The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Obama loves all people. He is doing good by reaching out to all people. All haters of Obama will fall on their face when Obama is elected President. God has it in his plan for Obama to be President and there is nothing man can do. It is a sin and a shame that America has so many racist people who just don't want a black person as President. I'm so glad there ia a God who sees no color and who will judge us all one day.

First of all, I really am Jewish, not a fake like the guy who pretended to be a Palestian. Even if he was real, that woiuld not not make me vote for Obama. I do think the Palestians should get some of their land back, for example Israel could be split. Obama is getting both sides of the issue, and that is very good. He needs to be objective to solve this issue and sastify both sides.

another lipservice mr obama,
you dont realy care, you just want power that is why you are saying this...your beloved pastor hated this country and the Jew...your words are empty.
Obame for President !!!? GOD save America.

Ryan

I see you have bought into the Dem's weak campaign strategy of McCain = Bush. In 2004 the Dem's won a lot of seats in the Senate and House by running against Bush/Cheney. They started off the 2008 Presidential campaign trying to repeat the anti-Bush/Cheney theme. When they finally figured out Bush/Cheney were not actually running in 2008 they started the McCain = Bush myth.

The biggest complaint against McCain in the Republican party was that he wasn't loyal enough to Bush and wasn't conservative enough. Rush Limbaugh, and other "staunch" Republicans bemoaned the "end of the Republican party" if McCain got the nomination.

And now we are to believe the Democrat's myth that McCain = Bush?

The truth is that McCain is the closest thing we have ever seen to a true Moderate running for President and this scares both the hard core Democrats and Republicans. Why? Because the vast majoriety of Americans are moderates and if we ever get a chance to put a true Moderate into the Presidency we will break the strangle hold the extreme-Right and extreme-Left have had on this country for the past 40 years.

If you find this hard to believe, look at what happened with Senator Joe Lieberman in the CT Democratic Primary. He was to moderate so the Democratic party defeated him in the primary but the majoriety voters in CT elected him as an independent. You can believe this scares the heck out of both political parties.

What America really needs is a McCain/Lieberman ticket in '08 to break the strangle hold the the minoriety extreme-right and extreme-left have on the American political process.

Obama is at least smart enough to realize that all presidential candidates must pay homage to the jewish lobbies. Each candidate must strive to outdo the other in his love and devotion to Israel. This "off-shore constituency" has had more direct influence on our elections than any other group for quite some time.

AIPAC is directly connected to Obama, what more needs to be said?

ALL PLEASE SEE THE JIM MORIN CARTOON IN TODAY'S MIAMI HERALD (5/23) -YES, THE PAPER IS STILL GOOD FOR SOMETHING- FOR THE REAL LOWDOWN ON B.O.'S & BROADBASE BETTY'S CAMPAIGNS HERE IN THE SWAMP! (HINT .... Florida's fun fauna: the crocodiles, alligators, visiting Burmese pythons, love bugs, abandoned lions & tigers, palmetto bugs [Florida's famed 747-sized flying cockroaches], pit bulls and EVERY type of lethal mosquito have gone into hiding.)

Obama says we need to be careful of guilt by association. There is just so much assocation. * Rabidly anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi. The Obamas were regular dinner guests at Khalidi?s Hyde Park home for years. * Terrorist sympathizer Ali Abunimah, who runs the viciously anti-Israel web site Electronic Intifada. * Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. * Reverend Jeremiah Wright. What more needs to be said? * Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Samantha Power ? fired after calling Hillary Clinton a ?monster.? * Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Robert Malley ? fired when it was revealed he has been holding talks with Hamas. * Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department. El-Hady?s web page suddenly vanished from the Obama campaign site with no explanation, after being exposed by LGF and others. * Tony Rezko ? a Chicago fixer currently in a whole lot of legal trouble.

It's really quite easy, people.

Do you like the way the country has been run over the last 8 years?

If you don't, you shouldn't vote for McCain.

Obama will be fine, and many of you may even grow to like him, if you are open to it.

ATTENTION EVERY ONE! I HAVE JUST NOMINATED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FOR THE ACADEMY AWARD FOR THE BEST ACTOR! I'M SURE MANY OF YOU WILL DISAGREE WITH ME, BUT IF YOU "REALLY" WATCH HIM TALK, HE IS A WONDERFUL ACTOR!

Maybe it's better this year not to vote politics or promises or programs or who says what on NBC or on CBS or whether this candidate or that candidate has a better idea.
Maybe we should take a look at the next President as the manager of the United States. The political Chairman of the Board. Someone has to "run" the country, "run" the government. Who can run the government better then the other one?
One way or the other laws will be passed whether all of us like all of the laws or not.
Didn't President Lincoln say "you can fool all of the people some of the time,some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."?

Maybe he was correct.

Vote for America
Into the Future and Back to the Age of the Pioneers

dePaul Consiglio

Interesting thing about the race card, or any other card for that matter, it doesn't work unless it is true.

Bill Clinton found in todays youtube and so on, you can't just lie your way out of everything. Bill Clinton got caughrt and a light was shined on it. Call it the race card or what ever you want, it was still true.

+++++++++
Her arguments are neither absurd nor ridiculous. Just REALITY. Reality that is, admitted, by the MEDIA 'punditry" "News" people: i.e. He's got a LOT of WORK To Do; a LOT of work, as in ... TRY to FIND Some Way to get working class white people, women, jews, older people to VOTE for him.

TRY ... to Find Some WAY to ... LOOK ... electable. EVEN With ALL the MEDIA pumping him up ... OBAMA's Baloon ... don't FLY no more.

Clinton, on the other hand ... does NOT have a lot of work to do. She already did it. Once she gets the nomination all she needs to do is get out the TRUTH about the SC Primary --- Obama was running 20 points behind in the polss before HE played the race card. HE was CAUGHT red-handed pushing those accusations of racism against the Clintons. However, THE MEDIA just went right on blaming the Clintons.

Just like ... to this day ... the MEDIA proclaims that .... he's above the fray,,, doesn't DO negative campaigning.

However, Obama is the negative campaigner. I saw it from the first day he started the negative campaigning to today. He makes PERSONAL character-assassination "statements" about Clinton: such as: "She'll do or say anything to get elected." I have seen many times, Obama surrogates ... such as Jesse Jackson Jr. and a Big Right Wing talk show host .... literally screeching on My TV screen: She's a Liar! She's a Liar! Hillary's just a Liar!.

While .... I have YET to hear Hillary, or any of her surrogates call Obama NAMES --- ---like a kindergarten bully.

Posted by: elme | May 22, 2008 10:53 PM

Susan=== the reason most of this stuff is ignored is that rest room walls are not part of the mainstream media.

Americans are known for voting against their interest when it comes to elections. To say Hillary supporters will "step in line" is really arrogrant and just plain wrong! I do not trust BO in any way. I may not agree with all McCain's policies but I KNOW him to be a good honest man who LOVES his country! Someone who would never choose the interest of others over the U.S.! Obama would throw this country under the bus with his grandmother, pastor and anyone or thing that didn't agree with his agenda(Change we can be afraid of is more like it)! I do not want the black theology mindset leading this country! Nor do I want a wet behind the ears senator without a record of his own to be in charge! It is crazy to go from one far right nut to a far left nut! As far as his supporters go, due to their lack of knowledge of all the good Senator Clinton has done in her life, or I should say lack of respect....I will never support your "Savior" ...or is it "Anti-Christ"? I beleive him to be neither...just another dirty politician who will tell you anything to get elected.

Hello America from Hanoi!! We hope you like John McCain and you vote for him!! HE a good man!!

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO HO CHI MIN!!

If you really think that Paterson...a black who says he supports Hillary and doesn't want obama to win....can I sell you a oceanfront piece of property in Montana?

Now that Democratic Party voting is over except for two states (and Puerto Rico), and Barack Obama has iced a majority of the pledged delegates, it's time for individual superdelegates to consider whether they want to etch profiles in courage for themselves by taking their public stand on behalf of Obama.

Yes, we onlookers know that pressure has been exerted to delay the public stand of superdelegates. We observe that Harold Ickes and the Clintons want superdelegates to constitute a bloc that can be stampeded at the appropriate moment. This is where the "courage" of a profile in courage comes about.

Incidentally, according to NPR just now, Gov. Patterson of New York, a superdelegate heretofore supporting Hillary Clinton, seems to be wavering, at least by urging Clinton to abide by the rules to which she had agreed on Florida and Michigan, while referring to the Clinton campaign as "desperate."

Posted by: | May 23, 2008 7:55 AM

USE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE AND INVESTIGATE THIS CANDIDATE'S BACKGROUND. Some really through and detailed investigative reports are available through RezkoWatch, OpEdNews and Pundita.
The Main Stream Media is choosing to ignore these--WHY?

Obama's Troubling Instincts
By KARL ROVE
May 22, 2008
Barack Obama is ambling rather than sprinting across the primary-season finish line. It's not just his failure to connect with blue-collar Democrats. He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions.

On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel.

By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests.

Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking.

Posted by: | May 22, 2008 4:35 PM

USE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE AND INVESTIGATE THIS CANDIDATE'S BACKGROUND. Some really through and detailed investigative reports are available through RezkoWatch, OpEdNews and Pundita.
The Main Stream Media is choosing to ignore these--WHY?

Now that Democratic Party voting is over except for two states (and Puerto Rico), and Barack Obama has iced a majority of the pledged delegates, it's time for individual superdelegates to consider whether they want to etch profiles in courage for themselves by taking their public stand on behalf of Obama.

Yes, we onlookers know that pressure has been exerted to delay the public stand of superdelegates. We observe that Harold Ickes and the Clintons want superdelegates to constitute a bloc that can be stampeded at the appropriate moment. This is where the "courage" of a profile in courage comes about.

Incidentally, according to NPR just now, Gov. Patterson of New York, a superdelegate heretofore supporting Hillary Clinton, seems to be wavering, at least by urging Clinton to abide by the rules to which she had agreed on Florida and Michigan, while referring to the Clinton campaign as "desperate."

The Florida vote was a unanimous vote of all Republicans and allDemocrats. They knew what they were doing.

Senator Mccain is no alternative to Senator Obama for president. Mccain is a fractious man and a hostage to an extremist ideology whose time has passed. Mccain's policy of war and aggression compounds America's problems politically and economically as is at present.

America needs to lead the world, the good, the bad, and the ugly into a stable and productive future. Wealthy nations will have stakes in America's leadership. Pauper nations will die to injure it. We need a young, smart and mentally alert president to restore America's eminence and elevate the rest of the world.

Obama loves the Palestinian peoples. That is why Hamas welcomes our brother, Barack. He has always been with us although he now has to pretend he is not. Once he is president, we will be vindicated. We will get our lands back!

John McCain's Long Career Of Sleazy Lies, Semi-Affairs & Total Corruption scumbag cocksuxer

Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter

Tue May 13, 9:02 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.

In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.

Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP.

What has happened over the years, that we as a people have began to hate so many folks in America? There was a time when the folks who came through EI and moved on down through KY,VA,WVA.NC&SC and other states,it appeared that folks were treated and treated others as humans. The Jews et al hired minorities and every one seemed to be doing their part to make America work. At least,it appeared that way.in the 50's out west, the minorities were still being allowed to keep their heads above water, if choices made incl working to earn a living Within the past 10-15 yrs, folks appear to be hating, choosing not to work or go to school, and,they're not taking care of their families. What's up with this? I don't know how it got started, but I think the message about hate beween the minorities is twisted and is designed to keep our problems in America as divisive measures, and to enhance unemployment, and to close our path to the Institution of education as means to resolving economic progress. I believe Obama touched upon the things needed to cause the Jewish community et al to reinvest in the minority communities again to stifle the digress in uplifting America. Obama needs to speak again to this group and others, to also,as a means to stifle this mantra re hatred in all of our communities. We need to show more love and understanding of mankind, instead of using race cards for selfish gain.

Why do so many people give a crap about what the (2% of U.S. Population-JEWS) thinks......god is a myth even Einstein said so.

Another WaPo article threadjacked by cut-and-pastes, paranoid rants, concern trolls and schoolyard taunts. Sigh.

Why is there a comment section again?

Do you think John McCain got cornholed at the Hanoi Hilton?

What a presumptuous name, the truth. Giving himself that name means the truth is stated once and only once on his posts.

OBAMA IS AN ARAB SYMPATHISER WHO HATES JEWISH PEOPLE. DO NOT BE FOOLED. HE WAS GOING TO PALESTINIAN MEETINGS IN THE 19990s WITH THE EVIL MICHELLE. HE VISITED PAKISTAN. HE IS TRYING TO HIDE HIS HATED OF JEWS AND WHITE PEOPLE. HE IS EVIL INCARNATE!

Obama is a Muslim sympathiser. Check out his whole life. He has always hung around Arabs. He is trying to fake it now, but go to electronicintifada.com and see how he and Michelle love Palestinians. He and William Ayers gaves money to Rashid Khalidi, a Palestianin terrorist fundraiser, through the Woods Fund that they sat on.

Her arguments are neither absurd nor ridiculous. Just REALITY. Reality that is, admitted, by the MEDIA 'punditry" "News" people: i.e. He's got a LOT of WORK To Do; a LOT of work, as in ... TRY to FIND Some Way to get working class white people, women, jews, older people to VOTE for him.

TRY ... to Find Some WAY to ... LOOK ... electable. EVEN With ALL the MEDIA pumping him up ... OBAMA's Baloon ... don't FLY no more.

Clinton, on the other hand ... does NOT have a lot of work to do. She already did it. Once she gets the nomination all she needs to do is get out the TRUTH about the SC Primary --- Obama was running 20 points behind in the polss before HE played the race card. HE was CAUGHT red-handed pushing those accusations of racism against the Clintons. However, THE MEDIA just went right on blaming the Clintons.

Just like ... to this day ... the MEDIA proclaims that .... he's above the fray,,, doesn't DO negative campaigning.

However, Obama is the negative campaigner. I saw it from the first day he started the negative campaigning to today. He makes PERSONAL character-assassination "statements" about Clinton: such as: "She'll do or say anything to get elected." I have seen many times, Obama surrogates ... such as Jesse Jackson Jr. and a Big Right Wing talk show host .... literally screeching on My TV screen: She's a Liar! She's a Liar! Hillary's just a Liar!.

While .... I have YET to hear Hillary, or any of her surrogates call Obama NAMES --- ---like a kindergarten bully.

Oy! The Goy thinks he can be Kosher!

What a Shmuck! ;~)

Be careful now Obama, you are beginning to sound a little like Archie Bunker when you describe your jewish friends. But you left out Rezko didn't you, but then perhaps he is not only a friend but a mentor as well.

It is irrelevant and moot who moved the Michigan primaries to their illegal date.

Relevant is that Hillary did not object, but endorsed it by pledging not to campaign there. She was fine with it until she realized that OBAMA was a menace for her candidacy, in view of her South Carolina debacle. This same day she declared publicly in GEORGIA that the FLORIDA primaries were "very important" and so motivated her supporters to vote her there,which was factually campaigning

The media is anti-Hillary ?? Could be, but
THE ONLY REASON SHE IS STILL IN THE RACE IS BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS WALLOWING IN HER ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS ARGUMENTS INSTEAD TO SIMPLY IGNORE OR REJECT THEM

CAMINITO

Well, DWayne, Dude,

Did you go to the LINK I provided and READ it? The Florida Democratic Party Posted that info on that website. (look at the bottom of the page to confirm that.)

I saw Debbie Wasserman Schultz, U.S. Congresswoman say on TV a couple of weeks ago ... that it was the Republicans in the Florida Legislature who moved up Florida's primary.

READ what I said: The REPUBLICANS have an OVERWHELMING Majority in the Florida Legislature; i.e. it doesn't matter what the Democrats want to do, or not do, in ANY matter. The Republicans did it to make trouble.

Next Question: WHY isn't the MEDIA reporting that FACT? I've already answered that one: The MEDIA "news" is now the PROPAGANDA arm of the BIG Corporations in control of our country.

Big CLUE: WHOEVER they're PUSHING is the ENEMY of We the People's BEST Interests.

p.s. Two weeks ago MSNBC went to live coverage of a Clinton campaign speech.
Clinton said --- these high gas prices are not just a matter of supply & demand. It's Market Manipulation. I am going to CLOSE the Enron LOOPHOLE; you remember Enron; that ALLOWS such market manipulation to take place. I'm also going to CLOSE the CHENEY ENERGY BILL Loopholes. ....CUT.... to Andrea Mitchell & ...cut... to commercial.

The following week ... (The MEDIA) as one of MSNBC's talking heads screeched: Why doesn't SHE just GET OUT! The MEDIA has already PROCLAIMED HIM the Winner! ... did indeed declare him the winner....& then just mostly ... ignore ... the primaries and Clinton campaigning. THE MEDIA is SO FREAKIN' Scared TOO many People are Wising Up to the SELLOUT MEDIA, GE, Cheney, Obama, McCain ... the MEDIA is now frantically frenzied pulling their hair out CRAZY ... because its HIGH STAKES and a BIG LOSS careerwise, for them, IF Obama doesn't get the nomination & McCain doesn't get elected...besides the end of their careers ... it could be the beginning of their JAIL Terms --- IF Clinton is President. I hope Clinton is President ... because those court-jester CLOWNS posing as "journalists" have INSULTED the intelligence of All Americans with their Shoddy performances, and LYING PROPAGANDA.

He's an imposter!!!!

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

WORTH READING

Early primary gives Florida a big say in '08 vote
State jumps ahead of most others with primary set for Jan. 29, 2008

Interactive

Decision '08 leaderboard
See who's leading in the delegate count in the race for the presidency.
NBC News
Cartoons
The week in political cartoons

Senate Republicans bail on Bush
Obama responds to McCain on GI bill
McCain rejects and denounces Hagee

updated 1:11 p.m. ET, Mon., May. 21, 2007
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Gov. Charlie Crist signed a bill Monday moving Florida's 2008 presidential primary up to Jan. 29, leapfrogging several other states in a change that could dramatically alter the Republican and Democratic presidential nominating campaigns.

The move will put Florida's primary behind only the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and on the same day as South Carolina's Democratic primary.

Florida's early election could have huge implications in the Feb. 5 primaries scheduled in a dozen other states, including New York and California.
A win in Florida is such a big prize because the state is seen as a microcosm of the nation with its diverse population, so it shows how a candidate might do in other states. Florida's electoral votes decided the disputed 2000 presidential election.
"The candidates who finish first in Florida would presumably be the strongest candidates the party could put up in the November election," said Merle Black, a politics professor at Emory University. "And in building momentum for a campaign, the candidates that do well in Florida would get intense media coverage leading into the next week's events in early February."
Paper trail in Florida
The bill Crist plans to sign also requires a verifiable paper trail for all voting machines throughout Florida. Currently, 15 of Florida's 67 counties use paperless touch-screen voting machines. The remaining counties use optical scan machines where a voter marks a paper ballot with a pencil and it is electronically scanned.
Florida's voting system attracted national attention in 2000 when dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads on punch card ballots held up a final count in the presidential election. Florida was eventually decided by 537 votes after the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, handing the election to George W. Bush. The state has since banned the punch cards.
National political attention is back on Florida with the primary move.
"This is going to require the serious candidates to spend very, very large amounts of money and time in Florida," Black said. "If you can't compete in Florida, that's going to be a sign that you're not a serious contender."
Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee has threatened to take away half of Florida's delegates if the primary is held before Feb. 5. The Democratic National Committee said the state would lose 50 percent of its delegates and all its superdelegates. The DNC also said it would penalize candidates who campaign in Florida for a primary earlier than Feb. 5 by making them ineligible for receiving any of the state's delegates.
Worth the price
State Republican leaders say it's worth the cost.
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer said it's more important that the state have a louder voice in who leads the country and receives more attention from candidates between now and Jan. 29.
The Florida Democratic Party is still in discussions with the DNC over how to avoid penalties such as possibly making the early primary nonbinding and holding a caucus later to elect a candidate.
DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton said the rules are in place to keep states from constantly "leapfrogging over each other" to gain a greater say in selecting a president.
South Carolina Republicans, for instance, are now considering moving up their primary ahead of its tentatively scheduled Feb. 2 date in order to keep it the first GOP primary in the South.
"It's always been said the Republican primary in South Carolina is the primary that makes presidents," said Neal Thigpen, a political scientist with Francis Marion University in South Carolina.
Thigpen said Florida's earlier primary now "blunts" the lure of South Carolina's elections, taking away what has traditionally been a bright spotlight there.
South Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler said an early primary in Florida would not diminish her state's role in the process because candidates have to bring a personal touch there.
"South Carolina's a state in which candidates can have a real impact because it's small. In Florida, candidates have to spend millions of dollars on TV to win," Fowler said. "Here, they can come and get to know the voters."
Fowler, the former co-chair of the national party's rules committee, said she expects Florida Democrats to work out an alternative date with the Democratic National Committee.
Candidates don't seem to be threatened by the potential penalties from the national parties.
Clinton heads to Miami
Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton planned to campaign in the Miami area Monday at the same time the governor scheduled the bill signing.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will also continue to campaign in Florida, said spokeswoman Jen Psaki.
On Friday, the early primary was the first thing Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani talked about during an Orlando luncheon.
"I know how important your state is," the former New York mayor said. "Your primary is also going to be a very, very early primary. You're going have lots of presidential candidates here. It's going to do wonders for your economy because we're going to spend millions and millions of dollars on television."
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain also plans to be a frequent visitor.
"We're going to have a very aggressive campaign in the state. You'll see more of Sen. McCain," said spokesman Terry Nelson.

Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan said Florida's early primary adds to the lure of his state's caucus "as the first in the nation."
"It's compressed the schedule so much that it puts the candidates in a position where they cannot have a misstep," Brennan said. "If they underperform in Iowa, whether in reality or in perception, they may not be able to come back."
The early primaries will also make money an even bigger factor than in past years, said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.
"The one certainty is that the front-loading of the primary season will winnow the field rapidly. In a few months, we're not going to see a dozen candidates on the Republican side because they're not going to be able to afford the cover charge," Pitney said.

Don't be hoodwinked and bamboozled, Jewish people. Read this.

http://www.google.com/search?q=How+Obama+Learned+to+Love+Isreal&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Rachel
a year and a half ago, my son gave me the "Audacity of hope". I am 50 years old and until this last year have voted republican my whole life. I cried through out this book. I may differ than you in my opinion, however I think by the context of your post , I probably arrived at my opinion with more than just a srambling of conservative blogs and emails. I was wondering if you read this could you give me the page you read that on. I have the book right here and was just wanting to refresh my memory. I am certain you know exactly what page it is on. After all you shared it with all of us

Thomas Jefferson is really Hillary's gay lover.

TO: Thomas Jefferson | May 22, 2008 9:55 PM post

Here's what this election is about:

This Presidential Election is not about skin color, or gender, or liberal vs. conservative.

Its about .... BIG MONEY --and 29 nuclear power plants.

(Florida will be getting at least one of those nuclear reactors).

WHY has NBC, MSNBC, CBS (& FOX & CNN) been putting out PRO-Obama/Anti-Clinton PROPAGANDA...everyday all day long - since last November?

ANSWER: Because Obama is PRO-Nuclear & he voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill; Clinton is NOT Pro-Nuke & Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill.

GE owns NBC & MSNBC, Westinghouse owns CBS ... & Thanks to the Cheney Energy Bill they are planning to reap BILLIONS in profits (Risk-Free) from building 29 new nukes AND from 30-40 years of HIGHER ELECTRICITY RATES.

(GE & Westinghouse have been pumping $Billions of ADVERTISING dollars for all their PRODUCTS - Into Every FORM of MEDIA, for generations.)... ANY MEDIA that even MENTIONS The Cheney Energy Bill, let alone provides any real COVERAGE of one of the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES of our time ---KNOWS they would put themselves at risk of a losing a lot of $$$ ADVERTISING Revenue).

Other participants in Cheney's NExt Big
MONOPOLY POWER
---ENERGY RIPoff---
Excelon Corp. of ILLINOIS, Entergy (owners of many utilities in the Southern States); 3 consortiums of nuke industry corporations.

McCain voted for the Cheney Energy Bill & has already said on the campaign trail: "I have to remember to say ... its absoultely necessary for...us...to build nuclear power plants."

Cheney, GE, Westinghouse (NBC,MSNBC,CNN,FOX,CBS ...(The TV MEDIA)... the nuke industry...Are running Obama AND McCain for President.

The only way we are going to get the NEW Clean Green ENERGY / ECONOMY we NEED is the election of Clinton to the Presidency. We cannot afford to squander hundreds of $Billions on Obsolete 70-yr old nuclear power plants.

Last week's NEWS: The governor of South Carolina is refusing to allow the Federal govt. to ship 30 tons of plutonium into South Carolina---until the Feds provide him with a written agreement that the Feds will --REMOVE-- the plutonium from South Carolina---in the event their plans to produce nuke reactor FUEL are --- unsuccessful.

The govt. wants to move 30 TONS of plutonium from the western states to South Carolina to locate it closer to the 29 nukes to be built in many of the Eastern & Southern states.

(See Map at NY Times LINK showing locations where the first 17 reactors are to be built): "Energy Bill aids Expansion of Atomic Power"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1211360505-THF+hgbTrxetSkzjIgoiAw

(BTW a microscopic particle of plutonium, once inhaled, will kill you from lung cancer in about a week.)

Plans to build those nuclear power plants are well advanced - with licensing hearings already scheduled for the first few.

If you think nukes are ok... just
GOOGLE: Rocky Flats Denver plutonium, and, Hanford WA nuclear waste.

Sound far-fetched, to you ... The MEDIA in league with the Big Corporations (GE, Westinghouse, et al)...to Pull Off Cheney's NEXT Big Energy Ripoff...by PROMOTING a FAKE Democrat Candidate to run against, and lose to, the REPUBLICAN Candidate? Think about it:

SAME MEDIA that helped Bush/Cheney LIE us into a WAR. SAME MEDIA that sold the American public Bush/Cheney ---- Twice.

SAME Corporations that OWN the MEDIA --- are planning to reap hundreds of BIllions in Profits --RISK FREE-- thanks to the Cheney Energy Bill which decreed that US TAXPAYERS will PAY Back any of the nuke building loans that Default.--- (WITH the Congressional Budget Office rating the risk of default at 50% or greater.)

(From a Taxpayer/Risk/ODDS point of view The Cheney Energy Bill might as well have said --- let any nuke industry company go get bank loans for 5-10 $Billion --- then go to VEGAS & Place Their Bets--and--YOU the People Will PAY BACK Every Penny they LOSE.)

No new nukes were built in the US for 30 years because, following 3 Mile Island & Chernobyl, the banks wouldn't loan the money --- too risky.

PLEASE ---Pass the Word any way you can. Since
the TV "News" has now become nothing but Obama Propaganda, its up to We The People to get the REAL NEWS out.

i.e. You BUY the Cheney Energy Ripoff or Vote Clinton.

QUESTION: How did the Florida primary date get moved up to Jan 29th --- earlier than allowed by the DNC?

ANSWER: The Republicans did it. The Republicans have an overwhelming MAJORITY in the Florida Legislature. They voted to move it up. The Democrats tried to amend the bill to move the primary to a date IN FEB (Ok by the DNC Rules) --- but the Republicans defeated it.

Next, the Republicans attached the Primary MoveUP date to an omnibus bill --- that included a requirement for a PAPER TRAIL for the 2008 election. The REPUBLICANS had more thatn enough VOTES to PASS the bill. Nothing the Democrats could do about that, but they did not want to be ON THE RECORD as having VOTED AGAINST the Paper Trail, so they all Voted for it too.

Now, the Republicans can say ... well, all the Democrats voted to move up the primary, so it was the that Democrats did it.

That is just a Big Lie tho. The FACT is the Republicans MOVED UP the Florida Primary Vote TO MAKE TROUBLE IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. They have succeeded in dong that, but there is NO REASON on EARTH
for the DEMOCRATIC Party to LET the Republicans get away with: MAKING Florida's Votes NOT COUNT.
****************************************************
Dude, your propaganda doesn't fly. You might be stupid enough to believe this tripe. But nobody with the ability to reason will.
The TRUTH is, the DEMOCRATS in Florida did it ALL BY THEMSELVES.

Obama promises change? WHAT CHANGE? Obviously, we've become so appathetic, lazy, defeated, worn down and tired that we've reduced our expectations to sooth saying platitudes. Pie in the sky. Obama... WHERE is the evidence that he's changed anything whatsoever. There isn't any.
SO... we BLAH BLAH. Let's vote for who's got the best BLAH BLAH. 'Cause that's what we deserve. And this next election... WE WILL GET EXACTLY WHAT WE ALL DESERVE and it's not going to be anything good. We've lost our stomach to stand for anything. Our enemies know it. And trust me... if you think you can TALK to them diplomatically... then I hope whatever you're smoking keeps you real numb for what happens afterwards. Because our enemies don't want our country, our cars, our land, our jewels, our gold, our technologies, our music, our medicine, or our women. All they want is our death and our destruction. You can blame whom ever it is if it makes you feel good about it, good about yourself or good about your party/politics... but the fact is, the rest of the world doesn't see things the way you & I do. They see ONE thing... America is divided, weak, spoiled and tired and once they figure out that we've got no stomach left... they'll put us out of our misery once and for all. If we don't get smart and wake up soon, it'll be OVER WITH soon enough. They warned us a long time ago that they would defeat us from within... and they're right on schedule.

The mantra for Obama is change. I admit he's a new face and a new
color, but can anyone clue me in on how, politically, he is different
from the other candidates? I mean this as a serious question, and I'd
appreciate serious answers. So far, Teddy Kennedy seems
representative of those who flock to the Obama standard, in that
they're mesmerized by what he's not -- he's not a Republican, he's not
Clinton, and he's not white -- but no one seems to articulate what he
is. And as a voter, since I think there's a good chance I'll be stuck
with him as my President, I'd like a strong handle on what he
actually stands for.

His website, by the way, does not help. I've gone to his issues page
and discovered a few things that indicate that he's almost identical
to every other Democrat, except in the area of Iraq, where he's not
just a fool, but a damned fool.

First off, to the extent he has a little quotation at the top of his
web page, what the heck does it mean? "I'm asking you to believe. Not
just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm
asking you to believe in yours." My what? My believing in belief? My
personal ability, as a Mom in Marin to change Washington? I keep
thinking of Peter Pan and Tinker Bell, with that theory going along
the lines of "If you believe in fairies, clap your hands." This
supports my belief that he's a master of meaningless platitudes, a
demogogue who says nothing but who, like Chance the Gardener, enables
people to attach their own meanings to his banal statements.

But back to his issues page. As far as I can see, when it comes to
the economy, he's promising to expand the government, which strikes
me as same old, same old Democratic stuff. He's going to give a large
rebate to those who pay the least in taxes (which means he's going to
raise taxes against everyone else). He's going to force government
preschools, something that was tried in California and that, thank
goodness, failed. There aren't a whole lot of details, but there are
promises: I'll make schools better; I'll be a tough negotiator, I'll
sneak a national health care plan in under the guise of benefitting
small businesses. And on and on. It sounds like a typical Democratic
plan for more government involvement in people's lives and finances.
No change here.

On Iraq, he opens by announcing that yeah, well, the Surge worked,
but it didn't work well enough to suit Obama's high standards
(whatever the heck they are when it comes to Iraq). Obama does assure
us that he knows what he's doing in Iraq, not because he's studied
military strategy, or the political situation in Iraq, or Islamic
fundamentalism, or the Middle East, but because he voted against the
war. Even if I agreed with his "no" vote, which I don't, I'd feel
compelled to add that even a stopped watch is right twice a day. It
doesn't mean Obama has any understanding of the complex situation in
Iraq. Also, to the extent someone is whispering in his ear, I'm not
thrilled about the radical pro-Palestinian whisperer he's chosen.
Since Obama has professed that his only qualification to deal with
Iraq is his "NO, NO, NO" stance it's scarcely surprising that his
entire Iraq strategy is to bring all Americans home ASAP. It didn't
work in Vietnam, when it paved the way for the Killing Fields, and
I'm quite sure that, if Obama succeeds in this plan, Vietnam and
Cambodia will look positively benign compared to what happens in Iraq
when he whistles the troops home. Oh, and by the way, once he's
removed the iron hand, Obama assures us that he'll use his empty
velvet glove to really, seriously, pretty-please ask the Iraqis to
get along with each other. I'm sure that will work. I lost heart
about here and couldn't make myself read the rest of his Iraq page.
The man is a lightweight. He'll certainly change things in Iraq, but
only for the worse.

On homeland security, which marches hand in hand with Iraq, Obama
makes a few obvious promises, none of which are harbingers of change:
he'll guard chemical plants and water supplies, help families unite
in emergencies, and track nuclear waste. Laudable goals all and, as
far as I know, they're already part of national homeland policy.
Obama makes no reference whatsoever to the reason why we might need
homeland security, something that was not on the political agenda ten
years ago. Apparently we're protecting these things against
chimerical beings, without form or identity. Change? For a Democrat
with a head buried deeply in the sands of denial, I don't think so.

Healthcare? He'll nationalize it, an idea that's old (think
Hillarycare), so I'm still looking for change.

On faith, Obama assures us he has it, but I have to admit to being a
bit worried about the company he keeps, given that his minister is an
outspoken antisemite and black supremacist. Kind of makes you wonder
about Obama's own deeply held beliefs. This really isn't a change
issue, unless you think it's a change to have a closet antisemite,
black supremacist in the White House.

And how about the judiciary? Well, Obama doesn't really say. That is,
he has no tab for "judiciary," so you kind of have to guess.
Considering that he supports unlimited abortion rights, and
considering that, whether you support abortion or not, you have to
concede (if you're honest) that it's not a right hidden in the
Constitution, one has to assume that he will advance judges who
believe in creative Constitutional interpretation. As you know, I am
someone who forces myself to be honest here, because I'm ambivalent
about abortion. I've grown up believing in it, and I think there is a
narrow place for it (which doesn't mean it's an alternative for birth
control), and would hate to see it vanish entirely. I'm enough of a
Constitutional purist, though, that I believe we should arrive at
abortion rights (whatever they end up being) either through
appropriate states' rights action or through a national
Constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court's cheating in 1973
cheapened the Courts and the Constitution.

Anyway, I didn't mean to go on for such a long time about Obama, but
I truly don't see any "change" in him, aside from the fact that his
election, if it occurred, would change us over from a Republican to a
Democratic administration, with all the accompanying ideological
changes that would inevitably occur with such a shift. As far as I
can see, the only differences he has from Hillary are that he's black
and she's white; he's male and she's female; and he's an idiot when
it comes to Iraq, while she's a pragmatist. Oh, and he's quite
possibly a closet black supremacist and antisemite, neither of which
are labels I like to see near an American president.

So, if you can offer concrete reasons why Obama is a genuine agent
for real change (as opposed to snarky comments or meaningless
adulation), please use my comments section for that purpose.
Otherwise, I still think Obama's a stuffed shirt, with little to
offer in any significant areas of government, except for a real
chance to be profoundly, dangerously stupid when it comes to
America's security. And if you can't offer any reasons, can you
explain to me why everyone is jumping on the Obama bandwagon when
he's precisely the same as the other candidates, only with even less
experience!!!!

http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/what-will-obama-change/

>>>>>
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

He'd get elected if he'd cut ALL ties with Israel.
And ALL welfare to Israel.
We'd get $.50 a gallon gas if he'd nuke Israel.

QUESTION: How did the Florida primary date get moved up to Jan 29th --- earlier than allowed by the DNC?

ANSWER: The Republicans did it. The Republicans have an overwhelming MAJORITY in the Florida Legislature. They voted to move it up. The Democrats tried to amend the bill to move the primary to a date IN FEB (Ok by the DNC Rules) --- but the Republicans defeated it.

Next, the Republicans attached the Primary MoveUP date to an omnibus bill --- that included a requirement for a PAPER TRAIL for the 2008 election. The REPUBLICANS had more thatn enough VOTES to PASS the bill. Nothing the Democrats could do about that, but they did not want to be ON THE RECORD as having VOTED AGAINST the Paper Trail, so they all Voted for it too.

Now, the Republicans can say ... well, all the Democrats voted to move up the primary, so it was the that Democrats did it.

That is just a Big Lie tho. The FACT is the Republicans MOVED UP the Florida Primary Vote TO MAKE TROUBLE IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. They have succeeded in dong that, but there is NO REASON on EARTH
for the DEMOCRATIC Party to LET the Republicans get away with: MAKING Florida's Votes NOT COUNT.

You can read the whole story at this link:

http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/#q5

OBAMA - What Change? ***TWANG*** You're a Frog!

I have been searching the web for insight concerning the next presidential election. In my searching and reading... it was EASY to figure out why I didn't want Hillary in the White House because I was able to examine REAL substance concerning her current views and positions, and weigh the evidence of "what she said" with "what she actually did" in her past political performance. Without going into detail, I was able to discern WHAT she stands for, and form my responses to it. I was also satisfied to follow the same process with McCain. BOTH have a past I can examine. BOTH (on most issues), are fairly clear about who they are and what they'd do IF elected. As a result... I have declared myself a political orphan this election. I have concluded that THIS election is a sham of unprecedented dimensions. Here we are in the midst of the worst problems we've ever faced, and we've got THREE JOKERS running for president.

So... what's left? Obama. Well I've been watching Obama. And although I think he's a very good oratator, speaker, presenter and he LOOKS like someone who has it together, I am stumped to explain to myself HOW this man could sit in a clearly racist church for 20 years. I mean... here's a guy who is offering us CHANGE. He's also offering LEADERSHIP... and he claims that he's qualified to make critical decisions for the country. But after hearing Rev. Wright's hate- teach, Obama just sat there for TWENTY YEARS! It doesn't take a wrecking ball for me to see; that if Obama couldn't pick his ass up and leave that church 19 1/2 years ago, that he is no leader. He didn't CHANGE his church affiliations. He didn't CHANGE his racist political associations. He didn't CHANGE his support for men who OBVIOUSLY supported and even awarded Louis Farakhan, an anti-semite, anti-white racist "Man of the Year" 2007! And Obama didn't CHANGE ANYTHING until the media & public opinion FORCED him to. And I'm sorry... but that nice little "B&W racial" speech he gave in Philadelphia just didn't FIX IT for me. WORDS mean things... and if they do... DEEDS precede and follow. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is 19 1/2 years too late.

So... as a result... I have been looking for reasons WHY people believe in this man who obviously doesn't BELIEVE HIS OWN SPEAK!!! Because if he did, the above two paragraphs wouldn't need written.

I have been looking for substance concerning Obama's claims for CHANGE. And I can't come up with substantive comparable's to Hitlary or McLame. Obama offers us a collection of empty political rhetoric tantamount to political vapor-ware! No Substance. No history to support it. Nothing but ambiguous WORDS. I'm sorry... being a good speaker isn't a qualification for being a leader, much less a President!

I searched the web, and I "GET IT" that Obama is offering CHANGE. BUT WHAT CHANGE? Obama has yet to define it. I can't define it. Nobody can. Promises are one thing. HOW is another. I emailed a few of my black friends in Ohio... and they told me they're as lost as I am concerning Obama. WHAT CHANGE are we looking for and if things CAN BE CHANGED, does it matter HOW anyone DOES IT??

GERMANY got "CHANGE" once... and it wasn't a good change. I see that Obama proposed a house bill proposing that the American people commit to paying over $850-billion in handouts to "a world poverty tax." Are we going to do that while we're chasing our own families out of their homes due to foreclosure because there's no jobs left here? Talk about NAFTA taking jobs away and allowing corporate fascism to control our government, and leaving Americans with no jobs and a run away inflationary economy headed into depression!!! READ THIS!>>
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/2/20/does-obama-want-a-trillion-dollar-global-tax.html

WHAT DOES OBAMA MEAN WHEN HE SAYS THE WORD, CHANGE!!!????? And when he refers to these changes... HOW does he justify doing it? You might be tired of the same old Washington CRAP. I sure am. I'm for change BIG TIME! But WHAT change are we talking about!!??? I have no idea who I'm voting for... but it won't be Obama... and I might have to vote for Ron Paul. *blech*

As much as I hate to say it, we'd be better off just where we are. Which I'm horrid to say, but: better alive than dead.

Below is an article that best describes what I concluded myself concerning Obama's so-called "doctrines of change."

John Ryskamp must be an intern in an attempt to be in a legal setting...

or you are insane. John Ryckamp? Lots of BS you wrote....anywhere on the US Constitution that Obama may have violated?

Sen. Barack Obama in his own words.

From his book; The Audacity of Hope

"I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS SHOULD THE POLITICAL WIND SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION".....

From his book: Dreams of my Father

"I CEASED TO ADVERISE MY MOTHER'S (WHITE) RACE AT THE AGE OF 1 2 OR 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"

" I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S (WHITE) RACE".

"The emotion between the races could never be pure.....THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART"

" I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S (WHITE) RACE".

THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART"

John Ryskamp
What a pontificating puffed up peacock you must be. I am glad you are just a post and nobody I will likely get stuck next to on a plane or bus or check out counter.

What strikes me as funny in this whole article, and many of your comments here, is look at the crowd he was trying to connect with.An older, traditional temple with senior members extremely aware of the political and security situation of Israel,, yet not one of them asked a single question about how this helps AMERICA!!!
Sure, we are now Israel's closest alli in an abysmall situation for them, yet why do we, The USA have to carry the burden,, didnt the UK disrupt and inject the Jewish people into the Mid-east??? So as these supposed Americans question Obama about Israel, and his ties to Jews here and abroad,, about how will he respond to terrorist talk from the middle east,,, sounded a bit like Israelites in America, rather than Jewish Americans,,

The policies we have supported for 60 years in the middle east have made billions of dollars for some, including Israel, yet when do we, the AMERICAN people, get our dues returned to us.. We helped protect you, we supply weapons and armament, we have tried diversion and separation with no effect to change in the middle east, its the way it is because its the way it will allways be, yet we the Americans keep sending millions and millions to no end, and to no compromise,no end in sight for turmoil.We should all be ashamed of the process that has been forced on the mid east, not just by us, but for hundreds of years and all the blood spilt in the holiest of lands known to our modern times, and we fight over it like children over a toy.. Pretty pathetic

John Ryskamp or whoever you are, you are as shameless a liar as Hillary "Tuzla" Clinton.

What nonsense. Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Rezco and there is NO wrongdoing on Obama's part at all.

Wanna talk about why the Clintons refuse to release the donor list to the Billary Presidential Library? Or Norman Tsu? Or Monica?

1.FROM:AUDACITY OF HOPE "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction". In Obama's own words.

2.Obamas's church Trinity United Church of Christ(where he renewed his membership) reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group's official charter - which calls for the murder of Jews - to America's Declaration of Independence.

3.Hamas Endorsement:We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections," Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he's a friend of the Israelis ...

4.Robt. Malley, Obama's foreign policy advisor meets with Hamas...Be Afraid My Jewish Friend, very afraid.

I vanna Obama.

Let me tell you what, anyone who thinks Mccain has any chance, in November all you will need to say is "Roe vs Wade, and all Hillarys supporters will hop right back to Obama.

+++++++++
Well if the race is between and the Hitler lover McCain, who do you think the Jew vote will go to? hmmm
http://www.theidaexpress.com

Posted by: Ida | May 22, 2008 8:39 PM

I didn't hear anyone complaining when we talked to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, even after Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev said to the U.S., "We will bury you." It wasn't long after that statement that Richard Nixon, U.S. vice president, went to Moscow and engaged Khruschev in what became known as the "kitchen debate."
Sterling Greenwood
Aspen Free Press

Well if the race is between and the Hitler lover McCain, who do you think the Jew vote will go to? hmmm
http://www.theidaexpress.com

Good response by Obama. He will have time to calm some fears. There are people of all stripes who get nervous when politicians talk or associate with folks that disagree with them on anything. Does he want Obama to be Bushist, and govern with his head in the sand?

I am in Florida and Obama was well received. Most were very impressed with him. Hillary on the other hand was laughed at. As one woman in Boca who was there put it, "I think she may be insane".

I'll bet the man who asked that question believes there was sniper fire at the Tuzla airport. I bet he does not believe that Bill sent Chelsea and Hillary there so that he could have quality time with Monica.

OBAMA'S UPCOMING INDICTMENT IN THE REZKO SCANDAL

Obama will be charged under 18 USC 1346, the "mail fraud honest services" section.
The best place to go for a detailed picture of the facts, is Evelyn Pringle's series at opednews.com. The titles of the parts are below.

After them is an extended but clear explanation of this section of the law. Once you read it and understand it thoroughly, you will see--comparing it to Obama's acts in Pringle's articles--that Obama faces innumerable charges of violating this law. Indeed, there may be more counts in Obama's indictment than there are in Rezko's. There are 24 Rezko counts, involving 18 USC 1346.

Thursday, May 22, 2008
Final Chapter - Curtain Time for Barack Obama
Judging from the indictments in Board Games unsealed so far, Obama's legal culpability at this point anyways, stems from his involvement in setting up and receiving money from the pay-to-play schemes.

Sunday, May 18, 2008
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part V
If the Combine's plot to get rid of Patrick Fitzgerald and shut down Board Games had worked, Rezko would have landed an office right smack in the middle of the White House.

Friday, May 16, 2008
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part IV
The solution to the problems arising from the unsuccessful attempts to shut down Operation Board Games would be for Barack Obama to become president and issue a bipartisan pardon to all members of the "Combine" who funded his seat in the US Senate. The scam worked when Scooter Libby took the fall for the Bush administration.

Thursday, May 15, 2008
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part III
Three days after the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Aiham Alsammarae, the former electricity minister convicted of corruption in Iraq, put up $2.7 million in property to help raise $8.5 million to free Tony Rezko from jail in Chicago, the Times reported that Alsammarae had contributed six times to Obama's presidential campaign.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II
If the Combine's plot with the Bush administration to shut down Operation Board Games had worked, Obama would be home free. But it failed and the Republicans are just waiting to air the roadmap of dirt pieced together from Fitzgerald's investigation if Obama is nominated. McCain is in the clear because there is no sign of his involvement anywhere.

Monday, May 12, 2008
Curtain Time For Barack Obama - Part I
Republicans have enough damaging information against Barack Obama to knock him off the ballot before the November election. Those at the top of the Democratic Party know this by now and voters need to recognize that if they nominate him they are throwing the election. Nothing else can explain why they would allow this disaster to happen.

Friday, April 18, 2008
Barack Obama - Subplots of Operation Board Games - Part I
(9 comments) If Obama becomes the nominee, the Republicans will unleash a non-stop expose of Obama in the mainstream media that will make the swift boat attacks against John Kerry seem trivial. Only this time, they won't have to make lies because the truth will be on their side.

On 18 USC 1346

http: //www. groom.com/_library/downloads/NAPPAArticle-Feb2006.pdf.

This article provides brief guidance as to the manner in which courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes of federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively), a "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a "scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services." Specifically, this article examines the manner in which courts have interpreted the broad language of § 1346 in circumstances that do not involve the explicit bribery of public officials.

I.
Background

18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes of reversing the Supreme Court's decision in McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally, the Supreme Court overruled a long line of lower court decisions by holding that the federal mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes to defraud citizens of an intangible right to honest government service from pubic officers. Id. at 355. By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress restored "honest services" within the ambit of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that a scheme to deprive the public of "honest services" by a public official could be punished as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that such an instrumentality was used as part of the scheme or artifice).

II.

Judicial Interpretations of the "Honest Services" Fraud

A.

General Parameters of the Statute

Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have analyzed the "honest services" fraud set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is in addition to other charges. However, there have been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against public officials (and those who have corrupted public officials) for transactions that do not involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless involve the provision of cash or gifts to a public official in exchange for the public official's exercise of power on behalf of the individual or entity providing the gratuity.

Courts have recognized that the term "honest services," as used in § 1346, is incredibly broad, but the statute has survived repeated challenges asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague, with courts resorting to a "common sense" usage of the phrase "honest services." In rejecting a constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute's wording, one court opined that "[c]oncrete parameters outlining the duty of honest services should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the duty of honest services sufficiently conveys warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in terms of common understanding and practice." U.S. v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp. 162, 171 (S.D. W. Va. 1993), aff'd. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995). Another court demonstrated little patience for the defendant's void-for-vagueness challenge in the context of a kickback scheme, holding that "[i]t should be plain to ordinary people that offering and accepting large sums of money in exchange for a city councilman's vote is a type of conduct proscribed by the language of § 1346." U.S. v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, courts have refused to allow § 1346 to be used as a "catch-all" that subjects every unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire fraud prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th

Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that "not every breach of fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud"); U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir. 2003) ("the right to honest services is not violated by every breach of contract, breach of duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made in the course of dealing"). Recognizing the difficulty of interpreting the undefined phrase "honest services," courts have attempted to establish general criteria that must be satisfied to successfully assert an "honest services" fraud claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting the scope of the honest services fraud is the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that: First, . . . honest services convictions of public officials typically involve serious corruption, such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of public officials, or the failure of public decision-makers to disclose conflicts of interest. Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud statute . . . does not encompass every instance of official misconduct that results in the official's personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . . the government must not merely indicate wrongdoing by a public official, but must also demonstrate that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to prevent or call into question the proper or impartial performance of the public servant's official duties. U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the First Circuit's prior decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has held that "[m]isuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state law fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime." U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655 (7 th Cir. 1998). The court went on to note that "in almost all of the intangible rights cases decided . . . (before McNally or since § 1346), the defendant used his office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe in exchange for official action[,]" but also noted that "[s]ecret conversion of information received in a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against the owner of that information." Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit summarized its test for an honest services fraud as follows: "[a]n employee deprives his employer of his honest services only if he misuses his position (or the information he obtained in it) for personal gain" (emphasis added). Id. at 656-57.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tenth Circuit has likewise held that cases involving § 1346 "must be read against the backdrop of the mail and wire fraud statutes, thereby requiring fraudulent intent and a showing of materiality." U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir. 2003). However, the Tenth Circuit unequivocally rejected the Seventh Circuit's position that a public official must seek "personal gain" to violate § 1346, stating that while it was unwilling to "define the exact contours of honest services fraud or the proof necessary to sustain it . . . to require an allegation of intent to personally gain would suggest that [a defendant is] justified in using whatever means necessary to achieve [his or her] goals . . . ," which the Court was unwilling to do. B. What Constitutes an Honest Services Fraud? As noted above, the language of § 1346 is not helpful in categorizing what specific conduct by a public official is prohibited, and courts have been unwilling to set forth a litany of proscribed acts, instead setting forth general parameters that must be satisfied to successfully assert an honest services fraud. It should be noted, however, that Justice Stevens, in his dissent in McNally (vindicated by Congress' reversal of McNally), stated the following: In the public sector, judges, State Governors, chairmen of political parties, state cabinet officers, city alderman, Congressmen, and many other state and federal officials have been convicted of defrauding citizens of their right to honest services of their governmental officials. In most of these cases, the officials have secretly made governmental decisions with the objective of benefiting themselves or promoting their own interests, instead of fulfilling their legal commitment to provide the citizens of the State or local government with their loyal service and honest government. McNally, 483 U.S. at 362-63 (emphasis added). The basic concept on an honest services fraud "is that the public is not getting what it expects and deserves: honest, faithful, disinterested service from a public official. This concept

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

applies whether the official is bribed or fails to disclose a conflict of interest." U.S. v. Mangiardi, 962 F. Supp. 49, 51 (M.D. Penn. 1997). Addressing what constitutes an honest services fraud in the context of a union officer's duty toward his union, a court held that "'honest services' contemplates that in rendering some particular service . . ., the defendant was conscious of the fact that his actions were something less than in the best interests of the employer--or that he consciously contemplated or intended such actions. For example, something close to bribery." U.S. v. Boyd, 309 F. Supp.2d 908, 913 (S.D. Tex. 2004). Underlying § 1346 is the notion that "a public official acts as 'trustee for the citizens and the State . . . and thus owes the normal fiduciary duties of a trustee, e.g., honesty and loyalty to them. Theft of honest services occurs when a public official strays from this duty.'" U.S. v. Sawyer, 239 F.3d 31, 39 (1 st Cir. 2001).

When a government officer decides how to proceed in an official endeavor--as when a legislator decides how to vote on an issue--his constituents have a right to have their best interests form the basis of that decision. If the official instead secretly makes his decision based on his own personal interests--as when an official accepts a bribe or personally benefits from an undisclosed conflict of interest--the official has defrauded the public of his honest services. U.S. v. Lopez-Lukis, 102 F.3d 1164, 1169 (11 th Cir. 1999). According to the First Circuit, a public official can steal honest services from his public employer in two ways: (1) the official can be influenced or otherwise improperly affected in the performance of his duties, or (2) the official can fail to disclose a conflict of interest, resulting in a personal gain. U.S. v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46, 57 (1 st Cir. 1998) (relying upon the court's earlier decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1 st Cir. 1996).

In contrast, an employee's failure to perform his job adequately, or his failure to adhere to the government's code of conduct concerning permissible work-related activities, is not sufficient to Specific Instances Where Honest Services Fraud Has Been Found Most of the honest services fraud cases brought pursuant to § 1346 have involved, not surprisingly, clear-cut cases of bribery or the payment of "kickbacks" to public officials who exercised their influence on behalf of the person or entity paying such gratuity. Considering that bribery cases tend to be "clear cut," in that there is, at a minimum, an exchange of something of value in return for an official action, the matters below involve less certain areas, where honest services fraud has been found (or alleged) notwithstanding the lack of a clear cut exchange of valuable consideration.

Recent--and Well-Publicized--Cases Involving Claims of Honest Services Fraud

(a)

U.S. v. Abramoff

A recent case asserting honest services fraud involves disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. On January 3, 2006, Abramoff pleaded guilty to a three-count information charging him with conspiracy, honest services mail fraud, and tax evasion. The honest services fraud charges to which Abramoff pleaded guilty are extensive--but essentially boil down to his failure to honestly serve his clients, his employer, and his attempts to corrupt public officials. Abramoff's plea agreement, entered in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is available at click here (last visited January 16, 2006).

With respect to the honest services fraud against his clients, Abramoff admitted that he used his influence with Native American tribes that he represented on gaming matters to cause them to hire (at above-market prices) "grass roots" and "public relations" firms in which Abramoff had an undisclosed ownership interest, and from which he was being paid 50 percent of net profits, in addition to his lobbying fee from the tribes. Moreover, Abramoff admitted that he provided lobbying services to a Native American tribe in Texas that was seeking to reopen its gaming operations, without revealing that he had been paid millions of dollars by a Louisiana tribe to oppose all gaming legislation under consideration by the Texas legislature. Abramoff avoided disclosing the clear conflict of interest to his law firm by telling the Texas tribe that he was providing his lobbying services free of charge, while he simultaneously engineered the tribe's retention of a "grass roots" firm in which Abramoff had an undisclosed financial interest, and which paid Abramoff $1.8 million in fees as a result of the Texas tribe's retention.

ii.

Honest Services Fraud With Respect to Abramoff's Employer

During the time that Abramoff was employed by a law firm, Abramoff agreed to represent a wireless company in securing a license to install wireless telephone infrastructure in the House of Representatives. Rather than entering into a retainer relationship with Abramoff's law firm, Ambramoff instructed the wireless company to pay his fee to a non-profit entity that Abramoff founded, and that he used as a vehicle to fund trips and gifts for the politically influential. Abramoff did not disclose this arrangement to his employer, thus depriving his employer of fees to which it was entitled, which Abramoff admitted was an honest services fraud against his employer.

iii.

Honest Services Fraud--Corruption of Public Officials

The lengthiest portion of Abramoff's plea agreement concerns the allegations that Abramoff engaged in a conspiracy to commit honest services fraud by corrupting public officials by providing "a stream of things of value . . . in exchange for a series of official acts and influence and agreements to provide official actions and influence." (Abramoff Plea Agreement, ¶ 32). The things of value to which Abramoff pled guilty to providing included "foreign and domestic travel, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment, election support for candidates for government office, employment for relatives of officials, and campaign contributions." (Id.). Specifically, Abramoff pled guilty to providing "Representative #1" (since identified as Representative Bob Ney (R-OH)) and "Staffer #1" with such lavish items as all-expenses-paid trips to the Northern Marianas Islands, Scotland, and to Tampa, Florida (for the Super Bowl). Other things of value provided by Abramoff to Representative #1 and Staffer #1, however, were not so lavish--such as "comped" meals at Abramoff's Washington, DC restaurant--and included items that some may consider "normal" business expenses when it comes to politics, such as contributions to Representative #1's campaign committee and contributions to the Republican National Party. Abramoff's plea agreement states that he provided such things of value in exchange for public officials': agreements to support and pass legislation, agreements to place statements in the Congressional Record, agreements to contact personnel in the United States Executive Branch agencies and offices to influence decisions of those agencies and offices, meetings with Abramoff's . . . clients, and awarding contracts for services with . . . Abramoff's law firms. Id. at ¶ 33.

(b)

San Diego Pension Fund

Another very recent case involving allegations of honest services fraud in the context of public officials concerns the indictment of the former top executive of the San Diego City Employees Retirement System, the Retirement System's lawyer, and three former trustees of the Retirement System. The indictment, announced on January 6, 2006, alleges that the Retirement System's executive, its lawyer, and its former trustees committed honest services fraud by conspiring to approve enhanced retirement benefits for City of San Diego workers--including themselves--in exchange for allowing the City to underfund the Retirement System. According to the indictment, by early 2002, the Retirement System's funding status was approaching only 82.3 percent, and, at such level, a "funding trigger" would have been tripped, requiring the City of San Diego to make a massive cash infusion to the Retirement System. As the funding trigger was about to tripped, the City negotiated a labor agreement that enhanced

pension benefits for members of the municipal labor unions (including the indicted Retirement System employees), and the City advised the Board of the Retirement System that the increased pension benefits were "contingent upon" obtaining relief from the funding trigger that was about to be tripped. The indictment alleges that the indicted officials agreed to reduce the City's funding obligations with respect to the Retirement System, and that the vote to approve such relief was linked to the enhanced pension benefits that the officials would receive. According to the indictment, such conduct constitutes a conspiracy to deprive citizens of San Diego with their intangible right to honest services from public officials.

2.

"Pay-to-Play" Schemes Involving Campaign Contributions 3 The indictment is available at: click here

In U.S. v. Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428 (10 th Cir. 1987), the Tenth Circuit addressed a "pay- to-play" scheme involving the payment of campaign contributions by a bank for consideration for state business, which the court held to be violative of the Hobbes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (extortion). (It should be noted that the defendant was not charged with committing an honest services fraud, even though such a claim was viable at the time of the defendant's arrest and trial). At issue in Troutman was the Investment Officer of New Mexico, who advised a bank bidding for state business that it had to contribute to a fundraiser for the Governor of New Mexico. The United States successfully prosecuted the Investment Officer for extortion, and, on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction, noting that "[a]n extortion effort made under the color of official right is described as a public official's attempt to obtain money not due him or his office." Id. at 1456. The court went on to cite several cases from various circuits, holding, inter alia, that "[t]he coercive solicitation of political contributions is within the realm of actions that are illegal under the Hobbes act." Id. (quoting U.S. v. Cerilli, 603 F.2d 415, 421 (3d Cir. 1979), and citing U.S. v. Dozier, 672 F.2d 531, 540 (5 th Cir. 1982), and U.S. v. Williams, 621 F.2d 123, 124 (5 th Cir. 1980)). In U.S. v. Kemp, 379 F. Supp. 2d 690, 697 (E.D. Penn. 2005), the court upheld the conviction of the City Treasurer of Philadelphia, who was convicted of extortion and honest services fraud based upon his acceptance of bribes from people doing business with the City. In upholding Kemp's conviction for honest services fraud, the court noted that "there were specific intercepted communications where [a co-conspirator] and Kemp made agreements that because

certain individuals did--or in some cases did not--make the requested contributions to either political activities or charitable events, they were, or were not, going to receive City business." Id. Another case asserted an honest services fraud claim in the context of a "pay-to-play" scheme, although the scheme was not characterized as such. In Castro v. U.S., 248 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (S.D. Fla. 2003), the court addressed a "pay-to-play" kickback scheme in which judges serving on the Dade County (Florida) Circuit Court assigned criminal cases to selected defense attorneys who agreed to pay the assigning judges a percentage of the fees earned from each assigned case. The U.S. prosecuted the attorneys who participated in the scheme, alleging that the attorneys attempted to defraud the State of Florida of the judges' honest services. The court held that the defendants had committed an honest services fraud, noting that public officials have inherent fiduciary duties to the public, and that violations of such inherent fiduciary duty are proper predicates to convictions under § 1346, even if an underlying state law or regulation was not violated. ...