Sun-TimesAll of a sudden, seems as if everybody's talking about Barack Obama and Tony Rezko. Even Jay Leno.Rezko already was a big story in Chicago, accused of influence-peddling in the Blagojevich administration and set to face trial Feb. 25.But Monday, he became national news -- and an issue in the presidential race. That's when Hillary Clinton blasted Obama for having represented "your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago."Having a hard time keeping track of the facts? Here are eight things to know:
1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down
.2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.
3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm.
4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.
5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.
6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.
7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.
8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.
1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down
.2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.
3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm.
4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.
5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.
6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.
7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.
8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.
Enough already with this drug using hollywood liberal
"I didn't think anything was wrong," the housekeeper, Teresa Solomon, told the New York Post. She said she was "still shaking" and unable to sleep a day after the actor's death.
At 2:45 p.m., the massage therapist showed up for Ledger's appointment, knocked on his door and got no answer. She later noticed Ledger was unconscious and called actress Mary-Kate Olsen, whose number was programmed into Ledger's cell phone, to seek advice, police said.
Olsen said she would send over her private security. In the ensuing moments, the massage therapist realized that Ledger might be dead, called Olsen again, and then called 911. Paramedics — and Olsen's security people — arrived minutes later.
Did not know that MKO was a 911 operator
At 2:45 p.m., the massage therapist showed up for Ledger's appointment, knocked on his door and got no answer. She later noticed Ledger was unconscious and called actress Mary-Kate Olsen, whose number was programmed into Ledger's cell phone, to seek advice, police said.
Olsen said she would send over her private security. In the ensuing moments, the massage therapist realized that Ledger might be dead, called Olsen again, and then called 911. Paramedics — and Olsen's security people — arrived minutes later.
Did not know that MKO was a 911 operator
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Senator UBL 3 of 3
Obama-Rezko ties again at issue 1/23/2008
Bob Secter, David Jackson and Ray Gibson Chicago Tribune
Suddenly, an old friendship forged on the streets of Chicago is threatening to make new waves in the Democratic presidential campaign.Hillary Clinton's charge this week that Barack Obama represented a Chicago "slum landlord" in the 1990s introduced to a national audience one of Obama's potential political vulnerabilities: his long ties to Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the once-highflying developer soon to go on trial in federal court.Obama angrily rejected Clinton's accusation at Monday's Democratic debate. And a Tribune review of land and court documents and law firm files as well as correspondence and other records related to Obama's eight years as an Illinois state lawmaker supports his contention that he did not directly represent Rezko's development firm.
Instead, the records show, he represented non-profit community groups that partnered with Rezko's firm.Beyond the heated sound bites is a story of a more complex relationship that long boosted Obama's political fortunes but now could prove a campaign liability.For years after Rezko befriended Obama in the early 1990s, he helped bankroll the politician's campaigns. Then, after Obama's election to the U.S. Senate, Rezko engaged him in private financial deals to improve their adjoining South Side properties.
Those arrangements became a source of lingering controversy after the Tribune first reported them in November 2006.Now Rezko's federal corruption trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 25. As Obama stumps for votes, coverage of the high-profile proceedings could bring fresh, unwelcome reminders for Obama of Rezko's influence in the same Illinois political world that propelled the senator to a serious run at the presidency.Both men declined to comment on their once-close friendship. Obama has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko and has insisted that he never used his office to benefit Rezko.
Thus far, there is little in the public record to suggest otherwise, and the few exceptions that have come to light appear minor. On Capitol Hill, Obama once gave a summer internship to the son of a Rezko business associate on Rezko's recommendation. Earlier, as a state senator, Obama was one of several South Side political and community leaders who wrote state and city officials urging approval of public funding for a senior housing project involving Rezko.But when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure,
Obama vocally opposed it.Obama publicly apologized for his 2005 property deal with Rezko, calling it "boneheaded" because Rezko was widely reported to be under grand jury investigation at the time. And Obama has given to charities $85,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions, including $40,035 last weekend following a published report suggesting that Rezko funneled a $10,000 donation to Obama through a business associate. Aides to Obama say the senator had no knowledge of any such scheme.Clinton eager to make linkStill, the Clinton campaign, fearing an Obama triumph in the South Carolina primary this weekend, is ratcheting up its rhetoric against the Illinois senator, in the process hoping to bring new attention to his relationship with Rezko.It's easy to forget today, but in the years before 2005,
Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets that relied on tax credits and other government assistance.He also was a reliable source of campaign cash for an array of politicians from both parties.Obama was a community organizer in the Roseland neighborhood before leaving for Harvard Law School, and on the South Side he saw firsthand a critical need for affordable housing.In 1991, after Obama became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, Rezko offered him a job. While Obama declined, the two began a friendship that deepened as Obama launched his political career and Rezko became a key fundraiser.The two men and their wives used to socialize, meeting for dinner, Obama has said.
After earning his degree, Obama returned to Chicago, ran a voter registration drive, began work on an autobiography and in 1993 went to work in a small but influential law firm now known as Miner, Barnhill & Galland.The firm had long served non-profits engaged in affordable housing, and several initiatives involved Rezko's Rezmar Corp., according to a mid-1990s document from the firm that Obama attached to his state ethics reports.In addition, one of the law firm's founding partners, Allison Davis, developed personal financial ties to Rezko. Davis later left the firm to become a for-profit developer, sometimes in deals with Rezko.
Davis did not respond to interview requests.Rezko was dramatically expanding his company by partnering with non-profits and community organizations to tap government subsidies and tax credits. By 1994, the company owned or managed more than a dozen Chicago multiunit low-income housing projects, records show.Some projects souredSome of Rezko's ventures eventually went bad and left residents living in poor conditions.
After a published report last year raised questions about the law firm's involvement in representing the Rezko-linked ventures, Obama's campaign said he was unaware of the plight of the properties and was only a bit player in the legal work required to get them off the ground, a contention Obama repeated Monday as he responded to Clinton's charge.Law firm partner Judson Miner said that, over several years, Obama did a total of five to seven hours of billable work on Rezmar-linked projects.
He mainly filed incorporation papers for the non-profit groups under the supervision of more senior attorneys, Miner said.At the Tribune's request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants.
The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004.Those and other records disclosed five instances in which Obama did legal work for ventures that included Rezmar Corp. The case of City of Chicago vs. Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership is one example.In 1992, that community group partnered with Rezmar Corp. to rehab the former slum apartment building at 6107-6115 S. Ellis Ave.
As work was ongoing, city officials sued the developers, alleging 16 serious code violations at the property, including a dangerously dilapidated porch.Obama and a co-counsel filed appearances in February 1994, but the court records show they appeared on behalf of Central Woodlawn, Rezko's non-profit partner, not Rezko or his company.A separate attorney, Wayne Muldrow, represented Rezmar in the case. Muldrow, who had no connection to Obama's firm, could not be immediately reached for comment Tuesday.
In September 1994, Central Woodlawn was ordered to arrange for an inspection. Two months later a city inspection found "full compliance" with the building code and the case was dismissed.A letter of supportAs a state senator in 1998, Obama wrote two letters to city and state officials to support a Rezko/Davis senior housing project in his district that received more than $14 million in taxpayer money and netted $885,000 in fees for the two developers.He was one of several political and community leaders who pushed for funding for the project. Among those sending similar letters of support were Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), then-state Rep. Lou Jones (D-Chicago) and Robert Grossman, head of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Conservation Community Council.Obama press secretary
Bill Burton said Rezko never asked Obama to send a letter having anything to do with that project. And Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said Rezko "never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Sen. Obama in connection with that project."Whatever the extent of Obama's help for Rezko, the relationship proved a boon to the lawyer's political ambitions.Since 1995, at least $74,500 was donated to Obama campaigns by Rezko, Rezko companies and people who listed themselves as Rezko company employees when they made the donations, the Tribune found. Public records do not quantify how much money Rezko raised from others on Obama's behalf.In 1995, about the time Rezko was partnering with Obama's boss Davis, Obama launched a campaign for the state Senate seat from Hyde Park. His first substantial donations, $2,000, came from companies linked to Rezko.
Bob Secter, David Jackson and Ray Gibson Chicago Tribune
Suddenly, an old friendship forged on the streets of Chicago is threatening to make new waves in the Democratic presidential campaign.Hillary Clinton's charge this week that Barack Obama represented a Chicago "slum landlord" in the 1990s introduced to a national audience one of Obama's potential political vulnerabilities: his long ties to Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the once-highflying developer soon to go on trial in federal court.Obama angrily rejected Clinton's accusation at Monday's Democratic debate. And a Tribune review of land and court documents and law firm files as well as correspondence and other records related to Obama's eight years as an Illinois state lawmaker supports his contention that he did not directly represent Rezko's development firm.
Instead, the records show, he represented non-profit community groups that partnered with Rezko's firm.Beyond the heated sound bites is a story of a more complex relationship that long boosted Obama's political fortunes but now could prove a campaign liability.For years after Rezko befriended Obama in the early 1990s, he helped bankroll the politician's campaigns. Then, after Obama's election to the U.S. Senate, Rezko engaged him in private financial deals to improve their adjoining South Side properties.
Those arrangements became a source of lingering controversy after the Tribune first reported them in November 2006.Now Rezko's federal corruption trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 25. As Obama stumps for votes, coverage of the high-profile proceedings could bring fresh, unwelcome reminders for Obama of Rezko's influence in the same Illinois political world that propelled the senator to a serious run at the presidency.Both men declined to comment on their once-close friendship. Obama has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko and has insisted that he never used his office to benefit Rezko.
Thus far, there is little in the public record to suggest otherwise, and the few exceptions that have come to light appear minor. On Capitol Hill, Obama once gave a summer internship to the son of a Rezko business associate on Rezko's recommendation. Earlier, as a state senator, Obama was one of several South Side political and community leaders who wrote state and city officials urging approval of public funding for a senior housing project involving Rezko.But when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure,
Obama vocally opposed it.Obama publicly apologized for his 2005 property deal with Rezko, calling it "boneheaded" because Rezko was widely reported to be under grand jury investigation at the time. And Obama has given to charities $85,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions, including $40,035 last weekend following a published report suggesting that Rezko funneled a $10,000 donation to Obama through a business associate. Aides to Obama say the senator had no knowledge of any such scheme.Clinton eager to make linkStill, the Clinton campaign, fearing an Obama triumph in the South Carolina primary this weekend, is ratcheting up its rhetoric against the Illinois senator, in the process hoping to bring new attention to his relationship with Rezko.It's easy to forget today, but in the years before 2005,
Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets that relied on tax credits and other government assistance.He also was a reliable source of campaign cash for an array of politicians from both parties.Obama was a community organizer in the Roseland neighborhood before leaving for Harvard Law School, and on the South Side he saw firsthand a critical need for affordable housing.In 1991, after Obama became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, Rezko offered him a job. While Obama declined, the two began a friendship that deepened as Obama launched his political career and Rezko became a key fundraiser.The two men and their wives used to socialize, meeting for dinner, Obama has said.
After earning his degree, Obama returned to Chicago, ran a voter registration drive, began work on an autobiography and in 1993 went to work in a small but influential law firm now known as Miner, Barnhill & Galland.The firm had long served non-profits engaged in affordable housing, and several initiatives involved Rezko's Rezmar Corp., according to a mid-1990s document from the firm that Obama attached to his state ethics reports.In addition, one of the law firm's founding partners, Allison Davis, developed personal financial ties to Rezko. Davis later left the firm to become a for-profit developer, sometimes in deals with Rezko.
Davis did not respond to interview requests.Rezko was dramatically expanding his company by partnering with non-profits and community organizations to tap government subsidies and tax credits. By 1994, the company owned or managed more than a dozen Chicago multiunit low-income housing projects, records show.Some projects souredSome of Rezko's ventures eventually went bad and left residents living in poor conditions.
After a published report last year raised questions about the law firm's involvement in representing the Rezko-linked ventures, Obama's campaign said he was unaware of the plight of the properties and was only a bit player in the legal work required to get them off the ground, a contention Obama repeated Monday as he responded to Clinton's charge.Law firm partner Judson Miner said that, over several years, Obama did a total of five to seven hours of billable work on Rezmar-linked projects.
He mainly filed incorporation papers for the non-profit groups under the supervision of more senior attorneys, Miner said.At the Tribune's request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants.
The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004.Those and other records disclosed five instances in which Obama did legal work for ventures that included Rezmar Corp. The case of City of Chicago vs. Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership is one example.In 1992, that community group partnered with Rezmar Corp. to rehab the former slum apartment building at 6107-6115 S. Ellis Ave.
As work was ongoing, city officials sued the developers, alleging 16 serious code violations at the property, including a dangerously dilapidated porch.Obama and a co-counsel filed appearances in February 1994, but the court records show they appeared on behalf of Central Woodlawn, Rezko's non-profit partner, not Rezko or his company.A separate attorney, Wayne Muldrow, represented Rezmar in the case. Muldrow, who had no connection to Obama's firm, could not be immediately reached for comment Tuesday.
In September 1994, Central Woodlawn was ordered to arrange for an inspection. Two months later a city inspection found "full compliance" with the building code and the case was dismissed.A letter of supportAs a state senator in 1998, Obama wrote two letters to city and state officials to support a Rezko/Davis senior housing project in his district that received more than $14 million in taxpayer money and netted $885,000 in fees for the two developers.He was one of several political and community leaders who pushed for funding for the project. Among those sending similar letters of support were Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), then-state Rep. Lou Jones (D-Chicago) and Robert Grossman, head of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Conservation Community Council.Obama press secretary
Bill Burton said Rezko never asked Obama to send a letter having anything to do with that project. And Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said Rezko "never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Sen. Obama in connection with that project."Whatever the extent of Obama's help for Rezko, the relationship proved a boon to the lawyer's political ambitions.Since 1995, at least $74,500 was donated to Obama campaigns by Rezko, Rezko companies and people who listed themselves as Rezko company employees when they made the donations, the Tribune found. Public records do not quantify how much money Rezko raised from others on Obama's behalf.In 1995, about the time Rezko was partnering with Obama's boss Davis, Obama launched a campaign for the state Senate seat from Hyde Park. His first substantial donations, $2,000, came from companies linked to Rezko.
Senator UBL 2 of 3
Clinton insists Obama hasn't returned all donations tied to fund-raiser
1/23/2008
Lynn Sweet Chicago Sun-Times
For the second day in a row, White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has prodded chief rival Sen. Barack Obama about his relationship with a former career political patron and friend, Tony Rezko, who is facing a Feb. 25 federal criminal trial in Chicago on public corruption and fraud charges involving state of Illinois teacher pension funds.
On Tuesday, the Clinton campaign, in a memo, said Obama "has thus far failed to return all contributions associated with Mr. Rezko, which included money that was given through straw donors or obtained from Illinois taxpayers." Clinton was referring to political donations Rezko solicited, or bundled, for Obama's U.S. Senate -- not presidential -- campaign fund. During Monday's Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach -- in advance of Saturday's South Carolina primary -- Clinton asked Obama about legal work he did for "your contributor,
Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."That was a reference to a Sun-Times investigation that revealed Obama clocked five hours of legal chores for Rezko, but more centrally, took political donations from Rezko even as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collapsing.For months, the Clinton campaign figured that the national press would be more interested in Obama's dealings with Rezko, an insider wheeler-dealer under indictment who, with his wife, played a role in Obama and his wife, Michelle, being able to buy their large South Side home.Clinton gave back $850,000
In part, the Clinton team figured Rezko would become more of a campaign storyline because the Clintons rarely caught a break when it came to reporting about anything even remotely controversial about their lives. Clinton returned nearly $850,000 when it was revealed that one of her presidential bundlers, Norman Hsu, was on the lam from criminal charges and may have laundered campaign donations through straw donors. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton's call for Obama to scrub his list for Rezko money "takes a lot of moxie" coming from someone who had to give back $850,000 in Hsu's bundled donations. Asked if more Rezko money would be rejected, Burton said, "we are constantly reviewing our contributions."Last weekend, the Sun-Times broke a story that Obama was the unnamed "political candidate" who received a $10,000 contribution for his 2004 U.S. Senate run from a person who allegedly got the money through a Rezko-connected scheme. Also,
Rezko may have improperly used straw donors to funnel Senate campaign cash to Obama.After the story ran, the Obama campaign Saturday announced a $40,000 charitable donation in Rezko-related money. Earlier, the Senate fund donated $44,000 in Rezko-connected cash. The Sun-Times estimates Rezko raised at least $168,000. However, the extent of Rezko's help in raising Senate money for Obama isn't known.
There are indications that Clinton and her allies will continue to press Obama on Rezko, especially as the Feb. 5 votes are looming in 22 states and Rezko's trial is near. Meanwhile, Rezko hovers as an issue for Obama if he gets the nomination. For weeks now, the Republican National Committee has been circulating Rezko clips.
1/23/2008
Lynn Sweet Chicago Sun-Times
For the second day in a row, White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has prodded chief rival Sen. Barack Obama about his relationship with a former career political patron and friend, Tony Rezko, who is facing a Feb. 25 federal criminal trial in Chicago on public corruption and fraud charges involving state of Illinois teacher pension funds.
On Tuesday, the Clinton campaign, in a memo, said Obama "has thus far failed to return all contributions associated with Mr. Rezko, which included money that was given through straw donors or obtained from Illinois taxpayers." Clinton was referring to political donations Rezko solicited, or bundled, for Obama's U.S. Senate -- not presidential -- campaign fund. During Monday's Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach -- in advance of Saturday's South Carolina primary -- Clinton asked Obama about legal work he did for "your contributor,
Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."That was a reference to a Sun-Times investigation that revealed Obama clocked five hours of legal chores for Rezko, but more centrally, took political donations from Rezko even as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collapsing.For months, the Clinton campaign figured that the national press would be more interested in Obama's dealings with Rezko, an insider wheeler-dealer under indictment who, with his wife, played a role in Obama and his wife, Michelle, being able to buy their large South Side home.Clinton gave back $850,000
In part, the Clinton team figured Rezko would become more of a campaign storyline because the Clintons rarely caught a break when it came to reporting about anything even remotely controversial about their lives. Clinton returned nearly $850,000 when it was revealed that one of her presidential bundlers, Norman Hsu, was on the lam from criminal charges and may have laundered campaign donations through straw donors. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton's call for Obama to scrub his list for Rezko money "takes a lot of moxie" coming from someone who had to give back $850,000 in Hsu's bundled donations. Asked if more Rezko money would be rejected, Burton said, "we are constantly reviewing our contributions."Last weekend, the Sun-Times broke a story that Obama was the unnamed "political candidate" who received a $10,000 contribution for his 2004 U.S. Senate run from a person who allegedly got the money through a Rezko-connected scheme. Also,
Rezko may have improperly used straw donors to funnel Senate campaign cash to Obama.After the story ran, the Obama campaign Saturday announced a $40,000 charitable donation in Rezko-related money. Earlier, the Senate fund donated $44,000 in Rezko-connected cash. The Sun-Times estimates Rezko raised at least $168,000. However, the extent of Rezko's help in raising Senate money for Obama isn't known.
There are indications that Clinton and her allies will continue to press Obama on Rezko, especially as the Feb. 5 votes are looming in 22 states and Rezko's trial is near. Meanwhile, Rezko hovers as an issue for Obama if he gets the nomination. For weeks now, the Republican National Committee has been circulating Rezko clips.
Senator UBL part 1 of 3
Obama's relationship with alleged fixer goes back 17 years
1/22/2008 MIKE ROBINSON APCHICAGO
- Real estate developer and fast-food magnate Antoin "Tony" Rezko spent years pouring thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into Barack Obama's climb from the Illinois legislature to Capitol Hill _ and helped him raise tens of thousands more.But these days Rezko is snared in a nasty political scandal and facing a federal corruption trial that begins next month. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked his name and his "slum landlord business" in a debate with Obama on Monday.
A plainly embarrassed Obama has been sending the campaign money to charity in an effort to distance himself from the Chicago businessman, including $41,000 over the weekend.The Democratic presidential hopeful also has been forced to explain how Rezko got tangled in the purchase of the Obama family home and other ties to Rezko _ some of them going back more than 15 years.
If federal prosecutors are right, his ties to Rezko may even mean Obama's campaign unwittingly accepted money generated by illegal activities.Obama, who has a spotless reputation after 11 years in public offices, has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko or anyone else. Nevertheless, the former state legislator and first-term U.S. senator seemingly missed plentiful warning signs that Rezko was headed for trouble with the law."The senator exhibited some bad judgment in continuing the relationship once it became clear that Tony Rezko had such serious clouds overhead," says Cindi Canary, director of the nonpartisan Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.
The facts of the relationship between the two men have been public record for more than a year and so far haven't hurt Obama with voters. He is considered a favorite, along with Clinton, in the fight for their party's nomination.Whether the matter will fade in the heat of a national campaign or turn into a headache for Obama in the months ahead is anybody's guess.State Sen. Christine Radogno, a Republican, said voters are guaranteed to hear more about Rezko if Obama continues to make headway on the campaign trail."Obviously, the better he does, the more scrutiny he receives," Radogno said. "So I think there is going to be some discussion of that."State Sen. John Cullerton, a Democrat, said voters will realize that Obama is blameless and that the only one charged with corruption is "this Rezko, who thank God I've never met.""
He was a guy with money who glommed onto up-and-coming young politicians like Barack," Cullerton said.Rezko faces a Feb. 25 trial, almost three weeks after the Super Tuesday primaries that could go a long way in settling the nomination. He is charged with fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering for allegedly plotting to get campaign money and payoffs from firms seeking to do business before two state boards.Once that trial is behind him, the 53-year-old Rezko faces a separate federal charge of swindling the General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million in connection with the sale of pizza restaurants.Obama's name has not come up in connection with any of the corruption charges swirling around Rezko. In fact, prosecutors indicate that the source of Rezko's clout was somewhere within Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration.
Obama, meanwhile, has done what he could to disassociate himself from Rezko.On Oct. 11, 2006, the day federal prosecutors unsealed the major corruption charges against Rezko, Obama immediately sent $11,500 in contributions to charities ranging from Habitat for Humanity to the Boys and Girls Clubs.Obama aides say that is all the money Rezko has contributed to Obama's campaigns since he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996.They say there's no telling for sure how much additional money Rezko has raised for the senator over 15 years by putting the arm on friends and business associates. Obama's aides estimate the amount at about $60,000, though the Chicago Sun-Times reported last year that Obama has received at least $168,000 from Rezko and his associates over the years.
Federal prosecutors say a Rezko associate used ill-gotten money to give $10,000 to an unidentified candidate in 2004. The associate was businessman Joseph Aramanda, according to a source familiar with the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is ongoing. Election records confirm a $10,000 contribution from Aramanda, which Obama's campaign has since given to charity.Aramanda, whose son worked as an intern in Obama's Washington office in 2005, has been accused of no wrongdoing.In any event, some $86,000 has been sent by the Obama campaign to various charities after the money was linked in some way to Rezko.
That includes $41,000 for what Obama spokesman Bill Burton described as "an abundance of caution."On Nov. 1, 2006, three weeks after the Rezko indictment, the Chicago Tribune disclosed that Rezko was involved in the Obama family's purchase of a red-brick home on a quiet South Side street near the University of Chicago where Obama has taught law and wife Michelle is a vice president.The Obamas closed on the house June 15, 2006. The price: $1,650,000.The same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, bought a lot next door from the same sellers for $625,000. Obama later told the Sun-Times that the sellers had required that both of the lots be sold simultaneously.
Burton said in written answers to questions from The Associated Press: "In no way did Sen. Obama view this as a favor, nor would he have asked for one. He understood the lot to be attractive as an investment and to have been purchased for that reason."The Rezkos later sold the lot, but not before selling the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land from the property for $104,500.Obama called that a "boneheaded" mistake."It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," Obama said in a written statement. "For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.
"The Obama-Rezko relationship goes back a long way.Fresh out of Harvard law school, Obama worked at the Chicago firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Rezko was among clients of the firm, a fact Clinton noted during the debate.Attorneys there say Obama never represented Rezko directly. The future senator did represent community organizations that were Rezko partners in rehabilitating buildings to provide apartments for the poor.Rezko needed the nonprofit organizations as partners to get what eventually added up to $43 million in subsidies for such projects.Judson Miner, a partner in the firm, said Obama's role was small.
He said Obama did perhaps six or seven hours of work on such projects, mainly filing incorporation papers for the nonprofit groups.But in October 1998, Obama wrote to state and city officials urging them to provide money to New Kenwood LLC, a company formed by Rezko and a former partner in the law firm, Allison Davis, to construct an apartment building for senior citizens."This project will provide much needed housing for 4th Ward citizens," Obama said in a letter on Illinois Senate stationery to an official of the Illinois Housing Development Authority.
The campaign and Rezko's attorney later said Rezko never sought the letters from Obama.As for the apartment buildings, as a first-year associate with the law firm, Obama would not have been doing much decision making. And he would have had no control over what happened to the apartments, some of which ended up in poor condition with numerous code violations.By that time, Obama had gone on to other matters.
1/22/2008 MIKE ROBINSON APCHICAGO
- Real estate developer and fast-food magnate Antoin "Tony" Rezko spent years pouring thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into Barack Obama's climb from the Illinois legislature to Capitol Hill _ and helped him raise tens of thousands more.But these days Rezko is snared in a nasty political scandal and facing a federal corruption trial that begins next month. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked his name and his "slum landlord business" in a debate with Obama on Monday.
A plainly embarrassed Obama has been sending the campaign money to charity in an effort to distance himself from the Chicago businessman, including $41,000 over the weekend.The Democratic presidential hopeful also has been forced to explain how Rezko got tangled in the purchase of the Obama family home and other ties to Rezko _ some of them going back more than 15 years.
If federal prosecutors are right, his ties to Rezko may even mean Obama's campaign unwittingly accepted money generated by illegal activities.Obama, who has a spotless reputation after 11 years in public offices, has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko or anyone else. Nevertheless, the former state legislator and first-term U.S. senator seemingly missed plentiful warning signs that Rezko was headed for trouble with the law."The senator exhibited some bad judgment in continuing the relationship once it became clear that Tony Rezko had such serious clouds overhead," says Cindi Canary, director of the nonpartisan Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.
The facts of the relationship between the two men have been public record for more than a year and so far haven't hurt Obama with voters. He is considered a favorite, along with Clinton, in the fight for their party's nomination.Whether the matter will fade in the heat of a national campaign or turn into a headache for Obama in the months ahead is anybody's guess.State Sen. Christine Radogno, a Republican, said voters are guaranteed to hear more about Rezko if Obama continues to make headway on the campaign trail."Obviously, the better he does, the more scrutiny he receives," Radogno said. "So I think there is going to be some discussion of that."State Sen. John Cullerton, a Democrat, said voters will realize that Obama is blameless and that the only one charged with corruption is "this Rezko, who thank God I've never met.""
He was a guy with money who glommed onto up-and-coming young politicians like Barack," Cullerton said.Rezko faces a Feb. 25 trial, almost three weeks after the Super Tuesday primaries that could go a long way in settling the nomination. He is charged with fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering for allegedly plotting to get campaign money and payoffs from firms seeking to do business before two state boards.Once that trial is behind him, the 53-year-old Rezko faces a separate federal charge of swindling the General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million in connection with the sale of pizza restaurants.Obama's name has not come up in connection with any of the corruption charges swirling around Rezko. In fact, prosecutors indicate that the source of Rezko's clout was somewhere within Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration.
Obama, meanwhile, has done what he could to disassociate himself from Rezko.On Oct. 11, 2006, the day federal prosecutors unsealed the major corruption charges against Rezko, Obama immediately sent $11,500 in contributions to charities ranging from Habitat for Humanity to the Boys and Girls Clubs.Obama aides say that is all the money Rezko has contributed to Obama's campaigns since he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996.They say there's no telling for sure how much additional money Rezko has raised for the senator over 15 years by putting the arm on friends and business associates. Obama's aides estimate the amount at about $60,000, though the Chicago Sun-Times reported last year that Obama has received at least $168,000 from Rezko and his associates over the years.
Federal prosecutors say a Rezko associate used ill-gotten money to give $10,000 to an unidentified candidate in 2004. The associate was businessman Joseph Aramanda, according to a source familiar with the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is ongoing. Election records confirm a $10,000 contribution from Aramanda, which Obama's campaign has since given to charity.Aramanda, whose son worked as an intern in Obama's Washington office in 2005, has been accused of no wrongdoing.In any event, some $86,000 has been sent by the Obama campaign to various charities after the money was linked in some way to Rezko.
That includes $41,000 for what Obama spokesman Bill Burton described as "an abundance of caution."On Nov. 1, 2006, three weeks after the Rezko indictment, the Chicago Tribune disclosed that Rezko was involved in the Obama family's purchase of a red-brick home on a quiet South Side street near the University of Chicago where Obama has taught law and wife Michelle is a vice president.The Obamas closed on the house June 15, 2006. The price: $1,650,000.The same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, bought a lot next door from the same sellers for $625,000. Obama later told the Sun-Times that the sellers had required that both of the lots be sold simultaneously.
Burton said in written answers to questions from The Associated Press: "In no way did Sen. Obama view this as a favor, nor would he have asked for one. He understood the lot to be attractive as an investment and to have been purchased for that reason."The Rezkos later sold the lot, but not before selling the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land from the property for $104,500.Obama called that a "boneheaded" mistake."It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," Obama said in a written statement. "For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.
"The Obama-Rezko relationship goes back a long way.Fresh out of Harvard law school, Obama worked at the Chicago firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Rezko was among clients of the firm, a fact Clinton noted during the debate.Attorneys there say Obama never represented Rezko directly. The future senator did represent community organizations that were Rezko partners in rehabilitating buildings to provide apartments for the poor.Rezko needed the nonprofit organizations as partners to get what eventually added up to $43 million in subsidies for such projects.Judson Miner, a partner in the firm, said Obama's role was small.
He said Obama did perhaps six or seven hours of work on such projects, mainly filing incorporation papers for the nonprofit groups.But in October 1998, Obama wrote to state and city officials urging them to provide money to New Kenwood LLC, a company formed by Rezko and a former partner in the law firm, Allison Davis, to construct an apartment building for senior citizens."This project will provide much needed housing for 4th Ward citizens," Obama said in a letter on Illinois Senate stationery to an official of the Illinois Housing Development Authority.
The campaign and Rezko's attorney later said Rezko never sought the letters from Obama.As for the apartment buildings, as a first-year associate with the law firm, Obama would not have been doing much decision making. And he would have had no control over what happened to the apartments, some of which ended up in poor condition with numerous code violations.By that time, Obama had gone on to other matters.
Good Bye Fred and AKA DA Aurthur Branch
Fred Drops Out, Will Announce in June on Leno
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · 22 Comments
(2008-01-22) — One of the most highly-anticipated withdrawals from the Republican presidential field seems all but certain today, with the release of a terse written statement by former Sen. Fred Thompson.
However, disappointed conservatives may have to wait several months for a personal announcement that he’s abandoning his White House bid.
At least one close associate said, “Fred didn’t rush into this campaign, and he’s not rushing out. He just doesn’t rush anything.”
Campaign insiders said Mr. Thompson has “formed a pull-out announcement exploratory committee to determine the right timing and venue.”
However, current speculation indicates a June withdrawal, probably on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · 22 Comments
(2008-01-22) — One of the most highly-anticipated withdrawals from the Republican presidential field seems all but certain today, with the release of a terse written statement by former Sen. Fred Thompson.
However, disappointed conservatives may have to wait several months for a personal announcement that he’s abandoning his White House bid.
At least one close associate said, “Fred didn’t rush into this campaign, and he’s not rushing out. He just doesn’t rush anything.”
Campaign insiders said Mr. Thompson has “formed a pull-out announcement exploratory committee to determine the right timing and venue.”
However, current speculation indicates a June withdrawal, probably on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
Friday, January 18, 2008
lol funny funny lol
George Clooney named U.N. messenger of peace
Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:41pm EST
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon named actor George Clooney, who has campaigned for refugees in Darfur, as a U.N. "messenger of peace" on Friday to promote the world body's peacekeeping efforts.
Clooney is the ninth U.N. messenger -- people chosen from the fields of art, music, literature and sports who have agreed to help focus attention on the United Nations' work.
U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said Clooney would have a special emphasis on peacekeeping. She said he had been "recognized for focusing public attention on crucial international political and social issues."
Clooney, who is currently in Sudan, will receive his designation on January 31 at U.N. headquarters.
With fellow actors Don Cheadle and Brad Pitt, Clooney, 46, has used his celebrity status to raise money for refugees through their "Not On Our Watch" charity and draw attention to the crisis in Darfur in western Sudan.
The United Nations is trying to deploy a peacekeeping force in Darfur, where international experts say some 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million driven from their homes in fighting between Sudan's government and Darfur rebels.
Clooney has starred in a number of films with political themes and won an Oscar in 2005 for his role in "Syriana."
Last month, he and Cheadle were honored by Nobel peace laureates in Rome for their efforts in Darfur.
The other U.N. messengers of peace are actor Michael Douglas, musicians Daniel Barenboim, Midori Goto and Yo-Yo Ma, authors Paulo Coelho and Elie Wiesel, naturalist Jane Goodall and Olympic equestrian Princess Haya of Jordan.
The program was started by Ban's predecessor, Kofi Annan, in 1998.
(Additional reporting by Bob Tourtellotte in Los Angeles, editing by Doina Chiacu)
Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:41pm EST
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon named actor George Clooney, who has campaigned for refugees in Darfur, as a U.N. "messenger of peace" on Friday to promote the world body's peacekeeping efforts.
Clooney is the ninth U.N. messenger -- people chosen from the fields of art, music, literature and sports who have agreed to help focus attention on the United Nations' work.
U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said Clooney would have a special emphasis on peacekeeping. She said he had been "recognized for focusing public attention on crucial international political and social issues."
Clooney, who is currently in Sudan, will receive his designation on January 31 at U.N. headquarters.
With fellow actors Don Cheadle and Brad Pitt, Clooney, 46, has used his celebrity status to raise money for refugees through their "Not On Our Watch" charity and draw attention to the crisis in Darfur in western Sudan.
The United Nations is trying to deploy a peacekeeping force in Darfur, where international experts say some 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million driven from their homes in fighting between Sudan's government and Darfur rebels.
Clooney has starred in a number of films with political themes and won an Oscar in 2005 for his role in "Syriana."
Last month, he and Cheadle were honored by Nobel peace laureates in Rome for their efforts in Darfur.
The other U.N. messengers of peace are actor Michael Douglas, musicians Daniel Barenboim, Midori Goto and Yo-Yo Ma, authors Paulo Coelho and Elie Wiesel, naturalist Jane Goodall and Olympic equestrian Princess Haya of Jordan.
The program was started by Ban's predecessor, Kofi Annan, in 1998.
(Additional reporting by Bob Tourtellotte in Los Angeles, editing by Doina Chiacu)
Founder of Anti-Gun Group Pleads No Contest to Weapons Charges
LOS ANGELES — A former gang member who founded an anti-violence group called No Guns has pleaded no contest to federal weapons charges.
Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin, 51, and co-defendant Sylvia Arrellano, 25, entered pleas Thursday for three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon.
Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer and acknowledged that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
She was given until Tuesday to surrender for sentencing and would likely be sentenced to four years in prison, prosecutors said.
Marroquin attorney Patrick Smith did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Thursday. No phone listing was available for Arrellano.
Marroquin was arrested in June at his Downey home following a nine-month investigation into weapons sales by the 18th Street gang, to which he once belonged.
Arrellano was arrested at a Cudahy home as a result of the same investigation
Marroquin founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence. The group received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son, Hector "Little Weasel" Marroquin.
The son is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest in June 2007 to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.
Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin, 51, and co-defendant Sylvia Arrellano, 25, entered pleas Thursday for three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon.
Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer and acknowledged that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
She was given until Tuesday to surrender for sentencing and would likely be sentenced to four years in prison, prosecutors said.
Marroquin attorney Patrick Smith did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Thursday. No phone listing was available for Arrellano.
Marroquin was arrested in June at his Downey home following a nine-month investigation into weapons sales by the 18th Street gang, to which he once belonged.
Arrellano was arrested at a Cudahy home as a result of the same investigation
Marroquin founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence. The group received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son, Hector "Little Weasel" Marroquin.
The son is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest in June 2007 to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
A congressional terrorist
Ex-Congressman, U.N. Delegate Indicted as Part of Terrorist Fundraising Ring
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an Al Qaeda and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.
The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.
A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Siljander, who served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.
He could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.
The charges are part of a long-running case against the charity, which was formerly based in Columbia, Mo., and was designated by the Treasury Department in 2004 as a suspected fundraiser for terrorists.
/**/
In the indictment, the government alleges that IARA employed a man who had served as a fundraising aide to Osama bin Laden.
The indictment charges IARA with sending approximately $130,000 to help Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whom the United States has designated as a global terrorist. The money, sent to bank accounts in Peshawar, Pakistan in 2003 and 2004, was masked as donations to an orphanage located in buildings that Hekmatyar owned.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an Al Qaeda and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.
The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.
A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Siljander, who served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.
He could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.
The charges are part of a long-running case against the charity, which was formerly based in Columbia, Mo., and was designated by the Treasury Department in 2004 as a suspected fundraiser for terrorists.
/**/
In the indictment, the government alleges that IARA employed a man who had served as a fundraising aide to Osama bin Laden.
The indictment charges IARA with sending approximately $130,000 to help Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whom the United States has designated as a global terrorist. The money, sent to bank accounts in Peshawar, Pakistan in 2003 and 2004, was masked as donations to an orphanage located in buildings that Hekmatyar owned.
Senator UBL AND Senator Kilton revisted
January 16, 2008
Sen. Clinton And The Question Of Trust:
Senator Clinton is interviewing with the American people for the most important job in the nation based on her record and what she deems experience, and yet she refuses to provide documents and information related to her service in the White House or Arkansas - her resume if you will - to the American people.
If Senator Clinton doesn't want to tell us what she would do in the White House - if she doesn't want to take positions on the hard issues now - how can we trust her to lead our nation?
In spring of 2007, Senator Clinton said that she would 'of course' support funding for the troops.
But weeks later, she joined only 13 other senators to vote against funding our troops.
How can the American people trust a candidate for President who, on every substantive issue, has avoided taking strong positions, has contradicted herself, or has simply refused to answer questions.
Sen. Obama And The Question Of Experience:
Senator Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate only three years ago, and has spent almost that entire time running for President.
In fact, he has managed to pass only a single piece of legislation during his three years in the Senate.
In his short career as a state legislator in Illinois, he had a habit of voting 'present' on controversial topics, avoiding taking a stand on issues as wide ranging as abortion, the Second Amendment, and privacy for sex-abuse victims.
The Republican Candidates:
The Republicans, on the other hand, have offered plans to keep our economy growing by letting Americans keep more of the money they earn; to make health care more available, more portable, and more affordable without handing it over to government bureaucrats; and, most importantly, to keep America safe from threats both abroad and at home.
The Republican vision for our future is a positive and optimistic one, while the Democrats seem to see only a failed America, one in which we need to pay more taxes, depend on larger bureaucracies, and withdraw from the world stage.
Sen. Clinton And The Question Of Trust:
Senator Clinton is interviewing with the American people for the most important job in the nation based on her record and what she deems experience, and yet she refuses to provide documents and information related to her service in the White House or Arkansas - her resume if you will - to the American people.
If Senator Clinton doesn't want to tell us what she would do in the White House - if she doesn't want to take positions on the hard issues now - how can we trust her to lead our nation?
In spring of 2007, Senator Clinton said that she would 'of course' support funding for the troops.
But weeks later, she joined only 13 other senators to vote against funding our troops.
How can the American people trust a candidate for President who, on every substantive issue, has avoided taking strong positions, has contradicted herself, or has simply refused to answer questions.
Sen. Obama And The Question Of Experience:
Senator Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate only three years ago, and has spent almost that entire time running for President.
In fact, he has managed to pass only a single piece of legislation during his three years in the Senate.
In his short career as a state legislator in Illinois, he had a habit of voting 'present' on controversial topics, avoiding taking a stand on issues as wide ranging as abortion, the Second Amendment, and privacy for sex-abuse victims.
The Republican Candidates:
The Republicans, on the other hand, have offered plans to keep our economy growing by letting Americans keep more of the money they earn; to make health care more available, more portable, and more affordable without handing it over to government bureaucrats; and, most importantly, to keep America safe from threats both abroad and at home.
The Republican vision for our future is a positive and optimistic one, while the Democrats seem to see only a failed America, one in which we need to pay more taxes, depend on larger bureaucracies, and withdraw from the world stage.
The D is back in the Ducks
Ducks 4 Stars 2
Associated Press - January 16, 2008 1:43 AM ET
ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) - Scott Niedermayer had a goal and two assists as Anaheim doubled up Dallas 4-2.
The Ducks are 10-2-2 since Niedermayer returned to the team after contemplating retirement. The streak has allowed Anaheim to climb within a point of San Jose for the Pacific Division lead.
Todd Bertuzzi and Ryan Getzlaf (GETS'-laf) each had a goal and an assist in the Ducks' fourth straight win. Anaheim claimed a 3-1 lead when Todd Marchant and Getzlaf scored back-to-back goals in the second period.
J.S. Giguere (zhih-GEHR') stopped 22 shots in helping Anaheim beat the Stars for the first time in four meetings this season.
Niklas Hagman and Loui Eriksson scored for the Stars, losers in 7 of their last nine.
Associated Press - January 16, 2008 1:43 AM ET
ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) - Scott Niedermayer had a goal and two assists as Anaheim doubled up Dallas 4-2.
The Ducks are 10-2-2 since Niedermayer returned to the team after contemplating retirement. The streak has allowed Anaheim to climb within a point of San Jose for the Pacific Division lead.
Todd Bertuzzi and Ryan Getzlaf (GETS'-laf) each had a goal and an assist in the Ducks' fourth straight win. Anaheim claimed a 3-1 lead when Todd Marchant and Getzlaf scored back-to-back goals in the second period.
J.S. Giguere (zhih-GEHR') stopped 22 shots in helping Anaheim beat the Stars for the first time in four meetings this season.
Niklas Hagman and Loui Eriksson scored for the Stars, losers in 7 of their last nine.
CLOVERLEAF PROVES THAT HOLLYWOOD LOVES TERRORIST AND THE KILLING THAT TERRORIST DO
'Cloverfield': Horror Film Disses 9/11
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
By Roger Friedman
AP/Paramount Pictures
Michael Stahl-David, left, and Odette Yustman during a scene from "Cloverfield."
'Cloverfield': Horror Film Disses 9/11 Hollywood Needs Ending to Confused Story
'Cloverfield': Horror Film Disses 9/11
Matt Reeves’ "Cloverfield," produced by J.J. Abrams of "Lost" and "Alias" fame, is an 84-minute rollercoaster ride of a monster movie that should be a big hit.
But Cloverfield also inadvertently disses New York for what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, by re-enacting scenes of buildings exploding and massive clouds of debris for fun and profit.
Does no one recall what was said following the World Trade Center disasters? There was such sensitivity about the huge human losses that images of the Twin Towers were erased from movie posters and excised from films.
Yet six years later, the Cloverfield gang is cool enough with it to show New York being pulverized by a Godzilla-like monster. Very quickly and without warning, downtown New York is destroyed by the monster. The first bit of damage is depicted by a World Trade Center-like structure exploding and collapsing downward, sending off a cloud not unlike those my friends ran from that day.
Later in the film, the main characters go to the city’s new Twin Towers, represented by the Time Warner Center. The structure looks so much like the World Trade Center that you have to wonder what these people were thinking. "Cloverfield" was truly made by California movie people. No one in New York would ever be this insensitive.
But I suppose I’m being too sensitive. After all, 9/11 was six freakin’ years ago! Get over it! "Cloverfield" is just commercial entertainment. If you don’t read anything into it, this slightly plotted edge-of-the-seat nail-biter is a good big studio take on "The Blair Witch Project." It’s the perfect winter doldrums popcorn fest.
The clever aspect of Reeves’ film is that it’s all shot with a handheld camera that’s supposed to be the camcorder belonging to one of the main characters. This gives the film an intimate feel, and the look is very personal as the city is devoured by an identified creature from the black lagoon.
Reeves and Abrams do not supply much information, just that good-looking young professionals are interrupted from their partying by the long-tailed, ugly, pod-dropping monster. Screenwriter Drew Goddard, who comes from Abrams’ TV circle with "Lost" and "Alias," has only turned in two acts — which is fine for the small screen but lacking for the big one. Hence, "Cloverfield" ends abruptly and leaves a lot of questions unanswered. (Shades of "Lost.")
"Cloverfield" boasts a small but plucky cast of young unknowns, and they’re not bad although none of them really breaks out. Lizzy Caplan as Marlena, who is bitten by the monster, does the most with the least in the Ally Sheedy role from "Breakfast Club." The others — Michael Stahl-David, T.J. Miller, Jessica Lucas and Odette Yustman — must bear the brunt of the script’s lack of humor or wit or any subplot. Give them points for that.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
By Roger Friedman
AP/Paramount Pictures
Michael Stahl-David, left, and Odette Yustman during a scene from "Cloverfield."
'Cloverfield': Horror Film Disses 9/11 Hollywood Needs Ending to Confused Story
'Cloverfield': Horror Film Disses 9/11
Matt Reeves’ "Cloverfield," produced by J.J. Abrams of "Lost" and "Alias" fame, is an 84-minute rollercoaster ride of a monster movie that should be a big hit.
But Cloverfield also inadvertently disses New York for what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, by re-enacting scenes of buildings exploding and massive clouds of debris for fun and profit.
Does no one recall what was said following the World Trade Center disasters? There was such sensitivity about the huge human losses that images of the Twin Towers were erased from movie posters and excised from films.
Yet six years later, the Cloverfield gang is cool enough with it to show New York being pulverized by a Godzilla-like monster. Very quickly and without warning, downtown New York is destroyed by the monster. The first bit of damage is depicted by a World Trade Center-like structure exploding and collapsing downward, sending off a cloud not unlike those my friends ran from that day.
Later in the film, the main characters go to the city’s new Twin Towers, represented by the Time Warner Center. The structure looks so much like the World Trade Center that you have to wonder what these people were thinking. "Cloverfield" was truly made by California movie people. No one in New York would ever be this insensitive.
But I suppose I’m being too sensitive. After all, 9/11 was six freakin’ years ago! Get over it! "Cloverfield" is just commercial entertainment. If you don’t read anything into it, this slightly plotted edge-of-the-seat nail-biter is a good big studio take on "The Blair Witch Project." It’s the perfect winter doldrums popcorn fest.
The clever aspect of Reeves’ film is that it’s all shot with a handheld camera that’s supposed to be the camcorder belonging to one of the main characters. This gives the film an intimate feel, and the look is very personal as the city is devoured by an identified creature from the black lagoon.
Reeves and Abrams do not supply much information, just that good-looking young professionals are interrupted from their partying by the long-tailed, ugly, pod-dropping monster. Screenwriter Drew Goddard, who comes from Abrams’ TV circle with "Lost" and "Alias," has only turned in two acts — which is fine for the small screen but lacking for the big one. Hence, "Cloverfield" ends abruptly and leaves a lot of questions unanswered. (Shades of "Lost.")
"Cloverfield" boasts a small but plucky cast of young unknowns, and they’re not bad although none of them really breaks out. Lizzy Caplan as Marlena, who is bitten by the monster, does the most with the least in the Ally Sheedy role from "Breakfast Club." The others — Michael Stahl-David, T.J. Miller, Jessica Lucas and Odette Yustman — must bear the brunt of the script’s lack of humor or wit or any subplot. Give them points for that.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Disney states that writter strike is an act of god.
D5. Disney Drops a Contract Bomb
Using a contract provision known as a “force majeure clause,” ABC Studios notified nearly two dozen writers and non-writing producers that it was terminating their overall deals as a result of the strike.
Force majeure is a common provision contained in entertainment contracts, which allows a party to terminate without liability due to the occurrence of an extraordinary event or, as even Hollywood contracts call it, an “act of God.”
The Disney/ABC Studios action is the biggest move yet by a studio to up the pressure on striking writers.
“The ongoing strike has had a significant detrimental impact on development and production so we are forced to make the difficult decision to release a number of talented, respected individuals from their development deals,” ABC Studios said in a statement.
Meanwhile a new Pew poll claims television viewers don’t care about the strike.
According to the poll, 49 percent responded that the strike had not affected their shows at all while 35 percent said the shows they watched were now airing repeats because of the strike.
About half, 54 percent, didn’t know whether the strike had affected the late night shows, and 70 percent of participants didn't think they had been missing out on any campaign news.
Using a contract provision known as a “force majeure clause,” ABC Studios notified nearly two dozen writers and non-writing producers that it was terminating their overall deals as a result of the strike.
Force majeure is a common provision contained in entertainment contracts, which allows a party to terminate without liability due to the occurrence of an extraordinary event or, as even Hollywood contracts call it, an “act of God.”
The Disney/ABC Studios action is the biggest move yet by a studio to up the pressure on striking writers.
“The ongoing strike has had a significant detrimental impact on development and production so we are forced to make the difficult decision to release a number of talented, respected individuals from their development deals,” ABC Studios said in a statement.
Meanwhile a new Pew poll claims television viewers don’t care about the strike.
According to the poll, 49 percent responded that the strike had not affected their shows at all while 35 percent said the shows they watched were now airing repeats because of the strike.
About half, 54 percent, didn’t know whether the strike had affected the late night shows, and 70 percent of participants didn't think they had been missing out on any campaign news.
Obama is Senator UBL come out and disprove these statements you wont because they are true or you are too chicken to do so.
Obama's Minister Honored Farrakhan
Monday, January 14, 2008 7:49 PMBy: Ronald Kessler
Article Font Size
Barack Obama prays during services at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Barack Obama’s longtime minister, mentor, and sounding board has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan and last month honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement.
Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals. He has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the “anti-Christ.” He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.
“Do you know some of these satanic Jews have taken over BET [the Black Entertainment
Network]?” Farrakhan said in a speech on Nov. 11, 2007. “Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry, and television. And they make us look like we’re the murderers; we look like we’re the gangsters, but we’re punk stuff.”
The month after that speech, Obama’s minister and friend, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, honored Farrakhan at a gala, bestowing on him its Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award.
Obama has said he found religion through Wright in the 1980s and consulted him before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.
In the November/December issue of his church’s magazine, Trumpet, Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan, whom he helped in organizing the Million Man March in Washington in 1995. Wright lauded Farrakhan as one of the giants of the African-American religious experience in the 20th and 21st centuries.
“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, black America listens,” Wright said. “His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.”
Hailing Farrakhan’s “integrity and honesty,” Wright said, “His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change, and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.”
A video quoting some of Wright’s opprobriums ran at the gala at the Hyatt Regency Chicago and appears on YouTube. However, while the mainstream media have hammered Mitt Romney over his religion, they have ignored or else downplayed Obama’s ties to Wright. No stories have appeared on Wright’s award to Farrakhan in December.
Wright’s church occupies a brick building at 400 West 95th Street near a public housing project and railroad tracks. Since becoming pastor in 1972, Wright has seen the church’s membership grow from 80 to more than 8,500. The church is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ, a predominantly white denomination known for its liberal politics. Obama’s church runs an outreach program to attract gay and lesbian singles.
Born in Hawaii, Obama is the son of a white Christian mother from Kansas and a Kenyan father who was a Muslim but was not religious. From age 6 to 10, Obama lived in Indonesia, where he went to a Catholic school. For a year, he went to a public school where he attended Islamic religion classes.
Obama says he found religion and Jesus Christ through Wright, whom he met in the mid-1980s. Obama has been attending Wright’s church regularly since 1988. Wright warned Obama that getting involved with Trinity, with its radical reputation, might turn off other black clergy. But in 1991, Obama joined the church and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith. Wright later married Obama and Michelle Robinson and baptized their two daughters.
The title of Obama’s bestseller “The Audacity of Hope” comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
For a Jan. 21, 2007 story in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said that Wright keeps his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.
“What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice,” Obama told the paper. “He’s much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking truthfully about what I believe is possible and that I’m not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that’s involved in national politics.”
However, Obama has said that in the fall of 2006, he broached the subject of a run for the presidency with Wright, who encouraged him to go ahead.
As noted in a Jan. 7 Newsmax article, “Barack Obama’s Racist Church,” in sermons and interviews, Wright has equated Zionism with racism and has compared Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in Trumpet. “White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
In one of his sermons, Wright said to thumping applause, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run! ...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
In an op-ed in the Philadelphia Tribune, Wright said that war is about “making the world safe” for American business interests. “When one goes against the war, one tampers with the financial institutions and the financial system that was put in place by the Founding Fathers of this country to keep the rich, rich!” he said. “The rich can only stay rich by keeping the poor, poor.”
As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”
Those views run parallel to Farrakhan’s, who said in an interview this month with FinalCall.com that there will be “no peace for Israel, because there can be no peace as long as that peace is based on lying, stealing, murder, and using God’s name to shield a wicked, unjust practice that is not in harmony with the will of God.”
Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
According to Wright, Obama then told him, “'You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.” Wright is retiring as senior pastor of the church in May. He asked his successor, Otis Moss III, to speak instead, but he declined. However, Obama and his family prayed privately with Wright just before the presidential announcement.
The media blackout on Obama’s radical minister is in striking contrast to the coverage of Romney. Nearly half the references to Romney in the media include a discussion of his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
If Romney’s church proclaimed on its Web site that it is “unashamedly white,” the media would pounce, and Romney’s presidential candidacy would be over. Yet that is what Obama’s church says on its web site -- except in reverse.
“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s Web site. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
Moreover, the church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” according to its Web site, and the church and its pastor subscribe to what is called the Black Value System.
While the Black Value System encourages commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to “our racist competitive society” and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of “middle-classness” and a pledge of allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.” It defines “middle-classness” as a way for American society to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” just as the country structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”
In two exceptions to the media blackout, Tucker Carlson of MSNBC described Trinity as having a “racially exclusive theology” that “contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity.” Sean Hannity of Fox News confronted Wright on TV and asked how a black value system is any more acceptable than a white value system.
If a white presidential candidate’s church had a similar statement and “you substitute the word black for white, there would be an outrage in this country,” Hannity said. “There would be cries of racism in this country.'”
In response, Wright repeatedly asked Hannity how many books he had read by James Cone and others about black liberation theology. Cone, who is widely admired at Wright’s church, was quoted in the May 29, 2007, issue of The Christian Century as saying, “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’... Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.”
On a few points, Obama has sought to distance himself from Wright’s teachings or to explain them away. While Wright is his pastor and friend, Obama has said, they do not see eye to eye on everything. Without addressing Wright’s denunciations of Israel and Zionism as racist, Obama has said he “strongly disagrees with any portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that advocates divestment from Israel or expresses anything less than strong support for Israel’s security.”
As for Wright’s repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks, Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be “provocative.”
But Obama’s close association with Wright over more than two decades and the minister’s close ties to Farrakhan cannot be explained away so cavalierly. If Obama rejects Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church? If Obama disagrees with Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic and anti-white statements, why doesn’t he denounce him rather than continue to associate with a minister and friend who is one of his advocates and who gave him an award for lifetime achievement? Does Obama secretly agree with some of their hate-filled, radical statements while publicly avoiding race-specific appeals as part of his candidacy?
That comports with Obama’s habit of not showing up for controversial votes or tackling tough policy issues, allowing him to broaden his appeal through charisma alone. Farrakhan himself recently spoke approvingly of Obama’s strategy, which is crucial to inviting whites to support him.
“Barack Obama has been very careful not to position himself as Rev. Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton as a promoter of ‘The Black Cause,’” Farrakhan said in the interview with FinalCall.com. “He has been groomed, wisely so, to be seen more as a unifier, rather than one who speaks only for the hurt of black people.”
At the least, Obama’s membership in Wright’s church and close ties to Wright himself suggest a lack of judgment and an insensitivity to views that are repugnant to the vast majority of white Americans who are not bigots or anti-Semites.
That same lack of judgment has shown up in Obama’s gaffes -- threatening to invade Pakistan and offering prompt negotiations with anti-American despots. More frightening, Obama voted last August to give Osama bin Laden and other terrorists the same rights as Americans when it comes to intercepting their overseas calls in order to pick up clues needed to stop another attack.
To evaluate what Obama’s ties to Wright mean, picture America’s reaction if President Bush’s minister, mentor, and moral compass had the views of Wright and was an admirer and supporter of Farrakhan.
“He that lies down with dogs, shall rise up with fleas,” Benjamin Franklin said.
Obama may be a gifted orator, but his choice of a friend and advisor suggests he is masquerading as a moderate. While the liberal media have already decided Obama will be our next president, Americans may have a different view when they consider what his ties to Wright tell us about the presidential candidate’s true opinions and character.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous dispatches and have them sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, January 14, 2008 7:49 PMBy: Ronald Kessler
Article Font Size
Barack Obama prays during services at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Barack Obama’s longtime minister, mentor, and sounding board has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan and last month honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement.
Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals. He has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the “anti-Christ.” He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.
“Do you know some of these satanic Jews have taken over BET [the Black Entertainment
Network]?” Farrakhan said in a speech on Nov. 11, 2007. “Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry, and television. And they make us look like we’re the murderers; we look like we’re the gangsters, but we’re punk stuff.”
The month after that speech, Obama’s minister and friend, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, honored Farrakhan at a gala, bestowing on him its Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award.
Obama has said he found religion through Wright in the 1980s and consulted him before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.
In the November/December issue of his church’s magazine, Trumpet, Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan, whom he helped in organizing the Million Man March in Washington in 1995. Wright lauded Farrakhan as one of the giants of the African-American religious experience in the 20th and 21st centuries.
“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, black America listens,” Wright said. “His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.”
Hailing Farrakhan’s “integrity and honesty,” Wright said, “His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change, and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.”
A video quoting some of Wright’s opprobriums ran at the gala at the Hyatt Regency Chicago and appears on YouTube. However, while the mainstream media have hammered Mitt Romney over his religion, they have ignored or else downplayed Obama’s ties to Wright. No stories have appeared on Wright’s award to Farrakhan in December.
Wright’s church occupies a brick building at 400 West 95th Street near a public housing project and railroad tracks. Since becoming pastor in 1972, Wright has seen the church’s membership grow from 80 to more than 8,500. The church is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ, a predominantly white denomination known for its liberal politics. Obama’s church runs an outreach program to attract gay and lesbian singles.
Born in Hawaii, Obama is the son of a white Christian mother from Kansas and a Kenyan father who was a Muslim but was not religious. From age 6 to 10, Obama lived in Indonesia, where he went to a Catholic school. For a year, he went to a public school where he attended Islamic religion classes.
Obama says he found religion and Jesus Christ through Wright, whom he met in the mid-1980s. Obama has been attending Wright’s church regularly since 1988. Wright warned Obama that getting involved with Trinity, with its radical reputation, might turn off other black clergy. But in 1991, Obama joined the church and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith. Wright later married Obama and Michelle Robinson and baptized their two daughters.
The title of Obama’s bestseller “The Audacity of Hope” comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
For a Jan. 21, 2007 story in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said that Wright keeps his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.
“What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice,” Obama told the paper. “He’s much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking truthfully about what I believe is possible and that I’m not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that’s involved in national politics.”
However, Obama has said that in the fall of 2006, he broached the subject of a run for the presidency with Wright, who encouraged him to go ahead.
As noted in a Jan. 7 Newsmax article, “Barack Obama’s Racist Church,” in sermons and interviews, Wright has equated Zionism with racism and has compared Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in Trumpet. “White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
In one of his sermons, Wright said to thumping applause, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run! ...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
In an op-ed in the Philadelphia Tribune, Wright said that war is about “making the world safe” for American business interests. “When one goes against the war, one tampers with the financial institutions and the financial system that was put in place by the Founding Fathers of this country to keep the rich, rich!” he said. “The rich can only stay rich by keeping the poor, poor.”
As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”
Those views run parallel to Farrakhan’s, who said in an interview this month with FinalCall.com that there will be “no peace for Israel, because there can be no peace as long as that peace is based on lying, stealing, murder, and using God’s name to shield a wicked, unjust practice that is not in harmony with the will of God.”
Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
According to Wright, Obama then told him, “'You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.” Wright is retiring as senior pastor of the church in May. He asked his successor, Otis Moss III, to speak instead, but he declined. However, Obama and his family prayed privately with Wright just before the presidential announcement.
The media blackout on Obama’s radical minister is in striking contrast to the coverage of Romney. Nearly half the references to Romney in the media include a discussion of his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
If Romney’s church proclaimed on its Web site that it is “unashamedly white,” the media would pounce, and Romney’s presidential candidacy would be over. Yet that is what Obama’s church says on its web site -- except in reverse.
“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s Web site. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
Moreover, the church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” according to its Web site, and the church and its pastor subscribe to what is called the Black Value System.
While the Black Value System encourages commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to “our racist competitive society” and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of “middle-classness” and a pledge of allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.” It defines “middle-classness” as a way for American society to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” just as the country structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”
In two exceptions to the media blackout, Tucker Carlson of MSNBC described Trinity as having a “racially exclusive theology” that “contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity.” Sean Hannity of Fox News confronted Wright on TV and asked how a black value system is any more acceptable than a white value system.
If a white presidential candidate’s church had a similar statement and “you substitute the word black for white, there would be an outrage in this country,” Hannity said. “There would be cries of racism in this country.'”
In response, Wright repeatedly asked Hannity how many books he had read by James Cone and others about black liberation theology. Cone, who is widely admired at Wright’s church, was quoted in the May 29, 2007, issue of The Christian Century as saying, “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’... Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.”
On a few points, Obama has sought to distance himself from Wright’s teachings or to explain them away. While Wright is his pastor and friend, Obama has said, they do not see eye to eye on everything. Without addressing Wright’s denunciations of Israel and Zionism as racist, Obama has said he “strongly disagrees with any portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that advocates divestment from Israel or expresses anything less than strong support for Israel’s security.”
As for Wright’s repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks, Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be “provocative.”
But Obama’s close association with Wright over more than two decades and the minister’s close ties to Farrakhan cannot be explained away so cavalierly. If Obama rejects Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church? If Obama disagrees with Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic and anti-white statements, why doesn’t he denounce him rather than continue to associate with a minister and friend who is one of his advocates and who gave him an award for lifetime achievement? Does Obama secretly agree with some of their hate-filled, radical statements while publicly avoiding race-specific appeals as part of his candidacy?
That comports with Obama’s habit of not showing up for controversial votes or tackling tough policy issues, allowing him to broaden his appeal through charisma alone. Farrakhan himself recently spoke approvingly of Obama’s strategy, which is crucial to inviting whites to support him.
“Barack Obama has been very careful not to position himself as Rev. Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton as a promoter of ‘The Black Cause,’” Farrakhan said in the interview with FinalCall.com. “He has been groomed, wisely so, to be seen more as a unifier, rather than one who speaks only for the hurt of black people.”
At the least, Obama’s membership in Wright’s church and close ties to Wright himself suggest a lack of judgment and an insensitivity to views that are repugnant to the vast majority of white Americans who are not bigots or anti-Semites.
That same lack of judgment has shown up in Obama’s gaffes -- threatening to invade Pakistan and offering prompt negotiations with anti-American despots. More frightening, Obama voted last August to give Osama bin Laden and other terrorists the same rights as Americans when it comes to intercepting their overseas calls in order to pick up clues needed to stop another attack.
To evaluate what Obama’s ties to Wright mean, picture America’s reaction if President Bush’s minister, mentor, and moral compass had the views of Wright and was an admirer and supporter of Farrakhan.
“He that lies down with dogs, shall rise up with fleas,” Benjamin Franklin said.
Obama may be a gifted orator, but his choice of a friend and advisor suggests he is masquerading as a moderate. While the liberal media have already decided Obama will be our next president, Americans may have a different view when they consider what his ties to Wright tell us about the presidential candidate’s true opinions and character.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous dispatches and have them sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
