MSM Refuse to Release the Video Of Barack Obama Attending Jew-Bash & Toasting a Former PLO Operative...

Introduction: The LA Times is holding a video that shows Barack Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians who are openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama even gives a toast to a former PLO operative at this celebration. If the American public saw this side of Barack Obama he would never be elected president. But, the media refuses to release this video.

LA Times writer Peter Wallsten wrote about Barack Obama's close association with former Palestinian operative Rashid Khalidi back in April. Wallsten discussed a dinner held back in 2003 in honor of Khalidi, a critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights. Barack Obama has denied his close association with Khalidi, too.

According to Wallsten the evening not surprisingly turned into a classic Jew-bash:

"During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace." One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Barack Obama also praised the former PLO operative during the event. And, Obama confessed that his family often shared dinner with the Khalidis:

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world." ...The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Khalidi and the Obamas were great friends in Chicago and often shared meals together. By the way, Khalidi was also best friends with Bill Ayers.

On Wednesday I talked with Peter Wallsten from the Los Angeles Times about the article on Obama and Khalidi:

Wallsten was one of the few mainstream media reporters to report on this radical Obama associate. Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story.

I asked him if he was planning on releasing this video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at this Jew-bash. He told me he was not releasing the video. He also would not comment on his source for the video. Wallston also said he did not know if Khalidi's good friend Bill Ayers was at the event or not.

So, there you have it. The LA Times has video of Obama toasting a former PLO operative at a Jew-bash but will not release the video. This is outrageous.

Obviously, this video would do great damage to Obama who struggles with Jewish voters due to his circle of close anti-Semitic friends. Maybe this is the reason it is not being released?

More here






Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth, says Berg

'This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months'

The Pennsylvania Democrat who has sued Sen. Barack Obama demanding he prove his American citizenship - and therefore qualification to run for president - has confirmed he has a recording of a telephone call from the senator's paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya

The issue of Obama's birthplace, which he states is Honolulu in 1961, has been raised enough times that his campaign website has posted an image purporting to be of his "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release.

"This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States." He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961."

Berg said he's pursuing the issue because of "the most important document in the United States," the U.S. Constitution. "Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution," he said. "The Constitution's provisions are very small for qualifying for president. One, be over 35, and he is. Two, be in the country 14 years, and he has been. Three, be a natural-born citizen. He is not."

Obama campaign officials acknowledged the dispute by posting the image purporting to be a copy of his certification of live birth earlier this year. But they've declined to return WND requests for comment on the issues.

Berg addressed the existence of a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, featured on the Atlasshrugs2000 website, that suggests Obama was born in the city Aug. 4, 1961. But Berg explained to Savage he believes Obama's mother was near the end of her pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. The family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the newspaper announcement.

Besides Berg's lawsuit, several other court challenges also have been filed, including one in Washington state where petitioners are seeking to have the Washington secretary of state "verify Obama's eligibility" to serve prior to the election. The claim states, "The 'certificate' that Mr. Obama has posted on his official Website is a 'Certification of Live Birth,' and not a 'Birth Certificate' from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place." Berg also told Savage there is no information available on which hospital Obama's mother used in Hawaii.

The Washington state case also alleges, "Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen...

Berg said he believed it also was a complication that Obama's mother divorced his father, married and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at a time when, Berg said, only Indonesia citizens were allowed in schools. Records that are available from Indonesia revealed Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Islam.

When Obama later returned to Hawaii, within the United States, there should have been a government document affirming his citizenship, but that also cannot be found. If that was not processed properly, Berg said, Obama would be in a situation even worse than not being a natural-born citizen. "If he didn't go through immigration, he now is illegal and has been an illegal alien. He couldn't even hold the position of senator for Illinois," Berg said.

Further, Berg said he suspected Obama's college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that's why those records have been withheld by the campaign. "I really think it's because it probably indicates he's from Kenya, or Indonesia, or received foreign aid," Berg said. "I feel very confident saying these things," Berg told Savage.

Source

Berg v. Obama lawsuit dismissed - Berg appealing to U. S. Supreme Court

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned. According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution. What happened to `...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...' Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States," Berg said.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website - and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.

Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, "we" the people, are heading to a "Constitutional Crisis" if this case is not resolved forthwith.

Source






Obama campaign can't handle tough questions

WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it's some of the best entertainment he's seen recently. West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.

"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said. West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over. "I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife. "This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign. McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."



WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes." Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews. "Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions." Jordan added, "I'm crying foul on this one."

Source





Obama Bin Lyin'

Oh, yes. Obama's been lyin' for sure. Since ACORN has been in the news recently due to a twelve-state investigation for voter fraud, he has been lying fast and furiously about his close relationship with ACORN. This profitable association began in 1992.

There is a multitude of documentation that, in addition to representing ACORN in a suit against Illinois (the only relationship he admits to), he has served as a trainer for them every year since 1992, and directed a voter registration campaign for them which delivered 50,000 new voters (many of them fraudulent).

Obama claims that he was never a trainer for ACORN. But the photo below shows a young Obama teaching in a conference room at ACORN's Chicago headquarters. It accompanied an article in a frankly Socialist magazine written by ACORN "Community Organizer" Tony Foulkes in which she admits that, although ACORN's voter registration are supposed to be non-partisan by law (since they receive 40% of their funding by way of your tax dollars), that "in some elections we get to have our cake and eat it too: work on nonpartisan voter registration and GOTV, which also turns out to benefit the candidate that we hold dear."



Foulkes goes on to describe how ACORN delivered the Illinois Senate seat for Obama, "the candidate that we hold dear." And she states in the 2004 article that "We have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign."

I spoke to a gentleman today who said that Obama seems like a nice person; he thought Obama just had the wrong policies. The operative word in his sentence is "seems". Obama seems to be sincere. He seems to care about America. He seems to be truthful. He is none of those things. John McCain takes the high road; he says Obama is a "decent man." I don't think that this close to a crucial election we can afford the luxury of civility that prevents us from telling the truth. We have to call a spade a spade, not an agricultural implement. If the American citizenry doesn't realize in the next few weeks that Obama is the slickest liar ever to run for the White House, our country may elect the most dangerous man ever to occupy that office.

I always thought Bill Clinton was the best liar on the national scene. He lied even when he wasn't talking. Remember the famous incident when he was laughing and joking with a friend after Ron Brown's funeral? When he noticed a TV camera on him, he immediately assumed a somber expression, and somehow managed to produce a tear!

But Obama has him beat hands down. He's the chief chameleon in a profession full of them. He spoke a few months ago to a group of Jewish voters and gave them his solemn promise that Jerusalem would always belong to Israel. The VERY NEXT DAY he spoke to a group of Muslims, and said that he believed Jerusalem should be the capitol of Palestine. When he speaks to a mixed audience he talks like a college professor (which he claims to have been, but never was; he was only a lowly lecturer). But when he speaks to a predominantly black audience, he goes into his jive street guy act and starts speaking Ebonics.

Before we go further, let me describe ACORN. The acronym stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It was founded by left-over hippies and 1960's Communist radicals who decided they could accomplish more by becoming "Community Organizers" than they had by bombing "The Man" or (as they liked to call the police) "The Pigs." As you will see, Obama's ACORN engages primarily in voter fraud, but it also found time to be the founder of our nation's current housing and credit crisis. They call for the destruction of the Free Market System, which they believe is evil. And they believe, as Obama does, in "economic justice" (Socialist-speak for taking money from people who work, and giving it to people who don't).

As you read the next paragraph, remember that Obama has repeatedly, flatly denied in interviews and on his website that he has ever had any association with the Socialist ACORN organization other than representing them in one lawsuit. (There are public court records on the court case. Otherwise he would probably lie about representing ACORN in the case.)

Last month Obama reported to the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) that he had paid ACORN subsidiary CSI, Inc. $800,000 to do "sound and lighting" at his rallies. (Candidates must submit sworn statements of their campaign expenses under federal law.) Isn't it curious that the man who claims no association with ACORN would hugely overpay them for basically being stage hands? Remember, this was not for the huge extravaganza at the Temple of Obama during his convention. He probably did pay close to a million bucks for that sound and lighting! But the $800,000 was for local rallies.

It got curiouser a few weeks later. When his staffers realized that the fraudulent payment of $800,000 had been discovered, Obama quickly resubmitted his filing. This time, after blaming the error on a clerk, he claimed that only $200,000 was for sound and lighting. The other $600,000 was for "get out the vote" efforts on his behalf. Only two things are wrong with that. First, ACORN is sworn to be non-partisan in its voter fraud - excuse me, voter registration - efforts. Second, they are under investigation by at least 12 State Attorneys General for voter registration fraud. Over their 30 year history, there have been dozens of such investigations and many convictions for fraud. So why is the Democratic nominee for the highest office in the land giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Socialist organization that regularly violates state and federal law?

Concerning ACORN's supposed non-partisan voter registration efforts, I was amused when I watched an interview with an ACORN worker on national television last week. The young lady doing the interview asked the woman from ACORN some easy questions first. "How do you register people?" "Are people open to having you help?" Then she set the trap. "Who do you think the people you register will vote for?" Obama, of course. Who do you plan to vote for?" Same answer. Then she went for the kill: "Do you tell them they should vote for Obama?" The ACORN lady replied, "Sure I do!" Then, realizing what she had just admitted to, she practically ran away from the camera, yelling over her shoulder, "Uh, I gotta go!"

ACORN has submitted millions of fraudulent voter registrations in key battleground states for the presidential election. According to County Elections Supervisors in numerous states, one of their favorite is to gather registrations over several months, then submit hundreds of thousands of registrations on the last possible day. That way, officials don't have the time to weed out the bogus registrations for non-existent and dead people.

ACORN admits to hiring criminals to do their registration work, and claims that all the fraud is theirs, not ACORN's. And they claim that "voter registration fraud" is not a big deal. (It is, because confusion on the voter rolls could swing a tight election.) They claim it's only serious of "voter fraud" takes place, saying that just because an illegal or a felon registers doesn't mean they will vote. Really? Well the why does ACORN spend millions to obtain the fraudulent registrations? The only possible reason is that there will be fraudulent voting. By the way, I heard Obama use this exact ACORN justification in an interview a few days ago.

You will also be pleased to know that ACORN shares the blame with the Democrats in the Congress for the current financial crisis in our nation. Theirs was the largest group in the nation that did the "Community Organizing" that pressured Congress to force banks and mortgage companies to give housing loans to people who could not afford them. Any Senator or Congressman who didn't vote their way was threatened with being publicly branded a racist. That's powerful stuff. Most politicians would rather be accused of being a terrorist. So the Democrats followed ACORN's agenda, and when their reckless fiscal policies caused Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to be investigated, the Democrats protected the failed institutions. (Fannie and Freddie are the huge Government Sponsored Enterprises - GSE's - that backed the bad loans. They were recently taken over by the US Government because they were insolvent.)

Four years ago McCain and other Republicans pushed for strong regulation of Fannie and Freddie, which would almost have averted the current crisis. The Democrats never let it get out of Committee. (See the VIDEO LINK of a Senate Hearing on Fannie & Freddie below.) Two years ago McCain introduced legislation to save us from what he correctly believed was a looming housing crisis. The Democrat-controlled Congress shot it down to protect their buddies, the criminals running the GSE's.

The broader financial crisis today all stems from the housing crisis. The investment banking firms that have gone out of business all held these bad mortgage loans through the vehicle of derivatives. Ditto the many banks that failed, many of which also held these bad loans directly. And the AIG debacle occurred because AIG (the world's largest insurer, which our government recently bailed out to the tune of $85 Billion) insured the mortgage backed securities, which led to AIG's downfall.

As I detailed last week, our nation's housing crisis started more than 30 years ago under a Democrat President (Carter), and became truly radical under Bill Clinton. Yet the Democrats, led by their Messiah (as Obama's racist, anti-Semite buddy Louis Farrakhan calls Obama), persist in claiming that all this happened in the last eight years due to George W. Bush's "failed economic policies." The fact is that the "failed policies" of the Democrats, ACORN, and Fannie and Freddie are directly responsible for the worst drop in real estate values we have experienced, as well as the credit crisis that is crippling our economy. And Obama defends all of them.

The irony of all this is that when the $700 Billion bailout bill (which Nancy Pelosi proudly admits was written by the Democrats) was first introduced, it contained a huge payout to ACORN backed by Obama. Do you remember Treasury Secretary Paulson assuring the nation that we weren't just giving money to the financial institutions; that they would "pay the taxpayers back"? Well, Robin Hood Obama and his merry band of Democrats decided that the FIRST TWENTY PER CENT of the money paid back would go to ACORN! This would have meant tens of billions to ACORN (much of which would find its way into the pocks of Dem lawmakers. It took John McCain suspending his campaign and returning to DC to get that huge piece of pork surgically removed from the bill.

Source





Obama's foolish attack on capital

Tax Policy: Democratic nominee Barack Obama touts his tax plan as just a way to "spread the wealth." But to us it looks like something quite different: a declaration of war on capital. Obama has described his plan to hike taxes as "neighborliness," "patriotism" and "justice." In fact, it's the widest-ranging assault on capital - and those who create it - in at least a generation, possibly longer.

Look at just a few of the things he and congressional Democrats have in mind: Higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs (anyone earning over $250,000), higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on dividends, a possible raid on Americans' 401(k)s, a takeover of America's private health care industry, strict new limits on what CEOs can make, and the reimposition of the death tax.

Add it up, and Obama will usher in a new era in America - one where capital, the engine of our economic growth and success, is punished severely through the tax code. If Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, it'll be the only form of capital punishment their party will support.

Obama denies this, but listen to Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, who said just last week: "I believe later on, there should be tax increases. . . there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

And all this in the middle of what looks like a deep recession. This is a big reason why stock markets in the U.S. and abroad have plunged in recent weeks. As Obama climbs in the polls, investors have awakened to a stark fiscal reality.

This should worry all Americans. A 2005 study found 57 million U.S. households - 60% of the total - owned stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Average people don't realize they'll take a direct hit.

Higher taxes lower returns on capital. This means everything - wages, stock prices, real estate - will have to decline further as Obama's tax hikes take hold. That means fewer jobs. This reverses what has always been America's recipe for success: an economy built on low taxes, few regulations, free trade and, in general, letting markets decide winners and losers.

Obama says he's merely "spreading the wealth" - taking money from those who've earned it and giving it to those who haven't. But we already "spread the wealth." According to economists Gerald Prante and Andrew Chamberlain, the top 40% of households redistribute $1 trillion each year through the tax code to the bottom 60%. And yes, that includes the middle class.

By the way, the top 5% of earners - those squarely in Obama's tax-hike cross hairs - already pay 60% of all taxes. Obama's changes would skew that further. Worse, many of Obama's "get the rich" tax hikes are really targeted at successful small businesses that create nearly 90% of all U.S. jobs. Among tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more, some 67% report small-business income.

At this delicate time in our economic history, talk of tax hikes on wealth creators and capital is irresponsible - a recipe for the kind of market meltdowns we've seen repeatedly in recent weeks. Spread the wealth? More like, destroy it.

Source






The Secret of Obama's Success

The fantasy of unity and harmony

Barack Obama's success so far in this campaign is a puzzle. How is it that a youngish first-term senator with so many disadvantages -- a slight resume, a foreign-sounding name, an exotic background, a professorial manner, a thoroughly liberal voting record, and a skin color unlike any previous president -- has come so far, and even leads in national polls with less than two weeks to go?

He does have some things going for him, of course: his rhetorical skill, his unflappability and not least of all a financial crisis that reflects badly on the party occupying the White House. But none of those explains how he managed to defeat a daunting Democratic rival and outshine an inspiring war hero with demonstrated crossover appeal. If you had written the story as fiction a few years ago, publishers would have rejected it as grossly outlandish.

But the implausibility of the occasion is no deterrent to the 35,000 people who have turned out this weekday morning to see one of the few Democratic presidential candidates to imagine he might carry the staunchly Republican state of Indiana.

It is a racially mixed audience, and I meet a variety of participants, including a white factory worker, a black pharmacy technician, a group of white teens from Illinois in blue Future Farmers of America jackets and a black ex-Marine who teaches middle school. There is also a quartet of lively middle-aged women -- two white, two black -- who, after dancing happily to the warmup music, christen themselves the Michellettes.

And what did they hear from the man they came to see? Much of Obama's address consisted of standard campaign riffs, most of which could be delivered just as well by his opponent, on timeworn topics: the plight of the middle class, the need for tax relief, the unfairness of our health care system and the failure of economic policies that -- can you guess? -- "put Wall Street before Main Street."

But wait long enough, and you hear the indispensable passage, the one that transcends everything else he says. "There are no real and fake parts of this country," Obama declares. "We are not separated by the pro-America and anti-America parts of this nation -- we all love this country, no matter where we live or where we come from." America's veterans, he says, "have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America -- they have served the United States of America."

From the moment he vaulted into national consciousness with his inspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, this theme has lain at the heart of his approach and his appeal. "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States," he reminded us then. "We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States."

It is a message of fundamental unity and good will, at a time when politics often resembles Henry Adams' mordant description: "the systematic organization of hatreds." And it has worked especially well for Obama for several reasons. One is that, as the son of an African father and a white, Kansas-born mother, he embodies the diversity of America.

Another is that it contrasts so starkly with the message of the opposing camp. You have Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) saying "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God." You have Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) suspecting the Democratic nominee is "anti-American." You have Sarah Palin saying she loves "what I call the real America [the] very pro-America areas of this great nation." It's a strategy of fear and division, and it seems to be failing because Obama is not very scary and because the things that bind us together really are more powerful than the ones that push us apart.

Which brings us to the most important reason for the success of his message: It touches a chord that resonates not just across races and regions, but across more than two centuries of the republic's history. Whatever his errors, Obama's campaign and the followers it has inspired remind us of the essential meaning of America, captured in the motto adopted by the Founders: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. Not: Out of many, two.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)