The Nauseating Mess of Democratic Corruption in Illinois
April 3rd, 2008 at 03:48pm Mark Noonan
And now the Rezko trial is brining in Gov. Blagojevich (D-IL);
A Chicago businessman-turned-Hollywood producer who believed he was being shaken down by two of Gov. Blagojevich’s campaign fund-raisers threatened to “take them down” if they didn’t back off, according to a recording played at the Tony Rezko corruption trial today.
And the governor was made aware of the “situation” and agreed the producer shouldn’t get any more state business, star prosecution witness Stuart Levine testified this afternoon.
The secretly recorded, May 2004 conversation was between Levine and longtime Illinois Republican Party power William Cellini.
An agitated-sounding Cellini is heard telling Levine about a conversation he had with Tom Rosenberg, a principal in the firm Capri Capital who also has produced movies including the hit “Million Dollar Baby.”
According to prosecutors, Levine and Cellini had plotted to shake down Rosenberg for a $1.5 million campaign contribution for Blagojevich in exchange for the $220 million investment deal he sought from a state board. Cellini has not been charged with any crime.
Levine, who has pleaded guilty to taking part with Rezko in schemes to get kickbacks from companies seeking state business, testified that the decision to approach Rosenberg for cash came after Rezko and fellow Blagojevich fund-raiser Chris Kelly learned Rosenberg won big-money deals with the state but hadn’t given to Blagojevich’s campaign fund.
It is a very tangled web in Illinois politics - as can be seen by the connection to a GOPer, who seems to have been shaking people down to get donations for a Democrat. As Matt and I have pointed out, Obama is hip-deep in Rezko…pretty much, Obama is as tight with Rezko as he is with Wright, and could no more disown him than he could disown his grandmother.
The center of this corruption is, of course, the relentlessly corrupt Chicago Democratic machine. When Matt and I were writing Caucus of Corruption, it required great care to keep everything straight - so many people connected to so many others, all of whom have shady dealings. From what we were able to learn, nothing gets done in Chicago without corruption having a hand in - bribes, kickbacks, use of government property and employees on political campaigns, sweetheart deals…its all in there, and none of it really gets stopped because Chicago is a one-party city, and Democrats simply will not call their own to account. Please note that this trial is a Federal trial, not a State trial.
Rezko has been one of those twilight figures - the man who facilitates the corruption…and he’s Obama’s good friend; indeed, such a friend that he, Rezko, purchased a piece of property which is perfectly worthless for Rezko, but by making the purchase helped substantially knock down the price Obama paid for his swank home. Back in 2006, Democrats were calling for the heads of any GOPer who was even remotely connected to corrupt GOP operator Jack Abramoff…well, Obama’s connections to Rezko are at least as strong as DeLay’s connections to Abramoff…so, what will you Democrats do, now that you know how corrupt Rezko - and the whole Democratic political system in Chicago - is?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats
105 Comments
1. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
They will deny it.
Its the first thing in the Demo playbook.
2. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
deny what js? All that has been presented is that Obama was friends with Rezko.
Note the article that Mark has linked doesn’t even mention Obama at all. But you people will find anyway to bring him in on this.
If something falls out of the Rezko trial that shows Obama did anything wrong, then feel free to call him a corrupt SOB and force him to pay for his sins.
However……………..
If nothing comes out of this trial showing Obama did anything wrong, are you, Mark and all you other mud-slingers going to issue an appology?
3. Casper | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Mark,
The article you linked to has nothing to do with Obama. Now if you want to look up something on a real scandal about a presidential candidate, look up the Keating five.
Of course that doesn’t have a whole more to do with this election than what you have, or does it.
4. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
A quick google search about Stuart Levine reveals the following:
So yet again, as has happened all throughout Matt and Mark’s book, we have a deliberate ignoring of the Republicans involved in the corruption, and focus exclusively on the Democrats.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Corruption has got to be dug out wherever it exists be that Democrat or Republican. There can be no double standard of jumping on the Democrats and ignoring the Republican involvement. It is NOT okay if you’re a Republican.
5. BARRASSO | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
So basically what the democrats do in Chicago is a small version of what the republicans do nationally.
6. Percy Beezer | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
So basically inept republicans get caught doing what has become an artform for democrats; doncha just hate it?
7. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Nice attempt at turning it around, Percy, however, the only thing that appears to be the whole truth is that it does seem the way things are done there.
However, this goes as much for Republicans as it does for Democrats. It’s as much an “artform” for Republicans as it is for Democrats, and I’m sure if anyone could be bothered they could write a book that was the exact same kind of book as Caucus of Corruption except focussed on the Republican party. I’m quite sure there’d be as much, if not more, ammunition out there such a book could use.
8. Dennis | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
All Mark’s “nausea” and hand-wringing are pure posturing - he and Matt are no more offended by political corruption in Illinois than they were by the moral rot permeating the GOP for the last two Congresses. For them it’s all, and I mean ALL, about on whose side of the fence it can be found, spotlighted, headlined and loudly deplored.
9. Percy Beezer | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Caucus of Corruption for Republicans?
Hmmm, I wonder if it would be as thick as Great Jewish Sports Legends?
10. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
In my opinion, they don’t care about any corruption in Illinois other than the fact that they can use it to try and tie Obama to it.
Again I ask…. if it comes out that Obama did nothing illegal, are all the right-wing mud-slingers going to issue an apology? I assume the answer is no because in their minds, Obama will still be guilty, but the liberal judges let him go.
11. Percy Beezer | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I see a pattern here; democrats aren’t corrupt because Republicans are also corrupt. nice defense; I’ll try that next time I’m on trial, “I’m not guilty, your honor, cuz that guy over there is guilty, too”
12. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Percy, nobody ever said that. We are saying that Mark is trying to claim that Obama is deep into the Rezko corruption. We are saying that he hasn’t been implicated in squat.
Follow along. Don’t just hear what you want to hear.
13. Aaron | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Mark -
…but by making the purchase helped substantially knock down the price Obama paid for his swank home.
And you of course have proof of this, and aren’t just parroting unfounded smears - right?
First, I’d hardly call the home “swank”. It’s a nice piece of property, to be sure, but relative to other Senators and candidates for president, it is fairly modest. The Clintons, the McCains, the Romneys, the Edwards, the Bushes, the Kerrys, etc, all have vacation mansions bigger than the Obamas’ relatively unimpressive digs.
Secondly, according to a report out by Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us
So please, stash the BS. One the one hand, you scoff at liberals who see something shady in the fact that Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, a company which has since benefited from hundreds of billions in no-bid contracts to manage the aftermath of a war that Cheney was instrumental in pushing the country into (”nauseating”, indeed). Then, as you laugh off concerns over Halliburton as “tin-foil hat” paranoia, you go berserk over a rather modest home that Obama bought that the owners say was not under the asking price.
You turn the other way to the most blatant corruption of a magnitude unparalleled in the nation’s history, and squeal like stuck pigs over a non-story that has even less concrete evidence of wrong-doing than the NYT’s McCain lobbyist affair story.
14. Aaron | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Mark -
…but by making the purchase helped substantially knock down the price Obama paid for his swank home.”
And you of course have proof of this, and aren’t just parroting unfounded smears - right?
First, I’d hardly call the home “swank”. It’s a nice piece of property, to be sure, but relative to other Senators and candidates for president, it is fairly modest. The Clintons, the McCains, the Romneys, the Edwards, the Bushes, the Kerrys, etc, all have vacation mansions bigger than the Obamas’ relatively unimpressive digs.
Secondly, according to a report out by Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us
So please, stash the BS. One the one hand, you scoff at liberals who see something shady in the fact that Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, a company which has since benefited from hundreds of billions in no-bid contracts to manage the aftermath of a war that Cheney was instrumental in pushing the country into (”nauseating”, indeed). Then, as you laugh off concerns over Halliburton as “tin-foil hat” paranoia, you go berserk over a rather modest home that Obama bought that the owners say was not under the asking price.
You turn the other way to the most blatant corruption of a magnitude unparalleled in the nation’s history, and squeal like stuck pigs over a non-story that has even less concrete evidence of wrong-doing than the NYT’s McCain lobbyist affair story.
15. Percy Beezer | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“hasn’t been implicated in squat.”
He either has been implicated in squat, or he hasn’t been not implicated in squat.
Not only is that a double negative, it’s patently untrue. “implicated” means caught up in, or drawn into, in this case a scandal. Obama most certainly is in this up to his ample ears. He hasn’t been indicted which requires a legal standard be met.
16. Percy Beezer | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“You turn the other way to the most blatant corruption of a magnitude unparalleled in the nation’s history,”
We did not! We bleated till our voices were hoarse over Clinton’s Chinese-Communist Campaign kick-backs. Wait … you’re talking about Halliburton? How did Clinton profit from no-bid contracts he (Clinton) awarded to Halliburton? I swear, you liberals twist yourselves in knots defending corruption.
17. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Percy,
What exactly has Obama done wrong in this Rezko thing? Something concrete please.
Aaron, excellent point. Anything with anything shady they spout out as absolute fact….. if it is a Democrat. Yet gloss over things if it is Republican.
It is disgusting.
18. Percy Beezer | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I don’t know if Obama was actually involved in putting anyone’s feet in concrete, Joe. I think you should be more careful about your unfounded accusations; just because Obama is a corrupt Chicago politician doesn’t mean he was tossing anyone in the lake.
Meanwhile, I believe Obama’s “people” are arranging a meeting between Rev. Wright and Jimmy Hoffa.
19. DBM | April 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I ain’t gonna defend Illinois or Chicago politics. I’ve lived here all my life, and I think I’ve seen 4 Governors go to jail. And Blogoveich will end up there too. The level of corruption is just freakin’ amazing. And both parties play in the pool. George Ryan, the preceding Governor was a Republican and he just went to the lock-up.
Nevertheless, Obama sat down with the Chicago Trib 2 weeks ago, with 36 reporters in the room, and answered every question they asked him about his involvement with Rezko.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-obamafullwebmar16,0,2950570.story
The only thing that I think will make him vulnerable to right-wing attacks was his stunning revelation about his long-time affair with Vince Foster and him pushing through some legislation to deregulate Savings & Loans. ;^)
20. Dasein Libsbane | April 3rd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
DBM,
Bear in mind that the “attacks” are primarily coming from the democrats. Factually, although Hannity has been sounding the alarm on Wright for almost a year, the press didn’t pick it up until Clinton operatives questioned it. Similarly, the race issue is being beaten to death by democrats like Bill Clinton “Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina primary” and Neoclown “Two distinct groups of voters will head to the polls in November. One group will be comfortable with the notion of a black President, the other group will not. [One group will vote for Obama the other will vote against him.]” and the drug use, need I remind you who (working for Clinton) brought that up claiming that evil Republicans would use it against Obama?
I’m also “from” Chicago, and I would guess that an honest politician from the windy city would be a novelty were we ever to find one.
Btw, that comment about S&L’s, was that supposed to be sarcasm? [/sarcasm]
21. neocon | April 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
It appears Randi Rhodes is once again displaying old fashioned liberal tolerance.
Anyway re: the thread, the good news is that Obama wasn’t aware of any of this.
22. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
what are you liberals, totally stupid or what, i did a google on obama and rezko, got 1.12 million hits
wake up and dont be so naive, the old saying where there is smoke, there is usually fire really is true
“On June 13, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), while serving as an Illinois state senator in 1998, “did a political favor” for Chicago Democratic fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko by writing letters to state and local government officials in support of a Chicago housing project proposed by Rezko’s company, New Kenwood LLC. The Sun-Times asserted that the “letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he’s known Rezko, ‘I’ve never done any favors for him.’ ” ”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706140007
Darn right obama stinks, right up to the neck in corruption and lies.
We already proved the lies folks, not we can do more to further the truth by exposing the corruption.
23. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
so when do bone headed mistakes = real world lies?
when there is 14 million dollar contracts at stake, and obama’s letters benefitted rezko, so rezko owed obama a favor
what favor? we may never fully know the depth of that rabbit hole, but for rezko’s wife to purchase a useless piece of property, the same time obama bought his house for a serious discount, and then to sell part of it to obama for about 20% of its cost, really stinks, doesnt it?
Ecspecially when rezko’s wife didnt have the income to purchase the property, and instead used a loan from a foreign frenchman with an arabic name that had already been tried and convicted of political corruption in france….
dang those strings keep tying stuff together, how deep does that rat hole go…
24. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
A 2004 Pentagon report obtained by the Washington Times identified Auchi as a global arms dealer and Iraqi billionaire “who, behind the facade of legitimate business, served as Saddam Hussein’s principle international financial manipulator and bag man.”
The report states that “significant and credible evidence has been developed that Nadhmi Auchi has engaged in unlawful activities” such as bribing “foreign governments and individuals prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein.” He also helped “arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq.”
Yet Auchi, despite his French conviction and other activities, was somehow able to get permission to come to Chicago in 2004. John Batchelor of Human Events says that in April 2004 Auchi met with Rezko, Gov. Blagojevich, State Senate President Emil Jones Jr. and reportedly then-state Sen. Obama, who’d just won the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.
So this, er, businessman meets Obama and friends at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown Chicago. Obama acknowledges attending an event there where Rezko was present but doesn’t recall meeting Auchi. “He shook a lot of hands and met a lot of people,” an Obama aide told the London Times.
Did he shake Auchi’s? The newspaper said the timing of the loan to Rezko and the Obama property purchase, along with the purchase of land next door by Rezko’s wife from the same seller, raise questions about whether Auchi helped buy the house. It raises a lot of questions.
Why would an Iraqi billionaire, a “fixer” like Rezko and a Saddam protege, be interested in a rising U.S. politician who was also opposed to the ousting of Hussein by U.S. forces? Why would that billionaire lend that much money to Obama’s fundraiser, Rezko, with the two buying adjacent properties from the same seller on the same day?
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=289698788263978
and deeper and deeper it goes….
25. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
so if obama is such an honest, upright politician, why does his admitted ties with a influence peddler and an ex-Saddam flunky go so deep?
fact is, if all is about the table, and honest dealings by all involved, no one would need to ask those questions because there would be nothing to hide
instead, “it was a bonehead mistake” is obama’s reply…it sure was, just like the mistake the gambino’s and luciano’s got involved in, and then some, because instead of simple criminal organizations, they hid thier thievery among official government business…..
but we already know one thing for certain
Barak Hussen Obama is a liar.
26. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Now it develops that Mr. and Mrs. Rezko apparently lacked the money to make the purchase of the plot of land.
In a sworn statement a year later, Mrs Rezko said she got by on a salary of $37,000 and had $35,000 assets. Mr Rezko told a court he had “no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations.”
Just weeks before the Hyde Park transactions, Auchi loaned $3.5 million to Rezko.
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama’s bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.
There is much yet to be learned about the web of transactions involved, but it now appears that money originating from a convicted Middle Eastern wheeler-dealer found its way to indicted Chicago wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko, and then weeks later provided the means for a nearly simultaneous land transaction that enabled the Obamas to buy their home for substantially below asking price.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/the_obamarezko_plot_thickens.html
NOBODY buys a 625,000 dollar luxury garden lot next door to somebody elses house when they are FLAT BROKE. And then, to top it all of, NOBODY without that money sells a 10 foot strip to BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA and diminishes the value of that garden lot they could not afford because it cant be built upon according to the building code….gee….the only person who would find value in that lot is….the guy who paid 100k for the 10 foot strip on the adjescent property…yup… you got it…BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA, the liar, and the sneak
and the hole still keeps going down and down…..
27. Casper | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
So your best attacks on Obama today are are an endorsement that really wasn’t an endorsement that really wasn’t an endorsement and an article about corrupt democrats and republicans that doesn’t mention him. Pretty thin.
Perhaps you should try going back to debating policy differences between McCain and Obama.
28. Casper | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Boy I can’t wait for tomorrow’s post.
“Someone Obama shared a cab with a year ago leaves the toilet seat up.”
29. Freedom1 | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
24. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
That article is devastating, JS. Obama is in deep with some really shady and corrupt people. Auchi, Rezko, Wright, Farrahkan, that communist from his childhood in Hawaii, etc.
________________________________
Terrorism Update:
“British Muslims ‘planned to kill thousands by bombing SEVEN transatlantic airliners in one go’. “ - Daily Mail
30. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Update to your “terror update”
This means that yes, the prosecution have claimed that. But unlike your only posting the headline, with no detail, nothing has yet been proved. The prosecution will detail its case first, which I’m sure Republican fearmongers will report in detail, and then the defense will detail its case, which I’m sure Republican fearmongers won’t report in detail.
Then a jury will decide guilt or innocence.
Until that time, nothing has been proved, and everything is an allegation.
With regard to the rest of your post, it comes as no surprise the Republican supporting WaPo would say this. Did you know it’s run by “Rev.” Moon, who crowned himself King of America not so long ago?
31. Dennis | April 4th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Arctic Fox, with all due respect I think you got your papers confused. It’s the Washington Times that is owned by Moon, not the Washington Post.
32. js | April 4th, 2008 at 12:27 am
it does really shine a light on things, doesnt it Freedom!!
and some how i find it incredible to suggest that a jury could actually change facts and make something that were not true into something that is true…facts are what they use to show the truth, so no, juries dont make truths, but they do make errors because they are human….
33. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Heh. Heh. Desperate, much? Arctic Fox?
Were you or your family or friends on any one of the 7 jetliners that the British Muslim terrorists tried to blow up with chemical bombs, Arctic Fox? Gee, if that’s the case, maybe we should take this attempt at mass murder of Americans, Canadians and others as “seriously” as you do.
/Sarcasm.
Since you want details, Arctic Fox, I’m happy to provide them…
34. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 1:00 am
JS,
I find it beyond perplexing that so many liberals/leftists/whatevers fight so hard against the people who are just trying to save their lives from the Islamic terrorists who want to behead them, blow them up, shoot them, encase women in burkhas, and chop their hands off for theft, or simply kill them for daring to exercise their freedom of speech or freedom of religion.
These people are eagerly committing both personal and cultural suicide. BTW…
1) Arab Survey: 55% Say Offensive Words Justify Violence
2) “Arabs, Muslims Battle US, Europeans Over Free Speech At UN” - International Herald Tribune
No help from Europe…
Euro wussies.
35. Arctic Fox | April 4th, 2008 at 1:21 am
@Dennis: Apologies, you’re quite correct.
@fearmonger1: I’m well aware of what the Daily Mail article says, just as I’m aware that Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who is behind FOX Noise is also the person who owns said Daily Mail. But the fact remains, that the things said in court are yet to be proven, and the same thing I said before stands. I’ve no doubt you fearmongers will continue to shout about the prosecutions case, though I’m sure you won’t even whisper about the case for the defense. It’s innocent until proven guilty however, and that remains to be done.
The science regarding the possibility of viable liquid explosive has already been debunked; it remains to see if what’s left stands up in a court of law. I suspect if it doesn’t, and the jury finds the suspects not guilty, you fearmongers will go all quiet about it and find ways to twist the story so that it does fit your ideas about liquid explosives being viable.
Time will tell.
36. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Arctic Fox,
Apparently you’re so far around the bend that you probably think Rupert Murdoch made the UK airports ban liquid containers bigger than 100ml. That ban is still in force, today. It’s inconceivable! that the ban had anything to do with the liquid exposives the Muslim terrorists tried to use.
But, hey, whatever.
Liquid exposives. Shoe bombs. Regular bombs in the cargo/baggage area. All things which Muslim terrorists have used (or tried to use) to blow up international planes. Muslim terrorists have succeeded in the past. It’s only a matter of time before they succeed in detonating a bomb of some sort on a commerical airliner killing a few hundred people. Not that it will bother you, Arctic Fox.
Hey, Arctic Fox, if the defense tells some sob story or dredges up on “Islamophobia!!!” case and succeeds in convincing the jury to aquit these 8 British Muslims, would YOU feel comfortable being on the next flight with THEM? Say a prayer, because it may be the last thing you do.
37. Arctic Fox | April 4th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Sure, try and put words into my mouth, it might make it easier for you to deny what I’m actually saying.
Tells some sob story? Oh brother… what about if you can’t prove that this concoction of chemicals could actually make more than a wet fart of an explosion that wouldn’t even compare to an indoor firework? I suppose you’d call THAT a sob story. It’s on the merits of the science relating to the viability of the chemicals that the case will succeed or fall.
And yes, if they are acquitted, I would have no problem sitting next to them on a flight anywhere, because unlike you I believe in fair trials and I believe that unless a person is proven guilty then it must be assumed they are innocent. In which case what have I got to fear from them? Just because you want to run and hide because in your mind every Muslim is a terrorist doesn’t mean I have to have the same level of fear.
38. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 2:08 am
LOL, Fox! Fear them. Don’t fear them. I don’t. But don’t be so STUPID as to think that there aren’t a hell of a lot of Muslim terrorists out there trying to kill as many infidels as they can. LOL!
Fox: “And yes, if they are acquitted, I would have no problem sitting next to them on a flight anywhere…”
Then you’re a fool, Arctic Fox.
For the record, I’d be shocked if a British jury actually convicted all 8 British Muslims and sentenced all 8 of them to 20+ years prison sentences.
It’s much more likely that they will acquit one or two of them and give light sentences to several more of them. Perhaps one or two of the defendants will get genuinely tough sentences. The Brits are scared out of their minds of Islam and the Islamic ummah that live in the UK alongside them.
Jihadis with the best lawyers get to live and go free to kill infidels another day. It’s a hell of a lousy way to fight a WAR.
So many countries, so many jihadis:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#attacks
Recent headlines:
“Pakistani Muslims Torch House, Turn Up Heat on Christians…”
“Gang Sentenced for Beating a Man to Death over Adultery (UK)…”
“Malaysian Islamists Seek Sharia Crackdown on Infidels Embracing, Holding Hands…”
“Serbs Harvested for Body Parts…”
“‘Unemployed’ Pakistani Builds Mansion with British Welfare…”
“CAIR Vists Convicted Terror Supporter in Jail…”
“Setback for Islam in India as Terror Camp Busted…”
“China Spills Beans on Iran’s Nuclear Program…”
“(Belgium) Policeman Attacked, Injured in Bus Attack…”
“NYC Adds Muslim Holidays to School Calendar…”
“(UK) Labour Leader Tours ‘Asian’ District with Stab-Proof Vest…”
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
39. Arctic Fox | April 4th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Oh gee and wow and golly gosh, no wonder you’re so scared of Muslims. There’s a fearmongering site if ever I saw one. So torture is fine if President Bush says so, fine for “national security purposes” but a horror of horrors if the Quoran permits it? Incidentally, the “contact us” link is an anonymous Yahoo address, so there’s no proof it’s not yet another rabid Right Winger fear site. Certainly seems to have you taken in.
Until I know the qualifications of the people who publish the “thereligionofpeace.com” site, I’m not convinced that it’s not you or some of your friends.
40. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Arctic Fox,
You can’t be this stupid. It must be an act. The “religionofpeace.com” site a collection of news stories from the world’s media- ie. AP, Reuters, AFP, Daily Mail, Washington Post, NYT, International Herald Tribune, various Iranian, Pakistani, Arab news sources, MEMRI, etc., etc.,
1) click the this link: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
2) look at the headlines at the top right column.
3) click on each individual headline to see their ORIGINAL news website.
4) repeat step 3 for each headline in the right column until you understand what’s going on.
Sheesh.
41. Arctic Fox | April 4th, 2008 at 2:48 am
While I have no trouble admitting that Islam is a violent religion, I’d have loved to have seen the stories if the internet had been around in the middle ages, when Christians were burning innocents throughout the world under the banner of them being witches (when most weren’t).
You be scared if you want to. I’m grown up, and actually know what the REAL world is like, not the frightening place you seem to think it is.
Fact is I’ve got more chance of being attacked by a white American who wants to mug me for the dollars in my purse, than by an Islamic “terrorist”
42. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 3:00 am
“I’m grown up, and actually know what the REAL world is like, not the frightening place you seem to think it is.” - Fox
Sure you do. Five minutes ago you’d never heard of the religionofpeace.com website or seen the gruesome headlines on it made by Muslim terrorists today (not 500 or 1,000 years ago). You should check the site each day, to see the new horrors committed by Muslims against infidels and other Muslims on a daily basis.
“Fact is I’ve got more chance of being attacked by a white American who wants to mug me for the dollars in my purse, than by an Islamic ‘terrorist’.”- Fox
You’re probably right. Death by some Muslim jihadi is hardly my first concern. The creeping introduction of Shari’a law and Islamization of Western nations like Europe and Canada and Australia and the US worries me a whole lot more.
Do you have any idea how many Shari’a law Islamic courts there are RIGHT NOW operating in the UK??
43. Arctic Fox | April 4th, 2008 at 3:01 am
So would you say that any man who said “The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: “In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.” The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.” was an idiot and a terrorist sympathiser?
44. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 3:07 am
43. Arctic Fox | April 4th, 2008 at 3:01 am
President Bush said that. President Bush was DEAD WRONG on Islam.
45. Arctic Fox | April 4th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Yes, President Bush did say that. And he wasn’t wrong about Islam. In actual fact he was spot on about Islam when he said it. Much like Christianity, it abhors what it sees as evil, and if there’s anything everyone can agree with it’s that terrorism is evil.
“Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.”
“If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.”
“‘If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death.”
“Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born.”
Sound like the sort of language your Islamic terrorists might cheer at?
46. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Arctic Fox,
You are apparently as uniformed about Christianity as you are about Islam.
Fox: “[Islam] abhors what it sees as evil’ That would include all non-Muslims.
Fox: “…and if there’s anything everyone can agree with it’s that terrorism is evil.” Not according to Islam and the Qu’ran. Muhammad led and ordered many terrorists raids and acts.
Are you aware that Islam does not believe that Muslims and non-Muslims are equals? http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/index.html
(click “index to Islam”, then “Unbelievers”)
In fact, Islam has the clear rule that a Muslim is not to be killed for murder of a non-Muslim:
47. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 4:20 am
In Islam and the Qu’ran, non-Muslims are considered the “vilest of animals”…
Qur’an (8:55):- “Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.”
Video YouTube: “Killing of Non-Muslims is Legitimate (British Mullah)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&mode=related&search=
“Ten Obvious Reasons Why Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace” Muhammad was a terrorist among other things. Muslims are ordered by Islam to emulate Muhammad.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Top-10-Reasons.htm
48. js | April 4th, 2008 at 7:27 am
folks really shouldnt open thier mouths about islam when they dont have any idea what the koran and haddith actually say
its would at least dawn on those who actually want to find out the truth that the koran and haddith can be read on the internet even
the problem is, unlike christians who have dozens and dozens of sponsored sites for the Bible, the muslims dont put everything about the koran and haddith on the internet for people to read
the bible never tells people to burn witches either, only a fool would fail to designate the difference in Christianity and the acts of men, men acting under thier own beliefs, not under the teachings of Jesus in the Bible burned witches
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Sahih Bukhari 1.24)
“The prophet Muhammad did not accept from the Arab heathens less than Islam or the sword. This is compulsion of faith. No compulsion in faith (or religion) applies only to Christians or Jews because they are not to be forced to embrace the religion. They have the option either to embrace Islam, the sword, or to pay the poll-tax. In this case they can keep their own faith. It was truly said on the authority of the apostle of God that there is no compulsion in the faith. (ibn Hazm, volume 8, part 11, on page 196)
49. Almiranta | April 4th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Casper, it’s inanities like your :
“Boy I can’t wait for tomorrow’s post.
“Someone Obama shared a cab with a year ago leaves the toilet seat up.”
that make me so glad I don’t have a child in the Casper school system. I don’t know how someone with such muddled thinking can even teach math.
You are certainly entitled to choose your preference for President, and you are also entitled to be as passionate, prejudiced, irrational, emotional, and dedicated to that candidate as you want to be. You are entitled to overlook his flaws, concentrate on the aspects that appeal to you the most, and ignore what might conflict with your determination that he is the best man for the job.
All are givens.
But you can’t expect to dump a load like that on the blog and let it go unnoticed.
The comments on this blog about Obama fall into three basic categories. One is that he is simply too inexperienced to be President. One is that he is simply too radically Liberal to be acceptable to us as President. And one is that we know far too little about him, his political past, his personal beliefs and agendas, to be ready to accept him as the good, honest, amiable, guy he is trying so hard to portray.
Questions about his prior political relationships fall into Category 3, and they are not only legitimate questions, they should be mandatory questions for anyone supporting him—or any other candidate.
We, as conservatives, have questioned each of our candidates on all three issues, while it appears to us, from the words of you Liberals yourselves, that you have steadfastly refused to ask these questions of your candidates, preferring instead to go the blind emotion route, to fall in love and then accept the object of your emotions as perfect no matter what comes out about him.
Let me remind you that most, if not all, of you had this same love affair with Hillary, only to dump her when a newer, younger, more attractive candidate came along—and now you have discarded her and forgotten the passionate love letters you wrote to her, defending her every word and action.
We stand back and watch as you go through this same pattern over and over again, as you become passionate to the point of hysteria about one person after another, to the point where any objective discussion of the person’s history or record or actions or words is met with such vehement defense, such violent attacks, that it is astounding.
So we see Obamania as just the latest in a long line of hyper-emotional attachments, and we continue to do our own due diligence while you swoon over his declarations and plan the wedding.
50. Casper | April 4th, 2008 at 9:02 am
“that make me so glad I don’t have a child in the Casper school system. I don’t know how someone with such muddled thinking can even teach math.”
And responses like yours make ME so glad you don’t have a child in the Casper school system. I prefer to deal with rational parents.
About 90% of the attacks from the right on Obama are directed at comments or actions of others rather than on Obama’s policies or proposals. Sorry, but that is just silly.
As for Senator Clinton, I have never supported her. In fact I have stated several times that I would pick McCain over her in the general election. I don’t vote along party lines. I look for the person I think would do the best job.
51. Steve | April 4th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Great site you have! Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 70 of America’s top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio…
http://netradionetwork.com
52. jackson | April 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am
You can’t blame Mark for grasping at straws, he’s desperate bring Obama down to the level of McCain and Bush. And the WORST he can possibly come up with is that Obama is potentially ALMOST as bad because he’s a corrupt democrat. It’s sadly typical of our current DOJ, to investigate and denounce the person and party rather than prove the crime.
When a staggering 81% of this country believe we’re headed in the wrong direction, it sucks to be in the dwindling 19%. It makes you a bit irrational and desperate to vilify the opposition in an attempt to somehow right your sinking ship by hurling buckets of your own bilge.
It’s OK, our boat is big enough for all of you. Stop fighting a losing battle and climb on board. We’re an inclusive and forgiving bunch, and only want what’s best for you. No, we don’t want your souls, you can keep em…. if you can get them back from Cheney.
53. Jay Gaultieri | April 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
It must be becoming conventional wisdom that Barack Obama is getting the Dem nomination because the hard right’s attacks have now shifted to him instead of Hillary.
54. js | April 4th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Why is it that liberals always act like the south end of a north bound donkey, but expect to be treated like Charmin by Mr Whiffle???
I mean, look at this thread for an example. They go to extremes in thier attempts to discount hard facts and ingnore the reality of the issue, then they run off on tangents to distract the topic.
55. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Ok js, tired and freedom… here you go. (I can’t believe js is still on the Obama wants an Islamic Jihad-kick.
FactCheck.org
The source is right here if you stop taking your right-wing blogs as ultimate fact
56. Dasein Libsbane | April 4th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“About 90% of the attacks from the right on Obama are directed at comments or actions of others rather than on Obama’s policies or proposals. Sorry, but that is just silly. ”
Casper,
Don’t be quite so dismissive, my liberal schoolteacher compadre. Re-read Almiranta’s post and critically ask yourself if you have held Obama’s feet to the fire on his character.
Since we know little about him and since his resume is razor thin the only thing we can judge him by is A) what he promises and B) What he’s delivered thus far. Since he has no accomplishments to speak of we need to look into his past as a predictor of future events; in that regard his associations with shady characters causes one to pause. Okay, he’s from Chicago and one doesn’t get to the top of Chicago politics without associating with crooks and thieves, but what long term effect will there be from these associations? And, more to the point, what does it say about his character that he’s willing to play in the mud fields to gain political advantage. We conservatives questioned Romney’s bona fides when he “compromised” basic conservative principles to govern in Massachusetts, and found him wanting, you would be well advised to apply the same standard to Obama.
Next, is the issue of the good Rev. Wright; put aside the association with such a person and focus on Obama’s statements; he either never heard the hate-filled, anti-Semitic sermons, or he heard them, but not the one’s in the Best of Wright DVD, or he did and told Wright he disapproved. His responses to the controversy are as wide and varied as a Clintonesque response; if you can find this acceptable then by all means support him, just don’t kid yourself into believing that it’s a right-wing hate attack that forced Obama to change his story, it’s his own character flaws that caused him to lie. Btw, 90% of statistics are made up and 90% of the attacks are from the Clintons and their minions.
I know as a liberal in Casper you must feel as out of place as a Frenchman at a personal hygiene trade-show, but you can always come here to B4V for rational conversation, because I know you have looked passed party politics in the past and are a most rational liberal. [/oxymoron]
Almiranta uses a literary device I find brilliant; when addressing liberals’ posts she rarely addresses them directly, instead speaking to the reader implying the poster isn’t worth a direct response (drives the libs crazy), she addressed you directly; this implies she has enough respect for your opinion to engage rather than dismiss, take advantage of that and engage back.
57. Tractatus | April 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
folks really shouldnt open thier mouths about islam when they dont have any idea what the koran and haddith actually say
So you’ll be shutting up about it, then, js, seeing as how you are among the most clueless people on earth when it comes to Islam? Great!
58. Dasein Libsbane | April 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Tractatus,
Have you ever contributed anything to the conversation?
Why not run along and play with your putz? Huh, do us all a favor, k?
59. Mark Noonan | April 4th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Joe,
Nope - ’cause Rezko and Obama are tight, tight, tight friends…and you on the left were demanding that anyone even remotely connected to Abramoff (except all the Democrats, like Harry Reid, who were more connected to him than any Republican) pay the price for Abramoff’s crimes…you on the left set the terms of debate here, and you now must pay the price for your foolishness. If Rezko is guilty, using your political math, then Obama must resign - in disgrace - from politics.
60. Mark Noonan | April 4th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Joe,
And an interesting article from Fact Check, which is usually a very good source…but, if Wright’s Church accepts white parishoners, can anyone find such a parishoner? I feel pretty strongly that if there were even a single white member of Wright’s congregation, that person would have been trotted out by the Obama campaign at some point in the last month.
Bottom line, Fact Check’s assertion that Wright’s chruch is not racist is mere supposition unsupported by actual fact.
61. Mark Noonan | April 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Jay,
Well, it is better than 50/50 that Obama will emerge as the Democratic nominee, so its natural we’ll concentrate our fire on him…but we haven’t been ignoring Hillary…but, also, Hillary’s corruption and lying are old news, while we’re gleefully able to point out all sorts of little known dirt on Obama…
62. Mark Noonan | April 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Artic Fox,
What is rather curious is that Freedom1, clearly a conservative, is able to call President Bush “dead wrong” on an issue and not be drummed out of the conservative movement…now, how often do we see you liberal commenters here on the blog say that Obama or Hillary is “dead wrong” about this or that issue?
What would be a refreshing change of pace in the world is a liberal who, for instance, sees through the scams which are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama…still amazes me that these two con artists are able to take you for a ride on such flimsy evidence…
63. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Mark,
I got it now… this is all just payback for Abramoff. You don’t actually believe any of it, you are just getting back at us. Glad we got that out of the way.
Regarding Abramoff… people actually went to jail and were indicted for their connections with him.
Other than knowing Rezko (which Obama has never denied), Obama has not been indicted and no proof of any wrong-doing has been presented.
Regarding Reid and Abramoff, there wasn’t a connection. He took nothing from Abramoff. Yes, he took money from one of Abramoff’s clients, an indian tribe. Of course….. Reid has been on the Indian Affairs Committee since he arrived in the Senate. So to tie that to Abramoff is not as huge of a stretch as you usually make, it is most certainly… a stretch.
Also, I think all Dems here are saying that if it comes out that Obama did do something wrong, then yes… he absolutely should step down.
I think if ANY politician regardless of party should step down if they are found guilty of any wrong doing.
64. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Mark,
Right in the middle of the FactCheck article is this…
There is a picture of him in the article. I don’t know if you could get anyone that looks whiter than he does.
65. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Mark:
a liberal who, for instance, sees through the scams which are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama…still amazes me that these two con artists are able to take you for a ride on such flimsy evidence
Funny…. we are still amazing that the current con man in the White House is able to take you and the other 19%-ers for a ride on such flimsy evidence!
while we’re gleefully able to point out all sorts of little known dirt on Obama
You left off the ending of that sentence….. “regardless of how true the dirt really is.“
66. Mark Noonan | April 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
DBM,
Thanks for bringing that transcript up - I’ve saved it for later, and will have a lot of fun pointing out the massive inconsistencies in this new explanation and the explanation Obama offered up in 2006.
Advice: don’t try to defend Obama on Rezko, because his connections are indefensible.
67. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Advice: don’t try to defend Obama on Rezko, because his connections are indefensible.
Then why haven’t charges been brought against him?
68. Casper | April 4th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Dasein Libsbane,
Thank you for the nice response.
The problem I have with the guilt by association attacks is that they are a distraction from the main issues. I have no problem discussing McCain’s health plan vs Obama’s, or McCain’s plan for Iraq vs Obama’s. What I don’t like is the way some posters have equated Obama with Hitler because of what Rev. Wright said. I didn’t think it was right to compare Bush to Hitler and I never have.
As for Rev. Wright’s statements, I don’t think they are that big of a deal. I heard whose statements coming from a priest during the Vietnam War. The fact that most of the statements Rev. Wright made were few and far between leads me to believe he isn’t near the racist some would make him out to be. As for him coming from Chicago, until there is evidence that he did something wrong, it shouldn’t apply. Some of my best students over the years were members of classes with terrible reputations. They didn’t let the other kids pull them down.
One other thing to consider, McCain has as many if not more questionable associations over the years as Obama. A nasty campaign and can end up dividing us more than we are already. I don’t know that that would be good for the country.
69. Jeremiah | April 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/barack-obama-is-a-homosexual-crackhead/
Bingo!
–Jeremiah–
70. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Jeremiah…. congratulations.
You win the award as the most wacko of the wackos.
Obama is a homosexual crackhead. Wow. That is a keeper!! That is actually better than calling him a FARC-supporter!
That is some kind of crap you allow posted on your blog Mark and Matt.
71. Dasein Libsbane | April 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Casper,
Fair enough, I’m sure through the succeeding months we’ll have plenty of opportunity to discuss policy differences. (Provided we can stay clear of the LOONS infesting this place.)
I will, of course reserve the right to judge the credibility of the candidates based on what I know about their character. This thread is, after all, supposed to be about Obama’s questionable associations and his judgment in involving himself with such people. I think that’s a fair argument and it’s something worth discussing, as is the Keating episode worth revisiting.
Oh, speaking for me … Wright’s comments are unquestionably a big deal! this man should be publically rebuked. PERIOD-DOT-BINGO!
72. Mark Noonan | April 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Joe,
Not “on occasion” - I want you to find me a white parishoner of, heck, just two years continual Sunday attendance…I’m not even asking you to meet the Obama level of commitment (20 years, married by the guy, baptised his children), but just some white person who for the past two years hasn’t missed more than, say, two or three Sunday services.
Mr. “on occasion” is probably an upper class white liberal trying to burnish his diversity credentials (the modern, liberal version of “keeping up with the Joneses”) - I want a white person who sits in his pew, week after week, and feels that Wright’s preaching is just peachy keen.
73. Mark Noonan | April 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Joe,
And, as I said, no charges have to be brought against Obama - the fact that he is “connected” to Rezko is sufficient - in your 2006 judgement - for Obama to be run out of town on a rail. Remember, as a Christian, I hold that we will be judged as we judge…so, unless you can provide us some verified statements from 2006 where you advocated no guilt by association with GOPers, then you’re on the hook to demand Obama quit…or, apologise for you 2006 views.
Pick one - there are no other alternatives.
74. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Well short of going to Chicago and questioning every white person I see… I guess you got me there.
75. js | April 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
55. Joe
hey joe, maybe you really should have checked Front Page Magazine on the Obama thing, that article you posted was absolutly trashed by it
looks like you stepped in the doo stooge!!
“we’ve seen no evidence that he preaches hatred of or discrimination against whites.”
From factcheck.org info you posted, no?
Barack’s church has been under fire for many years. Of all the alleged racist activities of Trinity United Church, one of the most controversial issues is their adoption of the Black Value System. The Black Value System was written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee in 1981 and states:
“We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.”
Tucker Carlson of MSNBC described Trinity United Church as having a “racially exclusive theology” that contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity. Sean Hannity of Fox News said, “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.”
In another controversial move, in December of 2007 Trinity United Church awarded Louis Farrakhan its highest social achievement award. According to the church, the award is designed to: “Honor socially conscious giants who commit their life’s work to saving the lives of Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora.”
Apparently, Pastor Wright has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan for many years.
Farrakhan has repeatedly made statements targeting America, Jews, and homosexuals. He has called white folks “blue-eyed devils.” He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government and the media.
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/hampton-roads-daily-press/TOVUVDB55FAV6PMR9
The only reason they can not have seen it is because they have not looked, its obvious that the work you cited was a poor example of journalism, its biased intent is not to endorse facts, but a political agenda instead.
76. js | April 4th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System”
Thats echo’s racial superiority. Go you your next county commissioners meeting, and try to get them to entertain such an idea. Go ahead, what do you think this value system is for, practicing stump speeches for Presidential Candidates?
77. Jeremiah | April 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
76. js
Yep. He’s in it for that one reason alone—The Black Power!
Jeremiah
78. SteaM | April 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Mark,
tsk tsk.
White people went to the church, go to the church, are seen at the church, are in photos being at the church, are in videos being at the church, and they are welcome at the church.
So they are not racist.
Care to apologize and get over it?
I think you are being stubborn and purposfully putting on the blinders on this one.
79. FoolYouTwice | April 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Mark, maybe first you could do us the favor of finding one quote from Joe from 2006 where he advocated guilt by association with GOPers.
You are amazingly clueless on how logic actually works.
As for Bane, you would be best advised to keep your mouth shut except on economic matters. You have proven yourself to be wholly unworthy of comment on any other topic.
Very few conservatives actually back up Almiranta or js on this site, but you have found yourself doing both on this thread. Congratulations on a new low. I especially liked this gem:
The reason Almiranta doesn’t address people directly is because she rarely addresses anything brought up by another person. In all of her posts she has basically said the one same thing a million different ways.
The thing that drives people crazy is that she is such a non-thinking partisan hack. Only weeks ago she stated in one of her usual tirades that she would never vote for John McCain, yet now she is a supporter of him.
80. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
nice js….
the work you cited was a poor example of journalism, its biased intent is not to endorse facts, but a political agenda instead.
FactCheck is actually a non-profit, non-partisan site js. It debunks myths for both Repub and Dem. It doesn’t matter what the letter is after the person’s name. There are articles there that debunk things that Obama and Clinton have said as well.
Even Mr Mark Noonan claims… “And an interesting article from Fact Check, which is usually a very good source”
Meanwhile…. FrontPageMag doesn’t have a political agenda, right? Nor does any of the other ones you’ve linked. Of course Freedom1’s links don’t have any political agenda either I’m sure.
So I don’t think that was doo that I stepped in. It was actually stepping on your right-wing hatred.
Jeremiah… don’t you ever forget to keep shouting from the mountain tops that you claim Obama is a homosexual crackhead!!!
81. Tractatus | April 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I wouldn’t get too worried about what Jeremiah posted, Joe–Blogs for Brownback is a spoof site. I think it’s run by one of the guys behind the old Scrutator.com site that messed keefer’s head up (well…moreso than usual). You should click through it sometime, there is some seriously funny stuff on there. The best one, I think, is this spoof of creationism: Heliocentrism Is an Atheist Doctrine
82. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Mark,
Who exactly do you want me to apologize for vilifying?
Let’s see……
Conrad Burns?
Washington - Sen. Conrad Burns and his staff met Jack Abramoff’s lobbying team on at least eight occasions and collected $12,000 in donations around the time that the lawmaker took legislative action favorable to Abramoff’s clients in the Northern Mariana Islands, records show.
Bob Ney?
Over a period of four years, Ney had solicited and taken bribes; vacationed on Abramoff’s tab in Scotland; and twice gone gambling in London casinos with other people’s money. In exchange, he had tried to influence contracts.
Tom Feeney?
Abramoff took Feeney on a 2003 golfing trip to Scotland, a violation of congressional rules. He agreed to pay $5,643 to the U.S. Treasury for what he said was his share, but the FBI is still investigating.
Richard Pombo?
Two days after the first meeting on Sept. 10, Abramoff gave Pombo $500. The congressman eventually received a total of more than $35,000 from Abramoff and his Native American tribal clients. $27,000 of that money came from Abramoff’s client the Mashpee Wampanoag of Massachusetts, “which received federal recognition from a bill Pombo passed through the [House Resources] committee in 2004.”
John Doolittle?
Doolittle, according to news reports, helped direct appropriations to Abramoff’s clients, weighed in on their behalf in disputes, used Abramoff’s skybox for a fundraiser, received over $130,000 in political donations from Abramoff, his clients and associates.
I can go on and on if you want.
I’ll give you that a lot of people were trying to tie Bush to Abramoff. But if I remember correctly, that is because Bush claimed he’s never met him…. Yet pictures showed Abramoff there with Bush. I also believe people were asking what Bush had to do with Abramoff.
So please find where I was claiming all so many people not tied to Abramoff should step down.
As for Reid… other than taking money from an Indian tribe, was he found to have done anything wrong? By all means… call for an investigation of him, just as we wanted to find out what Bush had to do with Abramoff.
But really…… admitting that you are tying Obama to Rezko because we tied GOP members to Abramoff is a bit immature, ain’t it?
83. Percy Beezer | April 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I see a pattern here; democrats aren’t corrupt because Republicans are also corrupt. Nice defense; I’ll try that next time I’m on trial, “I’m not guilty, your honor, cuz that guy over there is guilty, too”
84. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Percy,
Please reread what the posts.
Mark says:
’cause Rezko and Obama are tight, tight, tight friends…and you on the left were demanding that anyone even remotely connected to Abramoff (except all the Democrats, like Harry Reid, who were more connected to him than any Republican) pay the price for Abramoff’s crimes…you on the left set the terms of debate here, and you now must pay the price for your foolishness.
He is the one that is saying Obama is guilty because he is friends with Rezko. The reason Mark feels he can make that link is because he claims Dems did the same thing to the GOP in the Abramoff scandal.
Where did I ever say that it is ok for Dems to be corrupt because Repubs are? In fact I’ve said over and over again that ANYONE should resign if they are found to do anything illegal.
So get your damn head out of your ass and read the actual comments. Don’t read what you think you want to read.
Damn… and you people say the Dems on this site say odd things. Percy…. read the comments before commenting on them.
85. Steam | April 4th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Percy,
Personally I am not a fan of corrupt politicitans. No matter what party that affiliate themselves with. My hope is that somehow if they break the law they are dealt with in our justice system.
Not only that, but let me be frank,
86. Percy Beezer | April 4th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Could you be Ernest?
87. Freedom1 | April 4th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Muslim Becomes Christian, Mom Orders Him Thrown Off A Fourth-Floor Balcony At A Shopping Mall - In Canada.
“How can a religion that is based on killing and slaughter and terrorism come from God?”
(Video included)
88. kimberly4victory | April 4th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
A few famous sayings come to mind when I think of Obama:
“A man is known by the company he keeps.”
“You can’t pick your relatives, but you can pick your friends.”
89. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
kimberly, I think the saying is… you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can’t pick your friends nose.
I didn’t know that someone could be guilty from who they know.
Who needs a jury? When something comes out that Obama did anything, then scream all you want… I would even join you. Until then. I’ll stick with “innocent until proven guilty”.
90. js | April 4th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
The funniest things happen in politics.
Thats the place where organized crime can flourish, and if they get caught, they just change the laws and make it legal.
Thats why they pushed abortion as a right, to save the behinds of the sex addicts in power, and then, a generation later, homosexuality became a civil right instead of a mental disease, so the politicians could do thier thing……
funny how that works in the world of men…..
you resist the word of God, and thats what happens, right becomes wrong, and inside goes out, all that we should be, we hate, and all that we want, consumes our souls with darkness
91. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
js.. .you left off that it is all the Democrat’s fault.
Just helping you out there.
92. js | April 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
78. SteaM
is there a word for incredibly intentionably naive? you need it
93. js | April 4th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
91. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
js.. .you left off that it is all the Democrat’s fault.
Just helping you out there.
————————-
no joe, you are just to ignoroant to understand what it all means, thats why you post such stupid comments
94. js | April 4th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
87. Freedom1
you got it dead on
check this out
http://www.jobberonline.biz/Prophecy.html
prophecy is cool to watch, pretty hard to figure out, and its impossible not to be curious
95. kimberly4victory | April 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Joe: Thanks for injecting some humor in thread!
Remember when Obama said he possesses “superior judgement” on the key issues we face as a nation (including his judgement to oppose the Iraq War)? Well, if he truly believes his superior judgement makes him the best candidate for the highest office in our country, shouldn’t his choice of friends be considered as well?
Of course, his judgement of the Iraq War reolution might have been different if he had been in Washington at the time. He NEVER heard any of the intelligence the administration was offering to Congress debating that resolution.
BTW, my father-in-law was one of the most honest politicans I have ever known. In his 18 years of public service, no one ever had a bad thing to say against him. His friends and the company he kept were all honest men/women, too. The company one keeps really does say something about that person.
96. SteaM | April 5th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Can someone be intentionally naive?
97. Some Assembly Required | April 5th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
na·ive –adjective
1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:
‘incredibly intentionably naive’ -subjective
1. A liberal who is disconnected with reality
2. Anyone who questions George W. Bush with their hate speech. (See BDS. )
3. Pro-Choice, Pro-homosexuals, Anti-war Sodomites
I’m assuming that would be the definition.
I’ve said it on a previous thread and I’ll repeat it here. js I think needs some sexual deviance in his own life. For that matter so do Jeremiah and Freedom1. The woman, or man, or goat (whatever your into) cannot get pregnant from anal or oral sex… Just a tip to help you along
98. Aaron | April 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
kimberly4bush -
“He NEVER heard any of the intelligence the administration was offering to Congress debating that resolution.”
You mean, he NEVER heard any of the cooked Bullshit the administration was “offering” to Congress…
99. Mark Noonan | April 5th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
SteaM,
Gotta link for those assertions? I just did some searching and wasn’t able to find any reference to white parishoners at Wright’s church. I’m not talking about visited the church or attended from time to time…I want someone who is white and a parishoner. I’ll make it easy for you - find me one white person who has attended every Sunday for just the past year.
100. Mark Noonan | April 5th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Kimberly,
That is just it - we have no Obama record to judge, so all we can judge is what he’s said and who he associates with…but now our lefty friends say we can’t investigate what he says, and that we mustn’t question his associations. Boiled down, the left wants us to leave him alone, except to say what a great speaker he is…
This is their real problem - they’ve played the race card from the bottom of the deck for 30 years, and now daren’t refuse the nomination to a black man, but this black man they’ve got is manifestly unqualified to be President…they are between a rock and a hard place…and as they’ve got rocks in their heads, they’re at a loss for how to get out of this…
101. Aaron | April 6th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Mark -
“That is just it - we have no Obama record to judge, so all we can judge is what he’s said and who he associates with… they’ve played the race card from the bottom of the deck for 30 years, and now daren’t refuse the nomination to a black man, but this black man they’ve got is manifestly unqualified to be President”
hmmm. No record. Unqualified. Must rely solely on who he associates with…
From biography(dot)com:
So you now have a lot more to go on. A man of humble background. A graduate of Columbia. Graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude. Decided to forego wealth to instead work for a pittance helping poor communities. Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Served 9 years in the IL state Senate where he was known for working with Republicans to craft legislation. Has 4 years in the US Senate. Running a successful campaign for the nomination against a political dynasty. Intelligent. Creative. Understands the country.
So now you can’t claim ignorance anymore, Mark. Barack is clearly qualified to be president (much more so than Mr Bush ever was).
102. kimberly4victory | April 6th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Thanks, Aaron. I think I’ll vote for Obama now.
LOL.
You forgot to mention …
While in Illinois, Obama voted for most gun control measures, opposed efforts to ban partial birth abortions and supported hundreds of tax increases.
He voted not for or against but “present” on 129 bills, including a bill to ban sex shops and strip clubs near schools, churches, and day-care centers, and a bill to allow juveniles who committed a crime with a gun near a school to be tried as adults.
He only “understands the country” from a liberal and progressive point of view.
103. yonason | April 6th, 2008 at 6:31 am
The more I learn about Obama, the more digusted I get.
And Democrats? Don’t get me started!
Sure, they catch the odd Republican who’s crooked, but it’s getting harder to catch a Demokrat who isn’t.
104. kimberly4victory | April 6th, 2008 at 10:15 am
On July 26, 2004, Obama essentially offered a public apology, in the pages of the New York Times, for doubting Bush’s justification for war:
“I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”
In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote (page 294):
“Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.”
Speaking once more to the New York Times in 2006, he continued in this vein:
“I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence,” he said. “And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.”
Seems like Obama wants it both ways.
105. kimberly4victory | April 6th, 2008 at 10:16 am
“Following the 9/11 attacks, Obama was an early opponent of President George W. Bush’s push to war with Iraq. Obama was still a state senator when he spoke against a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq during a rally at Chicago’s Federal Plaza in October 2002.”
Is this the “staged” speech bloggers are talking about? Some are saying the video of this “speech” was recreated by the Obama campaign.