Hey you! Yeah, I’m talking to you Obama supporters.
Hey you! Yeah, I’m talking to you Obama supporters.
King Barack knows you paid for his Greek columns, trip to Europe and infomercial and I’m sure you’ve pleased him.
But he needs more.
Didn’t you get the email he had his campaign manager David Plouffe sent you? Stop whining about having to put gas in your tank and pay your mortgage…you’re annoying the king. Didn’t you read what David Plouffe said. What? You forgot because you were to busy figuring out how you were going to pay your bills? You ungrateful bastards. Let me refresh your memory:
We’ll get to work transforming this country. But first, we need to take care of the DNC. Before we do anything else, we need to pay for this winning strategy.””
That’s right-you heard him. Take care of the Democratic National Committee FIRST! Then….they’ll put on their superhero costume and transform the country. But only after you give them some more money.
What’s that? You heard King Barack ended his campaign with extra cash? Well, yes as a matter of fact he did.
But that’s his money now. You gave it to him. And he decided to give it to his staff. You have a problem with that?
So open up those wallets and show him the money! Yes, he knows Christmas is coming but you weren’t silly enough to think hope and change came without a price, were you?
King Barack knows you paid for his Greek columns, trip to Europe and infomercial and I’m sure you’ve pleased him.
But he needs more.
Didn’t you get the email he had his campaign manager David Plouffe sent you? Stop whining about having to put gas in your tank and pay your mortgage…you’re annoying the king. Didn’t you read what David Plouffe said. What? You forgot because you were to busy figuring out how you were going to pay your bills? You ungrateful bastards. Let me refresh your memory:
We’ll get to work transforming this country. But first, we need to take care of the DNC. Before we do anything else, we need to pay for this winning strategy.””
That’s right-you heard him. Take care of the Democratic National Committee FIRST! Then….they’ll put on their superhero costume and transform the country. But only after you give them some more money.
What’s that? You heard King Barack ended his campaign with extra cash? Well, yes as a matter of fact he did.
But that’s his money now. You gave it to him. And he decided to give it to his staff. You have a problem with that?
So open up those wallets and show him the money! Yes, he knows Christmas is coming but you weren’t silly enough to think hope and change came without a price, were you?
Proof on Media Bias: Media Coverage Has Favored Obama
Study: Media Coverage Has Favored Obama
979 News Stories Shown Between Aug. 23-Oct. 24 Analyzed
POSTED: 2:02 pm EDT November 1, 2008
NEW YORK -- Sen. John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against Sen. Barack Obama have a new study to point to.
Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared with in 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said.
Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn't evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC.
"For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama."
The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.
When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the negative column for McCain.
ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).
Hume's telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket.
It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more mixed.
Meanwhile, another survey issued Friday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that television continues to be Americans' main source for campaign news, particularly the cable news networks.
But there were clear partisan differences in where people turned.
For instance, of the people who said they got most of their campaign news from Fox News Channel, 52 percent identified themselves as Republican, 17 percent as Democrats and 30 percent as independents, the Pew Center said.
MSNBC viewers interested in campaign news identified themselves at 11 percent Republican, 50 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The breakdown for CNN: 13 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent.
The study was based on a survey of 2,011 people taken Oct. 17-20 and 24-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.
Link:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/17865084/detail.html
979 News Stories Shown Between Aug. 23-Oct. 24 Analyzed
POSTED: 2:02 pm EDT November 1, 2008
NEW YORK -- Sen. John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against Sen. Barack Obama have a new study to point to.
Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared with in 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said.
Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn't evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC.
"For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama."
The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.
When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the negative column for McCain.
ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).
Hume's telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket.
It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more mixed.
Meanwhile, another survey issued Friday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that television continues to be Americans' main source for campaign news, particularly the cable news networks.
But there were clear partisan differences in where people turned.
For instance, of the people who said they got most of their campaign news from Fox News Channel, 52 percent identified themselves as Republican, 17 percent as Democrats and 30 percent as independents, the Pew Center said.
MSNBC viewers interested in campaign news identified themselves at 11 percent Republican, 50 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The breakdown for CNN: 13 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent.
The study was based on a survey of 2,011 people taken Oct. 17-20 and 24-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.
Link:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/17865084/detail.html
Women Attacked, Letter Scratch in Face by Obama Supporter
Woman Attacked, Letter Scratched Into Her Face
Woman Robbed With Knife At Bloomfield ATM
POSTED: 4:03 pm EDT October 23, 2008
UPDATED: 8:34 pm EDT October 23, 2008
PITTSBURGH -- A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, apparently because of her political views, Pittsburgh police said.
According to WTAE's news exchange partners at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Ashley Todd, of College Station, Texas, was using an ATM at Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m. Wednesday when a man approached her and put a knife to her throat.
Police spokeswoman Diane Richard said the robber took $60 from Todd, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said.
The Tribune-Review reported that Todd, who isn't familiar with the area, drove to a friend's house and together the pair located the Citizens Bank ATM at Liberty and Pearl where the attack happened and called police.
Todd declined to comment to the Tribune-Review. Friends said she is in Pittsburgh volunteering for the McCain-Palin campaign.
Richard said the woman refused medical treatment after the assault, which happened outside the view of the bank's surveillance cameras.
The robber is described as a dark-skinned black man, 6 feet 4 inches tall, 200 pounds with a medium build, short black hair and brown eyes. The man was wearing dark colored jeans, a black undershirt and black shoes.
The Obama-Biden campaign released a statement, commenting on the attack. The statement said, "Our thoughts and prayers are with the young woman for her to make a speedy recovery, and we hope that the person who perpetrated this crime is swiftly apprehended and brought to justice."
The McCain-Palin campaign also released a statement saying, "The McCain campaign is aware of the incident involving one of its volunteers. Out of respect, the campaign won't be commenting. The campaign also confirms that Senator McCain and Governor Palin have both spoken to the woman."
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html
Comment: I find this appalling, Obama supporters oughta take a good hard look in the mirror before they say anything about McCain supporters being angry!
Who are the angry ones now!!
Woman Robbed With Knife At Bloomfield ATM
POSTED: 4:03 pm EDT October 23, 2008
UPDATED: 8:34 pm EDT October 23, 2008
PITTSBURGH -- A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, apparently because of her political views, Pittsburgh police said.
According to WTAE's news exchange partners at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Ashley Todd, of College Station, Texas, was using an ATM at Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m. Wednesday when a man approached her and put a knife to her throat.
Police spokeswoman Diane Richard said the robber took $60 from Todd, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said.
The Tribune-Review reported that Todd, who isn't familiar with the area, drove to a friend's house and together the pair located the Citizens Bank ATM at Liberty and Pearl where the attack happened and called police.
Todd declined to comment to the Tribune-Review. Friends said she is in Pittsburgh volunteering for the McCain-Palin campaign.
Richard said the woman refused medical treatment after the assault, which happened outside the view of the bank's surveillance cameras.
The robber is described as a dark-skinned black man, 6 feet 4 inches tall, 200 pounds with a medium build, short black hair and brown eyes. The man was wearing dark colored jeans, a black undershirt and black shoes.
The Obama-Biden campaign released a statement, commenting on the attack. The statement said, "Our thoughts and prayers are with the young woman for her to make a speedy recovery, and we hope that the person who perpetrated this crime is swiftly apprehended and brought to justice."
The McCain-Palin campaign also released a statement saying, "The McCain campaign is aware of the incident involving one of its volunteers. Out of respect, the campaign won't be commenting. The campaign also confirms that Senator McCain and Governor Palin have both spoken to the woman."
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html
Comment: I find this appalling, Obama supporters oughta take a good hard look in the mirror before they say anything about McCain supporters being angry!
Who are the angry ones now!!
"Who's Really Playing the Race Card in This Election"?
Who's Really Playing the Race Card in This Election?
Contact: Ermias Alemayehu, Bond Action, 213-804-1872, info@bondaction.org
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 9 /Christian Newswire/ -- According to BOND ACTION, Inc, Founder and President, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, the Obama campaign and its surrogates have knowingly used race as a wedge issue to scare black voters and mischaracterize Republican positions on the issues. Rev. Peterson said today, "If the McCain campaign doesn't start aggressively combating these false allegations it will cost them the election." Rev. Peterson pointed to the following examples of Democrats injecting race into this election:
On Tuesday, during an appearance on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Democrat strategist James Carville hinted at riots if Sen. Obama loses the election.
Last Monday, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated.
This week, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) said, "...They [Republicans] know they can't win on the issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear."
This week, Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY) recently said, "Racism is alive and well in this country, and McCain and Palin are trying to appeal to that and it's unfortunate."
September 24, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) speaking to the National Jewish Democratic Council, warned black and Jewish voters to be wary of Sarah Palin because "anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks."
Last June, in a speech in Jacksonville, Fla., Sen. Barack Obama told the audience, "[Republicans] They're going to make you afraid of me...he's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name...did I mention that he's black?"
Rev. Peterson said, "Democrats are using the same racially charged scare tactics used by white segregationists in the past to antagonize the races. This is shameless and dangerous, and we have a moral duty to point it out."
BOND Action, Inc. is a 501 (c) (4) new cultural action organization, which exists to educate, motivate and rally Americans to greater involvement in the moral, cultural and political issues that threaten our great country. Contributions to BOND Action, Inc. are not tax-deductible. For more information call (877) WE-ACT-77, visit www.bondaction.org or write to us at BOND Action Inc. PO Box 35586, Los Angeles, CA 90035-0586.
Contact: Ermias Alemayehu, Bond Action, 213-804-1872, info@bondaction.org
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 9 /Christian Newswire/ -- According to BOND ACTION, Inc, Founder and President, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, the Obama campaign and its surrogates have knowingly used race as a wedge issue to scare black voters and mischaracterize Republican positions on the issues. Rev. Peterson said today, "If the McCain campaign doesn't start aggressively combating these false allegations it will cost them the election." Rev. Peterson pointed to the following examples of Democrats injecting race into this election:
On Tuesday, during an appearance on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Democrat strategist James Carville hinted at riots if Sen. Obama loses the election.
Last Monday, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated.
This week, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) said, "...They [Republicans] know they can't win on the issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear."
This week, Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY) recently said, "Racism is alive and well in this country, and McCain and Palin are trying to appeal to that and it's unfortunate."
September 24, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) speaking to the National Jewish Democratic Council, warned black and Jewish voters to be wary of Sarah Palin because "anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks."
Last June, in a speech in Jacksonville, Fla., Sen. Barack Obama told the audience, "[Republicans] They're going to make you afraid of me...he's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name...did I mention that he's black?"
Rev. Peterson said, "Democrats are using the same racially charged scare tactics used by white segregationists in the past to antagonize the races. This is shameless and dangerous, and we have a moral duty to point it out."
BOND Action, Inc. is a 501 (c) (4) new cultural action organization, which exists to educate, motivate and rally Americans to greater involvement in the moral, cultural and political issues that threaten our great country. Contributions to BOND Action, Inc. are not tax-deductible. For more information call (877) WE-ACT-77, visit www.bondaction.org or write to us at BOND Action Inc. PO Box 35586, Los Angeles, CA 90035-0586.
Anti-Obama Writer Detained in Kenya
Anti-Obama Writer Detained in Kenya
Posted on October 7, 2008
Jerome Corsi, who wrote an anti-Obama book called The Obama Nation, was in Kenya investigating Obama’s connections to Kenya. He was to hold a press conference in which he was going to discuss what he had found.
There was a little surprise waiting for Corsi as he made his way to the press conference, though. It was the Kenya’s immigration department. They swooped in an arrested him before he could make public his findings.
Corsi had promised a news conference today that would “expose details of deep secret ties between U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and a section of Kenya government leaders, their connection to certain sectoral groups in Kenya and subsequent plot to be executed in Kenya should Senator Obama win the American presidency.”
Somebody didn’t want this information out there. Here is some of what Corsi was going to reveal:
Corsi was set to show Obama and Odinga have been in direct contact since the senator’s visit to Kenya in 2006. He was to claim Obama advised Odinga on campaign strategy and helped him raise money in the U.S. for the Kenya presidential campaign.
Obama was raising money in the United States and sending it to the campaign of a foreign election. But what about that campaign strategy that Obama helped Odinga with?
Corsi was to report Odinga’s 2007 presidential campaign strategy called for exploiting anti-Kikuyu tribal sentiments, claiming victory and charging voter fraud even if the campaign knew the election had been legitimately lost. Odinga, Corsi said, also was willing to fan the flames of ethnic tribal tensions
Ethnic tribal tensions? Could this be equivalent to the class warfare that the Democrats love to use in America as a campaign strategy? But the kicker to me is that Odinga was prepared to claim voter fraud occurred even if he knew that the charges were unfounded and untrue. That is straight out of the Democrat playbook, and foreshadows what can be expected from Obama in the extremely unlikely event that he loses the election.
So somebody wanted Corsi silenced, was it Odinga or was it the Obama campaign that made the call to collect on a debt for the campaign money that was funneled into Kenya? In order to answer that question we must once again look to Barack Obama’s past.
Barack Obama has already admitted that he is in favor of silencing the people who do not agree with him and I am not only talking about his approval of re-instituting the fairness doctrine to shut down conservative radio and blogs. That would have to wait until he was president, he is already in the game of harassing and threatening those who oppose him with the “truth squads” that he sent out in Missouri to intimidate people who run commercials that are critical of him. He is also pressuring television stations not to run ads critical of him by the NRA. Is it really too much of a stretch to think that Obama had a hand in this?
But Obama’s defiance of the freedom of the press and of free speech, isn’t where his disdain for the constitution ends. As director of the Joyce Foundation he worked hard to undermine an individual’s right to keep and bear arms using the court system, and will continue to do so once he assumes the presidency with his judicial nominees. Regardless of what he now says.
And of course no discussion of Obama’s past can be finished without talking about his association with William Ayers. Obama’s campaign likes to say that Obama was only eight when Ayers committed his terrorist attacks on the Pentagon, but Obama’sassociation with Ayers is much more recent than that. As director and co-founder with William Ayer of The Chicago Annenberg Challenge he helped fund William Ayers and his radical teachings in Chicago.
Which then leads us to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his radical, race baiting, hate mongering, anti-American sermons that Barack Obama attended for twenty years. And brought his children to.
Obama’s past is filled with associations to people unfriendly with America and with ideas that are contrary to the constitution and the rights of speech, press, and the right to bear arms. So again I ask, is it so hard to believe that Obama had a hand in this writers detainment in Kenya?
All of these associations and beliefs are just too conveniently coincidental for me to believe. Barack Obama has a pattern here, it is a pattern that we are supposed to ignore. If you dare to ask about Obama’s past you are accused of either engaging in the politics of personal destruction, or of personal attacks, or of being a racist. Or all of the above. We are supposed to believe that Barack Obama’s past is not relevant to the campaign, but who a person is today derives from who he was and what happened to him in the past. Barack Obama’s past is just too damn shady and I can not ignore it.
Obama’s past does matter today, especially when the associations that he claims were long ago were allot more recent than Obama cares to admit.
But why was Corsi coincidentally detained just as he was headed to his press conference? Was it just another coincidence? Or was there more? What was Corsi going to reveal?
Just one more question, could it have been a birth certificate?
Posted on October 7, 2008
Jerome Corsi, who wrote an anti-Obama book called The Obama Nation, was in Kenya investigating Obama’s connections to Kenya. He was to hold a press conference in which he was going to discuss what he had found.
There was a little surprise waiting for Corsi as he made his way to the press conference, though. It was the Kenya’s immigration department. They swooped in an arrested him before he could make public his findings.
Corsi had promised a news conference today that would “expose details of deep secret ties between U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and a section of Kenya government leaders, their connection to certain sectoral groups in Kenya and subsequent plot to be executed in Kenya should Senator Obama win the American presidency.”
Somebody didn’t want this information out there. Here is some of what Corsi was going to reveal:
Corsi was set to show Obama and Odinga have been in direct contact since the senator’s visit to Kenya in 2006. He was to claim Obama advised Odinga on campaign strategy and helped him raise money in the U.S. for the Kenya presidential campaign.
Obama was raising money in the United States and sending it to the campaign of a foreign election. But what about that campaign strategy that Obama helped Odinga with?
Corsi was to report Odinga’s 2007 presidential campaign strategy called for exploiting anti-Kikuyu tribal sentiments, claiming victory and charging voter fraud even if the campaign knew the election had been legitimately lost. Odinga, Corsi said, also was willing to fan the flames of ethnic tribal tensions
Ethnic tribal tensions? Could this be equivalent to the class warfare that the Democrats love to use in America as a campaign strategy? But the kicker to me is that Odinga was prepared to claim voter fraud occurred even if he knew that the charges were unfounded and untrue. That is straight out of the Democrat playbook, and foreshadows what can be expected from Obama in the extremely unlikely event that he loses the election.
So somebody wanted Corsi silenced, was it Odinga or was it the Obama campaign that made the call to collect on a debt for the campaign money that was funneled into Kenya? In order to answer that question we must once again look to Barack Obama’s past.
Barack Obama has already admitted that he is in favor of silencing the people who do not agree with him and I am not only talking about his approval of re-instituting the fairness doctrine to shut down conservative radio and blogs. That would have to wait until he was president, he is already in the game of harassing and threatening those who oppose him with the “truth squads” that he sent out in Missouri to intimidate people who run commercials that are critical of him. He is also pressuring television stations not to run ads critical of him by the NRA. Is it really too much of a stretch to think that Obama had a hand in this?
But Obama’s defiance of the freedom of the press and of free speech, isn’t where his disdain for the constitution ends. As director of the Joyce Foundation he worked hard to undermine an individual’s right to keep and bear arms using the court system, and will continue to do so once he assumes the presidency with his judicial nominees. Regardless of what he now says.
And of course no discussion of Obama’s past can be finished without talking about his association with William Ayers. Obama’s campaign likes to say that Obama was only eight when Ayers committed his terrorist attacks on the Pentagon, but Obama’sassociation with Ayers is much more recent than that. As director and co-founder with William Ayer of The Chicago Annenberg Challenge he helped fund William Ayers and his radical teachings in Chicago.
Which then leads us to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his radical, race baiting, hate mongering, anti-American sermons that Barack Obama attended for twenty years. And brought his children to.
Obama’s past is filled with associations to people unfriendly with America and with ideas that are contrary to the constitution and the rights of speech, press, and the right to bear arms. So again I ask, is it so hard to believe that Obama had a hand in this writers detainment in Kenya?
All of these associations and beliefs are just too conveniently coincidental for me to believe. Barack Obama has a pattern here, it is a pattern that we are supposed to ignore. If you dare to ask about Obama’s past you are accused of either engaging in the politics of personal destruction, or of personal attacks, or of being a racist. Or all of the above. We are supposed to believe that Barack Obama’s past is not relevant to the campaign, but who a person is today derives from who he was and what happened to him in the past. Barack Obama’s past is just too damn shady and I can not ignore it.
Obama’s past does matter today, especially when the associations that he claims were long ago were allot more recent than Obama cares to admit.
But why was Corsi coincidentally detained just as he was headed to his press conference? Was it just another coincidence? Or was there more? What was Corsi going to reveal?
Just one more question, could it have been a birth certificate?
Obama Raises 3 Million in Over Seas Donations
Barack Obama may have Received $3 Million in Campaign Donations from Overseas
Posted on October 8, 2008 by America's Watchtower
Barack Obama may have received $3 million from people in foreign countries. This is okay if the people sending him money are Americans living abroad, however it is illegal if these are foreign citizens sending in donations. The RNC has filed a complaint with the FEC asking for an investigation into possible donations from foreign citizens to the Obama campaign.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has raised about $3.3 million from contributors who did not list a home state or who designated their state with an abbreviation that did not match one of the 50 states or U.S. territories, according to records provided by the Federal Election Commission.
Most of those contributors did identify themselves as living abroad in foreign cities. Under federal law, foreign citizens cannot make political contributions, but U.S. citizens living abroad can.
Above the $3 million in question there is also money that comes from people who have donated less than $200 and there are no records of who these people are. Barack Obama’s campaign hasn’t bothered to keep very accurate records on who is making small donations to his campaign.
The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas.
While technically Obama has done nothing wrong by not itemizing these small donations there is another number that I find staggering.
About half of Obama’s $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors.
There are no records for over $200 million that have been donated to Obama. That is a hell of allot of $200 donations. This sounds like more that just “Joe Sixpack” sending in a small donation. There is more going on here. It makes you wonder how many people have sent Obama $200 and how many times. How many big time players are out there sending in multiple donations of $200 donation so that they can go undetected? And where is this money coming from?
John McCain’s campaign however lists all donations and where they came from, even if it is a five dollar donation. So it’s not just a matter of time constraints as the campaign claims.
Why can’t, or won’t, Obama’s campaign show us where the money is coming from? His record in the state senate is devoid of a paper trail as he has voted present on an alarming number of bills (130) to keep his agenda hidden, and now his campaign is devoid of a paper trail of where his donations are coming from.
His past is off limits, his state senate voting record is purposely thin, and his campaign refuses to release where all of his money is coming from.
Barack Obama is operating in stealth mode. He is hiding who he is and who is donating to his campaign, there has to be reason. He is the most liberal person ever to get this close to the presidency and he is going to win. There are just too many secrets with this man, and they are beyond coincidences.
What are you hiding Barack, and who is funding you?
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/barack-obama-may-ha...
Posted on October 8, 2008 by America's Watchtower
Barack Obama may have received $3 million from people in foreign countries. This is okay if the people sending him money are Americans living abroad, however it is illegal if these are foreign citizens sending in donations. The RNC has filed a complaint with the FEC asking for an investigation into possible donations from foreign citizens to the Obama campaign.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has raised about $3.3 million from contributors who did not list a home state or who designated their state with an abbreviation that did not match one of the 50 states or U.S. territories, according to records provided by the Federal Election Commission.
Most of those contributors did identify themselves as living abroad in foreign cities. Under federal law, foreign citizens cannot make political contributions, but U.S. citizens living abroad can.
Above the $3 million in question there is also money that comes from people who have donated less than $200 and there are no records of who these people are. Barack Obama’s campaign hasn’t bothered to keep very accurate records on who is making small donations to his campaign.
The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas.
While technically Obama has done nothing wrong by not itemizing these small donations there is another number that I find staggering.
About half of Obama’s $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors.
There are no records for over $200 million that have been donated to Obama. That is a hell of allot of $200 donations. This sounds like more that just “Joe Sixpack” sending in a small donation. There is more going on here. It makes you wonder how many people have sent Obama $200 and how many times. How many big time players are out there sending in multiple donations of $200 donation so that they can go undetected? And where is this money coming from?
John McCain’s campaign however lists all donations and where they came from, even if it is a five dollar donation. So it’s not just a matter of time constraints as the campaign claims.
Why can’t, or won’t, Obama’s campaign show us where the money is coming from? His record in the state senate is devoid of a paper trail as he has voted present on an alarming number of bills (130) to keep his agenda hidden, and now his campaign is devoid of a paper trail of where his donations are coming from.
His past is off limits, his state senate voting record is purposely thin, and his campaign refuses to release where all of his money is coming from.
Barack Obama is operating in stealth mode. He is hiding who he is and who is donating to his campaign, there has to be reason. He is the most liberal person ever to get this close to the presidency and he is going to win. There are just too many secrets with this man, and they are beyond coincidences.
What are you hiding Barack, and who is funding you?
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/barack-obama-may-ha...
Interesting....Battered Wall Street gives to Obama, McCain
September 17, 2008
Battered Wall Street gives to Obama, McCain
Pete Yost
Some of John McCain's and Barack Obama's biggest fundraisers are executives from the stricken financial services industry, which will need all the help it can get from whoever wins the White House.
Merrill Lynch & Co.'s chief executive, for example, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain's campaign. Obama has received at least $1.5 million collected by three senior executives at Lehman Brothers.
McCain and Obama each are considering how to avoid future collapses and the need for further costly government bailouts, steps that may include tougher banking and investment regulations. But executives from the same companies in the crosshairs of such decisions are helping these candidates get elected.
Obama is promising more regulation, as is McCain, and if the winner of the November election acts on the tough talk, a battle with banks, securities and investment firms and insurance companies could follow.
The tough talk is coming from candidates who have fueled their campaigns with Wall Street money. Securities and investment firms gave $9.9 million to Obama and $6.9 million to McCain through July, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a private group that tracks money spent in politics. The industry is McCain's No. 3 contributor and Obama's No. 4 contributor, according to the center.
Wall Street-based firms were among the most active at "bundling" contributions for the two candidates.
Three executives from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have raised at least half a million dollars for Obama. That firm is Obama's top source of campaign money overall; its employees have contributed more than $690,000 to his campaign, according to the center.
Merrill Lynch's chief executive, John Thain, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain. Merrill's workforce likewise is McCain's top donor, giving nearly $300,000.
Separately, employees from the commercial bank and insurance sectors gave McCain's campaign $3.6 million and Obama's campaign $3.4 million.
So, how can candidates who accept money from Wall Street be expected to crack down on it?
"Industries sink their tentacles into these candidates," said Taylor Lincoln, a research director at Public Citizen, a non-partisan watchdog group.
Congress collects considerable money from Wall Street, too. Democratic candidates have accepted nearly $37 million from securities and investment firms in the current election, and Republicans have accepted nearly $29 million.
The industry's contributions to all federal candidates and political parties: $101 million so far in this two-year election cycle.
Merrill Lynch and its new owner both will be looking for help from the White House. Merrill Lynch jumped into the arms of Bank of America Corp. over the weekend to avoid becoming the next Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy protection Monday.
Following a weekend that reshaped Wall Street, Goldman Sachs is the larger of the nation's two remaining major independent investment banks. The other is Morgan Stanley, where employees have contributed $300,000 to Obama and $217,000 to McCain.
It's still early, but Wall Street's institutions may have good reason to worry about a new president, once they get past the life-and-death issue of financial survival.
In March, before the latest round of financial carnage, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he anticipated the next president and the next Congress would address Paulson's blueprint for the biggest overhaul of government financial regulation since the Depression.
It would give the Federal Reserve more power over investment banks, collapsing banking agencies into one superagency. Now, more drastic plans are under consideration.
"We've gone from the point of thinking about consolidation of regulatory agencies to some fundamental change," said Don Kettl, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "It seems impossible to escape at this point."
The Associated Press
Battered Wall Street gives to Obama, McCain
Pete Yost
Some of John McCain's and Barack Obama's biggest fundraisers are executives from the stricken financial services industry, which will need all the help it can get from whoever wins the White House.
Merrill Lynch & Co.'s chief executive, for example, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain's campaign. Obama has received at least $1.5 million collected by three senior executives at Lehman Brothers.
McCain and Obama each are considering how to avoid future collapses and the need for further costly government bailouts, steps that may include tougher banking and investment regulations. But executives from the same companies in the crosshairs of such decisions are helping these candidates get elected.
Obama is promising more regulation, as is McCain, and if the winner of the November election acts on the tough talk, a battle with banks, securities and investment firms and insurance companies could follow.
The tough talk is coming from candidates who have fueled their campaigns with Wall Street money. Securities and investment firms gave $9.9 million to Obama and $6.9 million to McCain through July, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a private group that tracks money spent in politics. The industry is McCain's No. 3 contributor and Obama's No. 4 contributor, according to the center.
Wall Street-based firms were among the most active at "bundling" contributions for the two candidates.
Three executives from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have raised at least half a million dollars for Obama. That firm is Obama's top source of campaign money overall; its employees have contributed more than $690,000 to his campaign, according to the center.
Merrill Lynch's chief executive, John Thain, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain. Merrill's workforce likewise is McCain's top donor, giving nearly $300,000.
Separately, employees from the commercial bank and insurance sectors gave McCain's campaign $3.6 million and Obama's campaign $3.4 million.
So, how can candidates who accept money from Wall Street be expected to crack down on it?
"Industries sink their tentacles into these candidates," said Taylor Lincoln, a research director at Public Citizen, a non-partisan watchdog group.
Congress collects considerable money from Wall Street, too. Democratic candidates have accepted nearly $37 million from securities and investment firms in the current election, and Republicans have accepted nearly $29 million.
The industry's contributions to all federal candidates and political parties: $101 million so far in this two-year election cycle.
Merrill Lynch and its new owner both will be looking for help from the White House. Merrill Lynch jumped into the arms of Bank of America Corp. over the weekend to avoid becoming the next Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy protection Monday.
Following a weekend that reshaped Wall Street, Goldman Sachs is the larger of the nation's two remaining major independent investment banks. The other is Morgan Stanley, where employees have contributed $300,000 to Obama and $217,000 to McCain.
It's still early, but Wall Street's institutions may have good reason to worry about a new president, once they get past the life-and-death issue of financial survival.
In March, before the latest round of financial carnage, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he anticipated the next president and the next Congress would address Paulson's blueprint for the biggest overhaul of government financial regulation since the Depression.
It would give the Federal Reserve more power over investment banks, collapsing banking agencies into one superagency. Now, more drastic plans are under consideration.
"We've gone from the point of thinking about consolidation of regulatory agencies to some fundamental change," said Don Kettl, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "It seems impossible to escape at this point."
The Associated Press
I got a laugh out of this one...McPalin rattles Team Obama
From the LA Times:
Barack Obama, a famous fan of pickup basketball, must recognize his plight: It's two on one now. John McCain drafted Gov. Sarah Palin, the star point guard from the Wasilla Warriors, to double-team Obama.
(McCain's team doesn't care if no one covers Joe Biden, who seems to spend most of his time yelling to the media, "I'm open! I'm open!" But when he gets the ball, all he does is talk about what a great player he is and dribble in place.)
So after the halftime show of the political conventions, to strain the sports metaphor a bit further, it looks as if the change-up in strategy has Team Obama rattled and in danger of choking. Polls -- the closest thing we have to a scoreboard -- show that McCain, at least temporarily, has taken the lead. The Real Clear Politics average of national polls since Friday shows McCain ahead by a razor-thin (and statistically meaningless) 2.9 percentage points. The USA Today-Gallup poll has McCain leading by a whopping 10 points among likely voters (and four points among registered voters), though that's almost surely an overstatement.
The McCain-Palin convention bounce also all but closed the ticket's gender gap. According to Rasmussen, Obama had a 14-point lead among women; now it's three. According to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, McCain now has a 12-point lead among white women.
Still, there's a lot of pressure on Sarah Barracuda. Called up from the political minors, she could yet wilt under the hot lights. But that's looking less and less likely.
The outrageous attacks on Palin out of the block (She banned books! She opposed family planning education! She's a creationist!) have missed the mark. And the eagerness of the mainstream media to go after her family life has backfired as well. For instance, the Washington Post's Hanna Rosin wrote sneeringly in Slate magazine of Palin's "wreck of a home life." Would Slate say that Obama, conceived out of wedlock to a teen mom, comes from a "wreck" of a family? I somehow doubt it.
Palin's more sober critics, mostly on the right, worried that picking her would undermine McCain's claim to "experience." Almost the exact opposite has happened. Thanks to the double-team strategy, Obama has found himself in the awkward position of sounding as if he's running against the GOP's vice presidential nominee. When Obama compared his own experience to Palin's tenure as mayor of Wasilla (leaving out her current job as governor), he ran right into the pick the McCain campaign had set, leaving McCain a clearer path to victory.
The more Obama has to explain why being a community organizer -- or a state legislator, or a one-term senator with few accomplishments under his belt -- is better preparation for the presidency than being a mayor or governor, the more he volunteers his own shortcomings when compared with McCain.
Besides, on paper, Obama doesn't stand up very well against Palin. All of the mythic themes of Obama's political narrative -- the ethics reformer, the bipartisan, the new kind of politician -- all look like press-release material next to Palin's accomplishments. Obama voted the Democratic Party line more often (97%) than McCain voted in accord with President Bush (90%). In Washington, Obama's supposedly "sweeping" ethics reform -- which forces congressmen to eat lobbyist-provided meals standing up instead of sitting down -- and his feckless reforms in Illinois make him look the Bambi to Palin's Godzilla.
Obama's idea of ethics reform is to mandate clean sheets in the brothel. Palin's is to tear it down.
The most unsportsmanlike conduct in the days to come will be the search for Palin gaffes, of which there undoubtedly will be many. The media will call fouls on her that they never call on the other candidates. Over the last week, Obama misspoke and referred to his "Muslim faith" on ABC's "This Week" and told a rally how excited he was to be in "New Pennsylvania." Perhaps that's one of the 57 states he once claimed to campaign in?
And let's not forget Biden, whose gaffes are the unavoidable byproduct of his limitless gasbaggery. Biden could shout on "Meet the Press," "Get these squirrels off of me!" and the collective response would be, "There goes Joe again." But if Palin flubs the name of the deputy agriculture minister of Kyrgyzstan, the media will blow their whistles saying she's unprepared for the job.
Fair or not, that's how it works in the pros. But so far, it still looks as if the MVP title is hers to lose.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-goldberg9-20...
Barack Obama, a famous fan of pickup basketball, must recognize his plight: It's two on one now. John McCain drafted Gov. Sarah Palin, the star point guard from the Wasilla Warriors, to double-team Obama.
(McCain's team doesn't care if no one covers Joe Biden, who seems to spend most of his time yelling to the media, "I'm open! I'm open!" But when he gets the ball, all he does is talk about what a great player he is and dribble in place.)
So after the halftime show of the political conventions, to strain the sports metaphor a bit further, it looks as if the change-up in strategy has Team Obama rattled and in danger of choking. Polls -- the closest thing we have to a scoreboard -- show that McCain, at least temporarily, has taken the lead. The Real Clear Politics average of national polls since Friday shows McCain ahead by a razor-thin (and statistically meaningless) 2.9 percentage points. The USA Today-Gallup poll has McCain leading by a whopping 10 points among likely voters (and four points among registered voters), though that's almost surely an overstatement.
The McCain-Palin convention bounce also all but closed the ticket's gender gap. According to Rasmussen, Obama had a 14-point lead among women; now it's three. According to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, McCain now has a 12-point lead among white women.
Still, there's a lot of pressure on Sarah Barracuda. Called up from the political minors, she could yet wilt under the hot lights. But that's looking less and less likely.
The outrageous attacks on Palin out of the block (She banned books! She opposed family planning education! She's a creationist!) have missed the mark. And the eagerness of the mainstream media to go after her family life has backfired as well. For instance, the Washington Post's Hanna Rosin wrote sneeringly in Slate magazine of Palin's "wreck of a home life." Would Slate say that Obama, conceived out of wedlock to a teen mom, comes from a "wreck" of a family? I somehow doubt it.
Palin's more sober critics, mostly on the right, worried that picking her would undermine McCain's claim to "experience." Almost the exact opposite has happened. Thanks to the double-team strategy, Obama has found himself in the awkward position of sounding as if he's running against the GOP's vice presidential nominee. When Obama compared his own experience to Palin's tenure as mayor of Wasilla (leaving out her current job as governor), he ran right into the pick the McCain campaign had set, leaving McCain a clearer path to victory.
The more Obama has to explain why being a community organizer -- or a state legislator, or a one-term senator with few accomplishments under his belt -- is better preparation for the presidency than being a mayor or governor, the more he volunteers his own shortcomings when compared with McCain.
Besides, on paper, Obama doesn't stand up very well against Palin. All of the mythic themes of Obama's political narrative -- the ethics reformer, the bipartisan, the new kind of politician -- all look like press-release material next to Palin's accomplishments. Obama voted the Democratic Party line more often (97%) than McCain voted in accord with President Bush (90%). In Washington, Obama's supposedly "sweeping" ethics reform -- which forces congressmen to eat lobbyist-provided meals standing up instead of sitting down -- and his feckless reforms in Illinois make him look the Bambi to Palin's Godzilla.
Obama's idea of ethics reform is to mandate clean sheets in the brothel. Palin's is to tear it down.
The most unsportsmanlike conduct in the days to come will be the search for Palin gaffes, of which there undoubtedly will be many. The media will call fouls on her that they never call on the other candidates. Over the last week, Obama misspoke and referred to his "Muslim faith" on ABC's "This Week" and told a rally how excited he was to be in "New Pennsylvania." Perhaps that's one of the 57 states he once claimed to campaign in?
And let's not forget Biden, whose gaffes are the unavoidable byproduct of his limitless gasbaggery. Biden could shout on "Meet the Press," "Get these squirrels off of me!" and the collective response would be, "There goes Joe again." But if Palin flubs the name of the deputy agriculture minister of Kyrgyzstan, the media will blow their whistles saying she's unprepared for the job.
Fair or not, that's how it works in the pros. But so far, it still looks as if the MVP title is hers to lose.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-goldberg9-20...
Obama's vision will collide with reality
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama is accepting the Democratic nomination Thursday night with a lofty vision for the nation's future that is far easier to articulate than to accomplish.
The next occupant of the White House will inherit a half-trillion-dollar budget deficit that will severely crimp any plans for spending on new programs, as well as the messy endgame of the war in Iraq and growing energy and health-care challenges. A look at Obama's promises and the realities he would confront:
THE ECONOMY AND DEFICITS
The promise: Obama has pledged to attack the weak economy with another stimulus plan to follow the $168 billion package of tax rebates for individuals and tax breaks for businesses that Congress passed last February. Obama's stimulus would include tax rebates, aid to state and local governments and increased spending for infrastructure projects. He would also increase spending in other areas such as alternative energy programs.
The problem: Obama's spending plans and middle-class tax relief will collide with the hard reality of exploding budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects this year's deficit will hit $400 billion, driven higher by the weak economy and the stimulus program Congress has already passed. And the Bush administration is forecasting that next year's imbalance will hit an all-time high of $482 billion. Deficits will remain high because of the costs of extending the Bush tax cuts and growing demands on big government benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare as the baby boom generation retires.
TAXES
The promise: Retain President Bush's tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year and provide more relief to the squeezed middle class by creating new tax breaks for lower-income families; extend the current "patch" that keeps the Alternative Minimum Tax, designed to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, from hitting more middle-class families; exempt seniors making less than $50,000 per year from paying income taxes, expand the tax credit for college and provide incentives to encourage savings, and help pay for child care and pay mortgage expenses.
The problem: Obama's tax proposals come with a hefty price tag. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint effort of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, estimates that Obama's tax proposals would reduce projected tax revenue by $2.95 trillion over the next decade, compared to an estimate of what would happen if Bush's tax cuts were to expire as scheduled at the end of 2010. By comparison, the center estimates that the tax proposals of Obama's rival, Republican Sen. John McCain, would cost an even larger $4.17 trillion in lost revenue because, unlike Obama, McCain would extend all of Bush's tax cuts, including those benefiting higher-income taxpayers.
ENERGY
The promise: A short-term rebate of $1,000 per couple to help with rising energy costs; release of up to 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and investment of $15 billion a year over the next decade to encourage renewable energy, clean-coal technology and electric cars.
The problem: The next president will take the oath of office in January and confront an immediate crisis: The cost of heating homes is likely to be at record levels. Obama's promised rebate relies on enactment of a windfall profits tax on big oil companies, which could take months and is by no means sure to get through Congress. The last time the nation had such a tax, from 1980 to 1988, U.S. reliance on foreign oil went up. His longer-term solution, encouraging alternative energy by creating a $150 billion clean energy fund, relies for financing on a program of selling pollution allowances to combat global warming that is even more uncertain. Under political pressure because of high gasoline prices, Obama has reversed course and said he would support limited lifting of a ban on offshore oil drilling — but that wouldn't produce any oil for seven to 10 years.
HEALTH CARE
The promise: Obama would increase the number of people with health insurance by having the government subsidize the cost of coverage for low- and middle-income families. To help pay for that expense, Obama would increase taxes for those families earning more than $250,000. He also would require employers not offering health coverage to pay a percentage of their payroll toward a national health plan. And he would mandate that children have health insurance, and expand who can participate in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
The problem: While the plan would help millions of people obtain health insurance, some health analysts say it falls short of universal coverage. The Tax Policy Center says the Obama plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 18 million in 2009, from the current figure of 45 million. That still would leave millions uninsured.
Obama's plan would let people choose a public, Medicare-like plan or browse a shopping center of sorts for private insurance plans. The National Health Insurance Exchange would create rules and standards for participating private plans, and insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy regardless of pre-existing health conditions. Similar guarantees of coverage have been tried by a handful of states that let residents buy coverage directly from insurers, but it hasn't always worked. Kentucky and South Dakota dropped their guaranteed-coverage mandates after insurers fled the market and premiums soared for younger, healthier individuals. It has worked better in Massachusetts, whose plan Obama's resembles in many ways.
FOREIGN POLICY
The promise: Obama says he would engage both allies and adversaries to repair the U.S. image abroad and regain leverage and leadership that he says Bush squandered. He says he will marshal international pressure against Iran, boost U.S. efforts against extremists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and get a faster and firmer start on Middle East peacemaking.
The problem: The United States has already reversed many policies other nations saw as isolationist or bullying — for example, by joining international diplomatic efforts with "axis of evil" nations Iran and North Korea. Obama would continue those efforts and others without any greater guarantee of success. Any U.S. administration wanting to step up activity in Pakistan will face strong resistance from Pakistani authorities and probably pay the price for violating its sovereignty by seeing cooperation cut back.
There is more here is the link to it.
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obam...
The next occupant of the White House will inherit a half-trillion-dollar budget deficit that will severely crimp any plans for spending on new programs, as well as the messy endgame of the war in Iraq and growing energy and health-care challenges. A look at Obama's promises and the realities he would confront:
THE ECONOMY AND DEFICITS
The promise: Obama has pledged to attack the weak economy with another stimulus plan to follow the $168 billion package of tax rebates for individuals and tax breaks for businesses that Congress passed last February. Obama's stimulus would include tax rebates, aid to state and local governments and increased spending for infrastructure projects. He would also increase spending in other areas such as alternative energy programs.
The problem: Obama's spending plans and middle-class tax relief will collide with the hard reality of exploding budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects this year's deficit will hit $400 billion, driven higher by the weak economy and the stimulus program Congress has already passed. And the Bush administration is forecasting that next year's imbalance will hit an all-time high of $482 billion. Deficits will remain high because of the costs of extending the Bush tax cuts and growing demands on big government benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare as the baby boom generation retires.
TAXES
The promise: Retain President Bush's tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year and provide more relief to the squeezed middle class by creating new tax breaks for lower-income families; extend the current "patch" that keeps the Alternative Minimum Tax, designed to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, from hitting more middle-class families; exempt seniors making less than $50,000 per year from paying income taxes, expand the tax credit for college and provide incentives to encourage savings, and help pay for child care and pay mortgage expenses.
The problem: Obama's tax proposals come with a hefty price tag. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint effort of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, estimates that Obama's tax proposals would reduce projected tax revenue by $2.95 trillion over the next decade, compared to an estimate of what would happen if Bush's tax cuts were to expire as scheduled at the end of 2010. By comparison, the center estimates that the tax proposals of Obama's rival, Republican Sen. John McCain, would cost an even larger $4.17 trillion in lost revenue because, unlike Obama, McCain would extend all of Bush's tax cuts, including those benefiting higher-income taxpayers.
ENERGY
The promise: A short-term rebate of $1,000 per couple to help with rising energy costs; release of up to 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and investment of $15 billion a year over the next decade to encourage renewable energy, clean-coal technology and electric cars.
The problem: The next president will take the oath of office in January and confront an immediate crisis: The cost of heating homes is likely to be at record levels. Obama's promised rebate relies on enactment of a windfall profits tax on big oil companies, which could take months and is by no means sure to get through Congress. The last time the nation had such a tax, from 1980 to 1988, U.S. reliance on foreign oil went up. His longer-term solution, encouraging alternative energy by creating a $150 billion clean energy fund, relies for financing on a program of selling pollution allowances to combat global warming that is even more uncertain. Under political pressure because of high gasoline prices, Obama has reversed course and said he would support limited lifting of a ban on offshore oil drilling — but that wouldn't produce any oil for seven to 10 years.
HEALTH CARE
The promise: Obama would increase the number of people with health insurance by having the government subsidize the cost of coverage for low- and middle-income families. To help pay for that expense, Obama would increase taxes for those families earning more than $250,000. He also would require employers not offering health coverage to pay a percentage of their payroll toward a national health plan. And he would mandate that children have health insurance, and expand who can participate in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
The problem: While the plan would help millions of people obtain health insurance, some health analysts say it falls short of universal coverage. The Tax Policy Center says the Obama plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 18 million in 2009, from the current figure of 45 million. That still would leave millions uninsured.
Obama's plan would let people choose a public, Medicare-like plan or browse a shopping center of sorts for private insurance plans. The National Health Insurance Exchange would create rules and standards for participating private plans, and insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy regardless of pre-existing health conditions. Similar guarantees of coverage have been tried by a handful of states that let residents buy coverage directly from insurers, but it hasn't always worked. Kentucky and South Dakota dropped their guaranteed-coverage mandates after insurers fled the market and premiums soared for younger, healthier individuals. It has worked better in Massachusetts, whose plan Obama's resembles in many ways.
FOREIGN POLICY
The promise: Obama says he would engage both allies and adversaries to repair the U.S. image abroad and regain leverage and leadership that he says Bush squandered. He says he will marshal international pressure against Iran, boost U.S. efforts against extremists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and get a faster and firmer start on Middle East peacemaking.
The problem: The United States has already reversed many policies other nations saw as isolationist or bullying — for example, by joining international diplomatic efforts with "axis of evil" nations Iran and North Korea. Obama would continue those efforts and others without any greater guarantee of success. Any U.S. administration wanting to step up activity in Pakistan will face strong resistance from Pakistani authorities and probably pay the price for violating its sovereignty by seeing cooperation cut back.
There is more here is the link to it.
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obam...
Obama speaking on Bin Laden and Hamid Karzai
July 11, 2008
Obama: Death penalty for bin Laden
Posted: 04:05 PM ET
(CNN) Fareed Zakaria interviewed Obama Friday.
(CNN) Barack Obama again said Friday he favors the death penalty for Osama bin Laden should the 9/11 mastermind be captured.
In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said bin Laden's actions have justified capital punishment.
If he was captured alive, then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only U.S. justice, but world justice down on him, Obama said during the interview, the entirety of which is set to air Sunday at 1 p.m. ET.
Watch: Part of Fareed Zakaria's exclusive interview with Barack Obama
I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, Obama also said. But I certainly think plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach.
In the wide-ranging interview, the Illinois senator also criticized Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for failing to bring order to his country.
I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker, and helped to organize Afghanistan, the government, the judiciary, police forces in ways that would give people confidence, he said. So there are a lot of problems there. But a big chunk of the issue is that we allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm president
UPDATE: Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant has sharply criticized Obama over his Karzai comments.
Barack Obama had no interest in Afghanistan until he started running for president. Obama has never visited Afghanistan to meet our allies on the ground, yet he is audacious enough to assert that President Karzai has not gotten out of the bunker, he said in a statement. Obama's words are naively out-of-touch with reality and offensive to America's allies. Considering Obama's negligent leadership of the Senate subcommittee charged with overseeing the NATO mission in Afghanistan, Obama has no credibility discussing Afghanistan.
Comment:
Typical Obama response, pass judgement before even knowing what is going on!
He will probably change his mind on the death penalty just like he did on the FISA bill.
Obama: Death penalty for bin Laden
Posted: 04:05 PM ET
(CNN) Fareed Zakaria interviewed Obama Friday.
(CNN) Barack Obama again said Friday he favors the death penalty for Osama bin Laden should the 9/11 mastermind be captured.
In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said bin Laden's actions have justified capital punishment.
If he was captured alive, then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only U.S. justice, but world justice down on him, Obama said during the interview, the entirety of which is set to air Sunday at 1 p.m. ET.
Watch: Part of Fareed Zakaria's exclusive interview with Barack Obama
I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, Obama also said. But I certainly think plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach.
In the wide-ranging interview, the Illinois senator also criticized Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for failing to bring order to his country.
I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker, and helped to organize Afghanistan, the government, the judiciary, police forces in ways that would give people confidence, he said. So there are a lot of problems there. But a big chunk of the issue is that we allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm president
UPDATE: Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant has sharply criticized Obama over his Karzai comments.
Barack Obama had no interest in Afghanistan until he started running for president. Obama has never visited Afghanistan to meet our allies on the ground, yet he is audacious enough to assert that President Karzai has not gotten out of the bunker, he said in a statement. Obama's words are naively out-of-touch with reality and offensive to America's allies. Considering Obama's negligent leadership of the Senate subcommittee charged with overseeing the NATO mission in Afghanistan, Obama has no credibility discussing Afghanistan.
Comment:
Typical Obama response, pass judgement before even knowing what is going on!
He will probably change his mind on the death penalty just like he did on the FISA bill.
