By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on May 11, 2008 at 8:56 PM in Annenberg Chicago Challenge, Bamboozling, Barack Obama, Current Affairs, Woods Fund
The puff piece (some might call it an act of journalistic fellatio) on Barack Obama in the Sunday New York Times is but another reminder that most of the mainstream media have gone AWOL when it comes to getting Barack Obama to tell the truth about his past. Like a flat stone thrown along the surface of a still lake, this piece skips lightly over a host of issues–Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and Jeremiah Wright–without a probing question or the hint of doubt.
What does Barack really believe? What are his core principles? No one knows. Nope, he’s a “big tent” guy. According to the Times:
“There are some people who say he’s not strong enough on this or that, that he’s wishy-washy, that he’s trying to have it both ways,” said Abner J. Mikva, a former congressman and mentor to Mr. Obama. “But he’s not looking for how to exclude the people who don’t agree with him. He’s looking for ways to make the tent as large as possible.”
Mr. Obama’s ability to replicate the eclectic coalition he built in Chicago and expand it to the national stage has allowed the one-term senator to match the Clintons at their signature game: collecting influential friends and supporters.
But the authors of this treacle, Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, remain blissfully ignorant of the key gaps in the Obama saga or unconcerned with reporting what is actually known. One thing we know for sure–Barack is lying about significant portions of his life.
We know, for example, that Barack has not been truthful about his first job after graduating from college. He exaggerated his work and his position at Business International Corporation. One of his co-workers published a fascinating blog on this last year.
The idea of a politician lying is probably as novel as a sunrise. But Obama has traded on the mythology that he is somehow above all of this dissembling. Not so.
What we do not know, and no journalist to my knowledge has pressed him on this, is why he chose to go Chicago in the summer of 1985? He had no family or personal ties to the city. The only possible tie is Franklin Marshall Davis–a black Communist, who had lived in Chicago until 1948. Obama describes Frank as a mentor while going to middle school and high school in Hawaii. But Barack has been tight lipped about this relationship. Why?
Then there is his tie to William Ayers. Bill Ayers, unrepentant American terrorist, moved to Chicago sometime in the summer of 1987. He took up a position as an Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois–Chicago. Barack Obama first met Bill Ayers between July 1987 and July 1988. This explains in part why Barack was tabbed by Bill Ayers in the summer of 1995 to become the Chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative (The Annenberg Challenge), which Ayers cofounded. Barack continued in that position until 2003.
When Barack was asked by George Stephanopolous about his relationship he said:
that he lives in the same neighborhood as Ayers on Chicago’s South Side, did not exchange ideas with him on a regular basis and was only 8 when the Weather Underground was violently protesting the war.
He does more than “live in the same neighborhood.” He served as Chairman of a foundation set up by Ayers and he served as a board member with Ayers on the Woods Fund. Oh yeah, Ayers helped Barack organize and execute the campaign to depose Illinois state Senator, Alice Palmer.
There is no denying Barack has a knack for forging ties with folks who can help him along. On the one hand, he has maintained close ties with Rashid Khalidi (a Middle East scholar at the University of Chicago and an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1990s peace talks) and Ali Abunimah (a Palestinian-American author and co-founder of the online publication Electronic Intifada). But he also made the leap to pander for the Jewish vote. According to the Times:
During the Senate campaign, Mr. Obama joined in a “Walk for Israel” rally along Lake Michigan on Israel Solidarity Day. The Crowns and other Jewish leaders raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for him. Several days before the primary in 2004, some of his Jewish supporters took offense that Mr. Obama had not taken the opportunity on a campaign questionnaire to denounce Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or to strongly support Israel’s building of a security fence.
But in a sign of how far Mr. Obama had come in his coalition-building, friends from the American Israel Political Action Committee, the national pro-Israel lobbying group, helped him rush out a response to smooth over the flap.
In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that “none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.” Mr. Abunimah has written of running into the candidate around that time and has said that Mr. Obama told him: “I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping that when things calm down I can be more upfront.”
Please let us know when you are calm, Barack. We would like you to be upfront. Did you cultivate ties with the radical left, the Nation of Islam, and Jeremiah Wright because you share their values or are you just using them to advance your career? That is a question I would like answered. Too bad the media will not ask.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Obama should be more forthright about the $1 million he and Ayers allocated to Rezko and Allison Davis in 2000 when both were members of the Woods Fund.
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/taking-stock-of-barack%2C1041/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/672314,CST-NWS-watchdog29.article
So, what happens is a guy like Obama awards Davis 1 million dollars of tax payers money from Woods, and of that, Davis kicks back, say 250, 000, bundled, to Obama?
Not saying that is what happened, but that’s how they do it?
Oh cripes, now you are upsetting me.
I think that’s how they do it, also, I would suspect, given his ties to Khalidi, et al, some of it probably goes to the Middle East, too, for whatever reason…
You know the reason. To buy the bullets that kill American soldiers.
That is exactly how it is done. And remember Rezko was Davis’s business partner. Dirty money is recycled in Chicago, and I imagine it ultimately landed in Axelrod’s bank account. Davis, by the way, was Obama’s former boss.
Ok, thank you.
I think, I HOPE, this is going to get very uncomfortable for a lot of people.
hammeringspammers; any mob movie is is a ruff equivalent. Think RICCO.
Skimming is the mothers milk of Chicago politics.
To answer your last question:
Obama uses the force of his personality and the myth of his message to avoid answering such questions truthfully. His sycophants and WORMs take care of anything that he happens to bonehead. And the mainstream media follows in lockstep.
Maureen Dowd says Hillary makes Obama lose his Magical Powers. No kidding. She said that.
I would think any woman strong enough to take Obama down makes him lose his ” magical powers.”
Is that what they’re calling it these days “magical powers?”
Remember the “magical powers” of the Wizard of Oz? Seems our media either can’t or doesn’t want to see through the smoke and mirrors.
Obama ability to “build coalitions in Illinois” was a result of his removal of Democrats from the ballot. And if one cites the 2004 Senatorial race, remember that Allan Keyes unified the state of Illinois on Obama’s behalf. Obama is not a coalition builder; he is the beneficiary of legal gymnastics, chance and historical accident.
I think he does build coalitions - just very strange ones. Eggheads and African Americans with non black women and people over 50 thrown off the train. Really good for the party since this is such a big portion of America.
Cripes! The guys always get the good luck!
Not when you see the guys giving the blow jobs, no no…
…covering my eyes..
lol!
The more I know about Obama, the less I like him. He is not to be trusted.
that’s the understatement of the year. I AGREE!
I have a question for Obama. Which FOUR governors or senators are you going to pick for your VP candidate. You are going to need four to carry the states you will need. I say try one from PA, one from Fla, one from Ohio and one from Michigan. He might come close then. Can a Pres candidate have four VPs? There must be a loophole there somewhere.
I wonder how well the race card will work out for him when McCain picks Rice?
ohhh no McCain may take my governor..Charlie Crist…its all the talk here in Fla..so scratch this one off the list!!
Fla is lost to the dems without Hillary!!
fly
If Obama’s the nominee, then I don’t want him carrying Florida, or any other state. Because if god forbid he wins, then it’s a race war, with all of us on the front lines.
Watch him pick his mentor Joe Lieberman to reach out to the other side - since that is where Lieberman really is. Imagine that ticket - Mr. Hope and Eeyore. The mind boggles.
The Democratic Party Will Crash and Burn
There really were NO surprises. The destiny of the Democratic Party is in
the hands of African-Americans and anti-Zionist “liberal” Democrats. It is
no longer the party of white, blue-collar workers. It is no longer the
party of women. It is no longer the party of older Americans. It is the
party of African-Americans and elitist “liberal-progressive” Democrats.
Another wave of Democratic defectors
will join the ranks of the neo-cons in November.
“a neocon is a liberal who has been mugged by reality”
“….The bottom line is if you subtract the black vote, Obama decisively
lost in North Carolina. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what is
going to happen when you go to the general election in which the black
vote is a much smaller proportion of the general electorate.”
Almost FIFTY percent of Clinton voters told exit pollsters they would vote
for McCain over Obama.
As for the Jewish vote, “The rise of anti-Semitism around the world will
be on their minds in November and events in the Middle East will play a
role in how they vote. When they step into the voting booth, most will
hesitate to vote for Barack Hussein Obama no matter what their party
affiliation may be.”
Continue Reading AT http://inyourface.info/ArT/Delta/AnY.shtml
I keep asking people what percentage of our population is African American. They always overestimate - 30% is common. The true number is 12 - 13%. People who live in most urban areas - as the national media does - forget that black people are concentrated in urban areas in many areas of the country but that there are many areas, especially in the west where there are few or no African Americans. There are more Hispanics (18%) than there are black people. True the AA population votes mostly democratic, so they are a larger percentage of the Democratic party, but not nearly large enough to justify nominating someone just to please them, while simultaneously turning your back on women, older people, blue collar workers, etc. Obviously these groups overlap but together they are a huge section of the American population, much larger when taken together than the African American segment.
I would like to see the breakdown of the demographics of the Dem party by sex, race, age etc. Anyone know where to find this?
There is nothing racist in taking these numbers into account. If the Democratic party loses, African Americans will suffer disproportionately from continuing Republican policies because so many of them are poor. That is much more important than making a symbolic gesture by nominating a black man if he is likely to be defeated - or be a weak president.
I found this information from USA Today about Hispanic voters … apparently to know Bill Richardson is not to love him …
Candidate Favorable Unfavorable Heard of, no opinion Never heard of
Hillary Rodham Clinton 63% 20% 7% 9%
John Edwards 35% 16% 12% 37%
Barack Obama 33% 13% 8% 45%
Bill Richardson 20% 10% 11% 59%
finding demographics is awfully tough ….
This is the kind of crap that makes me want to slam my head into the nearest stationary object. See, if you or I (typical white people) pulled this crap we’d get fired and or thrown in jail. What I want to know is, how can someone with this kind of background get this close to the White House? Didn’t the founding fathers have some sort of provision to prevent this kind of person from taking over the Oval Office? Jesus Christ in a Side Car. Don’t you have to pass some sort of background check to be president? I remember falling behind on a bloody credit card years ago and my husband damn near lost his security clearance, but consorting with international criminals and known terrorists is OK?
I don’t think they have finished his security check yet. It usually takes up to 6 months to check all the sources. FBI does a polygraph and a background search. That should present some interesting challenges. I’m certain that agents are going to have to visit Indonesia and talk to his relatives there. I can imagine what they might be like with his cousin and his other Muslim relatives. What if they then discover something which would prevent him from having a clearance. Larry, I went that check for the White House and I remember how people who I had not seen since I was in high school were being visited by the FBI. It is rigorous. So what happens now Larry. Can we start over and have another primary election (grin)?
Hank Roth
http://inyourface.info/
Whoa!
I have family who are now retired from upper level positions in Fed Gov’t. 40 years ago, when I was 11, I was part of the vetting process for a diplomat who went onto great things.
Are members of the senate checked too? Idon’t remember anyone being denied office for terrorist etc. connections.
The GOP and Fox are promising new details. The red flags are numerous and lead me to think a “time bomb” of his past will go BOOM before this is all over.
The NYC cop in the wheelchair who was a victim of one of Ayers bombs made a great point. NYC cops have been investigated and fired from the department for associating with way less criminals than Ayers, so why are they letting this guy, with all his KNOWN associations get away with even running for office.
Who vetted Obama for his senate runs? If there is vetting, then they must have overlooked some of the facts.
i had a neighbor in La that i didn’t even know and one day some FBI types came to my door and they had a clip board of questions about my neighbor..all they told me was he was up for some high security job with the Fed Gov..although i didn’t know my neighbor ( i had just moved in) they continued to ask me all sorts of questions…like did i see anyone i had gut feelings about visiting them..and di i ever see anything questionable..i kept telling them i didn’t know the neighbors..and had only seen the man once..but they kept asking me questions..
they didn’t ask a dang question about the neighbor across the street who was in prison for being Micheal Milkens attorney!!..and was on 60 minutes and all..lol..
fly
Have seen you ask this more than legit ? before. Why don’t you put together a LIST OF THE SENATE CHAIRMEN (there are 20/8 have committed their SD vote to bo, only 2 have committed to HILL/ as of last week 10 remain uncommitted.
It won’t be hard to google these Chairmen to get their addresses & email addresses. Would be great if you’d write to them and ask them:
How does a man who
1) has a financial campaign mentor, Rezko, about to be convicted in IL biggest political corruption trial in state’s history remain without scrutiny? Why are the people of IL demanding voter recall of their Gov for the same connection, but the US Senate does nothing about Obama’s Rezko connection?
2. Why does the Senate do nothing about Obama’s repeated national TV lies about his negligent Senate record?
3. Why is a US Pres candidate allowed to flaunt divisive ‘watch list’ Black Panther party on his official campaign website and the US Senate does nothing?
4. Why does this Pres Candidate’s 20 yr. minister have Nation of Islam bodyguards at his Press Club presentation and the US Senate looks the other way?
5. Why was this candidate campaign stumping and funding the infamous Muslim platform mass murderer, Odinga, to such an extent that the Kenya government issued a formal complaint about Obama’s misuse of an Official State Visit to Kenya (paid for by US taxpayer dollars) where US Senator Obama gave inflammatory public speech against Kenya’s democracy… and the US Senate does nothing.
6. Why has this Senator been given the Chair of critical Afghanistand committee, then not bothered to hold one meeting . . . and the US Senate ignores this irresponsible inaction.
7. Why does this Senator, as a Presidential candidate allow a staff advisor to meet with HAMAS, with no authority, and in reckless overstepping of his candidacy… and the US Senate does nothing?
8. Why, when it is known that this Senator/Presidential candidate was employed for several years by a notorious domestic terrorist, who stomps on the American Flag (literally in 2003 book promotion photos) and with whom, Obama financially funds Arab causes in America, WHY does the US Congress allow Barack Obama ANY security clearance for the Senate???
Rezko, Ayres, Odinga, Anti-American Farrakan endorsement, HAMAS endorsement, supporter of Odinga destruction of Kenya democracy and still this man is allowed in the Senate? If any of us normal citizens had a rap sheet with these contacts, we probably wouldn’t even be allowed on a White House tour!
Chairmen of the Senate: Tell us how you can justify allowing Barack Hussein Obama National Security clearance? Have you just been too busy to notice?
I know for a fact that DIS would never give this man the right to see anything classified. All of these items are considered items of interst when awarding security clearances. So…What kind of classified materials does Congress have access to?
I went through the security clearance process. In my very humble opinion I would never let this man look at anything that was classified!
Depends on who’s pulling the strings. This is bigger than Obama - he’s just the vehicle for the takeover.
It’s the European bankers who control him - the same ones that fund both sides of the war in the middle east. Follow the money.
What is it with the media? Why do they refuse to vet this man? I’ve never seen anything like it. They were all over Bill Clinton when he ran for President. The only theory I can come up with is they want to remove Hillary Clinton period. Once that is done, they go after Obama. Then the true conspiracy theory will be prevalent. The media is owned by Republicans, and their only agenda is to remove Democrats from any chance of winning the White House even when is was a year that looked like a slam dunk. The DNC are idiots to allow this to happen. Obama is going to be destroyed.
PLEASE stop with the “I have never seen anything like this” garbage. YES YOU HAVE!!!!!!!!! That is, unless you were asleep in 2000. This is exactly how Bush was treated. How often did you hear about his bankruptcies, insider trading or outright lies about his record as governor? Meanwhile you were treated to a never ending repetition of dishonest Republican propaganda against Gore. If you keep saying this Bob Somerby of dailyhowler.com just might find you and smack you silly. He gets nearly apoplectic about Dems who still do not realize how the media plays favorites - and how Dems do not stand up and defend their people from this behavior.
The media’s behavior is not just about money or Republican power. It is about a bunch of people who are emotionally still in high school trying to align themselves with the cool kids. That is why they love the macho(or fake macho)tough guys like McCain, Bush, Guiliani, and Fred Thompson (really - how childish do you have to be to think Thompson as pres was a good idea?). Obama is different in that he is not macho, but I have heard guys like Tweety say he is ironic, cool, etc. Howard Fineman said he was like the exotic exchange student in high school who was running against Miss Perfect for class president. Really he wrote that for Newsweek. But people who use “more fun to have a beer with” as a qualification for the presidency are really that immature. And it gets people killed. Lots of people.
So, let me see if I have this right. Some guy Obama knew lived in Chicago until 1948 so Obama decided to move to Chicago in 1985–which is 37 years later. Are you really that desperate, Larry?
I recommend you reread the entry until its full import and significance is comprehended, Jerry. But then again, you are a low information voter who supports Obama.
Jerry Bowles,
Enlighten us please. Why did he go from sunny privileged Hawaii to LA to freezing in Chicago?!
I’m sure you know all the details. Who was he dating at the time? Where did he first live? Where did he work? Do tell Jerry!
For anyone who was here on Friday PM, recall the attack on a former Hawaii resident & current Hillary supporter? The verbal assault was in, what was claimed to be,’island talk’.
Sorry, obamaton, your tirade was in Caribbean patois, which is not the native language or accent of Hawaii. Wrong island/wrong ocean. Add to the list of obama viral syndrome: total physical disorientation - fits nicely with a leader who has traveling 57 states. And that, he said, was just ’so far’…kind a goes with the guy above rambling about 1948….
“What is it with the media? Why do they refuse to vet this man?”
Didn’t we just spend the last seven years asking that? Lamenting, why won’t the media hold Bush accountable?
I suppose it’s because the media doesn’t work for the people and they don’t serve the truth. They used to, but that was a long, long, time ago.
There must be a lot of money and future political and financial interests behind Obama. Some (or many) players must stand for significant gains if BO gets elected.
Well, considering that Obama’s top 20 contributors include lobbying firms, lobbying law firms and the financial companies that were responsible for the mortgage meltdown, you can most assuredly say that they expect SOMETHING for all that (bundeled) money. He’s a corporate shill.
http://tinyurl.com/674c38
They are expecing NO INVESTIGATIONS … no PUNISHMENT an NO JAIL TIME …. best money they ever spent.
Hey Flineo, great videos!
Give you one is Penny Pritzky, Obama’s national campaign chairperson! She (her family) owns Hyatt Hotels and she was the Chair of the failed Superior Bank (her family bank and sub-prime lender extrodinaire) and accepted a deal to be personally (her family) $460 million of which she has yet to pay much back, with Barry as President, what do you think will happen to her fines, automatic $0 owing!
I think that if more was done in terms of examination of Obama’s real ties and history, the answer to my biggest question might be found. To me the 300 pound gorilla in the room is the amount of money Obama’s campaign has amassed. It has determined how many ads he can buy, how many organizers he can have on the payroll, how many mailings he can make, and how many favors he can do, how much he will be courted by the networks who want his advertising dollars. And the DNC is salivating. His supposed campaign’s agreement to support the DNC with some of his contributions must look very appealing to Howard Dean and managers of his cash-strapped coffers. Hillary, not so much.
The old adage “follow the money” is an appropriate suggestion in this regard — specifically, what is the source of this money. Who are the bundlers ? The fuel that feeds Obama’s campaign is beyond grass roots supporters like you and me. He is getting high powered assistance and not just small donations from many individual people. The Clinton and Obama supporters are nearly equal in number. So why are the candidates’ coffers so discrepant? Is it because Hillary appeals to blue collar workers who have less discretionary money to spend on political donations? Surely, the college age supporters aren’t contributing Obama’s millions.
Yes, yes, yes! I predict that the tsunami of money Obama has been getting will disappear IF Obama gets the nomination. Where else could these massive sums be coming from other than Republicans?
Why have McCains funds been so lean? Because they’re all giving to Obama right now. Once the GOP knocks Clinton out of the race, Obama’s donors will disappear and McCain will have more money than he knows what to do with!
Wish that were so. Thought so earlier. Now seems that his muslim/terrorist ties are much more relevant to his massive funding as well as underlying intentions… those people have tons of laundered cash and it’s getting clear, he is their guy.
Those idiots think cash is everything, as long as they have money they get their way.
They are unable to see past that, leaving them vulnerable.
I mean, my goodness it took what, 2 months for Enron to come crashing down?
Thats the Fact…Jack…
The guy was a Communist from chicago who went to Hawaii…and Started mentoring Obama from the age ten onward…when HE was the most Impressionable..
you can see after high school…every move Obama made led him to New York and the Networks there he started connecting with..Then on to Chicago whern He really got hooked up with the Bigger Network of Radicals, and Revolutionarys..all Known and CONFIRMED….
Do Yur Homework…
Larry, something I haven’t seen yet is someone tying the incestuous relationship between some of Obama’s pals.
William Ayers father was chairman of Commonwealth Edison. CE is owned by Exelon. Axelrod worked for Exelon. Exelon has given money to Obama.
Current COMed successor raised 200k for Barry. Frank Clark. Ayer’s daddy sat on the COMed trustee board, so you know he had a hand in picking Clark. I still think Ayers is the leading character here in terms of barry’s …um…growth in Chicago. Michelle and him worked with Dohrn. Dohrn introduces to Ayers. Next thing you know Barry is an “organizer”. Somebody steers him to the “right church”. Rezko is the fixer thread throughout things. Also he is key to the meeting of kahlidi, Assamarae,Auchi. Daley family and Ayers family goes way back to Daley The First. It’s all incestuous.
My belief is Obama met Ayers and Dohrn in New York and the likely of places either at Columbia U, knowing how Ayers loves to gloate over this WU days while Obama was taking Political Science at Columbia or at Cooper Union where many political society lectures and events took place including Afro-American and Marxist ones and Obama said he spent a lot of time there at those events and lectures and My gut says he actually met Michelle there as it was a gathering place for Afro-American studies and lectures!
WAY TOO MUCH TO BE COINCIDENCE! I’ve had exactly the same sense/intuition? of when these 4 first connected. These are not relationships of mere chance. .. like obama was stumping for odinga back in 2006. . . setting the stage for infiltration of Kenya.
What I wish some would investigate is WHOSE CLOUT IS IT behind the MSM brainwashing. At 1st attributed it to his big spending with them, but sure know there is more.
CNN/Time Warner/Time mag heard long ago of Arab money there. Anyone know the specifics?
BUT WHO THE HELL IS so carefully controlling the main line of obama viral spread: MSNBC???
Well MSNBC is owned by General Electric! The division of GE that controls NBC is the head of GE Finacial!
Who is the ones behind Rezko’s being in jail?
GE Finacial!
Who days before Obama announced his run for President signed a major deal together for Nuclear Power generation in Texas, General Electric and Excelon!
Opps hit send too quick again!
Who shelved Nuclear reform legislation days before the deal was signed?
Obama!
He still stumps he had it passed, it was only passed onto a shelf, it never even went to the congress!
I have been of the same opinion as Mel has for months.
jm
WAY TOO MUCH TO BE COINCIDENCE! I’ve had exactly the same sense/intuition? of when these 4 first connected.
Based on Frank Marshall Davis’s recommendation to Obama to look up Ayers if he was ever in Chicago… I think Obama looked into this while in California.
1980 - 1985…
Here is video of Barack “MIA on Afghanistan” Obama insulting our troops serving in Afghanistan:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4339.html
“Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”
Spread the word about Obama insulting the troops.
UNconscionable!! And Obama NEVER apologized!!
Our troops deserve respect, not insults!!
Spread the word!!
Everyone in America should see the video of Obama insulting our troops!
And Obama wants to be President and Commander-In-Chief??
NO WAY!!
I beleive Rezko approached Barry Obama while he was still at Harvard Law School. That would be the connection. I read that in numerous places.I am not sure how “true” it is or something that just keeps getting repeated.
Ted Kennedy and McGovern have endorsed him. I hear the coffin lid slowly closing.
The media is for profit now. It used to be considered a service by the network. We will never get any news again.
That has been verified from Obama himself. Rezko approached Barry Obama
Yes but he could easily have known him BEFORE he went to Harvard.
Ok to fill in gaps of Larry’s article:
In 1985 the foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama, at 24, as an organizer on Chicago’s economically depressed South Side.
Obama became friendly with Woods director Jean Rudd, and after he graduated from Harvard Law School and moved back to Chicago, Rudd asked him to join the board, which met four times a year to review grant proposals.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/berman
Some say that it isn’t a story, but Oh contrare:
Head of The Woods Foundation at the time was a Gerry Kelm, Chairman of Sahara Coal, supplier to Con Ed, connection, Thomas Ayers!
There is more, Larry check your emails my friend, there is stuff packed in there! Including Obama’s godfather of politics, Emil Jones, they didn’t meet in the State Senate, they met in 1987 and what district is Jones’s, well Michelle Obama’s parents district, the same district Michelle’s dad was a Precinct Captain in!
Opps, the Foundation that gave the 25 grand was The Woods Foundation, of which Jean Rudd was a director!
Alsammarae escapes Iraq prison and moves into palatial home in Chicago. Where they do nothing to him. He and Kahlidi, et al had to be introduced to Obama some how. Probably Rezko. Kahlidi came from Ayer’s direction, possibly,as the Woods people (including Obama and Ayers) gave him a grant.
Alsammarae had a business in Chicago and a successful business in Chicago was guess what?
Electrical Engineering firm
Connct the dots, why does Electricity keep coming up?
One answer, Thomas Ayers and his protigee (sp?) present day bundler for Obama John Rowe, Chairman of Exelon!
He was the “electricity minister” in Iraq. Got thrown in the slammer for making money deals. Gave a 100 Million dollar contract to ……guess who?
And guess who he bought electric generators from that require a special fuel to run. The generators use 1 tanker every 45 minutes, and have to bring them in from turkey though dangerous sections of Iraq.
The generators cost 1/3 a billion dollars from guess who?
General Electric!
Who paid? USA!
MSNBC’s handler…GE.
SweetBecca raises a valid point. What do you make of this?
Barack Obama Is A Closet Homosexual: Listen To The Rev. James David Manning!
“The reason why Senator Barack Hussein Obama stayed within the Trinity of Hell for so long, for 20 years, is because of a homosexual relationship with its minister.”
Listen to this video released Saturday, May 10, 2008
SweetBecca Says:
Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 8:36 pm
“i picked up a copy of the Globe and shared Larry’s story with family and friends when i was away over the weekend. we all made comments about seemingly outrageous articles we read in older issues which we discovered later were very TRUE.
drip drip drip”
Is Obama Caught up in Gay Murder Scandal?
“Globe Magazine has asked the question that no one in the MSM have shown the least bit of testicular fortitude to ask. This is not as many claim being ignored by the MSM because it is untrue or because the MSM do not want to be sued for libel or slander. This is ignored by the MSM because they have made it clear for some time they want Barack Obama in the White House, and their consistent biased coverage proves this to be the case beyond any reasonable doubt.”
Globe Magazine article
http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/image1.jpg
http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/image2.jpg
Don’t know about Manning but that Sinclair dog has been trying to hunt for a long time. I just think it’s not going anywhere.
Rev Manning really lays into Obama:
http://msunderestimated.com/2008/03/15/rev-manning-on-obama-video/
I seem to remember he had a few choice words to say about the Clinton’s too, LOL, so he’s not exactly partisan.
But anyway I posted Rev Manning because I think it’s important to dispell this myth that the media is creating, a myth that steriotypes black people and places them all in the Obama camp. Nonsense, 22% of black folks don’t even vote Democrat, 40% don’t vote at all, and many are wholeheartedly supporting Clinton. There’s a lot of diversity in the black community, in spite of the story the media is trying to fabricate.
Yeah, the story on that item is a bit too much like all those ‘Arkansas murders,’ boilerplate bull.
The actual over the top endorsements, donors, and political support network, that’s reason enough to be alarmed.
The media is not interested in destroying “the narrative” that has been built regarding his story. There is much about this man that fails the smell test. However, he has been built up primarily to knock her down. The sexism is rampant, yet as the article points out, he is allowed to dissemble and avoid direct answers. His hee’ing and haw’ing is very distracting since he is only at his best delivering a prepared speech. I have no idea what his core values consist of but I would watch very carefully what Michele espouses because although he may be just another Chicago political opportunist,I have come to see her as the one with issues. With a candidate possessing such a flimsy resume and experience, his qualifications are minimal. Why then all this hoopla about getting him elected? Beyond me.
One thing which is a big suprise is that no press has looked into the grants given by the Woods Foundation, during the years served, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn have managed to do very well by it! Projects of Dohrn’s have obtained fundings of about $40 grand per year at NWU and Ayers about $15 to $20 grand per year, not bad deal huh?
The first Year Obama brought Ayers on board The Woods Foundation, Annenberg Chicago was given $50 grand!
Now you need to understand something, the Directors of The Woods Foundation only meet 4 times a year, March, June, September and December. Proposals are not presented at the March meeting. (You will not find this on the Woods site, but it was found!
I believe that Ayers is a very powerful figure in Chicago by way of his father. All roads always seem to lead to him.
It is a group of philanthropists in Chicago:
Newton Minows, head of Sidley Austin
Thomas Ayers
John Rowe Chair of Exelon
James and Lester Crown (General Dynamics, Morgan Chase Bank, Maytag)
Gerry Kelm Dead, former Chair of Sahara Coal and The Woods Foundation
Prinzky Family Defunct (bankrupt) Superior Bank, Hyatt Hotels
to name a few and all those still alive are working on Obama’s campaign
I think I may have an explanation for why the MSM is going whole hog for Obama. I’ve been kicking it around in my head for a while, and I think I’ve got it. Bear with me while I try to get this down in a logical manner.
1. We know that the media is not “liberal,” despite what the right wants us to think. They’re owned by conservatives and/or Republicans who’ve proven that they’ll show anything on their networks to get who they want into office or to encourage legislation to be passed, etc.
2. We know that Obama is the weaker candidate against McCain. He has a history, and when it comes out, as McCain will most certainly do, most Americans - especially in swing states- will not want to have someone with that kind of history and inexperience as the President. Hillary is the stronger candidate; she can hold her own against McCain, and probably win. Her husband’s terms in the office were not that long ago that people have forgotten how much better off they were then.
So, why support Obama? So McCain will win, of course. The owners and bosses at news stations don’t need to do much to convince those “journalists” who actually are left leaning to “report” on Obama in a positive light. We’ve had so much liberal bashing in the last 20+ years, that it must seem a relief. It also wouldn’t be too hard to convince the right leaning “journalists” to bash Hillary, because, you know, the Clinton years were “the worst times we’ve ever had as a nation.”
So the media bosses influence their employees so that in the end, they have the best of both possible worlds.
1. McCain wins, and he’ll be wonderful for the not-so-liberal media because of his political beliefs.
2. Obama somehow manages to win and he’ll be indebted to the no-so-liberal media for looking the other way so that he actually got the nomination. And, of course, since he isn’t exactly on the up and up politically, he’ll pay that debt.
They are just basting Obama for McCain.
It’s a win-win situation. If Obama…(sorry )Barky does happen to pull off a miracle, they can always impeach his ass on this stuff later, therefore destroying any chance of another democrat or worthy AA being elected again for decades.
Obama is a creation of the five media cartels that control what you are allowed to know.
What they make they can also destroy.
These cartels enjoy significant tax advantages under Republican administrations. They also wish to make elected officials beholden to them when it comes time to divvy up all that radio and TV bandwidth. So if they build up a flammable Democrat candidate and burn him down between August and November the Republicans are beholden to them.
The LA Times just ran a story (Doyle Mcmanus and Peter Wallsten byline) that headlines that Obama’s problem is not race, it is experience and that he is “an elitist, a cultural and social liberal outside the mainstream of American life”.
Are they so certain that he has the nomination that they have already started his deconstruction? Or did Mcmanus and Wallsten just not get the memo?
One more gap, the Developing Communities Project follows the working of Saul David Alinsky and this is what Saul wrote in his last book before he died on revolutions:
“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don’t encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let’s not let it happen by default..”
Please read it again!
It is the exact format Obama is using in his campaigning when not being derailed, thus his continual speeches of the same thing!
One other thing of note that needs to be made perfectly clear, against the bullshit Obama wants you to believe!
After Harvard, Obama went into registering Democratic voters in Chicago, anyone ask why?
It is easily explained, Michell Obama’s father was a Precinct Captain and not just any Precinct Captain, but he was one in Senator Emil Jones district!
Precinct Captains are powerful people, that is why Michelle’s father earned 25% more money than teachers, yet he worked in a water plant, payback!
Obama expected to profit from the association of Michelle’s dad, but one problem for Obama, Michelle’s father died the last year Obama was at Harvard! Problem for Obama because?
Well power in Chicago comes from what you deliver the powers to be, and the powers to be want eithe money or votes to continue their power! So Obama had to be initiated into the world of an offering to the powers to be in the political circles of Chicago since riding Michelle’s fathers coat-tails vanished with his death! Obama’s drive gained 125,000 new registered Democratic voters, thus his offering was better than Mayor Clay’s attempt at ballot box stuffing in Lake County Indiana last week!
Considering the MSM is owned by the likes of the U.S. of General Electric, if we are truly waiting for them to expose Obama now to help Hillary — since she is our only hope — we can wait long.
Pandering to this charlatan is a win/win for them — Obama will be so wishy wishy and is a corporatist — no reform will ever happen on his watch. But since he is unelectable, they’ll get their real first choice anyway — McCain, while the liberal elite idiots at the DNC show themselves to be limp and weak once again by cow-towing to this weak candidate.
But without reform, they die.
They can’t seem to see past tomorrow, and the next day on wall street, and it’s killing them.
Again, BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW! If Hillary is eased out of the nomination - and it looks like it’s happening already -then we have to be pragmatic and vote for someone who will not turn this country upside-down/inside-out to accommodate his (and his wife’s - not to mention his supporters’) creepy, mashed-up political ideology. I just feel bad for the Democratic Party for history will again judge it as the party of ultra-leftist and now Jihad-loving/Israel-hating radicals! After November’s debacle, it will be very difficult for Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, Andrew, Reich, McCaskill, et. al. to wash off the Obama radioactive poison from their system.
Well, you know, billionaires and losers abound all over, if they can’t understand the script, that’s their problem, hire smarter.
Greed doesn’t pay, cheating doesn’t pay if it makes you so stupid you can be manipulated against your own interests, right boys?
And if they’re wrong, and she does capture the nomination, well, all the better, they will have licked out…
You just can’ t help stupid illiterate men.
And yes I mean licked, speaking of giving blow jobs to who ever has the most cash, Mr and Ms Reporter…
Best said Dora!
Maybe we should work on a viable Populist/Independent party during McCain’s administration?
Why won’t McCain sign the GI Bill?
I, personally, get real angry when politicians fu** with military men and women, really really angry.
Speaking of media blow jobs, the economist had the bamster on the cover with the words “almost there.”
You, too?
I already throw the Newsweak and Time into the trash, unread, now I have send the last news weekly I will still read, “the economist,” the same way?
How sad.
If I want vapid propaganda, I’ll watch US news.
If I want intelligent input, I guess I’ll read Krugman, the BBC, and some of the blogs.
And some of the Chicago reporters.
At least vanity fair still seems somewhat independent.
Tell me about it. Before the spread of the deadly O virus, I would start my day reading the entries at BUZZFLASH, HUFFINGTONPOST and CNN. No longer. It’s this site and Taylor Marsh’s plus Larry’s and Taylor’s friends’ sites. But what’s going to be really funny is after November - or the days leading to November shortly after the nomination. The Hamas-loving messiah of Tony Razko and Jeremiah Wright will go down in flames and his fair weather friends from the media will not just document it, they will further add fuel to the fire. In the meantime, let us keep sending our donations to HILLARYCLINTON.COM and get out the vote in the remaining states. No surrender!
It’s so sad, because if they buy into Obama, they’ve bought into the trash, ALL those trying to prove a lie, indicating their thinking is flawed, and nothing they say can be taken seriously, at all.
They’re corrupt.
There’s nothing left of popular American journalism, (though the New Yorker fiction has been excellent, a wonderful harbinger, maybe, and Vanity Fair has avoided the solipsism that has killed the rest, for the most part, I hope it stays even) I get far more out of NQ’s essays, and those of others, than I do out of Newsweak.
Every day there is another link with a new writer offering a unique perspective, always something…
Here they have a chance to do something good, influence thinking, and all they do is repeat Axelrod, or K**.
Dora, we will not surrender! Hillary is our only hope! She is fighting for us & we join her to the end!!!
Because I love my country, the Beautiful America, I AM NOT VOTING FOR BARACK OBAMA!!!
I WANT TO SCREAM TO THE WORLD:
I LOVE AMERICA, THAT’S WHY, I AM NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!
Let me ask a question:
This is for you Larry. We know Fitzgerald is investigating the IL governor. Many of the people who gave money to the governor are being investigated as well it seems. (In my opinion, Fitzgerald did not call some of the people he could have because they have a bigger role in the IL governor disaster).
Do you think that Obama is somehow as messed up in the IL crooked politics. It seems it is no longer just in Chicago but Springfield too (actually that has been true for some time since 4 out of the last 7 governors of IL have been indicted or are in jail or been jailed at some point)!
I have been thinking for some time now if the IL governor goes down so does Obama. I am basing this on witnesses that should have been called according to tapes played at the trial. I followed the trial loosely but enough to know others should have been called but it seems this won’t happen until the IL governor goes down.
Is it too little too late? And what have the Feds been waiting on with the IL governor. He looks very guilty to me.
Nancy, not to answer for Larry, but Fitz is known to work his way up, starting with small fish, working toward the bigger.
From reading the Chicago papers, and the trial transcripts, it appears Obama is as dirty as the Gov. Fitz will nail him, barring any extraordinary circumstance.
And the IL corruption spreads to the Middle East, and Washington, DC, as well, some think it is simply part of a larger, international ring connected to men like Auchi, and others.
It’s all about corruption.
Of course President Barky could order the investigation stopped …
And pardon Rezko so he can be Sec’ty of HUD.
“Is it too little too late?”
Too early.
That is why I wondered if Mcmanus and Wallsten had lost the plot.
The public has an attention span of Nixon’s six weeks. Call that unit of measure a Nixon, if you will.
Thus Obama will be viable one Nixon before that certain Tuesday in November.
The takedown of Cheney’s chief of staff made Fitzgerald a rock star, the darling of the liberals.
So do the aforementioned liberals do a hiccup that swallows their colons if Fitzgerald takes down Obama in October?
Proctologists, feel free to comment.
He might have started playing ball w/prosecutors.
If the Gov. jumped the shark, chances are he has recordings….
The lastest edition of the Nation has an article
sort of cleaning up Obama and Ayers.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/berman
I gave it a quick read and I didn’t see anything
on the Ayers connection to the Annenberg grant
mentioned in an earlier story on this website.
Karen it didn’t clean up things, it opened more doors, the press is making people connect the dots, they won’t do it!
barack obama is just another lying crook
Julie -
That’s the bumper sticker!
You guys want a bumper sticker?
How about this one?
B.O.W.L. BIG TIME!
Barack Obama Will Lose [or Lie] Big Time
There is so much to read here - you all are amazing and I just wish there was someway to get some of that media to pay attention. I am hopeful Hillary will get the popular votes - especially if Florida and Michigan who certified their votes can get counted - though I am not holding my breath. There is supposed to be something coming out this coming week -hope it is something legit and not that Larry thing - although the Globe has that all over its front page this week
Somebody above mentioned sites where you can go for Hillary - there is another good one and we have been asked to provide the link to interested parties for Hillary as they now have a fast server.
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/
Cheers and as Scarlet O’Hara said “Tomorrow is Another Day”
The sad thing about all of this is that Obama’s supporters don’t care that he’s corrupt and weak. I guess they just care that he’s black, he’s a man, and his name isn’t Clinton.
I found John Edwards’ comment interesting that Hillary has the right to go out and make her case to the American people that she is the strongest candidate, but the more she does that, the more she hurts Obama and the Democratic Party. Can anyone make any sense out of that? Doesn’t it seem that if BO were a strong, viable candidate nothing anyone could say would hurt him? And if Hillary is the strongest candidate, why are the Democrats running Obama instead? This is just way too convoluted for me. I think the Democratic Party is hurting, but they’ve inflicted the wounds on themselves and I hope Hillary DOES NOT QUIT. McCain could have Obama so wounded by August, he’ll be dead in the water.
Has Obama EVER visited Walter Reed military hospital in DC?
Hillary does. She speaks with severely wounded troops and addresses their concerns. Because of the severity of wounds suffered in this war, not a pleasant thing to do, I’m sure. BUT SHE CARES!!!
Does Obama EVER speak of the sacrifices those who serve our country are making? Does he talk of care, benefits or hardship on military families?
Or is it too unpleasant for Kennedy’s chosen candidate with “noble leadership aspirations” to actually get down and dirty with middle-class patriotic citizens who actually serve to protect us?
[...] Comments Mel on Some Questions Obama Refuses to Answerrjj on Obama wants a woman to be Vice PresidentKefa on Obama wants a woman to be Vice [...]
In the fall of 06, as the Dems were powering ahead in elections and pushing out the Repubs,we knew then, that there would be NO WAY IN HELL that a Repub. could or would be elected President in 2008. Many of us stated that the REPUB party was all but vanquished to the dust heap for the next few decades…..
How would they ever recover?
Karl Rove had an answer.
Maneuver a candidate for the Dems. that they could beat. Push into the limelight a candidate with a message so powerful that they could kill any chances of Hillary getting in , and yet, at the drop of a dime they could vanquish.
It looks like Karl’s plan is proceeding nicely.
Manchurian Candidate, anyone?
You’re right, but this is bigger than Karl Rove. It’s bigger than the United States.
[...] Some Questions Obama Refuses to Answer (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) The puff piece (some might call it an act of journalistic fellatio) on Barack Obama in the Sunday New York Times is but another reminder that most of the mainstream media have gone AWOL when it comes to getting Barack Obama to tell the truth about his past. Like a flat stone thrown along the surface of a still lake, this piece skips lightly over a host of issues–Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and Jeremiah Wright–without a probing question or the hint of doubt. What does Barack really believe? What are his core principles? No one knows. [...]
With all of obama’s muslim/middle east ties you would think someone would ask the question. The problem with obama’s secruity clearances (he does currently sit on the foreign relations & homeland security and gov ernmental affairs committees)is he is an elected official. I wonder if he has access to classified matters by virtue of being a member of those committees or is there another hurdle within the committee before access is granted?
The issue to ponder is:
How can a sitting united states president be denied access to classified materials/information, if those classified materials/information is needed to do his/her duties as president?
I have been through the security clearance process and know quite a few who have also. The probabitiy of someone with obama’ background and connections/contacts making it pass a presidential secruity clearance should be slim to none but I might be naive.
What happens if the american people elect a person who can not pass a security clearance? Does the voice of the people get overturned by some government agency (fbi cia, dod)? You know it should never have to come to that if the media does its job and vetts all candidates for president even the ones they like…I mean adore. Oh boy!
The questions are:
(1) Did Obama know his Middle East advisor, Robert Malley, was having secret meetings with Hamas (otherwise known as the “Islamic Resistance Movement”)? Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization and political party that the U.S. Department of State has listed as a foreign TERRORIST organization.
(2) On whose behalf was Obama’s Middle East advisor, Robert Malley, meeting with Hamas?
(3) Was Obama’s Middle East advisor, Robert Malley, meeting with Hamas on behalf of Barack Obama?
(4) Was Obama, still just a presidential candidate, sending his Middle East advisor, Robert Malley, to meet with Hamas to convey a personal message of reassurance to Hamas?
(5) Did Obama’s Middle East advisor, Robert Malley, convey ANY messages from Obama to Hamas? And was it as a result of those messages that Hamas indicated publicly through Ahmed Yousef, a top Hamas political adviser, that Hamas “hopes” Obama will win the election?
~ ~ ~
I think Barack Obama needs to answer those questions to the American public. Firing Robert Malley is an insufficient response to this situation.
On Wed. April 16, 2008, Obama had said when criticizing Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas: “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas IF THEY RENOUNCE terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”
Did Hamas “RENOUNCE terrorism” prior to Obama’s Middle East advisor, Robert Malley, meeting with Hamas?
Yes, I know Robert Malley is a specialist in conflict resolution who worked on behalf of President Clinton as a Special Assistant to President Clinton and was a member of the U.S. peace team that participated in the 2000 Camp David Summit. But that and some other roles Robert Malley held during the Clinton years were PUBLICLY known — and Robert Malley was working for the President of the United States, NOT for a person who is simply STILL a candidate. Even United States Senators do NOT send special emissaries to negotiate on a senator’s behalf with terrorist groups. And Hamas IS still a terrorist group.
So, we need some answers to these questions.
(The Republicans know ALL about Obama’s record and are prepared to use it against him. The only ones with their heads in the sand — and who refuse to deal with the reality of Obama’s problems — are the Obama supporters. They can keep their heads in the sand over this and the other issues that are troublesome for Obama, but that will NOT make those issues go away.)
There’s really nothing said about Barack Obama here that hasn’t also been true of Hillary Clinton. I sincerely believe Obama wishes to not simply be above the fray of human dissension and division but to move humanity above it and to our human connection which we all have but society from birth has indoctrinated us to forget. However, no one can enter politics and not be political. While stating the true intentions of his heart, Barack Obama has also long ago recognized that in order to build coalitions and unite people, you have to make friends with people that cause those of conservative and divisive minds to see political pandering in your honest attempts to unite people.
Hillary Clinton is really the same. She too has fought for higher ideals and as a result has suffered unwarranted attack, criticism, and now, unlike Barack, the squashing by the Republican right-wing forces of her campaign. Because Barack is very liked by people on the left and seen as most exploitable and expedient to finding a loser in November by the forces on the right, Hillary now doesn’t have a chance against this combined force of naive Democrats and soulless, conniving manipulating Republicans, particularly the pundits of the corporate-owned media conglomerates who pretty much call the shots nowadays, thus rendering Party Chairman completely powerless and, like the rest of us, having to grab at the poisoned scraps thrown our way and work with them.
This is the reality we face. I am not entering this fray until there, unlike what the pundits say, is a real nominee. I urge everybody to raise your voices loud to have a RE-VOTE, NOT A RE-COUNT, A RE-VOTE, in Michigan and Florida so it can be determined once and for all, whether it is Barack or Hillary who truly has a 50-state mandate from a true majority of Democratic voters.
Once that nominee is elected by the people (and the superdelegates if, at that point, their help is needed), I will fully support that person as I know that in this cesspool that is politics, good people have to do things that their enemies can use against them as compromising. No one in politics is above lying, at least these days. You’d be dead in seconds, as Ralph Nader unfortunately, still refuses to learn. But somehow this time, either one of these two fine people has won the hearts of so many Americans and will win the hearts of so many more because through that ugly vale of lies, manipulation and numbers counting, the people know that these are two good people who will be everything the opposite of that really dangerous person currently occupying the White House is–someone who cares about uniting people and talking even to people some consider unsavory in order to bring about peace and unity in the world, someone who will put the people first. I think we all at this time really need to remember what’s been going on in our government for the last 8 years before we start destroying the one Party that has the chance to stop this truly great evil that has aided and abetted terrorism by fanning its flames and will continue to do so if allowed in the White House again.
Thank you.
Marc Ginsburg
Look, Oblabla’s secret sauce for uniting people is dead simple: everyone just agree with him, and Bob’s your uncle! And he’s infinitely confidently of his own persuasive ability to bring you ’round.
And that’s it. The whole package.
Wouldja buy it fer a quarter? (C.M. Kornbluth, “The Marching Morons”)
corr: “infinitely confident of”
You’re a doofus.
[...] true that, on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he’s gone after Obama with a vengeance. Worse, he’s basing his reports on hearsay, though that of trusted friends. In turn, Obama [...]