Message From a Democratic Friend

The View is posting the message below because it raises an issue that has been bothering us for some time. There is so much that is not known about Barack Obama, who has emerged on the national political stage, seemingly from nowhere. Where did this guy come from? As a first term senator (and he has been running for president for most of that term), he lacks a record that would help voters discern just what it is he might do as president. I have listened to his speeches, watched the debates and read countless articles, all of which shows me a glib orator who provides little beyond broad generalities and platitudes, all designed to portray him as a moderate. Barack Obama is no moderate. He is one of the most liberal members of the senate.

The Obama campaign is bristling with indignation over what it terms "personal attacks." This is merely an attempt to deflect investigation into Obama's association with people like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. Then there's the Acorn connection that links him with this radical left-wing organization with no reluctance to break the law in order to advance their socialist agenda. The message below also looks at Obama's shady Mid-Eastern connections. Given the dearth of information about his background, it is essential to examine these associations to determine just what ideas he would bring to the presidency.

During the final debate last evening, there was one small glimmer of insight when Obama was quoted as he talked about the re-distribution of wealth, a classic socialistic concept. I think that anyone who takes the time to learn the truth about Obama will realize that his history of left-wing activism makes it extremely unlikely that he would govern as a moderate, but would become the most liberal president in modern times. And while this may actually appeal to our liberal friends, they might think again about the meaning of his links to Islamic extremism.


Email message From a Democratic friend ...


This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy.
But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking" where did the money come from for Obama". I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We(including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama's life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother
in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question -Where did he get the money for thistrip?

Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone
to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It is not cheap! Where did the money come from for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe.

After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for
$12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chic ago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law
School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans?

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first
Major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune Reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with"seed money" for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire
Loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.


Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care
of things".

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where Born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he make a mistake". Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within"!!!

The Debate Revisited

We turned in to the great debate to see the sage old Senator take on the young, relatively-inexperienced governor. As it turns out, however, Old Joe was the one who had the most problem with the facts. The lead editorial in today's WALL STREET JOURNAL, looks at Joe's statements and points out all that posturing and smarmy smiling didn't help his veracity. Not only did Joe have his facts wrong about who, if anyone, actually kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, or just what General McKiernan said about appropriate tactics for Afghanistan, he was also off base when he invited people to meet him at Katie's Restaurant, which closed sometime in the 1980's. Forget about foul balls and home runs, we need instant replay for the debates.

Who won the debate? I guess the tip-off came when the MSM rushed to belittle Palin's folksy expressions. But as the WSJ concluded:

"Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true."


Joe Biden plays the role of the sage statesman very well. I don't know about you, but my appreciation for the stereotypical legislator is not selling at a high multiple right now. Always carefully-coiffed and well-tailored, and with the requisite long-faced-furrowed brow, they make proclamations in a stentorian, self-important voice crafted to make the most mundane statement sound like wisdom handed down from on high. After watching the legislature, over the past week, struggle ineffectively to deal with what may yet be the financial crisis of our time, I begin to question how our form of government can survive with these clowns in charge. After days of blaming everyone but themselves for the financial meltdown of the mortgage market, they pass a massive "rescue" package which seems to contain almost as much pork as it does financial aid. Who elects these people?

Earmarks, they're spending your money

While it is certainly important to take careful note of candidates' the tax proposals, it would also be wise to look at the other side of the coin and examine the trends in government spending that drives the seemingly insatiable demand for tax revenues that threatens to choke off economic growth. According to an editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal, federal spending is expected to reach 21.5% of GDP next year, the highest since 1992. If this isn't a trend toward big government, I don't know what is.

One of the most flagrant contributors to this trend is the use of budget "Earmarks", to identify and provide money for pet projects located in the sponsors home state. The 2008 budget contained over 11,000 such items at a total cost of $17 billion. It's easy to understand the allure of such funding as it allows legislators to pepper their re-election speeches with a boast of all the pork they brought back home from Washington.

In this year's election, we have a clear choice. John McCain has pledged to veto earmarks whenever they cross his desk. This pledge is backed up by a long record of opposing such measures. His opponent is a consistent supporter of the legislative "old-boys" attitude of voting for each others pork. Since he became a Senator in 2005, he has asked for nearly $1 billion for special projects.

When we look at the second seat on each ticket, we find perfect symmetry. Joe Biden reliably ensures that Delaware receives a robust pork supply, while Sarah Palin has an established record of fighting wasteful spending, including the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere". According to Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina):

"Yes, she once supported the project, but after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget,......., she changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge."

Interestingly enough, when the Senate had a chance to reallocate the bridge money to Katrina relief, Senators Obama and Biden chose to stick with the original earmark.

It is not hard to understand how some might become enamored of "free" money flowing from the government's largess. We rely, however, on our elected officials to take a higher point of view and consider the fiscal implications of their actions on the whole nation, rather than grabbing what they can and then demanding higher taxes to pay for it all. Comparing the two campaigns, based on stated positions and past performance, this issue provides a clear choice for voters.

Let's Get to the Issues

No one has ever accused John McCain as being a great public speaker. His speeches would seldom be called rip-roaring stemwinders. At the same time, what he may lack in slick glibness, he more than makes up for in his ability to speak straight from the heart in clear understandable statements. You may agree or disagree, but you know where he stands. His acceptance speech, Thursday night, might not have been full of flashy rhetoric, but it provided a clear picture of his beliefs and the policies we might expect from a McCain presidency. Amid the many points he made Thursday night, I was struck by his stated hatred of war. A military man from a miltary family, McCain knows of what he speaks.

McCain's opponent doesn't seem to be as detailed about his policies, and it takes a little digging to get behind the calls for hope and the "yes-we-can" chants. But I believe that this issue providess a clear choice for American voters. John McCain believes in a strong military and is not afraid to hold this option dear as he envisions his administation plying the treacherous roads of international diplomacy. And while he hates war, he also recognizes the stark necessity of having both stick and carrot available, especially when dealing with foreign dictators committed to policies of hatred. His opponent would have us believe that the threats posed by belligerent nations can be calmed by the power of his personality.

Over the next few months, much will be said about the Iraq war, and here again, voters have a clear choice between McCain's support, especially for the surge, and his opponents opposition. John McCain is not the only one who hates war. All people of conscience must satisfy themselves that war is the last resort before unleashing those particular dogs. Good faith debate regarding appropriateness of the Iraq war will occupy us, as a nation, for some time to come. But blindly branding it a mistake precludes much that can be learned.

I invite you to watch a VIDEO made by a young soldier named Joe Cook. I think the message he brings is as just as important to the ongoing debate as is the chanting from the anti-war crowd.

Sam's Club Republican

In spite of the fact that we have been sure to keep our lines of communication open, John McCain has yet to contact The View regarding our thoughts on his selection of a running mate. And while that may never happen, handicapping McCain's possible Vice Presidential picks can be an interesting exercise in itself as well as an additional point of view on the main contest.

Two of the last men standing on the short list are former Mass. Governor, Mitt Romney, and Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty. We here in the Bay State know a little bit about Mitt, but Pawlenty is more of an unknown. Both have experience as republican Governors in Blue states. (Minnesota has gone democratic in every presidential election since 1960, except for 1972.) As a result, both have had to sail close to the wind, i.e take moderate positions, in order to be able to govern effectively.

An interview in today's WALL STREET JOURNAL, provides an interesting description of the man and his politics, both of which deserve careful attention. The following excerpt from one of Pawlenty's recent speeches highlights his centrist orientation:

"I'm the son of a truck driver and a housewife from a meatpacking town," he introduced himself, "who wants to provide a better quality of life for ordinary folks without growing government." His audience stirred: This was clearly a different sales pitch than they were used to. "We must be the party of Sam's Club Republicans, not just country club Republicans," he continued.

In addition to a strong personal rapport with McCain, his views on the issues generally line up pretty well with those the GOP presidential candidate, which brings up the sensitive subject of his own centrist tendencies. But before throwing McCain under the bus due to concern for his conservative bona fides, it is wise to remember that the election is not going to be won solely on the strength of conservative principals as the successful candidate must also be able to convince the great middle that he can govern effectively. When asked what lessons he had learned from Ronald Reagan, he gave an insightful answer:

"He was proudly conservative," he replied, "but we sometimes forget he got things done as governor and president that represented compromises. If today you went to someone and outlined Reagan's record without using his name some conservatives would want to throw him out of the party. But he never wavered on core principles and he made the country a better and more conservative place."

Balancing one's conservative principals with a "get-it-done" attitude is easier said than done. But when a state task force recommended a Massachusetts-style requirement for the purchase of individual health care, Pawlenty rejected the proposal citing the burden on the already stretched budgets of low-income citizens. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, still crows about the passage of health insurance reform in Massachusetts, which occurred on his watch. While the two state plans have differences, Romney's claims of accomplishment in this area, may well turn out to make him a untenable as a VP candidate.

As reported in today's GLOBE, Massachusetts, yesterday,requested the fourth two-week extension of the federal waiver that has allowed federal Medicaid funds to be used in a non-conforming manner to fund the state's Commonwealth Care program. The waiver was scheduled to expire on June 30th, and there is some indication that the US Department of Health and Human Services is balking at accepting the state's policies on coverage. If this waiver is not extended, it is almost certain to bring down the financial house of cards that is keeping health care reform aloft. Such a failure will have politicians of all stripes running for cover and will certainly take some of the lustre off Romney's list of accomplishments.

Keep an eye on T-Paw. We may be hearing a lot more about him as we move towards the Republican convention in early September

Mitt Romney Meets the Press

Today, former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, went one-on-one with Tim Russert and emerged looking confident, articulate and, well…, in a word, presidential. Russert, who is well known for his even-handed administration of tough-love journalism, knows how to ask the tough questions and persists until he gets a cogent answer. But to his credit, Russert focuses primarily on those questions that are prominent in public discussions. He is very good at what he does and is head and shoulders above his journalistic peers.

One of the knocks on Romney, of course, is that his current positions on an assortment of issues have changed, especially since his days on Beacon Hill. Russert emphasized the point by waving a pair of colorful flip flops at Romney. I guess what goes around comes around. We still have our pair of John Kerry flip flops from 2004. God save us from cutesy slogans.

But Russert is a professional and, as usual, he was well-prepared with video clips to illustrate a position where Romney is thought to have lately changed his views. The issues included: abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, gun control, and immigration. Romney readily admitted that some of his views have changes and painstakingly spelled out where appropriate how those changes evolved. Some of the answers were complicated, but then, these are complicated issues. I thought his response to the criticism he has received concerning the people who work on the landscaping of his Belmont home was particularly succinct. This is, by itself, is a silly “gotcha” flap, but it speaks to the larger issue of immigration which may end up being one of the most important issues of the presidential campaign. Some people demand simple declarative solutions to complicated questions, but simple answers aren’t always the best. By the time the interview concluded, I felt that he had fully addressed all the questions. More importantly, Tim Russert, who does not suffer weasel answers gladly, seemed satisfied.

I had only two criticisms of the program and they apply to the subjects of the questions asked. Entirely too much time was spent was spent discussing Romney’s faith. There are some people who, under the guise of enforcing the separation of church and state, would like to banish any trace of religion from our culture. But we remain a country built on a tradition of faith and I, for one, admire individuals possessing strong beliefs, but see no need to examine those beliefs, or the church from which they are espoused, to judge their merits. I would also have like to hear more of Romney’s views on international affairs. With the exception of one brief exchange dealing with Mike Huckabee’s criticism of President Bush for what he calls an “arrogant bunker mentality" in foreign affairs, there was little discussion of foreign relations. Romney, by the way, rejected Huckabee’s assertion and thought, rightfully so, that he owed the President an apology.

Well done, Mitt.

No Iron Lady

Peggy Noonan possesses a rare talent for cutting through the bovine effluence and getting to the heart of the matter. Writing in the Wall Street Journal might limit her exposure somewhat as most of the lefty media tries to ignore the Journal’s existence, let alone its editorial opinions. But for producing tightly reasoned and balanced analysis, it has few peers. What better place to showcase the talents of Peggy Noonan. Moreover, the Journal is very good at getting its message out via the web.

In her recent piece, Things Are Tough All Over, Ms. Noonan cites Margaret Thatcher as an example of a strong and highly-effective leader who never needed, and probably never considered playing anything resembling the gender card. Mrs. Thatcher sought no special quarter from those with whom she dealt and all the while carried her femininity with ease and dignity. And Ms. Noonan cites several other examples of effective leaders who happen to have been women. The article is a great read.

There is a larger point than Hillary whining about how the “boys” ganged up on her in the last debate and that speaks to the need for candidates to provide an honest and forthright articulation of their positions on the important issues. If candidates utilize the strategy of avoiding taking a position so as to avoid future criticism, and Mrs. C is not the only candidate that answers questions with non-answers, they will leave voters scratching their heads as they try to drill down beyond the sound bites to discern just how a candidate might handle the demands of the presidency. Watching Mrs. C. try to avoid taking a position on Elliott Spitzer’s plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens was agonizing and frustrating. How many of us yelled at the screen, "answer the damn question."

The issues are large and complicated. War is easy to hate. What’s to like? And yet we are faced with real and serious threats from dangerous enemies that do not play by the old rules. The United States is a compassionate country that tries to meet the needs of its less-fortunate citizens. But we must ensure that a balance be struck between government control and the self-reliance that has made this country great. As a son of an immigrant, I have special reason to appreciate the opportunity that America has offered to new comers over the centuries. At the same time, if we do not deal constructively with the flood of illegal immigrants in our midst, we run the risk of unraveling the very fabric of our way of life. These, and similar issues, are complex and their solution will not come from fence-sitting non-answers. Would that we had more writers like Peggy Noonan to guide us through the obfuscation.

What Hillary Really Said

The View has tried, with marginal success, to go easy on the Hillary articles, at least until it is clear that she is to be the Dem’s candidate of choice for the 2008 presidential election. Let’s just say that her candidacy, if it occurs, is sure to be a target-rich environment, so why jump the gun. But last Sunday, the Boston Globe proved once again that there is no length to which it will not go to demonstrate its partisan support. Using its lead editorial, the Globe rushed to defend Mrs. C. because, in its opinion some of the remarks she made during an interview with the Globe editorial board on October 10th were so “badly twisted” and “magnified” that it felt compelled to reprint a segment of the interview transcript in an attempt to straighten out the record.

The case in point involved Hillary’s contention that while she has many ideas for new government programs, she recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility and claims to have a funding scheme for each program. Ideas? She has a million of them. How about the $5,000 baby- bond for every baby born in the United States? Oops, never mind. And while she makes several references to “her” capacity to pay for them, we all recognize that it will be the taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill. What she really means is her ability to earmark specific tax revenues for her own proposals.

Putting its best spin on the interview, the Globe claims that what Hillary was actually saying is that she “opposes big government spending.”

The Clinton strategists recognize the need to run a centrist campaign so as to appeal to the moderate voters as well as the liberal base. Politicians of all stripes have long used similar strategies to broaden their appeal. But in her case, the veneer of the new moderate Hillary has a monumental task in papering over a long and well-documented history of left-wing orientation. The voters, of course, must look beyond campaign rhetoric to try to determine just what a particular candidate’s true values might be, a handy thing to know when you are voting someone into a powerful office for four years. To do so, we rely on an un-biased media. By leaping to Hillary’s defense in this case, rather than letting her comments stand on their own, the Globe not only does a disservice to its readers, but also lends support to the long-held contention of many that the Globe is a shill for the left.

This campaign, which already seems to have been going on forever, still has a long way to go. There will be ample time to frame the choices voters will face. At the same time, be careful, be very careful, where you get your information. In the meantime, for a good critical analysis of just what the globe did print Click Here

and read what Harry at Squaring the Boston Globe had to say.