There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

Palin points that “American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy”…

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

As with everything the Obama Administration is doing, cap and trade also employs the ram-rod technique of shoving legislation down the gullet before anyone has had a chance to give it a second thought. Palin then makes a point I’m sure Obama would rather she gloss over:

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

Governor Palin urges us to move in a new direction and states we can achieve energy independence if we:

…responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

Whether one agrees with her or not, one thing Governor Palin can speak to with authority is energy, given her service at the Oil & Gas Commission:

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

Loved the “Yes, we can” reference. What is your reaction to her position? I do not pretend to know that right answer here, but certainly she raises issues worth discussing.

Everyone else out there is having quite a big reaction. In a few hours, her op-ed in WaPo has attracted over 3,000 comments. All over the blogosphere and on news sites, people are reacting and as usual, Governor Palin is a lightning rod for both love and hate. HuffPo, typically, cannot kill the message, because she does have a point, so they shoot the messenger, claiming she is “too stupid” to have possibly written this piece. I thought the piece was pretty coherent myself, and yeah, I’m sure she wrote it. By the way, did I mention that I despise elitists. You can her article it in its entirety here.

Further, since the surprise announcement of her resignation on July 3rd, Palin has raised over $200,000 for her PAC, in addition to over $700,000 raised in the five months since its formation. CBS just put out a poll saying 65% of those asked think Palin would not make a good president and most pundits left and right are harping about the fact that her political career is effectively over. Wishful thinking, perhaps. I have no idea what Palin’s actions will be or what her political career will look like going forward, but one thing is assured — as long as these ridiculous attacks continue, her following will grow and she will get plenty of free press that she may use to her advantage.

As for the “chattering class,” as Palin calls them, I can only say, gee fellas, that’s an awful lot of copy to devote to someone with nothing to say, no platform to say it, no following and no hope of making a dent. Evah.

Somebody seems awfully scared of this lady.

Just sayin’.

Of course, I want what is best for Senator Clinton, and what is best for this country. And I HOPE that Obama isn’t just setting her up to fail, or to take the blame for his errors. If that proves to be the case, and I hope it doesn’t, don’t say I didn’t warn ya.

So, in order for Hillary Clinton to be able to take this position, her husband had to be willing to have his donors and speeches be more transparent and accessible to the POTUS. And with that, we have this article from The Onion (and for those who don’t know, its a parody-based “news” source): Bill Clinton Agrees To Disclose Guacamole Recipe

WASHINGTON—In a major stride toward increased transparency of former presidents’ culinary activities, Bill Clinton agreed Monday to disclose a highly guarded guacamole recipe—including a full list of ingredients—so that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, can be named the next Secretary of State. “President Clinton’s efforts will help us avoid any potential ethical problems that the continued secrecy of the preparation instructions for this delicious Mexican appetizer could cause,” said Obama transition team spokesperson Ian Gloucester, who added that the recipe will be vetted for any undue foreign influence from Middle Eastern flavors such as cumin. “We’re just trying to steer clear of the issues that would arise if this dish was to be served in the White House, and it was discovered that the provenance of the recipe was less than savory.” Administration insiders said that if the guacamole recipe is traced back to celebrity television chef Rachael Ray, Sen. Clinton will be compelled to decline her nomination.

That President Clinton - he is wiling to do ANYTHING for his lovely wife…I wonder if he really IS being considered for her Senate seat? Wouldn’t THAT be a kick???

Because I have been talking about our students, teachers, and schools of late, I give you this video, also from The Onion:

In The Know: Are Our Children Learning Enough About Whales?

It’s Friday, people - hope this gives you a laugh.

It became evident, as I watched the video, that Governor Sarah Palin can more than “hold her own” in a debate.

York wrote the following about Palin’s performance:

And all I have to say is that Palin was good — really good. It wasn’t a debate in which the candidates were in each other’s faces or throwing out zingers, but Palin clearly outshone her rivals — especially Murkowski, the longtime senator who played the role of the experienced statesman.

This debate was not lightweight like the recent Saddleback Forum but one that, according to York, was substantive and “heavy”:

As far as substance was concerned, the debate was heavy — I mean heavy — on oil, natural gas, and the money that comes therefrom. To my ears, Palin knew a great deal about the subject and spoke with real authority about it — again outshining her rivals.

You can watch the video of the GOP primary debate at C-Span’s Web site.

As I watched the video, I was more than impressed. She is truly smart and knows her subjects well. The debate also dispels a rumor about Palin and her personally-held stringent beliefs about contraception. Here is the question that Palin was asked:

In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

Here’s Palin’s answer:

No, I don’t think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I’m not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something that I would support also.

I once attended sex education classes for my son when he was in 6th grade. His education began with the birds and bees, which bothered me some. The remainder of the course subject was benign, no more explicit than the books my mother gave me to read when I was young. I was satisfied that the class wasn’t too explicit. The more explicit items are best left to parenting at home.

York learned in his research that Alaska didn’t have a death penalty, something I was not aware of either. I did find out that Palin and I differ on the death penalty. She supports the death penalty when it involves children. My belief is much more broad than hers. Here are her thoughts on the death penalty:

If our lawmakers were to consider such a thing, I think that support should be given for heinous crimes. A murder of a child? I say, my goodness, hang ‘em up. Yeah. A murder of a child, anything to such a degree, I don’t think that there can be anything worse. And if lawmakers were to consider it, that should be the consideration.

In short, this is a debate worth watching. It is my opinion that Biden is going to have a lot on his hands when he debates Governor Sarah Palin. She will certainly do her homework and be well-informed on all questions. Biden has much to worry about in Palin.

OF NOTE: At C-Span, you can also watch the 2006 general election debate between Sarah Palin, the Democratic candidate, former governor Tony Knowles, and the Independent candidate, Andrew Halcro.

Pat Buchanan of all people makes this observation about last night’s “historic” convention speech:

After the phony roll call vote was taken here to formally nominate Barack Obama — a roll call that did not remotely reflect the true delegate strength of Hillary — the media exploded in an orgy of celebration about the historic character of the moment to which they had just been privileged to be witness.

“The first black presidential nominee ever of a major party in history!” was proclaimed. Coming on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, Barack’s nomination is being hailed as the last great step forward in the long march to equality and justice in America.

The moral pressure to join the march of history is enormous.

Nor is it unfair to say that some journalists here are obsessed with the issue of race in this campaign. There may be wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rising tensions with Russia, a falling regime in Pakistan, and reports of U.S. and NATO warships headed for the Persian Gulf, but here it is all about the first black ever nominated for president.
…
Here at the convention, the media watched Hillary and Bill’s speeches with a commissar’s care — to ensure they not only embraced Barack but “validated” his credentials to be president. Should they not go all out for Obama, we are told, the Clintons are dead in the party.

So Obama needs to be validated? Still? With his tremendous financial advantage, press drooling over him, and the DNC elite praising him to the hilt daily – he still needs to be validated by the Clintons? Who did they nominate again?

This ridiculous pre-programmed media narrative about his “historic” candidacy (never mind Hillary’s historic candidacy) entirely ignores the fact that we are in a mess, both at home and abroad, and it would be nice to have a leader who knew what the hell they were doing regardless of race, sex or age. What say you?

I could give a crap about “history” or symbols. Symbols don’t govern. Women do. Men do. I do give a crap about leadership and policies that make sense. Not lofty pie in the sky rhetoric that doesn’t even have a passing acquaintance with reality, offered by someone who has spent barely any time in the Senate.

From George Will, The Devil in His Details,

Obama’s rhetorical extravagances are inversely proportional to his details, as when he promises “nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy” in order to “end the age of oil.”

So why did Obama vote for Bush/Cheney’s Energy Bill? Hmmm. More…

The diminished enthusiasm of some voters hitherto receptive to his appeals might have something to do with the seepage of reality from his rhetoric.

Yes, I’m quoting a conservative. Why? Because Obama is maxed out on the lefties, he is maxed out on the black vote and the youth vote. The voters he needs are actually concerned with bread and butter issues that his faux noble, nose in the air attitude have not yet begun to address.

Even MSNBC’s Campbell Brown, an Obama cheerleader and pillow-fluffer from way back, thought that Barack Obama’s spectacle …

“went a little long, it started to feel like a half-time at the superbowl.”

And when you have Charles Gibson of ABC News asking for the substance behind the fluff of Obama and none other than George Stephanopoulos (no friend to Hillary) asking why she was not chosen as VP to strengthen the ticket — you know you’re in trouble.

Charles Krauthammer in today’s WaPo piece, The Perfect Stranger, points out that:

…The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments — bearing even fewer witnesses.

When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead…

Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama’s life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I’ve been with Barack Obama. We’ve toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.

Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything.

Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We’re all Democrats. He’s a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him — I am currently unavailable — to get Democratic things done. God bless America.

Of course, Krauthammer has to trash Hillary. So again, it is her responsibility to legitimize Obama? If Krauthammer so trusts her opinion on this matter, then perhaps we should have nominated her.

Hey Chuck, did you want her to lie? Obama is NOT a man of substance. He has shown repeatedly that he will throw any one or any policy under the bus so fast it would give you whiplash. Hillary does not and cannot trust him. So she went as far as she could reasonably go without her nose growing on national television.

Furthermore, when it is clear that the ‘loser’ has more power than the ‘winner’ in this contest, we are in a sorry state in this party and in this country.

Pat Buchanan also points out that if Obama loses, we may all be labeled racists –at home and possibly by people abroad as well. Oh really?

John B. Judis, in his piece Avoiding A Long, Disappointing Fall in The New Republic, notes that according to the New York Times’ Matt Bai, “the race isn’t about race” and that what matters more is Obama’s “remarkably little governing experience.”

Daniel Henninger of the WSJ in his piece, Barack Obama: Leap of Faith, quotes New York Times articles stating that in dozens of interviews with friends of Obama during his years as editor of the Harvard Law Review “they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice,” and as a teacher at the University of Chicago, ‘he notably did not participate in its intellectual debates.’

Barack Obama raises the prospect of a candidate for the first time being elected into the presidency almost wholly on the basis of a compelling persona. It is no surprise this could happen in an age tugged by the siren song of celebrity.

Senator McCain nailed Senator Obama perfectly as the celebrity candidate. Like Tom Cruise with his great grin, easy laugh, affable demeanor and cocky swagger, charm is used as a tool to keep one at arm’s length – to seduce with a smile so as to keep the smoke and mirrors from ever letting you peer beneath a well orchestrated surface.

Much to the chagrin and dismay of people like Donna Brazile who envision the NEW Democratic Party being more urban and urbane, kicking the rest of us to the curb, Henninger goes on to correctly observe:

The 2008 election is almost certainly going to be decided by white, lower-middle-class voters — the people who voted for Hillary Clinton this year and before that for Ronald Reagan. If these voters don’t swing behind the Obama candidacy in Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Missouri, he will lose.

Yet amid a universally described lack of clarity about Sen. Obama’s experience and core political beliefs, it is now being said that if the people in blue-collar counties don’t vote for him, they, and their nation, remain racist.

This is false. If they don’t vote for Barack Obama, it won’t be over his personal roots, but because they’re confused about the roots of his politics.

I couldn’t have said it better. It ain’t about race. It never was.

After securing the nomination in June, Obama’s first priority had to be healing the rift between himself and Hillary Clinton. Candidates who can’t put nomination battles behind them well before the convention usually lose. Think of Goldwater in 1964, Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Walter Mondale in 1984. There are only two candidates I can remember who succeeded in overcoming intraparty rifts during the convention–John Kennedy in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980–and they did it by nominating their primary opponents to be vice president.

Obama, who evidently did not see a nail-biting election looming, chose not to do that, and is reaping the consequences.

Obama and his throng chose to continue the massive disrespect heaped upon Hillary Clinton and her supporters. No real roll call vote was allowed. Surely she might have taken the nomination from this empty suit. Talk about putting yourself before either your party or your country, Senator Obama.

Now the media wants to complain that we know very little about this man and that his ’same old same old’ hopey-changey rhetoric is getting tired. They are asking “where’s the beef?

Whatsamatter? Has the soufflé fallen already?

Well, the hell with all of them.

We have been asking, shouting, writing, calling, screaming, pleading for the substance for months and months and ridiculed for so doing. No matter what helpful prescription Mr. Judis is offering Mr. Obama in his article, to “Avoid A Long, Disappointing Fall,” I think that is exactly what the foolish and foolishly corrupt DNC and their new leader Senator Obama are going to have — a long, disappointing fall.

And nobody could deserve it more.

I reckon “Backtrack Barack” is just going to flip or flop on every single position that got him to where he is now - the PRESUMPTIVE candidate. If he keeps this up, he’s going to get confused and end up at the REPUBLICAN National Convention!!

So, thanks tons, all of you Obamabots, for all of your abusive, thuggish behavior, for locking out Clinton supporters from caucuses, getting signatures outside of the caucuses, harassing Clinton supporters online, setting up inside polling booths, and the RBC ones who STOLE VOTES ot push Obama over the top.

Thanks so very, very much. This Bush III transformation is just about COMPLETE!! Way to go.

Just as a reminder, this is the one you SHOVED aside, treated like no other Democratic candidate in our history, on lo, this very subject (and yes, I had this in recently, but frankly, it bears repeating):

And just for fun, in my paper today was an article about John Edwards. Specifically, it was about the birth certificate of his alleged “Love Child,” and how the name of the father was left off. But what was INTERESTING, and by that I mean, a great set-up, was the accompanying photo of John Edwards. The original belongs to the AP, and we know how pissy they can be, but it was similar to the one below, except they were shaking hands:

Interesting, right? The way the paper laid it out, implicating Edwards as the Baby Daddy, and connecting Obama all at the same time! Kinda makes you think, right? And that was the point. Just like many of us think this was the EXACT reason Edwards endorsed Obama - he was being strong-armed. That seems to be the modus operandi of the Obama Bloc. Oh, yeah.

So, in one day, in one paper, we have Obama flipflopping on Offshore Drilling. And, Obama and Edwards together as Edwards “Love Child” is discussed. What a guy. What a candidate. Another George W. Bush. Great job, SuperDelegates. Regroup - even if you are embarrassed that you ever even endorsed this sham of a candidate, do NOT let pride get in your way. Or money. Give us the BEST candidate for the Democratic Party. Give us HILLARY!!!!

And one more fun video along those lines (thank you, Sophie!):

Meanwhile, back in the United States, the US Senate is actually in session!! I bet you didn’t realize that since Obama is on his World Tour! But Obama not being in the Senate does not stop him from claiming credit, falsely, for one of the big committees in the Senate, the Banking Committee. He flat out said - with hand on his chest to make the point - that the Banking Committee is HIS committee! Here’s the kicker - he ISN’T EVEN ON IT!!! Wowie zowie - with all of the lies this man has told about his experience, especially his legislative experience, it is sure a good thing that his supporters have finally woken up and realized what a lying, conniving, scheming, Chicago-style politician he is!!! Oh, wait - that hasn’t happened yet. But we can hope that SOMEDAY they will realize they have been had. Of course, it would help if the media actually did their job to facilitate that awakening. This is me NOT holding my breath.

So, yes, the US Senate is in session, and there is someone who has been knocking herself out for her constituents, and all Americans. Oh, shoot - I have already given a clue by the use of the pronoun. I can assure you, it is not Claire McCaskill, one of Obama’s sycophantic “my children convinced me” supporters. No, of course not - you know who it is. Hillary Clinton.

That’s right, Hillary Clinton is currently fighting in the US Senate to get us relief from these exorbitant gas prices. Oh, and to argue against offshore drilling. What a silly little woman - worrying about the little people! Yet, she spoke about this on the Senate floor:

Senator Clinton urged her colleagues to support The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act to provide short term relief to Americans feeling the pain of rising fuel prices and also called for bold new steps to break the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and achieve long term energy independence based on clean, renewable alternative energy.

Say WHAT? Gee willikers - it seems that all of her talk during her campaigning wasn’t just TALK! She CARES about these issues because she cares about us, energy independence, and the environment. Well, I’ll be darned! She went on to say:

“I believe we can lower gas prices in the very near term by taking smart, practical, sensible steps to address rampant oil speculation,” Senator Clinton said. “And let’s lead our nation to embrace the great next American endeavor, a national effort to change the way we produce and use energy. It’ll serve our economy. It will strengthen our security. It will bring us together as a nation.”

Oh, she just needs to stop - energy independence AND economic recovery? It’s madness, I tell you!!! Maybe that’s what Jim Cramer of CNBC’s “Mad Money” responded EMPHATICALLY when asked by Ellen Degeneres which candidate would be best for the economy: “That’s actually, hands down, Hillary Clinton.” HERE is the link for the interview on YouTube.com. It’s short, but powerful.

But Senator Clinton doesn’t stop there, oh no. She goes on to tackle the issue of offshore drilling:

“Drilling is the wrong answer. It will do nothing right now. It is literally a Shell game, or an Exxon Mobile game. It’s designed to serve the political interests of vulnerable Republicans and the financial interests of profit-rich oil companies. Average Americans will not see a dime,” Senator Clinton said. “The oil companies say, ‘Drill,’ and the President and the Vice President say, ‘How deep?’ I don’t think that’s the smartest, most effective answer.”

Crazy talk, I tell ya! WHAT is she thinking?? Energy independence? Get the economy on track?? NO offshore drilling?!?!? She is out of control!!!

It seems there is some precedent for these wild ideas of hers:

Senator Clinton has previously cosponsored the Petroleum Consumer Price Gouging Protection Act and the Close the Enron Loophole Act, which would protect consumers from unscrupulous energy profiteers and increase transparency in the retail and wholesale markets.

What has gotten INTO this woman?? Concerned about price gouging at the pump? While ExxonMobil continues to rake in record-breaking profits?? What is WRONG with her?! I swannee, as we say down here in the South, she just seems hell-bent on HELPING people! Not in self-promotion! Or being Master of the Universe and pretending to be former American heroes! Good grief.

So, Senator Clinton was on the floor, talking away, pushing this:

Senator Clinton outlined her proposal to create a Strategic Energy Fund to jump start research and investment in clean energy technologies to promote job growth, energy independence and a cleaner environment. She also underscored her support for providing energy relief to low-income families in New York and across the country. Senator Clinton has long been an advocate of fully funding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

How dare she? She wants a program that will help the people of New York and all Americans? Including low-income people?! She has just gone too far. Apparently, she did not get the memo that her REAL job was to engage in narcissistic, selfish, egotistical, arrogant, CYA actions, not to actually do things that would HELP people, the economy, and the environment! Well, no wonder Kerry, Reid, Dodd, et al, in the Senate didn’t want her!! It has all become clear to me now!

Grrrr. So, to recap: Obama is off on his European vacation on TAXPAYER’S dime, pretending to be JFK but missing the mark by a universe, and Clinton is in the Senate fighting for US.

Once again, Automatic Super Duper Delegates: PICK THE PERSON WHO IS FIGHTING FOR US, who has the intelligence, the passion, the COMMITMENT, to restoring this country to economic health, and to take us to energy independence. HILLARY CLINTON is the only one who will do that. Grow a spine, stop worrying about getting more money for your pet projects, and DO THE RIGHT THING already. Have some integrity. Have some GUTS. Do not foist yet another Pretender on us. Seriously.

For an added bonus, here is the LINK to her speech on YouTube.com. Get a cup of coffee, tea, whatever your beverage of choice is, and watch a REAL leader, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Flush with cash, Chavez has sent money and material assistance to the FARC–i.e., the Armed Revolutinary Force of Colombia–a longstanding Marxist insurgent group responsible for more than three decades of terrorism in Colombia. The FARC is like a prehistoric bug frozen in amber. They are completely out of touch with the modern world and refuse to acknowledge that Colombia is no longer a nation dominated by a small group of elites bent on plundering the masses. No matter. The FARC believes it is true and therefore, by definition, it must be true.

According to an Associated Press report on Sunday:

Documents that Colombia says it recovered from a slain guerrilla leader give the clearest indication yet that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought to arm and finance insurgents across the border.

The documents — more than a dozen internal rebel messages — detail several years of close cooperation between top officials in Venezuela’s government and military and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, including the construction of rebel training facilities on Venezuelan soil.

They also suggest Venezuela was preparing to loan the rebels at least US$250 million (euro190 million), provide them with Russian weapons and possibly even help them obtain surface-to-air missiles for use against Colombian military aircraft.

Most importantly, they outline a joint strategic project between Venezuela and the Colombian rebels, with Venezuela even seeking rebel training in “asymmetrical warfare” in preparation for a feared U.S. invasion.

This information is true. It is not fabricated. It is not planted. I also know, firsthand, from conducting undercover investigations in Colombia in the northeast Guajira peninsula, that a significant community of merchants with ties to Hezbollah, who lived and operated in Maicao, Colombia, have moved across the border and set up shop in Venezuela. I am not suggesting they are preparing terrorist attacks. These muslim merchants with strong family ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon are worried first and foremost about making money. A substantial portion of their wealth is obtained thru smuggling and grey market activities. They are willing to send money to Hezbollah but, so far, have shied away from supporting terrorist attacks on this continent.

Oh, and did I mention Hamas. A minority of the muslim merchants that moved across the border into Venezuela are tied to Hamas.
And Chavez, not missing a beat, rolled out the welcome mat for Hamas:

Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez looks decided to go ahead with his self-denominated “anti-imperialistic” foreign policy despite Washington’s open and shady threats. This week, Caracas made public two moves meant to help US foes in Middle East. Hamas leaders will be received by Mr. Chavez “with pleasure”, as the South American oil-rich country confirmed that counts Iran as “great ally of brothers”.

“If they come, it will be a pleasure,” Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel told reporters when asked by reporters whether the government would receive a Hamas delegation. What is the problem with that? Aren’t they going to be received by Russia, Brazil and Argentina? And what’s more, they have a majority with the Palestinian people; they just won an election.”

So what does this have to do with Barack Obama. Let’s start with Bill Ayers again. You know, the guy Barack barely knew but also the same guy who named Barack as President of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative (The Annenberg Challenge). Ayers is a frequent visitor to Venezuela and also enjoys a relationship with Chavez. Here is part of what Bill Ayers said in November 2006:

President Hugo Chavez, Vice-President Vicente Rangel, Ministers Moncada and Isturiz, invited guests, comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout North America. Welcome to the World Education Forum! Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana!

This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane. Thank you, Luis, for everything you’ve done. . . .

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

Education contributes to human liberation to the extent that people reflect on their lives, and, becoming more conscious, insert themselves as subjects in history. To be a good teacher means above all to have faith in the people, to believe in the possibility that people can create and change things. Education is not preparation for life, but rather education is life itself,an active process in which everyone— students and teachers– participates as co-learners. . . .

Let those of us who are gathered here today read this poem as “The Teacher’s Obligation.” We, too, must move in and out of windows, we, too, must build a project of radical imagination and fundamental change. Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education– a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation. This World Education Forum provides us a unique opportunity to develop and share the lessons and challenges of this profound educational project that is the Bolivarian Revolution.

That, boys and girls, is classic marxist bullshit. Capitalism, baaaaddd. Communism. Goooood. The “Revolution” lives.

Oh, did I mention that one of Barack’s big fundraiser also hearts Chavez. Jodie Evans, bundler for Barack, also made the pilgrimage to Caracas to engage in the verbal equivalent of buttocks smooching.

So here is the question for Barack–many of your followers, fundraisers, and longtime advisors believe that Hugo Chavez’s revolution is something superior to the capitalist model followed in the United States. Do you agree with them or disagree with them?

Here’s another question. Hugo Chavez is using his money to support terrorists that are attacking democratic nations and is welcoming the representatives of terrorist groups to come to his country. At the same time, your former boss, Bill Ayers, and one of your key fund raisers, Jodie Evans, are embracing Chavez and praising his leadership. Will you repudiate their actions and return the Code Pink money you have received?

And what about Venezuela’s subversion in Colombia? Will you insist that Venezuela respect Colombia’s borders and end its support to the FARC?

I am guessing that Barack will say no to the first two. I don’t know his position on the last question. What do you think?

Oh, and one last item. A significant portion of the oil we consume comes from Venezuela. What happens when Venezuela tries to use oil as a weapon against us? Saudi and Iraqi oil has little relevance to our daily lives. Not so with Venezuelan crude. But that’s a topic for another day.

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Obama supporters will point out that Hillary also take money from oil executives. She freely admits this, saying:

“Well the fact is [Obama] didn’t take money from oil companies, but you can, and we do, take money from people who work for oil companies, they’re Americans, they can contribute, so we both do that,” Clinton admitted.

Why does Obama continue to mislead the public about the source of his contributions? It might come as a shock to his supporters: it polls well. It’s an open secret that Obama spends lavishly on a small army of pollsters, message men, media advisers, public relations experts, and advertising agencies. But in the case of being clean of oil money, Obama’s money machine didn’t speak to his message men:

In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama aired a campaign spot in Indiana and Pennsylvania that sought to reinforce his theme that he would change the Washington culture, while also tapping into voter distress about the high price of gasoline. In the ad, he called for a windfall profits “penalty.”

“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year and we’re paying $3.50 for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore,” says the spot, which aired as recently as April 8.

Obama’s team has carefully crafted a message that he doesn’t take money from political action committees, although he did until recently, and he doles out substantial amounts of money from his own PAC. Instead he takes enormous sums from people who just so happen to all work in that industry. It’s really just a shell game with dummy corporations: These groups of ultra-wealthy donors are not registered and regulated, and therefore Obama can claim that he doesn’t take money from oil companies:

Obama’s ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations.

As the ad aired, Obama took $12,400 from oil company executives and employees in increments of $1,000 or more. Altogether, people who identify themselves as working for oil and gas companies donated $46,000 in March.

Obama’s claims allow him to project a squeaky clean image created by his handlers. The only problem with this poll-tested strategy is that it collides with the reality that wealthy oil executives are pouring money into his campaign. Obama’s chief strategist David Axlerod, in a moment of candor, described his role like this: “I know my business and the technology of politics and polling and focus groups, all of what we do, in some ways contributes to an atmosphere of cynicism. I try to fight that. I can’t say I’m totally blameless.” You think?

Obama’s willingness to say one thing and do another is wearing thin. He continues to lose contests and his favorability ratings have plummeted. Claiming to be clean of oil money is one thing, actually doing it is something else. “From our perspective, if there is a distinction between oil company PACs and lobbyists, and their executives, it is a mighty fine line,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. “They all represent the same interest — oil.”

During Tuesday’s Clinton-Obama debate, the candidates were restrained but took a few jabs at each other.  They made some policy statements, and each said that the other could beat John McCain.  Blah, blah, blah.  That’s what I figured I’d blog about.

As Barack Obama delivered the final words of the debate, however, my blogging plans changed because my jaw dove toward the floor over one thing that he said.

Obama reiterated that his campaign has not taken money from "registered federal lobbyists" or PACS, the message being that he isn’t tied to special interests the way other candidates are.

Technically, Obama did not lie about this point. 

In reality, the representation is false, because Obama has taken special-interest connected money.  The Hill had a story about this a year ago.  My co-blogger and I blogged about it earlier this week.  And yesterday, USA Today ran a story about it, which states:

"It’s accurate that Obama doesn’t take money from oil companies; neither do his opponents, because corporate contributions are illegal.

"But Obama, like Clinton and John McCain, has accepted donations from oil and gas company employees — $222,309 in Obama’s case from donors from Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others, according to campaign-finance data. Two oil company CEOs have pledged to raise at least $50,000 each as part of Obama’s fundraising team." (USA Today)

USA Today doesn’t stop there.  It gives a laundry list of evidence that Sen. Obama may be tainted by special interests.  The list includes but is not limited to the following:

• "Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig [the same firm that lobbyist-turned-prison-inmate Jack Abramoff had worked for]….

• "Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show….

• "Obama accepts money from spouses of federal lobbyists. In December, the campaign returned a $250 contribution from lobbyist Thomas Jensen of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, but a few days later, it cashed a $500 check from his wife, Sarah, records show….

• "Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He’s taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "’I don’t take pharma money.’" (USA Today)

This story should have broken widely back in January, as Obama gathered momentum partly based on claims that he was divorced from special interests. 

Instead of questioning Obama’s claims and informing the public about disconnects, many media chose to give Obama a free pass.

After months of such media nonsense, USA Today did a bang-up job of hunting down evidence that casts doubt on Obama’s claims of political purity. 

This story was printed yesterday: hours before the Democratic debate.  Yet, Obama (once again) questionably claimed political purity hours after USA Today’s story was printed.

Apparently, some of Obama’s campaign staffers didn’t read the USA Today story — or maybe they thought we ordinary folks hadn’t read it.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* Signs of Bush Tactics & Hypocrisy in Another Obama Email

* Obama’s Questionable Claims of Political Independence

* Not Technically Fibbing: More on Obama’s Campaign Finances

* The Audacity of … Hypocrisy?

* Obama Took Oil Money but Said He Didn’t

* Obama Took Credit for Others’ Legislative Work, Media Ignored it

Flineo says that his new video was inspired by an important post by MBolack that traces the history of Barack Obama’s true views “about the working-class masses.” I’m reprinting her story here, in full.

Barack’s True Beliefs: Those to Which He “Clings” and “Clings” and “Clings”

Barack Obama outdid himself this week, didn’t he?  He revealed something about his true feelings about the working-class masses whose votes he desperately needs, and perhaps his take on that higher plane he believes he  occupies.   But this isn’t an isolated incident, and it isn’t the first time we’ve been reminded that Barack Obama considers himself to be superior to the rest of us.

Let me remind you of a few other times.

November, 2007
      “The nice thing about my candidacy is I don’t have to apologize for a lot of mistakes,” said Obama.
            — Left Coaster

November 2007
      “But they also, surprisingly enough, even in rural Iowa, recognize the opportunity to send a signal to the world that, you know, we are not as ingrown, as parochial as you may perceive.”
            — Taylor Marsh and ABC News

November 2007
      “One of the great pleasures of running for president is to go to some tiny town in Iowa and you’ve got some guy in overalls and a seahat to say what do you think about the situation in Burma, and you’re thinking that he’s going to ask you about corn, and he asks you about Burma”
            — ABC News and Alegre’s MyDD diary

April, 2007
      When Morgan Freeman comes over to greet Obama, the senator begins bowing down both hands in worship. “This guy was president before I was,” says Obama, referring to Freeman’s turn in Deep Impact and, clearly, getting a little ahead of his own bio. Next, a nod to Bruce Almighty: “This guy was God before I was.”
            — Time’s Swampland blog

February 2008
      “I am confident I will get her votes if I’m the nominee,” Obama stressed. “It’s not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.”
            — MSNBC

March, 2008
      The Trouble With Obama’s Arrogance
      The freshman senator told reporters in July that he would overcome Senator Clinton’s lead in the polls because “to know me is to love me.” …
      A few months later, he said, “Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama’s been there.” …  My goodness, he is even talking in the third person!
            — N.Y. Sun

April, 2008
      Last night at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Barack Obama took a question on what he’s looking for in a running mate. “I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I’m not as expert on,” he said, and then he was off and running. “I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area–foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.”
           — Huffington Post

And, of course, there are the arrogant, elitist remarks reported last week, and hashed over ever since.  I won’t repeat them here.  But I do have one question to ask.  Am I the only person who thought that earlier remarks in the same speech were also insulting?  See what you think.

“Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laughter), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).”

Am I the only person out here in the real world who resents being lumped in with a world of people who would be automatically skeptical because he’s black?  Seems to me it is pretty arrogant to make that assumption, and a bit racist, don’t you think?  I don’t believe the masses are racist.

On April 14, 2008, Rasmussen Reports made it very clear that the majority of the American public disagreed with Obama’s statements.

New polling data released this morning shows that 56% of voters nationwide disagree with Obama’s controversial comment that people in small towns “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” (Rasmussen Reports)

And yet, that day, Obama brushed off the controversy.

According to the LA Times, “Democrat Barack Obama today defended his record of understanding working-class Americans, disparaging the “fake controversies” fanned by his political rivals to suggest that he was an elitist.” (Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times and L.A. Times)

Doesn’t that strike you as monumentally arrogant?  You, Barack, were in essence telling 56% of the voting public that they are wrong… that they’re so ignorant that they’re being fooled into your opponents’ point of view.

Sorry, Barack… I think you put your foot in the compost again.

::::::::::::

SusanUnPC’s Afterword: If you missed it, be sure to catch MBolack’s important article that was linked nationwide, including at the New York Times: “Barack “I-didn’t-know” Obama.”

If every voter could read MBolack’s work, our election worries would be over.

::::::::::::::

BONUS FEATURE

Check out Flineo’s other terrific videos, many of which we have posted here over the past several months.

This is one of my favorite videos by Flineo, because it “nails” Obama’s dependence for both his words and his campaign strategy on David Axelrod. It’s called “The King Maker”:

Not only did ole Mr. Hope get caught with his pants down. They are on fire too.

Announcer: You’ve seen the ad.

Barack Obama: “I don’t take money from oil companies.”

Announcer: No candidate does. It’s been against the law for 100 years.

Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907. [Factcheck.org, 3/31/08]

But Barack Obama accepted two hundred thousand dollars from executives and employees of oil companies.

Obama’s Oil Spill

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Every gallon of gas takes over three bucks from your pocket, but Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that put six billion dollars in the pocket of big oil.

And how’s this for an ironic title?: A bill to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy. It sure doesn’t seem today that the bill did what it claimed it would. But you knew that. Only Obama “hopes” that you will forget.

“The provision was just one example of how the energy bill, touted as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil or moderate gasoline prices, has been turned into a piñata of perks for energy industries.” [Washington Post, 7/30/05]

Public Citizen: The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill [Public Citizen report]

Hillary voted against it.

She’ll make oil companies pay to create the new Jobs and clean energy America needs.

She’s the one who will make the oil companies pay to set up a new strategic energy fund that will cut our dependence on foreign oil. Invest in new clean energy, and create five million new jobs.

2006-2007: Hillary introduced a bill that would create a strategic energy fund.

“We need to reform our energy taxes so that large oil companies who reap huge benefits from unexpectedly high energy prices over the next two years will be required to pay a portion of their profits into the strategic energy fund.”

The fund would invest in renewable energy, accelerate the use of biofuels, utilize clean coal technology, and encourage the oil companies to invest in alternative energy. Hillary first introduced the bill that would create the Strategic Energy Fund on 5/23/06. [Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton At The National Press Club On Energy Policy 5/23/06; S.2993, 5/23/06]

Hillary Clinton: I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message

And we approve of your message too Hillary. Because it really is time that we had a president who takes on the oil companies in real life, not just on TV.

We noticed an odd similarity in two front pages this afternoon: HUGE headlines about Hillary and guns. First, there was the Huffington Post’s front page (click to see larger image):

Then there was Talking Points Memo’s front page (click to see larger image):

By susanunpc

And then it all made sense. I opened Mark Halperin’s The Page blog for Time magazine, and saw these blaring headlines:

After remaining silent all day Sunday, Obama lashes out against Clinton in Steelton, Pennsylvania.

“She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her.”

Insists he does relate to small-town Americans, and mocks Clinton’s sudden vocal support for gun rights:

“Hillary Clinton is out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better. That’s some politics being played by Hillary Clinton.”

VIDEO UPDATE: Brother Barack on “there’s some politics goin’ on …” and “that’s some politics bein’ played by Hillary Clinton … you know … come on …” — via Ben Smith’s Politico blog.

Brother Barack was in Steelton, Pennsylvania this afternoon. And he’s still lying to the people about not taking money from big lobbyists. Check all of our stories on the big-time lobbyists he’s raking in the big dollars from.

Special thanks to Brother Patrick Henry for sending me the video link.
______________________________________

Back to the Original: This is not the first time we’ve noticed strikingly similar headlines and stories on pro-Obama sites like Huffington Post and Talking Point Memo. Halperin’s big red headlines — about Hillary Clinton “on the duck blind every Sunday” and that she’s “packing a six-shooter” — come straight from Obama’s mouth, quoted in a Fox News article.

The similarities cannot be overlooked: Have you also noticed how that the anti-Hillary and pro-Obama stories leading the Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo are exactly the same?  We are not just talking a mere coincidence.  Day after day both sites appear to parrot the same “talking points”? For those who are at least 50 years old this comes across like an American version of Pravda and Izvestia.  For you youngsters, Pravda and Izvestia were the “news” outlets for the Soviet Union.  They functioned pure and simple as propaganda machine.

I think the Izvestia and Pravda comparison does not really fit either the Huffington Post or Talking Point Memo.  But their collective behavior and cheer leading does call to mind the writings of Lewis Carroll and the antics of Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Here are some more questions:

• Although both websites have different editors, how close are they to David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s media message manipulator?
• How do they receive the Obama campaign talking points–via email or on a phone conference or both?
• And why do both sites so cavalierly dismiss Barack’s claim that “folks in Pennsylvania, frustrated by the economies of Bill Clinton and George Bush’ are bitter and seek solace in religion, guns or bigotry?”  Why do both find it so easy to excuse words like this that, if uttered by Hillary, would in their view justify a political lynching?

Could it be the money? Consider the possibility that a big Obama money bundler, Ken Lehrer, also happens to be a major investor in Huffington Post.  Hmmm.  Coincidence? Would you be shocked to learn that another big Obama bundler, Reed Hundt — we hear in whispered discussions — is a close confidant of Josh Marshall?

I do not challenge the right of either Arianna Huffington or Josh Marshall to put up what they want.  That’s the beauty of having their own blog.  But I do think it is important to disclose any close political contacts with the Obama or Clinton campaign if you are shilling for them.  Here at No Quarter, we do monitor pro-Hillary blogs.  But we have no connection whatsoever to the campaign.  And this blog’s owner, Larry Johnson, has made it quite clear that he is not seeking nor will he accept a position in a Clinton Administration if Hillary is elected.

Perhaps we should give Obama’s campaign credit for having a better machine for manipulating the blogosphere and the press.  What bothers me is the depth of political manipulation directed against Hillary and the willingness of the media to participate in the print equivalent of mob violence.  Even someone like Mark Halperin appears to have snagged a cup of kool aid today.  He links to The Page byFox News, which quotes Barack Obama’s outburst today:

Clinton called Obama’s claim that economically depressed Pennsylvania voters cling to God and guns “elitist” and “demeaning,” and talked about her duck-hunting experience in Arkansas. Obama sounded skeptical. “She’s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen. How she’s, she’s valuing the second amendment,” he said mockingly. “She’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley. Hillary Clinton’s out there in a duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six shooter. Come on!”

Now where did I hear that before?

::::::::::::::::

By the way, I do not get guidance from top Clinton campaign staffers. However, a few weeks ago, I finally got around to calling the Clinton press office, and they kindly signed me up to receive their press releases. Anyone can sign up to get their releases to the media. Here is tonight’s:

Response to Sen. Obama’s Outburst

Phil Singer, Deputy Communications Director, issued the following statement tonight:

For months, Barack Obama and his campaign have relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton’s character and integrity by using Republican talking points from the 1990s. The shame is his.

Sen. Clinton does know better — she knows better than to condescend and talk down to voters like Senator Obama did. Senator Obama’s outburst won’t change the fact that he has embraced his characterization of the millions of Americans who live in small towns.

###

One of the things most disconcerting about Obama is that he is the Master of Misdirection. Like a magician who distracts you in order to pull off a trick, Obama is the opposite of who he claims to be.

Here are some examples:

After the Wright story broke, Obama flatly told Anderson Cooper that he never heard Wright make those statements.

Then he lectures us on race, admits hearing those statements and, here’s the fake-out, equates Wright’s unacceptable hate sermons with Ferraro making an obvious observation about his candidacy.

Obama is running an ad in Pennsylvania touting the fact that he doesn’t take money from oil companies. Did you see that? No one takes money from oil companies; it’s illegal. But Obama does take money from oil executives.

Obama attacked Hillary on NAFTA while campaigning in economically troubled Ohio, and then a member of his inner circle tells the Canadians that all this talk is just politics. Vous devez être plaisante?

Obama is running as the unity candidate. He unexpectedly loses New Hampshire to Hillary and then his campaign runs a relentlessly negative and racially charged campaign heading into South Carolina. They accuse the Clintons of being racists. Come again?

While in the Illinois State Senate, Obama votes repeatedly against the right’s of gun owners. Now he is touting his credentials as a constitutional scholar and his belief in the 2nd Amendment. Watch out, Pennsylvania sportsmen!

Obama claims he is pro-choice, but when he was in the Illinois State Senate he voted ‘present’ on issues of choice — telling us he was keeping the seat warm but not voting to support women’s rights.

Obama’s campaign is based largely on one speech he gave in 2002. But he has done absolutely nothing to end the war in Iraq since entering the Senate in 2005, except to remind us about the speech he gave.

Obama tells us he believes every vote should be counted, but it’s his campaign that is the only thing holding up counting Michigan and Florida, or having a re-vote. Which is it, Senator Obama? Do Democrats count votes or not? A stolen nomination is a lost election.

This tiring magic act never ends. Some are fooled by the tricks; others are beginning to see.

Once you examine the ad, you realize he is merely stating that he obeys federal law. It’s been ILLEGAL for a lawmaker to take money from oil companies since the 1907 Tillman Act. Sorry, Barack, you can’t bamboozle us with that one. It’s time for a little de-hoodwinking.

I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.

I hate to say it but OILbama is ALMOST telling the truth. He doesn’t DIRECTLY take money from Washington lobbyists; he has D.C. lobbyists who bundle money for him. That’s an important distinction for OILbama because otherwise he might be called a liar.

As it turns out, OILbama has two two oil industry executives who bundle money for him: George Kaiser, the Chairman of Kaiser-Francis Oil Company and Robert Cavnar, President and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC. These two oil company executives can’t have their corporations directly give OILbama any money. That would be illegal. But what they can do is solicit contributions from individuals within their corporations and other oil industries, and it’s all perfectly legal. But it is slimy as hell. An analogy surprisingly appropriate for Big Oil, in so many ways.

But let’s back up a little and get to the beginning of the ad before returning to de-hoodwink the rest of this. OILbama starts his ad with this audacious statement:

Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.

Hmmm … you remember those oil executives I mentioned a little while ago? A little-known fact that OILbama surely doesn’t want you to know, is that he actually receives campaign contributions from this big, bad Exxon company he warns us about. $30,850 to date, in fact. Of course, he doesn’t receive the contributions directly from Exxon because, as is now clear, that would be illegal. But that doesn’t stop OILbama from soliciting money from the employees of Exxon, because well, of course, it is in their best interests to support OILbama because like he is going to crack down on the windfall profits and all that.

Sure he will. Just like he cracked down on the nuclear power energy companies with his mysterious legislation that he passed but he didn’t really pass because it never saw the light of day. I’m sure this had NOTHING to do with the fact that the Exelon Corporation is one of Obama’s largest campaign contributors. Nothing to see there. No impropriety there. Nope, none at all. Shhhh…. Wink Wink.

Newsweek spells it out very clearly:

Obama’s Oil Spill

We’re not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we’d note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he’s received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

Lobbyist Loopholes?

We’ve noted before that Obama’s policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It’s true that he doesn’t accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

Get that? He takes money from spouses of lobbyists. And we might expect that a spouse of a lobbyist would act in an unbiased fashion because, well, it’s just that they like Barack. It couldn’t possibly be that OILbama might be in the bag for helping out the oil industry even though his ad says he won’t. Or could it?

Let’s examine a few facts, shall we? Namely, one fact that the OILbama campaign thinks no one is paying attention to. And that is the obvious truth that OILbama himself is DIRECTLY responsible for the “windfall profits” he now claims he is against. Sort of like “I actually voted for the windfall profits before I voted against them.” or “I was actually against this war before I started funding it into perpetuity.” You sense a pattern?

The Family Guy, Barack OILbama, stood up for his dear Cousin Dick (Cheney), and voted for his 2005 Energy Bill. The very same Energy Bill that gave “windfall profits” to Exxon Mobil and lots of other Big Oil companies that OILbama, now that he is running for President, is so suddenly against. But he will “stand up” to them. You believe that, don’t you? I mean, he is an upright guy with only the country’s best interests in mind, right? Couldn’t be otherwise. Heaven forbid!

Well, fortunately for us there is at least one person running for President who doesn’t have a problem with telling the truth. And one candidate who didn’t vote for Cousin Dick’s massive giveaway to Big Oil. As I am sure you have discovered, the person I am talking about is Hillary Clinton. Hillary not only didn’t vote for Cousin Dick’s Energy Bill, she has been actively working to correct the abuses that Barack OILbama helped bring about.

Despite the fact that Hillary is being outspent heavily in this race, she refuses to allow OILbama to get away with lying to the American public which is exactly what OILbama is doing. In a radio ad called “Real Life,” Hillary sets the record straight.

Real Life

In his TV ads, Barack Obama sounds like he’ll take on the oil companies.

“I don’t take money from oil companies.”

What he doesn’t tell you is that “no candidate does….they cant,” according to the Annenberg Center’s Factcheck.org…It’s been against the law for companies to donate to candidates for a hundred years.

Listen to Barack Obama some more.

“Now Exxon’s making forty billion dollars a year and we’re paying three fifty for gas.”

Obama also doesn’t mention that he voted for the Bush Cheney energy bill.

It was called a piñata of perks and the best energy bill corporations could buy.

Hillary Clinton voted against that bill.

She’s the one who will make the oil companies pay to set up a new strategic energy fund that will cut our dependence on foreign oil .invest in new clean energy, and create five million new jobs.

It’s time for president who takes on the oil companies in real life, not just on TV.

“It was called a piñata of perks and the best energy bill corporations could buy.” What an excellent line and so very true. But Hillary wasn’t satisfied to merely air an ad to counter the OILbama lies, her campaign called upon the OILbama campaign to take down their misleading and factually inaccurate ad.

Axelrod says will not revise Obama oil ad despite Clinton complaints.

“As Senator Obama returns to Pennsylvania today, questions remain on why Senator Obama aired misleading television ads claiming he doesn’t take money from oil companies,” the Clinton campaign said in a statement. “ In response to his continued misleading rhetoric, the Clinton campaign will hold a conference call today to discuss Senator Obama’s troubling pattern of saying one thing and doing another and announce it is airing a new radio ad in response to Obama’s discredited television ad.

And Axelrod’s response? Well, as is typical, he stands behind his message even though it has been discredited by numerous sources. Of course, a little inconvenience called truth has never stood in the way of the OILbama campaign.

“I have a different view of that,” Axelrod said. He said he was right because Obama does not take money from political action committees. “I think it was accurate the way it was,” Axelrod said when I asked if he would be revising the oil ad.

A different view? Do tell, David. You mean a hoodwinking view? A bamboozling view? Or is it just an OILbama view? Because the facts tell a different story. You remember those things, don’t you, David? Facts… those silly little things that truth is made from.

Like this:

Clinton Fights Obama TV with Radio

Corporate contributions are prohibited in federal election campaigns, while the employees of companies can contribute to candidates. And, the Clinton campaign spokesman says: “What Sen. Obama does not tell you, while even though he can not take money from oil companies, which nobody can, he has taken $200,000 from employees of oil companies… Two of his bundlers are top-executives of oil companies.’’

Or perhaps this:

Obama’s Oil Spill

When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama’s ad, calling it “false advertising,” Obama’s campaign quickly noted that he didn’t take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

We’d say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company’s or an organization’s individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC’s donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We’re not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron’s PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

So I guess in OILbamaland, there is good money and there is bad money. Good money is the kind that helps you buy a mansion even if it comes from a jailed slumlord fixer. Whoops, I mean that is bad money. Or is it good money because it helps OILbama? I always get those two mixed up.

How can anybody not be fed up with this walking sack of lies? His own grease is rolling right off of him. You would almost have to be on something to buy into Barack Obama.

Obama has this ad in TV about how he doesn’t take money from oil companies and lobbyists. (The VIDEO is below.)

First of all, Barack Obama takes money from the companies that employ lobbyists. Slick huh? Very slick. He has bundlers doing that dirty work for him. He has also taken plenty of money from JP Morgan, who was bailed out and bought out Bear Stearns (with your money). He has taken money from Wall Street by the fistsful. Obama just loves those Sub-Prime lenders! Why one of them is even his campaign finance manager now (see: now defunct “Superior Bank” of Chicago fame). Lehman, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs. UBS AG, they all contributed to Obama.

In fact, Barack “Honest Man” Obama took $6,715,680 from securities and investment firms. You know, the people who hire the banking lobbyists?? Oh and he got $1,355,472 from hedge funders. Between the securities people and hedge funds, no wonder Barack did his big “plan for the economy” speech on Wall Street and suggested that everybody who got burned by sub-prime lenders file for bankruptcy and pay it all off anyways. Wall Street LOVES Barry Obama!

How many lies can this man tell before at least one of them sticks to his Oil-Slicked body? Don’t take my word for it. Here are his top ten contributors
Top Ten Contributors

He also actually did take money from lobbyists as well. $114,713 worth. He also took money from Pharmaceuticals. $515,465 worth. How about Lawyers and law firms? $13,341,673.

Now onto Oil.

Barack Obama has taken $213,884 from gas and oil. To dare to say any differently is a bald-faced lie, period. Here is the link:Open Secrets
And before you bring it up, Hillary Clinton took money from them too! Yes she did! You know the difference? She’s not plastering a LYING advertisement all over the TV. Like the one below. Take a look and then ask yourself how on the face of this earth you can call him The One.

I am sure this oil slick will just roll right off of Leland Gaunt Obama. It’s Hillary’s fault. She called him a liar because that’s what he is. His response? Some mumbo jumbo about negative campaigning. Get off it Obama. Do you think this free ride is going to last forever?

You think because you blocked Florida and Michigan from revoting that you are going to be president?

Really??

Really? They will vote in November you know. What a great service Hillary is performing for America by taking all your sexist crap so that more time can go by and we can learn so much more about you. So much more. More to come I bet.

Reposted from: Hyper Educated Uppity Woman