I am sure you will be SHOCKED to learn that Obama is acting in much the same way. I know, I know – what a surprise. Ahem. Well, it seems some one has been doing a little investigative journalism, something in VERY short supply of late. But get this – I tell you, you better be sitting down – in this case, it was – WAIT FOR IT –
MSNBC. YES, the very network to which we routinely refer as “MSNBO”! Once I recovered from the shock of it all, I couldn’t wait to see just how transparent President Obama was compared to Bush. (I wonder if there is a way for us to do a pool on these kinds of things, like for NCAA basketball or something?)

This is what MSNBC uncovered in this report:

Obama Names 110 White House Visitors

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

The emphasis there is mine. This is a bit of a schizophrenic opening. On the one hand, they want to champion that Obama released 110 names – Woohoo!! On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that, once again, President Obama is using the SAME arguments as Bush. Moreover, this “Constitutional Scholar” is doing so in clear violation of not one, but TWO federal court rulings! Maybe the KoolAide was made improperly that day, I don’t know, but the report continues:

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year. There are limitations there as well, including potential Supreme Court nominees, personal guests of the First Family, and certain security officials.

The names released Friday include business leaders and lobbyists with a lot to gain or lose from Obama policies. They include Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (whose foundation is pushing for changes in teacher pay), former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan’s James Dimon, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, State Street bank’s Ron Logue, BNY Mellon’s Robert Kelly, labor leader Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (22 visits)*, American Bankers Association CEO Ed Yingling, community bankers president Camden Fine, and lobbyists Heather and Anthony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta led Obama’s transition team.

Besides Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt are also on the list. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC. One of NBC’s parents is GE.)

Advocates and nonprofit leaders include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is interested in health policy.

So, this is how Obama is paying these people and organizations back, by having them in the White House? I bet Kim Gandy was just all aflutter after she threw ALL women under the bus to endorse Obama over a life-long women’s advocate. There is more on her below.

I know many readers will be interested in this White House guest:

Democratic donor and businessman George Soros visited with White House aides twice.

Yes, indeedy, a major funder of Moveon.org has been to check up on his biggest investment – ahem – twice.

We’re just getting started:

Political figures include former Sen. Thomas Daschle, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Al Franken, former Vice President Al Gore, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.

Celebrities at the White House include Oprah Winfrey, actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Denzel Washington, and tennis star Serena Williams. Journalists include Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Conservative religious leader Gary Bauer visited, as did liberal civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Okay, the last two, along with Oprah, are NOT a surprise. Gary Bauer? Just a tad surprising.

For anyone who wants to see more:

Msnbc.com has put the full list in a handy PDF file, and also in an Excel file for those who like to sort.

One guest is mighty interesting:

Not that Bill Ayers

The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial — do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it’s not the president’s former pastor. This Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. The William Ayers who took a group tour of the White House isn’t the former radical from Chicago who figured so prominently in the 2008 campaign. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.

The White House could have avoided some of that sort of confusion by providing more information on the visitors, such as an employer name and the city they hail from. For example, is the Shawn Carter who attended a poetry reading the same one who goes by Jay-Z and had campaigned for Obama?

“This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information,” a White House special counsel, Norm Eisen, wrote on the White House blog.

If you spot a name on the list that bears investigating, please drop us a note.

Of COURSE we will just trust Obama and his spokes-minions when they assure us that this Bill Ayers could not POSSIBLY be domestic terrorist – Capitol Building and Pentagon bomber – long time friend and mentor Bill Ayers! He is just some guy who wanted to visit the White House Gift Shop and pick up a couple of Marine One helicopter models for his boys. I am sure of it. Sheesh. Really? They expect us to believe this crap? Evidently – they got plenty of other people to believe that kind of crap and more, so why stop now?

Okay – if you are consuming any liquids right this minute, I suggest you put it down when you read this:

Limited release

Despite the accompanying White House claim of “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” the Obama White House continues to take the same legal position as the Bush White House, arguing that the records are not public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only limited “voluntary releases” are being made to settle a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, though a federal judge has twice ruled that all the visitor logs are public. (Again, emphasis is mine.)

Yet there are severe limitations to the transparency:

Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.

I know, right? Didn’t this sound just a little pissy?? From someone at MSNBC?? The bigger picture is that the Obama Administration is BREAKING THE LAW. Hell to the YES, that information falls under FOIA – this is OUR White House, not the Obamas. We most definitely DO get to know every single John Smith and Jane Doe who cross the threshold of the White House. You better believe we do.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is a start:

The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback. Does the absence of Bill Clinton’s name on the list mean that he has not been to the White House, or that the request wasn’t received by the White House online system?

A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Say whaa?? The White House rejected a request from their lapdog “news” source?? Huh. There’s a shocker. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, MSNBC!

The Wall Street Journal focused on the most frequent visitor to the White House. He was mentioned in the list above, but without the acknowledgment of the frequency:

SEIU’s Stern Tops White House Visitor List

Promising “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

But the White House said those aren’t the guys you’re thinking of. Nor is the log complete.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! I just cannot get enough of this one – sure, they aren’t the same people. Yeah, okay, we believe you. NOT. And because it is just so much fun to see them squirm, I am keeping in the part that is repetitive of the article above, especially the quotes from Eisen. Oh, what a funny guy:

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few ‘false positives’ – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president, writes on the White House blog. “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

Adds Eisen: “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

Uh, ya know, I think we are all smart enough to not get all confused by this incredible level of “transparency.” Beginning with, we actually know the definition of “transparency,” something Eisen and Obama apparently do not.

And then there is this:

One thing is clear: *Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

So THAT’S what Gandy and Keenan got for stabbing Hillary Clinton and, well, WOMEN, int he back – visits to the White House. I guess there is something gained by selling your soul, though, personally, I don’t think it is worth it. But that’s just me.

Anywho – yes, the President of the SEIU, again, the union co-founded by the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke, is the TOP visitor at the White House. The SEIU has been in the news quite a bit, especially for holding California hostage – threatening that their good buddy, Obama, would not give the state any federal stimulus funds if it had the audacity to expect the union to cut wages like everyone else so the state wouldn’t go bankrupt. NOW we know how the union was able to do that. All those visits to the White House apparently paid off – for the union, not California, the state with one of the largest budgets around (as in 5th in the world). What makes this more egregious is that California pays a lot into the federal tax system and receives little comparatively speaking. And this union is allowed – by the White House – to hold it over a barrel. Yep, all those meetings seemed to do the trick!

Aren’t you just so heartened by all of this “transparency”? And by seeing who Obama is welcoming into our White House? Yeah, me, too. As long as the Obama Administration continues to thumb its nose at Federal Law, I reckon we should be “thankful” for this (no, not really – it’s BS that they are still sitting on so much information).

Oh, but if you can just GUESS who might else have been there and submit that form asking them, maybe you can confirm some other folks who have been there, too. Lemme know what you find out, okay? I am sure we would all just love to know…

“Who’s the best executive branch rodeo clown?”

“Don’t be the crook if you can’t handle the schnook.”

Barack Obama on Thursday stated the following:

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact,” Obama said at a Chicago news conference. “I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

But on Friday we learned the following:

Emanuel, who has long been close to both Blagojevich and Obama, has refused to respond to questions about any involvement he may have had with the Blagojevich camp over the Senate pick. A spokeswoman for Emanuel also declined to comment Friday.

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Where do we begin with Obama’s statement on Thursday?

“I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat.”

I am confident you phrased this statement in the manner you did, for you knew Emanuel was in contact with Blagojevich through his Chief of Staff and through other advisors and operatives. I am also confident that Emanuel is avoiding reporters, for Emanuel knows his voice is recorded on wiretaps gathered by Fitzgerald and his investigators. It is time for Emanuel to resign and to vacate his House seat. And by the way, is not former Daley operative Valerie Jarrett Co-Chair of your Transition Team? Why was the Co-Chair of your Transition Team in contact with Tom Balanoff, the SEIU Representative, who according to page 69 of the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain “stated that he would find out if Senate Candidate 1 [Valerie Jarrett] wanted SEIU Official to keep pushing her for Senator with ROD BLAGOJEVICH.” Maybe it is time you answer questions about Valerie Jarrett’s contact with Blagojevich and his operatives.

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject.”

You claim you did not speak to the Governor, but Emanuel submitted a letter with a list of candidates you preferred to Blagojevich. In other words, you communicated with the Governor about the open Senate seat. Moreover, news reports you and your operatives have attempted to remove from the Internet reveal you met with the Governor the week following the Presidential election. You met with him, and you sent him letters. This website contains two screen shots and a press release from Blagojevich’s office documenting that meeting. I recommend you read them and explain their existence to the media during your next press conference. Thank you for your prompt and anticipated cooperation.

“I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact.”

Perhaps you need to think again, for the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain reveals that a line of communication existed between your team and that of Blagojevich. We also know that members of your team, including Emanuel, were engaged in conversation with members of Blagojevich’s team about the open Senate seat and the possibility of positions for Blagojevich since November 4, 2008. Maybe you need to read and reread the criminal complaint until its full import and significance is understood. And besides, no one cares what you “think;” we care about what is known.

“I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

Ask your staff again. Obviously they are incapable of compiling information, for it is Sunday, and no documents have been made available to the public. Do you have any intention of sharing any and all communications between your staff and that of Rod Blagojevich? And while your seemingly inept, incompetent and corrupt staff compiles these records for the perusal of the traditional media and writers online, I recommend you ask them to create a dossier on your dealings with Rezko. This staff, after all, is housed in the Kluczynksi Federal Building on Dearborn Street in Chicago. Access to records from your days as a state Senator of an inner city Chicago state Senate district should not be difficult for a group of overpaid operatives in your Transition offices to obtain. I imagine they are not very bright, but if they refrain from engaging in drunken gang rape simulations with your speechwriter Jon Favreau, the lazy and inept lot will probably have the energy and focus to locate and compile these documents in a timely manner.

=========================

One paragraph, one lie, two equivocations and one false promise: how and why does anyone take Barack Obama seriously?

UPDATE:

Times Online reports calls for Emanuel’s resignation as Obama’s Chief of Staff. I quote with emphasis:

THE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama’s chief of staff after it was revealed that he had been captured on court-approved wire-taps discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat.

Emanuel’s presence at the heart of the scandal threatens to roil the president-elect’s administration as a Chicago prosecutor builds his corruption case against Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor.

Not only should Emanuel resign as Obama’s Chief of Staff; he should resign from the US House, where he is also Chair of the House Democratic Caucus. According to the Chicago Tribune, he is yet to vacate his House seat. I quote:

Though now working full-time on Obama’s transition, Emanuel has yet to resign his congressional seat. Illinois law has a different process for filling vacant House seats than Senate seats. When Emanuel resigns, a special election will be held for his replacement.

Emanuel should resign as Chief of Staff and as member of the US House, as sources have confirmed his involvement in the scandal surrounding Obama and Blagojevich. I quote the Chicago Tribune again:

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Promising to rid Congress of what she called a Culture of Corruption, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated the following after Democrats seized control of the House in 2006:

“The intention of our Founding Fathers was for Congress to be a marketplace of ideas. The Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house – for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play. It is just not right.

“Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history.

Communicating with Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff, submitting a list of candidates Obama approved to Blagojevich through operatives and advisors and participating in conference calls in which Blagojevich was attempting to forge a “pay to play” deal with Obama and Jarrett, Emanuel is engaging in the “pay to play” practices Nancy Pelosi decried on January 6, 2006. If Democrats are truly committed to ridding the House of ethical clouds, cronyism and corruption, then Emanuel must resign as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

He must also resign as Obama’s Chief of Staff, for Obama has promised “a new dawn of American leadership,” a new dawn that includes a “clean break from the broken politics of Washington.” Emanuel’s direct participation in conversations with Blagojevich reveals that Obama will never enact a clean break if Emanuel is one of his chief advisors. Barack Obama’s inability to disclose all communications between his staff and that of Blagojevich in a timely manner is also a sign that no clean break with the politics of the past will occur during an Obama administration.

I wonder if more calls for Emanuel’s resignation will surface. And if such calls surface, I hope they also include calls for him to resign from the US House. For not only should the White House be free of Emanuel’s corruption; Democrats in the House do not need to be tied to the scandal that is the “pay to play” politics of Washington, DC, and of inner city Chicago, where Democrats Rahm Emanuel, Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama were schooled in the art of corrupt machine politics.

“He is not one of my advisers. He’s not one of my foreign policy people,” Obama said at a campaign event in May. “He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy.”

That is not true. In fact, Obama and Khalidi were close friends and their families frequently ate together and shared intimate moments. Michelle, for example, attended a wedding limited largely to family at the Khalidis.

“Khalidi was a frequent dinner guest at the Obama’s home and at his farewell dinner in 2003 Obama joined the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers in giving testimonials on Khalidi’s role in the community.” Based on an article Peter Wallsten wrote in April, someone finally put two and two together, and we now know that the Times is actually sitting on the video that they used to write this article.

So…why would the Times write this piece, then endorse Obama, and then put this tape in a *lockbox*? Perhaps this was a preemptive article, trying to sugar coat the ties between Obama and Khalidi, in case jouranlists actually ever did their job, and really looked into the story. Or perhaps Peter Wallsten was doing his job, and trying to expose this relationship. So, if his article is so accurate, why are they hiding the tape? hmmm

But it is weird that the Times wrote a story about this, and are now claiming they can’t release the tape, because they are protecting the source of the tape. I figure the tape either has to be really bad for Obama, and they were writing a fluff preemptive piece in case the tape ever came out. Or, the writer is now being pressured by the paper to cover it up (since they endorsed him, and all).

Either way, I don’t see how NOT releasing the tape is protecting a source. If someone gave them the tape, they can be protected by not revealing their name. But is covering up the content of the tape protecting a source? (”here mr. newspaper man, watch this tape, and write an article about it, but don’t ever show the tape”?? why?)

So, that begs the question: who would have given the writer the tape? It doesn’t make sense that someone opposed to Obama would have done it, and then insist that the tape not be released. They would want the tape out, no? So, is it someone pro-Obama who gave the tape to LA Times, so they could do a *CYA* piece for Obama, and they made the paper promise they would never release it, because it is baaaaaaad for Obama? The *source* gave the tape to Wallsten, and he was allowed to write an article about it. So, why the big secret on the content of the tape? However, the writer does make some rather potentially dangerous observations in the article. :OS

Based on my deductive reasoning (haha), it would seem to me that the LA Times is, pure and simple, covering this up for Obama. I don’t believe they are covering for any source. I think they are just in *puppy love* with Obama, and they won’t do anything to harm *that one*. I think the writer wrote his piece, and now he is pressured to stay quiet from the paper.

That makes the most sense to me… Oh hell I don’t know! I can’t figure it out. haha

All I know is Obama lied about the extent of their relationship, which is a pattern with him. And the tape should be released. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Here is the original article, with some snipits below.

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”

…

Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that “nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.” The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering “from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel” and to renounce violence.

…

Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”

The use of such language to describe Israel’s policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel’s defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said’s keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an “even-handed” approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama’s specific criticisms.

Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

…

While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi and his wife lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood near the Obamas. The families became friends and dinner companions.

In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund’s board of directors.

At Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Check out these articles about Tape Gate, from FOX and LA Times.

What am I going on about? Well, “The Hunt For Sarah October” is a Wall Street Journal article by John Fund, and it details the onslaught of people descending upon Wasilla, Juneau, and Anchorage, to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. By the Democrats. I am not making this up. They cannot be bothered to actually vet the top of the Democratic ticket (I saw a comment the other day at the San Francisco Chronicle in which someone took umbrage at any hint of a relationship between Bill Ayers and Obama), but they are going to make damn sure they vet the REPUBLICAN Vice Presidential candidate.

Wow. John Fund describes the move this way:

Democrats understand Sarah Palin is a formidable political force who has upset the Obama victory plan. The latest Washington Post/ABC Poll shows John McCain taking a 12-point lead over Barack Obama among white women, a reversal of Mr. Obama’s eight-point lead last month.

It’s no surprise, then, that Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin’s hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.

They are digging into HER record. They could not be BOTHERED to do this with OBAMA’S record, but they are deploying 30 (THIRTY) people to try to get some “gotcha” information on Sarah Palin.

You may ask yourself, “Self, I wonder just what they are hoping to find out there in the frozen tundra??” (Hey, anything below, say, 75, is frozen to me!) Here’s your answer:

The main area of interest to the Democratic SWAT team is Mrs. Palin’s dismissal in July of her public safety commissioner. Mrs. Palin says he was fired for cause. Her critics claim he was fired because he wouldn’t bend to pressure to get rid of a state trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a bitter divorce battle with Mrs. Palin’s sister. Mr. Wooten is certainly a colorful character. He served a five-day suspension after the Palin family filed a complaint against him alleging he had threatened Mrs. Palin’s father. They also accused him of using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson, drinking in his patrol car and illegally shooting a moose.

Well, golly gee – just because he used a Taser on his 10 yr old stepson shouldn’t get him in hot water!! Or for threatening to kill the governor’s daddy! What the heck? How dare a state trooper be fired just for things like THAT? Sheesh! Those Republicans – no sense of humor, I tell ya!! Who cares if he was tossing back a few breskies in his patrol car while he was on duty? What could possibly go wrong from there?? He sounds like a real stand-up guy (that is complete and total snark, just in case you didn’t know).

Let’s just finish out the article:

Mrs. Palin will return to Alaska for the first time in nearly two weeks on Wednesday night, when she is scheduled to arrive in Fairbanks. Local Republicans will hold a “Welcome Home” rally for her. You can bet some of the Democratic opposition research contingent will be in the audience taking notes. They’ll be the ones arriving in rental cars and wearing fancy dress shoes from back east.

Ahem. Yes, Obama can hang out with Jeremiah “Goddamn America, and Don’t Think I’m Afraid To Have An Affair Or Two” Wright for 20 years. He can hang out with unrepentant domestic Bill “Could This Be Another Chance At The Capitol Building?” Ayers for over 20 years. He can get help from his good buddy, convicted felon Tony Rezko to get his mansion – which is in the same neighborhood as Ayers and Louis Farrakhan. Oh, and he got influence from Rezko, too, completely SCREWING the constituency who got Obama into office in the first place (well, not really so hard to do if no one else is on the dang ballot) by assisting Tony in getting a ton of money for his tenements. Or his relationship with Daley. The governor of IL. Auchi. The Nigerian money thing. The Annenberg Challenge thing and the mystery of the $110 million dollars, some of which made its way back to Jeremiah Wright (see how that comes full circle??). Oh, I could go on and on. The DNC should have used their bevy of lawyers and investigators to look a little more deeply into Obama rather than Palin. Heckfire, just finding out if he is eligibile to be PRESIDENT would be a good start, or did he ever have dual citizenship? See? These are just a few of the questions that need answering. It would have been good had they done that before giving Obama the nomination and treating Clinton like Pure-T crap – maybe then all those of us who actually care about democracy, women’s issues, social justice, and HONESTY, might still consider ourselves Democrats! But by all means, rather than focusing on the PLANK in your own eye, much better to focus on the speck in your competitor’s eye (paraphrase of Luke 6:42). Especially going after the bottom of the ticket instead of the top. Great job. I see the Republicans have taught you well, Grasshopper! Sheesh.

You know what? “At long last, (they) have no shame.” They really don’t. The DNC is spending its time and money vetting someone who, by all accounts, is a staight shooter (get it? She hunts and all.). What you see is what you get. Someone who believes in a transparent government SO much that she has the checkbook for Alaska online for the people to see. But they do not bother to vet the most secretive candidate I have ever seen, someone who will not allow his medical records or school records made available, who claims he has NO paperwork or date books for his entire time in the IL Senate, a man who will not even show his BIRTH CERTIFICATE or passport(s)!! And they are going to Alaska to vet Sarah Palin? Wow, it truly boggles the mind. As my good friend, the Divine Democrat, said:

If only the MSM would send as many people to Chicago as they are to Alaska to “vet” Palin. They’ve never vetted Obama and still refuse to do so. Let them go to Obama’s 13th District in Chicago and take a look around at the crumbling buildings, signs of high crimes and gang activity. Let them look at the performance of the public schools there. Let them all see what a bang up job he’s done for Chicago when he was the Illinois State Senator.

Oh…and we should only look at his performance as State Senator since he only wants to look at Palin’s time as Mayor. Right?

Yep, I reckon so! How about that State Senate record, Obama?? Hahahaha! Ahem. As I mentioned the other day (and Divine, too, in her excellent post, “The Making of a Messiah” at her site and No Quarter), there is an excellent article that does just that, one of the few. Of course, it was only in a small Chicago paper before it made it’s way to the Houston Press. So, naturally, since it was SO hard to fine, it’s understandable more people don’t know about it (that’s sarcasm). Here it is, “Barack Obama and Me.” It details how Obama had NO legislative accomplishments to his name until Emil Jones, a longtime Senator (who is retiring this year) decided to play Kingmaker. Give it a read, if youhaven’t already. It’s mighty telling.

Anywho – so the DNC is on a witch hunt against Sarah Palin. I don’t know how else to describe it. But the McCain camp is not sitting silently by while this happens. Oh, no – unlike the DNC, when a prominent woman is attacked by the opposition, they strike back. McCain’s campaign released the following yesterday: MCCAIN-PALIN 2008 LAUNCHES TRUTH SQUAD TO COUNTER ATTACKS ON GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN

ARLINGTON, VA — With today’s Wall Street Journal report that pro-Obama Democrats have “airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage” to dig for dirt on our vice presidential nominee, the McCain-Palin campaign today launched the Palin Truth Squad to counter recent attacks on Governor Sarah Palin, her family, her friends and her record of accomplishment. The Palin Truth Squad will set the record straight against Internet and liberal smears of Governor Palin.

“We’re proud of Governor Palin’s leadership in Alaska and record of taking on entrenched special interests and the good old boys network,” said former Governor Jane Swift. “Governor Palin’s commitment to reform is well-known but there are those who would seek to distort that record with vile rumors and smears against her, her husband, her children and her friends. We will not allow those on the left and in the media to smear a woman who has always served her constituents with honor. We know the truth and are committed to ensuring it as well.”

In the event of false attacks, rumors and smears against Governor Palin, the Palin Truth Squad will issue alerts and statements to voters and the media to set the record straight. Additionally, the Truth Squad will be available to respond to inquiries from the media.

National Members Of The Palin Truth Squad:

· Former Governor Jane Swift (R-MA)
· Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI)
· Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, (R-AK)
· Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
· Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
· Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
· Congresswoman Thelma Drake (R-VA)
· Congresswoman Mary Fallin (R-OK)
· Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
· Congresswoman Kay Granger (R-TX)
· Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
< font face=Arial>· Congresswoman Candice Miller (R-MI)
· Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-FL)
· Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
· Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-NM)
· Jo Ann Davidson, RNC Co-Chair
· Rosario Marin, Former U.S. Treasurer
· Meg Stapleton, Former Aide To Governor Palin
· Kristan Cole, Lifelong Friend Of Governor Palin

State Members Of The Palin Truth Squad:

· Former Lt. Governor Jane Norton (CO)
· State Representative Amy Stephens (CO)
· State Board of Education Member Peggy Littleton (CO)
· State Representative Ellyn Bogdanoff (FL)
· County Commissioner Mildred Fernandez (FL)
· Former Iowa Senate President And Former U.S. Ambassador To The Eastern Caribbean, Mary Kramer (IA)
· State Representative Jackie Walorski (IN)
· State Representative Laura Brod (MN)
· Former GOP State Party Chairwoman And Former State Rep. Barb Sykora (MN)
· Jayne Millerick, Former NH GOP Chair (NH)
· State Senator Jennifer Beck, Honorary Co-Chair NJ Women For McCain-Palin (NJ)
· Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose, Honorary Vice Chair NJ Women For McCain-Palin (NJ)
· Bergen County Clerk Kathe Donovan, Honorary Co-Chair NJ Women For McCain-Palin (NJ)
· DA Dona Ana County Susana Martinez (NM)
· Former Lt. Gov. Lorraine Bono-Hunt (NV)
· State Senator Barbara Cegavske (NV)
· State Assemblywoman Heidi Gansert (NV)
· Sue Lowden, Nevada GOP Chair (NV)
&# 183; Kay Ayres, OH GOP Vice Chair (OH)
· Betty Montgomery, Ohio Women For McCain-Palin Chair (OH)
· Mary Taylor, Ohio Auditor Of State (OH)
· Margie Hughes, Clackamas County Chair Of Women For McCain-Palin (OR)
· Linda Neace, West Linn Small Business Owner For McCain-Palin (OR)
· Deanna Smith, Women For McCain-Palin Chairwoman (OR)
· Renee Amoore, PA GOP Deputy Chair (PA)
· Joyce Haas, PA GOP Vice Chair (PA)
· State Senator Lisa Baker (PA)
· Diana Irey, Washington County Commissioner (PA)
· Christine Toretti, RNC National Committeewoman and McCain-Palin Pennsylvania Co-Chair (PA)
· Kim Ward, Westmoreland County Commissioner and McCain-Palin Pennsylvania Regional Chair (PA)
· Former First Lady Susan Allen (VA)
· Lori Ann Miller, Young Republican Federation Of VA Chairman (VA)
· Former Lt. Gov. Margaret Farrow (WI)
· Peggy Oban Boze, McCain-Palin Chairwomen For King County (WA)
· Susan McCaw, Former Ambassador To Austria (WA)
· Della Newman, Former Ambassador To New Zealand (WA)

I believe this is known as the (and I am paraphrasing just a little), “Screw me? Screw YOU screw me!!” strategy by the McCain camp.

Add to that the delight you KNOW the Alaskans are going to feel having these 30 interlopers coming in trying to dig up dirt on their WILDLY popular governor! Oh, yeah. I’m sure the good folk of Alaska will be all too happy to help you Armani, Prada, Jimmy Choo wearing Dirtmongers out – right back out of their state.

So you thought the problem of Barack and Michelle Obamas’ 2005 mansion purchase was dead and buried.

Well, not any more.

A reader of my website who is a tax accountant of many years, one who specializes in criminal matters, says he believes the Obamas have a tax problem.

Simply put, the allocation of purchase price between the Obamas’ lot and the lot next door, which were both owned by the same couple and had long been sold together, makes no sense unless the amount paid for the lot adjoining the Obamas’ by the wife of now convicted political fixer Tony Rezko was specifically meant as a favor to the Obamas so that they could afford their mansion.

If so, the difference between what Ms. Rezko paid for the side lot and what it was actually worth would be construed by the IRS as income to the Obamas.  After looking at the Obamas’ tax return for 2005, my source was able to say that in his opinion they did not declare any such income, and therefore did not pay taxes on it.

Barack Obama once called the house purchase a boneheaded mistake, but my source believes it is worse than that.

Much worse. If Barack Obama were to attain the White House, this problem could be devastating for the Democratic Party, says my source.

That is why he wants this information made public now.

Here are the specifics.

On June 15, 2005 , Barack and Michelle Obama bought a landmark mansion on Chicago’s South Side for $1.65 million.

The lot next door was sold the same day for $625,000 to Rita Rezko, wife of Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

Tony Rezko was at that time under investigation for fraud and influence peddling, for which he was eventually convicted.

The specifics of these sale transactions were reported by the Chicago Tribune in an article published November 1, 2006 .

The information on the sale is also available online at the website of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds.

According to the Tribune, the Obamas’ price was “some $300,000 less than the asking price.”

The Rezko property, the article said, was purchased for “the full … asking price.”

That means the previous owners were paid $2.275 million for the two properties.

It is reasonable to assume, then, that when the previous owners listed the properties for sale, their asking price for the two was $2. 575 million or thereabouts.

How that total amount became the two amounts is what is at issue here.

Obama claimed in a long interview with Chicago media on March 14, 2008, as Tony Rezko was about to go to trial, that the sellers had tried to sell the house and adjoining lot together, but were not receiving offers as a result of the high price.

The sellers, he said, had already listed the properties separately by the time he and Michelle became serious about making an offer, and that the house, along with its lot, was listed for $1.9 million.

I understand from knowledgeable sources

that the multiple listing service for the area may have the records to confirm this assertion, but I do not have access to those kinds of records.

Archpundit, an Illinois  blogger and strong Obama supporter, somehow obtained access to 94 pages of related documents (pdf) he posted earlier this year, which contain documentation of the $1.9 million listing in January of 2005.  No earlier listings were printed.

Taking Obama at his word, we are led to believe that the sellers are the ones who allocated the $2.5 million or so that they wanted, in total, between the two properties. Since we do not have access to the original calculation and who made it, we can only try to determine if the allocation made at the time was reasonable.

Intrinsic Value

An empty lot only has value to a developer, or a developer’s wife, if he can build on it and sell for a profit.

Could the Rezkos have done that?

The Obamas’ house is in is an official landmark district, and I learned from a Senior Permit Reviewer at the Landmarks Division of the Chicago Department of Planning and Development that any construction in that district must be approved by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks.

She said the Commission makes sure that the construction conforms to the look and feel of the neighboring structures.

That means, for the district in question, that the structure could not be a high rise.

A one-unit home is a possibility, but would have to be very expensive in order to ensure a profit.

A small condominium building or several town houses might be a possibility, given the proper zoning, but they would also have to be expensive.

Of course, expensive is the norm for that neighborhood.

I am not an expert on real estate development, but it does seem that there might be potential for some profit in building on the empty lot bought by Rita Rezko.

The property, after 1,500 square feet was sold to the Obamas (see below), has changed hands twice since Rita Rezko bought it. According to the Cook County Recorder’s website, Rita Rezko sold the property on 12/28/06 for $575,000 to 5050 S Greenwood LLC.

Bloomberg reported on February 18, 2008 that the buyer’s name was Michael Sreenan.

5050 S Greenwood LLC sold the property to John D. and Marjorie S. Poulos on 3/17/08 for $675,000.

I do not know these people, nor do I know their relationship, if any, to the Rezkos.

If they do have business or personal relationships with Tony Rezko, these would not be the kind of arm’s length transactions that would ensure a market price for the property.

Comparison of Naked Land Values

It is common in the real estate industry to separate the house vs. land value from a total purchase price by assuming that 75% of the price is attributable to the house and 25% to the land.

And 25% of the $1.65 million that the Obamas paid for their house and land is $412,500.

By this test, the Rezko property should have been priced at less than that amount, as it had less square footage.   Instead, Rita Rezko paid one and a half times as much.

Assessment Associated with a Subsequent Transaction

Again from the 11/1/06  Tribune article (and also from the Recorder’s Office’s online records), we know that on January 11, 2006  the Obamas bought a strip of the Rezko lot that adjoined their property.

As the Tribune describes the transaction,

Using a standard formula, Obama’s appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land.

If an assessor valued 1/6 of the property at $40,500, wouldn’t that mean the market value assessment of the whole Rezko property at that time would be $40,500 x 6 = $243,000? Admittedly, the valuation of a strip of land may be lower because it is such a small portion of a property, but could that possibility account for the huge difference between the two values?The Times of London created a handy graphic to help visualize the properties and the transactions (extracted from this pdf file): 

Relative Assessed Values

The Cook County Assessor’s website shows only the current assessed values of the two properties, but by a call to the office I was able to find out the 2005 assessments for tax purposes. Be aware that assessed values for taxes in Chicago  are not anywhere near the market value.

I am only concerned here with the relative values, which should give us some indication whether the allocation of purchase prices between the two properties might have been reasonable.

The allocation between the two properties at the time of the listing was about 75% for the house and its lot ($1.9 million), and 25% for the adjoining lot ($625,000). That is very much out of kilter from the allocation above, based on assessed values.

What the Obamas Could Afford

At the time, the Obamas’ finances were good, but not good enough to buy a $2.5 million mansion.

The 11/1/06  Tribune article reports that the Obamas obtained a $1.32 million mortgage on their property (the information is also available on the Recorder’s Office website).

That means their down payment was $330,000 ($1.65 million – $1.32 million).

A venerable institution like the Northern Trust, which lent the Obamas the money, would never have engaged in any of the risky practices that later caused the housing market crash.

Therefore, they would have applied a formula to determine what the Obamas could afford to pay for their home, based primarily on the size of the down payment.

Apparently, the magic number turned out to be $1.65 million.

The Obamas wanted the mansion.

But the sellers, as we saw, wanted more for the two lots than the Obamas could afford or were willing to pay.

Who Determined the Relative Prices and How?

According to Obama’s 3/16/08 Chicago  media interview, he played no part in the determination of the properties’ prices.

The sellers have refused to speak to the media.

A member of the Obama campaign spoke with the husband of the couple, and exchanged emails, portions of which were shared with a Bloomberg reporter, who wrote on February 18, 2008,

The e-mail says that the sellers “did not offer or give the Obamas a ‘discount’ on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot.” It also says that “in the course of the negotiation over the sales price,” Obama and his wife, Michelle, “made several offers until the one accepted at $1.65 million, and that this was the best offer [the sellers] received on the house.”…

The e-mail between [the seller] and the campaign adviser also says that the sellers had “stipulated that the closing dates for the two properties were to be the same.”

But no statement has been made public by the sellers about how the price allocation between the two properties was made, or when, or whether anyone influenced that calculation.Obama seems to believe that what he said at his 3/16/08 press conference with Chicago media is all he ever has to say on this subject.Neither of the Rezkos has spoken publicly about these land deals. But Tony Rezko was convicted in early June of 2008 for fraud and influence peddling by the office of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Presumably, that office is now negotiating with Rezko as to whether he will testify against any of his cohorts and any other information he can provide for further investigations by that office.Barack Obama has not been implicated in any of the wrongdoing for which Rezko was convicted, but might Rezko be tempted to reveal his side of this transaction? He was an experienced developer.

He was broke, $50 million in debt, and living on borrowed money at the time of the 2005 purchase, according to ABC News’ The Blotter on March 5, 2008. According to the article, Rita Rezko made only $37,500 per year, six months after the purchase and,

Rezko’s bleak financial picture raises the question of how the Rezkos were able to buy a vacant lot adjoining the home of Sen. Barack Obama in 2005, at a time Rezko says he was already in deep debt…

How were the Rezkos able to make the down payment, and qualify for the loan, on the lot?

The same story may give us a clue:

[Rezko] said he had an ongoing relationship with Nadhmi Auchi, a London-based Iraqi billionaire convicted on French fraud charges, who Rezko described as a close friend and business associate.

Did the “ongoing relationship” between Rezko and the Iraqi-born Auchi involve money changing hands prior to the purchase of the lot next to the Obamas?

It did in 2007, according to now retired Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak.

On February 28, 2008 Novak reported that Rezko “got $3.5 million from Auchi’s company in April 2007.”

In other words, did foreign money enable a U.S. Senator to buy his mansion?There could also be Senate ethical considerations for Senator Obama, if he did not disclose a benefit to him, as required by Chapter 5 of the Senate Ethics Manual (pdf).Judicial Watch has already filed ethics complaints over the house purchase, in regard to what it considers preferential treatment for Obama in obtaining the mortgage on the property.

From the press release:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today [date not given] that it has filed separate complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below-market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer.

Patrick Fitzgerald sent a former Illinois governor to prison.

He brought down the top aide of a sitting vice president of the United States.

He continues to investigate Rezko and his partners’ actions to determine if there were more illegalities, especially whether the sitting Illinois governor could be involved. He may be interested in what Rezko has to say about this property purchase next door to a U.S. Senator, now a presidential candidate.

And Rezko may be willing to talk, in exchange for a more lenient sentence, scheduled to be handed down on September 3, 2008.

Obama courts Middle America in attempt to counter ‘antiChrist’ image

If Obama thinks he has problems with us Just Say No Deal Pumas, he’s got much bigger problems with the very same Americans that he put down during the primaries, you know, those bitter, gun toting, bible clinging folks:

The Obama team’s strategy of picking up conservative, evangelical Christian voters has run into unexpectedly strong headwinds. This is especially true among the poor, white and working-class voters of Scots-Irish descent who live in the Appalachian mountain region that stretches across parts of seven states.

Barack Obama may wonder why many people aren’t falling in line behind him, but the truth is, he faces major public relation problems. Many people just don’t trust him to tell the truth about himself. Obama remains a mystery to millions of ordinary Americans. Who is he? What does he believe in? Is he a Christian? And if so, after 20 years in the church run by Jeremiah Wright, what kind of Christian is he? Doyle writes:

Along with Internet claims that he is a Muslim, some evangelical Christians have put it about that Obama may be the Antichrist. Glenda Kinzer, 41, from rural Ohio, believes the end of the world is about to occur. “A lot of people are talking about how Obama fits the description” of the Antichrist. “I always thought he will be from the Middle East.”

Obama is now advertising his Christianity by pushing Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Not long ago, liberal Democrats worried about Bush using religion, and now, Obama, the shape-shifter extraordinaire is hawking the same old wares (this is a new kind of politician?). Not only are these programs designed to replace social programs (and social programs have long been the mission of the Democratic party), even more troubling is that Obama’s plan “blurs the nation’s constitutional separation of church and state”:

Earlier in the week, he unexpectedly took a page from George W. Bush’s political playbook by embracing his controversial “faith-based initiatives.” He told voters in the evangelical heartland of Ohio that as president he would fund religious groups dealing with America’s social problems provided they did not discriminate in who they offer help.

He praises Ronald Reagan and copies George Bush. Yet Obama remains an unknown. Many of us will never vote for him because he is inexperienced, unproven and displays poor judgement. And Obama’s talking points consist of whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. What are Obama’s positions? As they say about the weather, wait five minutes and they’ll change. Just last week Obama appeared to throw MoveOn under the bus. MoveOn is one of his major contributors, but for the sake of appearances, they went quietly under the bus. Obama’s followers embrace his political position of never allowing values to come in the way of winning:

In the run-up to the July 4th national holiday, Obama has been on a “values” tour of middle America as he seeks to counter Republican attempts to label him as too liberal.

That’s the thing: Obama will say and do anything for the sake of appearances. And the good folks of Middle America are wise to question who he is and to wonder about his motives.

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable – and necessary – for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.

He’s at it again. More lies and more deception and it’s amazing how many people buy into Obama’s deceit.

Barack Obama has moved swiftly to put his stamp on the Democratic party, announcing on day two of his status as presidential nominee that the central party will abide by the same rules on accepting money from lobbyists as his own campaign.

The move signalled that Obama intends to impose a new approach to politics, and that he wants to be seen to be doing so. A central theme running through his bid for the Democratic nomination is that he will sweep aside the chummy relationship between politicians and lobbyists and free himself from the grip of special interests.

Under the new rules, the Democratic National Committee, which raises central funds for the presidential campaign, will take on board Obama’s existing ban on donations from lobbyists who do business with the government as well as from political action committees – private interest groups set up to raise money in order to influence the outcome of elections.

That’s the UK Guardian reporting but I could have used any number of American or foreign media outlets who just can’t seem to figure out how the new back door policy works.

Obama is a grand deception when it comes to lobbyists. He claims that he doesn’t take money from lobbyists. That’s simply duplicitous parsing of the facts because his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government. Of those 38 lawyers, 10 are former federal lobbyists. And those 38 lawyers have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Obama campaign. Employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million according to USA TODAY.

Thirty-one of the 38 are law firm partners, who receive a share of their firm’s lobbying fees since law firms pool compensation. And according to The Washington Post, at least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists at their firm.

Take Sidley-Austin LLP, his wife’s former law firm. It is the sixth largest law firm with over a billion dollars in revenues and more than 1800 lawyers many of whom are registered lobbyists. In their health care practice alone they have over two dozen registered lobbyists:

Sidley-Austin Government Affairs

And they have 40 different practices.

And they bundle money for Obama. Tom Cole in the Illinois office has raised over $50,000; John Levi also in Chicago over $200,000; Kathryn Thompson in the DC office over $50,000 And these figures are for YE 2007. The figures are likely near 50% more now.

Here is what Obama does: He gets money from the lawyers at Sidley-Austin that are not registered lobbyists, many of them former lobbyists taking a hiatus. Law firms are partnerships were compensation is pooled so the work of one attorney benefits the rest. So while Obama does not directly take money from the registered lobbyists at Sidley-Austin it is all just a game, a wink and a nod.

And so who are Sidley-Austin’s clients? For starters, hedge funds like another of Obama’s bundlers, Citadel Investment Trust of Chicago. In fact in 2007, Institutional Investor named Sidley Austin the “best overall law firm” serving the hedge fund industry for the second consecutive year and was also recognized as the number one law firm in the subcategory of “regulatory and compliance expertise.” Read their press release: Sidley-Austin named Best Overall Law Firm serving Hedge Funds by Institutional Investor Magazine

But primarily Sidley Austin’s clients are the global elite Fortune 500 companies that dominate the global economy. Plus ça change. Vive la difference!

And like Sidley-Austin, he has at least 16 other law firms with registered lobbyists doing the same thing. In April 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama “raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital.” Again the same duplicitous ruse: get money from the lawyers who are not registered lobbyists.

Here’s how the St. Petersburg Times describes it:

But Obama has left a few loopholes that allow him to fund his campaign much the way other candidates do — with contributions from wealthy special interests. While railing against the “stranglehold that lobbyists and special interests have on our democracy,” his campaign coffers are filled with money from people who work for corporations and law firms that lobby the federal government.

Some power players are not registered lobbyists, but advise their clients on how to talk to federal officials about policy issues.

For example, Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader, who endorsed Obama and contributed to his campaign, is a consultant — not a registered lobbyist — working with Alston & Bird, a business firm that earned nearly $7.1 million from lobbying in 2006. Obama has received tens of thousands of dollars from other partners in the same firm.

Obama?s ?disdain? for lobbyists hasn?t stopped him from having ? you guessed it ? state lobbyists play prominent roles in his campaign. For example, former SC governor Jim Hodges is Obama?s national co-chair. Jim Hodges is also the founder of Hodges Consulting Group, a state-based lobbying firm, and is a registered federal lobbyist.

And it doesn’t end there. Obama?s co-chair in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state based lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries amongst others. Michael Bauer, a member of Obama?s LGBT steering committee, is a state based lobbyist in Chicago. And in Nevada, Obama?s campaign also has three state based lobbyists who played senior advising roles in August last year. Lobbyist everywhere you look but just use the back door please.

Here is a list of bundlers for Presidential candidates.

And Obama is careful to use the words “Washington” lobbyists because he takes money from Springfield lobbyists. For example, Obama took $2000 from two Springfield, Illinois lobbyists for Exelon, which spent $500,000 to influence policy in Washington in 2006 and gave $160,000 directly to Obama in 2007. Talk about duplicitous parsing. And in August 2007, Obama travelled to Sacramento, California to raise money from California-registered lobbyists. According to the Los Angeles Times, Obama held a fund-raising lunch for Sacramento lobbyists. The cost was $1,000 for the lunch and $2,300 for admittance for a private reception thereafter. Asked if this wasn’t somehow a contradiction, Obama told the NBC affliate in Sacramento:

“Because I have no power in this state, so I?m not influenced in any way by somebody who?s lobbying at the state level, the main thing that we?re trying to avoid is any perception that somehow those who are doing business in Washington have an influence on my agenda.”

Right. A President has no influence on the states. And state lobbyist never become federal lobbyist nor do they ever work for firms that do both state and federal lobbyist nor have clients that have needs at both the state and federal level.

Now let’s look at Hogan & Hartson, one of the world’s top 30 law firms in terms of revenues. In 2007, approximately $17 million of those revenues came from lobbyists. Their client list includes several Indian Tribes involved in gaming, the Argentine Beef Promotion Institute, Berkshire-Hathaway (Warren Buffet’s group), several pharmaceutical companies (Bristol Myers Squibb, Glaxo Smith Kline, Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, Sanofi Aventis and TAP Pharmaceutical Products), energy companies (Cinergy Corporation, H2Diesel, Michigan Consolidated Gas, Petroleos de Venezuela SA, and Xcel Energy), healthcare companies (Provena Health, Rocky Mountain Health Plans, Vanguard Health Systems and Well Care Health Plans) and other major corporations like Clorox, Sun Microsystems, Nestle USA, Koch Industries and Level 3 Communications.

For me personally the fact that Hogan & Hartson represents the Venezuelan state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA is disconcerting. It makes me rather suspicous of as to why Obama wants to talk to Hugo Chávez, who in my mind is a state sponsor of terrorism. This aside, the real worry for all is simply that Obama’s revolving door practice with lobbyist is so back door. What is he hiding? And why does his policy position so often reflect not core Democratic positions but industry positions? Energy is a perfect example. He supported the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan, that Clinton did not, and that plan was industry sponsored. And Obama has received more from energy companies that all other candidates combined.

The lobbyist practice is a revolving door practice, now a back door revolving door for Obama. Lobbyists generally come industry or from government itself. They switch jobs every so often refreshing their network of connections. Here’s how Open Secrets describes the practice:

Revolving Door: Top Lobbying Firms
When American voters discard elected officials?and their staffs?lobbying firms and interest groups are quick to snap up the unemployed. Lobbying firms?which often charge steep fees from their deep-pocketed clients?can offer former government employees salaries far greater than those proffered by Uncle Sam, as well as continued influence on Capitol Hill. In return, firms get lobbyists who already have established connections in the federal government and whose résumés can act as a powerful draw for potential clients. The lobbying firms shown here have the greatest track record of hiring former government employees.

The table below names just some of the law firms that are bundling for Obama that also have a lobbyist practice. The second column is the number of registered lobbyist profiles at Open Secrets for that firm. It is not the actual number of registered lobbyists. That number is much higher but difficult to track. The third column are the names of Obama’s bundlers with the fourth column being the amount raised as of December 2007.

Sources: White House For Sale, USA Today, Washington Post, Open Secrets

Covington & Burling is particularly interesting of a connection because they are the largest health care practice lobbying firm with an estimated over $50 million a year in revenues from that practice alone.

Here’s how bundlers work since I have been bundled in my days as a Wall Street Equity Analyst. You will get an email from your CEO or department boss inviting you to an event for a candidate. There you are “urged” to make a contribution on behalf of the candidate. You’ll hear a pitch from the candidate on how I am good for the country and one from your boss on how the candidate will be good for the firm. Geez, when you put it that way. It is akin to guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Corporations don’t finance Presidential candidates, corporate hotshots finance Presidential candidates. Is there any difference?

And the relationship with bundlers is a tight one and tighter than at other campaigns. Here is what the Washington Post wrote back in April 2008:

Obama’s bundlers help make up a more loosely defined “national finance committee,” whose members are made to feel part of the campaign’s inner workings through weekly conference calls and quarterly meetings at which they quiz the candidate or his strategists. At one meeting, bundlers urged the campaign to link Iraq war costs with the faltering economy. And they got an advance copy of Obama’s Philadelphia speech in which he addressed the incendiary remarks of his longtime pastor.

It is true that the McCain campaign takes money from lobbyists but they are not going around telling they are not and then doing it through the back door. It’s the back door that gets my ire. And didn’t you just love his line about how Washington lobbyists won’t fund his party? Well, it certainly ain’t mine no longer.

Open Secrets Lobbying Database

Charles Lemos
San Francisco, CA
bythefault.com

As you can see here, Clark is known has been known as a Lobbyist for Commonwealth Edison. He also has bundled $200,000 in contributions for Barack Obama’s campaign. Now that by itself would be interesting, but it also seems that Clark is yet another one of those people with a politically incestuous Chicago trail.

Clark is currently CEO of Commonwealth Edison. If that doesn’t ring a bell for you, Commonwealth Edison is the same company that boasts the well-connected Thomas Ayers as its former CEO. Mr. Ayers also served as Chair of the Board of Trustees of Commonwealth Edison after his tenure as CEO, so you can easily imagine he had a hand in selecting Mr. Clark as CEO.

Thomas Ayers was also the father of that fine upstanding citizen, “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird” domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Isn’t that a coincidence? I guess Chicago is a small world for sure. (And it no doubt helped that DADDY had all those $$$ because Billy’s well-paid attorneys unearthed prosecutorial misconduct that kept Billy out of prison — where he belongs for all the bombs he brags about setting!)

As a relevant side note, it seems that Mr. Thomas Ayers, who died last year at the age of 92, was also a friend of the infamous famous Mayor Richard J. Daley Sr. in the 60s. According the the blog of a former member of the 1960s SDS, “He was always a man pulled between his role as a representative of big business and advisor to the Daley machine, and his basic values of equity and fairness…“.

It seems that, besides having connections with the Daley Machine, Mr. Ayers was a bit of a community activist himself, but in a much nicer way than his son was. Instead of blowing up buildings and killing and/or paralyzing people in terror, Thomas worked peacefully on civil rights. That’s why during the 11 years that his slime ball son was a fugitive, Bill was estranged from him–until of course Bill needed his Daddy to get him out of trouble. Most of us recognize that scenerio in smaller ways, don’t we? As parents, many of us rescue plenty of “independent” “upscale” Obama supporters regularly, generally financially.

Anyway, as I mentioned, Chicago is a really small world isn’t it?

As an additional side note, given the longstanding relationship between the Ayers family and the Daley family, it is suddenly more than understandable why the current Mayor Daley would speak out in defense of Bill Ayers when his terrorist activities resurfaced as pertinent to Barack Obama and their ongoing friendship. It also certainly helps to punctuate why hanging out with the connected Bill Ayers would be key to an ambitious Chicago politican who wants to Pass-Go-And-Collect-$200 in a hurry– and get to the Oval Office by skipping as many steps as possible. Look how well things worked out for Barack with Commonwealth Edison to the tune of $200,000!

Back to Mr. Clark, and in keeping with the small, politically incestuous world of Chicago, this successor to Mr. Thomas Ayer’s Commonwealth throne is also a Corporate Officer of Exelon. In case Exelon doesn’t ring a bell, they are also one of Barack Obama’s top 10 contributors.

For all of Sen. Obama’s rhetoric about the need for tax return transparency, you’d think he’d have released all of his tax records. Guess again.

For weeks, Sen. Obama and his campaign relentlessly demanded that Hillary release all of her tax returns even though 20-years of them were already publicly available. His campaign held an endless string of conference calls, issued press releases and flooded the airwaves with surrogates attacking Hillary for not immediately releasing the returns for the last few years she has been in public life.

Sen. Obama said the American people “deserve to know where you get your income from,” stressing the need for “full transparency” and bragging that his campaign has “set the bar.”

Well, Hillary released tax returns earlier this month and is now the only candidate in this race who has made thirty years worth of tax returns public.

But despite his rhetoric, Sen. Obama doesn’t abide by the standards he sets for others.

Sen. Obama has refused to release his tax returns for 1997, 1998 and 1999, even though he was in public life as a state senator during those years. During this period of time, Sen. Obama was accepting contributions from special interest lobbyists, PACs and even directly from corporations.

In fact, Sen. Obama has a habit of demanding higher standards of transparency for others than for himself. The National Archives has released hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from Hillary’s years as first lady, including her entire schedule. Throughout the campaign, Sen. Obama has demanded Hillary release more documents, even though they are not under her control. Meanwhile, Sen. Obama refuses to release any documents that are more than three years old. At first, Sen. Obama and his campaign told the press that he had records from his state senate years. Later, he said he threw them all out.

Whether it’s tax returns or legislative records or his relationship with indicted political fixer Tony Rezko, Senator Obama seems to take “the dog ate my homework” approach to disclosure.

When it comes to transparency, the only thing transparent about Senator Obama is his claim to be transparent.