Tuesday - October 14, 2008

‘I’ve lost faith in The Messiah’: How EDWARD HEATHCOAT AMORY lost his Obama-mania.

Ok people now this really is interesting.  It has me a bit lost though.

This Brit (like we need or want his input) is saying that O. is a fraud and a cheat and not exactly partial to the truth.  So, he is disillusioned with Obama but still wants him to be our president. ?? huh?  Oh yeah, he doesn’t want Mrs. Palin a heartbeat away from so much power. 

Earlier, Drew and Turtler (quickly becoming our site historian) had an interesting exchange of comments.

Here in this article I think are some of the issues that we should be talking about and trying to tell people about.  And it’s an Obama supporter who has the goods and spills the beans.  See what you think.  I believe it’s issues like these that Turtler is saying we need desperately to pursue.

This is not a short article and as a rule I’d post part of it and simply give you the link for the rest.  But not today.

Oh, one more thing.  This fellow doesn’t like President Bush’s cowboy boots or prayer meetings.  I’m trying to figure out just what his boots and prayers have to do with anything.  Seems a bit like snobbery to me.  His boots?  Why should this guy care if our prez. wears boots?

By Edward Heathcoat-amory
Last updated at 10:36 AM on 14th October 2008

Four years ago, during one of the dullest and most depressing American presidential election campaigns in living memory, I happened by chance to watch an obscure senator from Illinois deliver a speech to the Democratic National Convention.

It was electrifying. I can still remember the power of his voice, as he said: ‘I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.’

Barack Obama was the best political speaker I’d seen in my lifetime. And I wasn’t the only one who thought so. He walked off that stage a star, and four years later he is the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.
Obama-mania: Taking the world by storm

My enthusiasm that day is now shared by millions, in America and in Europe. He gives hope to those of us in Britain who admire what America stands for but can’t abide George Bush, with his cowboy boots, prayer meetings and appalling judgment - over Iraq, in particular.

For us, Barack Obama - who risked his career with a speech in 2002 against the war - seems to be the man who can decontaminate the American brand.

So I’ve rooted for Obama as he fought first to defeat Hillary Clinton and now John McCain, his admirable but not inspirational opponent. I’ve followed Obama’s speeches on YouTube, and they’ve gone on getting better.

I’ve listened to him narrate his own remarkable autobiography - Dreams From My Father - and I’ve willed him on to victory.

Then a friend recommended a short book entitled The Case Against Barack Obama, by a respected U.S. investigative journalist called David Freddoso, which has stirred up a storm of controversy in America since it was published in August.

Based on forensic research into Obama’s political background, it casts a fascinating light on his early years in politics, and in so doing debunks many of the compelling myths that have been built up around him.

‘Have a read,’ my friend suggested, ‘and see if you still feel the same.’ So I did. And the result has profoundly altered my views. Oh, I still want Obama to win. Sarah Palin may be a remarkable person, but I don’t want her a heartbeat away from leadership of the free world.

But when Barack Obama becomes President, as I still hope he will, I no longer expect him to change the world. As I shall explain, I’ve lost most of what Mr Freddoso would call my ‘Obamamania’. And here’s why.

First, let’s examine how Obama took his first significant step on to the political scene when be became a state senator for Illinois in January 1996.

It was a rather remarkable contest, in that Obama was elected unopposed. And the reason for that was that he had found a way to have all the other candidates removed from the ballot, including the incumbent.

Obama under the glare of the spotlight: He has at times played a dirty game to get into politics.

If you want to run for a U.S. state senate seat, you need the backing - ie, the signatures - of a minimum of 757 ordinary electors within your district.

Obama employed a special consultant, Ronald Davis, to look at each of the 1,600 signatures that the sitting senator, Alice Palmer, a member of his own party, had gathered. And Mr Davis found problems with so many that Palmer was dropped from the ballot, and for good measure he managed to have the other three candidates ditched as well.

According to a local newspaper, problems included ‘printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name’.

It was a legal electoral tactic, but a little odd from the man who had run ‘Project Vote’ - a campaign to persuade the disenfranchised to vote for the first time. Yet here was Obama disenfranchising those same voters in another way, using the toughest of political tactics to deny them a choice at the election.

Asked about it later, he said: ‘If you can win, you should win, and get to work doing the people’s business.’

The next telling aspect to the case against Obama is his attitude towards the corrupt politics of Cook County, the five-million-strong council area that includes Chicago.

Until recently, Cook County was run by John Stroger, the President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. And he ran an extraordinary political machine, in which a full 50 per cent of all the campaign contributions he received came from either employees on the county payroll, or contractors doing work for the county.

A federal investigation found that jobs were handed out not on merit, but thanks to personal connections with the Stroger machine. If you were a ‘soldier for Stroger’, you would get a job. And then, allegedly, you would in return contribute campaign funds to re- elect your political patron.
‘He was in a prime position to speak out against this appalling corruption. Instead, he did nothing’

‘He was in a prime position to speak out against this appalling corruption. Instead, he did nothing’

What’s that got to do with Obama? Well, as a local state senator and then as a U.S. senator for Illinois, he was in a prime position to speak out against this appalling corruption. Instead, he did nothing.

In fact, when a well-qualified liberal challenger, Forrest Claypool, stood against Stroger with support from both Democrats and Republicans, again Obama did nothing.

And when Stroger had a stroke, and his unqualified son, Todd Stroger, was nominated by the machine to replace him, again Obama did nothing.

Worse, he issued a statement saying that: ‘Todd Stroger is a good progressive Democrat who will bring those values and sensibilities to the job.’

Young Stroger won that election, and since his victory he has continued with his father’s patronage politics. For example, he gave his cousin, the county’s chief financial officer, a 12 per cent pay increase to $160,000 (£92,500), hired his best friend’s wife on $126,000 (£73,000), and appointed a childhood pal as his official spokesman.

Hardly the ‘good progressive Democrat’ whom Obama supported. But that was by no means Obama’s only connection with tainted political empires.

Obama has also enthusiastically endorsed Richard Daley, mayor of Chicago. Daley managed to cling to office despite a federal investigation into a widespread system of political patronage over which he presided.

Two of his aides were convicted in 2006 for running this system, and rewarding the mayor’s allies with jobs and promotions. One job applicant was actually in Iraq on the day that his supposed ‘interview’ took place, but still managed to score a perfect five out of five to secure a coveted position.

Yet in 2007, Obama endorsed Daley’s campaign for re-election as Chicago’s mayor, saying ‘the city overall has moved in a positive direction’.

This should come as no surprise, since Obama has inherited his chief spokesman and political adviser directly from Mayor Daley. David Axelrod worked for Daley for 15 years and has consistently defended him, arguing at the time that Daley’s men were about to go to jail: ‘The so-called machine doesn’t exist any more.’

Obama said earlier this year: ‘I think I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without becoming entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics.’ The evidence, unfortunately, suggests otherwise.

Freddoso’s case against Obama then moves on to his time in the U.S. Senate. Obama hasn’t been there long, but one of his much-trumpeted-achievements was the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, 2006.

This helped expose, and therefore limit, the system of ‘earmarking’, where legislators direct national funds to parochial local projects, often as part of dodgy deals to get their support for national legislation.

So it is doubly disappointing that in 2007, Senator Obama ‘earmarked’ $1 million for the University of Chicago medical centre. The vice-president of the centre is his own wife, Michelle Obama.

Indeed, she had received a pay rise of $200,000 (£115,500) at the very same time that Obama first became a senator - and thus able to organise earmarks. Coincidence? Or something more sinister? Obama insists the former, but it certainly doesn’t look good.

Change in the system: But Obama realised he could raise more than the limit and changed his policy

Then the book moves on to Obama’s single most disappointing decision. In the wake of Nixon’s Watergate scandal, state funding for Presidential elections was introduced as an option.

Under the terms of the deal, candidates can choose to receive a fixed sum of $84 million from U.S. taxpayers to pay their election expenses, but then can’t spend any more of their own money. Alternatively, they can opt to raise all their funds independently with no fixed ceiling.

Progressives have long argued for mandatory state funding, since it’s intended to make newly elected presidents less indebted to the donors who paid their way to the White House. So it was no surprise when, in 2006, Obama said he ‘strongly supported’ state funding.

In 2007, he promised to ‘ aggressively pursue’ a deal with McCain, under which both candidates would opt for central funding rather than private donations. But then he realised how much money he could raise on his own - perhaps as much as half a billion dollars.

So he promptly dumped his commitment to state funding. He said the decision ‘wasn’t an easy one’ but that the system was ‘broken’. This is rubbish. It’s just that he has a better chance of beating McCain - who has accepted the $84 million state funding deal - if he can massively outspend him.

Like the time he had all his fellow candidates eliminated from the ballot in 1996, he wanted to win, more than he wanted to hang on to his principles.

Next, the book has a look at Obama’s long-term relationship with the Church of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who believes that the American government has been deliberately infecting black people with the HIV virus.

Changes: But Obama has switched his position when it benefited him

Freddoso points out that the Church’s ‘vision statement’ says it is founded on the writings of Dr James Cone. Dr Cone argues, among other things, that ‘ Christianity and Whiteness’ are opposites.

Obama left Wright’s Church only earlier this year - when the Reverend accused him of ‘political posturing’. This is well-worn territory, of course. Obama’s critics never tire of criticising his links to Wright. But they are no less disturbing for that.

Finally, Freddoso looks at Obama’s relationships with a series of property developers, including Tony Rezko, who recently went to jail for fraud.

When Obama bought his house in 2005 for $300,000 (£173,000) less than the market value, Rezko bought the plot next door. When challenged about their connections, Obama claimed: ‘I’ve never done any favours for him.’

Not quite true, apparently. The two were friends and Obama wrote a series of letters supporting Rezko’s successful attempts to get state subsidy to build affordable housing in Chicago.
Chicago real estate developer and fast-food magnate Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko spent years pouring thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into Barack Obama’s campaign

Unfortunately, Rezko’s 30 buildings have subsequently run into financial difficulties, which is a bit tough for their tenants as living conditions have deteriorated. Rezko even turned off the heating in the middle of winter to save money.

Not a nice man, then. But a generous supporter of Obama, collecting and donating $250,000 (£144,000) to his political patron over the years.

So there, in essence, is Freddoso’s case against Obama. But as he also says, his book doesn’t demonstrate that Obama is in any way personally corrupt or even ‘a bad man’. Yet it does suggest that ‘he’s like all the rest of them in Washington’.

Those Americans who support him, and the billions around the world who believe that he could rebuild Brand America, would do well to remember that Obama’s a politician with huge gifts, but also great flaws. He’s a beacon of hope. But not now - nor ever - a political Messiah.

http://tinyurl.com/3qydyp

Posted by Drew458     on 10/14/2008 at 08:29 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner