April 27, 2008
First, let’s review:
• Barack Obama says that in 2000, he was so broke, his credit card was declined when he tried to rent a car at LAX;
• Michelle Obama (who pisses and moans constantly about how rough she had it, skipping through life from private charter school to Harvard) says she and Barry were still heavily burdened by debt (specifically, by student loans from 1988 and 1991) until Barack’s book sales took off in 2005.
Despite these facts:
• In 1993, the Obamas put a $111,000 down payment on a $277,500 condiminum;
• In 2000, the Obamas earned a combined household total of $240,000.
With that in mind, get a load of what’s come out in this morning’s L.A. Times — “Obama donor received a state grant“:
After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client — a longtime political supporter.
Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell’s firm that eventually totaled $112,000.
A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.
Killerspin specializes in table tennis, running tournaments nationwide and selling its own line of equipment and apparel and DVD recordings of the competitions. With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.
Obama’s staff said the senator advocated only for the first year’s grant — which ended up being $20,000, not $50,000. The day after Obama wrote his letter urging the awarding of the state funds, Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.
Uh, isn’t this sort of thing illegal?
Oopsy-daisy! My mistake! Apparently, this is just Chicago-style — or at least Illinois-style — politics as usual:
Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector.
So, it’s not illegal. But you know what? It should be.
Now, you take this Blackwell wheeling-and-dealing (and there’s plenty more about it at the LAT link) along with Obama’s questionable dealings with Tony Rezko, and the way Obama got where he is today — plainly put, he was kicked upstairs by another close ally, the powerful Emil Jones, Jr., whom Obama rewarded with pork-barrel earmarks of “more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones’ Senate district” — and you’ve got to start asking just how “transparent” Barack Obama really is.
It shouldn’t matter a whit if Barry’s Peter-Pays-Paul dealing is legal; the question is: Is it ethical?
I say it isn’t.
I say it all just plain stinks.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Corruption,
Illinois,
Michelle Obama
March 31, 2008
A funny thing happened recently: Ever since Mike Gravel jumped back into the race, I’m not paying a lot of attention to Barack Obama — other than to shake my head and cluck my tongue every time he says something stupid. (Did you hear what he said about a woman’s right to choose? I agree with the guy, on every word, but that “punished with a baby” line is red meat for the Right. Dumb, Barry, really dumb.)
Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean I’m not glad to see Obama’s very real liabilities brought up in the MSM, as often as possible. I don’t hate Barack — I just don’t want him to be president, and to that end, I want all Americans who have yet to vote in a primary to understand that Barack Obama is not the Messiah he and his blindly adoring supporters want you to think he is.
To that end, I direct your attention to a long, detailed piece that gets into the specifics of Obama’s ties to some very unsavory characters (and Jeremiah Wright isn’t even one of “the four stumps”!) worth bookmarking:
Four Stumps in the Water for Obama
As the high-water mark for Barack Obama recedes, his campaign must now confront several dangerous stumps that were once hidden below the surface. The problems began with Obama’s long attachment to Rev. Wright, Trinity United Church, and Black Liberation Theology, but they won’t end there.
So, what issues are now lurking for Obama?
The first is the volatile mix of race and religion, begun with the Rev. Wright controversy. Videos have now surfaced of virulent race-baiting by yet another Chicago preacher with ties to Obama, the Rev. James Meeks. Obama was not a member of Meeks’s church and their connection may be only a tactical alliance between prominent local figures. That’s the question: how close are those ties?
Meeks is no ordinary pastor. He is an important political and religious figure in African-American Chicago. He not only leads a mammoth congregation, he is an Illinois state senator and a key player in Jesse Jackson’s powerful local political organization, which is squarely behind Obama’s run for the Presidency. …
Obama’s second problem is his most important patron in Illinois politics: Emil Jones. Jones heads the Illinois State Senate and is one of the two most powerful legislators in Springfield. He played a vital role in Obama’s rise in state politics and, most significantly, he blessed Obama’s underdog candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
Now that Obama is playing on a national stage, his ties to Jones raise uncomfortable questions about his years in Illinois politics. …
The Rezko trial highlights another problem for Obama, potentially a devastating one, though it is unlikely to arise for several months or more. Antoin “Tony” Rezko is on trial for taking large bribes in return for political favors. …
…Rezko problems are bad news for Obama because the two have close, long-standing ties. Obama initially downplayed those ties and minimized the money Rezko had raised for him. When local reporters raised pointed questions, Obama declined to answer. He broke that silence at a strategic moment, just as the Rev. Wright story hit and the national media was focused on nothing else. That’s when Obama found time to give extensive interviews about Rezko to the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Predictably, the story got some play locally but was drowned out nationally. …
Where does Obama figure in all this, aside from being a recipient of Rezko’s campaign cash? No one knows for sure, but suspicion centers on one particular real estate deal. …
Obama’s final stump also lies in Kenwood, where he was friendly with the 1960s radicals, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn, now married, were members of the Weather Underground, a group that killed police and tried to bomb the US Capitol. …
Obama served with Ayers on the board of a small, leftist foundation, the Woods Fund. Ayers later chaired the board and is still a member. Obama served from 1999 until 2002 and received several thousand dollars annually as compensation. According to the 2001 annual report, the fund made a $6000 discretionary grant to Rev. Wright’s Trinity United Church “in recognition of Barack Obama’s contribution of services to the Woods Fund as a director.” Serving with Obama and Ayers was the prominent Palestinian activist, Rashid Khalidi, then a historian at the University of Chicago and now the Edward Said Professor at Columbia. (While they were all on the board, the Woods Fund gave a generous grant to the Arab American Action Network, headed by Khalidi’s wife, Mona.)…
Much, much more at the link, and all well worth reading.
See also:
Pork-Barrel Spending, Billjacking, and Strong-Arm Tactics: How Barack Obama Got Where He Is Today
And the Meeks Shall Inherit the Obamanation
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Corruption,
Election 2008,
Homeland Insecurity,
Illinois,
Mike Gravel,
Race/Ethnic Issues
March 11, 2008
We’re royally pissed off at Elliot Spitzer — not because he was patronizing a prostitute (or ten, or a hundred), but because by letting his little head do his thinking, he’s really screwed over gay and lesbian Americans.
Elliot Spitzer was one of the best friends American LGBTs could ask for. He’s been a longtime advocate for marriage equality, and last April introduced a same-sex marriage bill in the New York legislature — the first governor in the country to do so. Although the GOP-dominated state senate killed the bill, we were hopeful that New York would be one of the next states (competing with Rhode Island and California) to offer full, equal marriage, à la Massachusetts.
Spitzer had also promised to sign the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA).
Now it looks like we’re going to lose our best friend in the Empire State. And even if Spitzer doesn’t resign (and, really, he has to; he violated the Mann Act), his power is effectively neutered.
We don’t care a whit if Elliot Spitzer wants to pay for sex, and whatever damage he’s done to his marriage (and his relationship with his children) is his own concern. What a person does sexually, in private, is nobody’s business — unless his behavior puts a crimp in somebody else’s freedom. That includes conservatives trying to force the rest of us to live by their “moral values,” or, in Spitzer’s case, a single individual setting back the march toward LGBT equality by way of a really stupid choice he made for his own selfish pleasure. In short, Elliot Spitzer traded our freedom for the promise of a lousy orgasm.
A lousy, expensive orgasm. It’s difficult to imagine what you get for $4,300 — the price Spitzer was going to pay for a call girl named “Kristen” — but we imagine it wasn’t seven minutes in the missionary position.
Whatever Spitzer was going to get for his money, he didn’t get it. We were the ones who got screwed — without, as my dear departed father used to say, so much as a kiss.
Then, of course, there is the damage Spitzer has done to the Democratic Party, the extent of which remains to be seen. We already have a hint about the extent of the damage he’s done to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign; within minutes of the story breaking on the newswires, Barack Obama supporters on the Message Forum That Shall Remain Nameless were using the Spitzer scandal to smear Clinton. First, they somehow rationalized (if you can call this line of thought “rational”) that Clinton was tainted merely by her association with Spitzer, one of her most high-profile supporters; furthermore, they decided that this association by default cancels out Obama’s relationships with Donnie McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell, and the rest of the homophobic bigots from whom Obama refuses to distance himself.
As if.
Second — and this is very real damage — the widely-circulated image of Spitzer’s wife, the silent, suffering Silda, standing by her man…
…brought the image of Hillary standing by Bill during the Monica Lewinsky scandal back into razor-sharp focus.
Literally. This is the image ABC decide to run to illustrate a piece called “Why Women Stand by Their Men“:
Counter-clockwise from upper left: Mr. and Mrs. Elliot Spitzer, Mr. and Mrs. Larry Craig, Mr. and (now ex-) Mrs. Jim McGreevey, and Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton.
What’s wrong with this picture? For starters, three of the four disgraced politicians are Democrats. Having researched political pecadilloes for years, I can tell you that Republicans far outnumber Democrats in the cheating department. Granted, represented are four of the most infamous sex scandals in recent memory (although it’s a stretch to call the Lewinsky scandal “recent”), but if ABC had asked for my input, I could have given them dozens of examples of humiliated wives standing by their men — from the other side of the aisle.
In any case, Clinton (Hillary, not Bill) is screwed no matter whether Spitzer resigns or not. As Peter Baker wrote in WaPo:
Spitzer has been a bad-luck charm for Hillary Clinton to this point. His illegal immigrant driver’s license proposal arguably became the first time she was thrown off her stride in this campaign. … That led to a bad patch for her that lasted all the way through the Iowa caucuses. …
Now Spitzer may throw her off stride again at a moment she needs to keep her momentum going. And on top of that, even if he does spare her by resigning soon, that has a cost too — one fewer superdelegate for her at the convention.
It’s not lost on us, by the way, that this scandal comes at the most inopportune time for Democrats — and at a very convenient time indeed for Republicans. (You’ve already forgotten all about Vicki Iseman, haven’t you?)
And it’s not lost on us that Spitzer was nailed by a federal wiretap — you know, that part of the USA Patriot Act that allows the feds to listen in on your phone calls for any half-assed reason they want (or no reason at all). It was the Bush Machine that turned the U.S. into “one nation, under surveillance” — and we knew Big Brother wasn’t going to confine wiretapping to terrorism suspects.
OK, OK, so the Spitzer hooker bust was a by-product of a “routine tax inquiry” by the IRS, and prostitution was said to be “the furthest thing from the minds of the investigators” looking into the suspicious movement of funds through Spitzer’s hands. But the timing of the emergence of a “confidential informant, a young woman who had worked previously as a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club V.I.P., the escort service that Mr. Spitzer was believed to be using” who enabled the investigators “to get a judge to approve wiretaps on the cellphones of some of those suspected of involvement in the escort service” seems awfully convenient. To the Republican Party, that is.
But, all speculation aside, what’s done is done — and what’s been done is irreversible.
As for how badly Spitzer has hurt the Democratic Party, hurt Hillary Clinton, and hurt us LGBTs — who saw in Elliot Spitzer the closest thing we had to a savior — only time will tell.
But it’s gonna hurt every last one of us.
And all because Elliot Spitzer couldn’t keep his penis in his pants.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Bill Clinton,
Corruption,
Crime,
Democrats,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
George W. Bush,
Hillary Clinton,
Homeland Insecurity,
Jim McGreevey,
Larry Craig,
Marriage Equality,
New York,
Republican Sexcapades,
Republicans
January 18, 2008
Hypocrisy in the Republican party? Say it isn’t so!
(Houston, Texas) The district attorney who defended the Texas law criminalizing homosexuality before the US Supreme Court is desperately trying to keep his job following the discovery of e-mails containing sexually explicit videos, racist jokes and what is described as torrid love notes to his executive secretary.
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal (R) is facing a state investigation into the emails which were discovered on his office computer.
…..
But in 2002 it was “family values” Rosenthal who argued before the US Supreme Court that the Texas law against sodomy was upholding the moral values of the state and was in place to protect families. The case was Lawrence v Texas.
In his arguments he condemned adultery and homosexual acts.
“I think that this Court having determined that there are certain kinds of conduct that it will accept and certain kinds of conduct it will not accept may draw the line at the bedroom door of the heterosexual married couple because of the interest that this Court has that this Nation has and certainly that the State of Texas has for the preservation of marriage, families and the procreation of children,” Rosenthal told the justices.
Apparently adultery is bad, except when Republicans are engaging in it. And gay sex is always bad of course–except when Republicans are doing it in public restrooms with the full forgiveness of God.
I hereby nominate Rosenthal for his very own page on Conservative Babylon.
Posted by: Buffy
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Corruption,
Heterosexuality,
Republican Sexcapades,
Republicans,
Texas
October 30, 2007
Saudi King jeered as controversial visit begins
King Abdullah II of Saudi Arabia was greeted by jeers and placards as he began his state visit to Britain this afternoon as dozens of demonstrators turned out to protest at his country’s human rights record.
About 50 human rights protestors and anti-arms trade activists mingled with the crowds lining The Mall as the monarch accompanied the Queen in a carriage on their way to Buckingham Palace.
King Abdullah’s visit has been shrouded in controversy over oppressive policies against women and gays in the Middle Eastern kingdom and the war on terror.
Protesters, including Peter Tatchell, the gay rights activist, chanted “King Abdullah, torturer, murderer” and held banners marked “Put human rights before BAe profits” and “You can’t do this in Riyadh” as the procession went past.
. . .
Symon Hill, of the Campaign Against The Arms Trade, said: “I think the visit sends the message that the UK Government isn’t concerned about human rights in Saudi Arabia. It also sends the message that the Government will put the arms trade and BAe ahead of human rights.”
He criticised Gordon Brown for condemning human rights abuses in Burma and Zimbabwe, but saying nothing about the Saudis. …
As Tyo wisely observes: “Let’s face it, there are bad badguys and good badguys and the Saudis are one of the ultimate teflon coated good badguy states. As long as the oil and the business ties are there they can have their public beheadings and their lashings and fund all the terrorists that they want and no matter who occupies #10 Downing St or the White House there won’t be an official word said against them.”
See also:
Translation: The U.K. is Scared Britless That the Saudis Will Pull Their Money Out of the Country
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Corruption,
Saudi Arabia,
United Kingdom & N.I.
October 28, 2007
Saudi king’s state visit to Britain faces protests, boycotts
Britain’s most sensitive and controversial relationship in the Middle East faces protests and boycotts during a state visit by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, just weeks after a lucrative new defence contract made clear that it was business as usual between the two countries.
The Saudi monarch and his most senior ministers will be the guests of the Queen at Buckingham Palace during a visit that will include a ceremonial welcome on Horse Guards Parade, two banquets and meetings with Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Prince Charles.
But Vince Cable, the acting Liberal Democrat leader, announced yesterday that he would boycott the rare visit because of the Saudi record on human rights, including its maltreatment of British citizens. “It is quite wrong for the British government to have proposed a state visit at this time,” Mr Cable said. Other groups plan protests over weapons sales, the kingdom’s human rights abuses and its homophobic laws.
King Abdullah, 82, came to the throne two years ago. Known as “the Custodian of the Two Holy Places” (of Mecca and Medina) he has reformist instincts, but progress in the kingdom has been halting.
Saudi Arabia is Britain’s biggest trading partner in the Middle East and the UK is its second biggest foreign investor.
The four-day visit, which begins today, was announced months after the Serious Fraud Office was forced by Tony Blair’s government to drop - on alleged national security grounds - an investigation into alleged corruption tied to BAE arms sales to Saudi Arabia, part of the massive al-Yamamah deal. …
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Corruption,
Saudi Arabia,
United Kingdom & N.I.
October 26, 2007
ORU in debt $52.5 million
Oral Roberts University is $52.5 million in debt — an amount on the decline but a burden keeping the college from improving its campus, university representatives said Wednesday.
The debt accumulated from “years and years and years and years of . . . borrowing,” said board of regents Chairman George Pearsons, who still was gathering information on the sources of debt.
. . .
ORU is paying its bills on the debt and working on strategies to reduce the debt and increase income, he said Wednesday.
“We’re not crippled,” he said. “We could use more finances just like any university could use more finances.”
The board is adopting a more hands-on role at ORU and is investigating the school’s use of money and other practices after learning of allegations of misspending, misuse of power and inappropriate relationships that later were made public in a lawsuit filed Oct. 2 by three former professors alleging wrongful termination or forced resignation.
More from Tulsa World
“years and years and years and years of . . . borrowing” *snort*
Why doesn’t Brother Oral just go on TV and tell his flock God’s threatening to kill him again if he doesn’t come up with the cash?
Meanwhile, Brother Oral returns to the scene of the cri– er, the probe, blames Sonny Boy’s indiscretions on the devil, and swears Old Scratch is not going to steal ORU:
Oral Roberts back at ORU
Oral Roberts returned to his namesake university for the first time in three years Monday and told a chapel packed with ORU employees and students fresh off fall break that no one would take away ORU.
Students had heard rumors that Roberts had returned to campus, but when he slipped into the chapel as George Pearsons, ORU board of regents chairman, was speaking, students nearby recognized him and let out a roar of a cheer that became the first of many standing ovations.
Roberts told the crowd that every allegation raised by a lawsuit against ORU and his son, university President Richard Roberts, was false. He said he was proud of ORU and its accomplishments “for the word of God,” and he said “the devil has come in to steal it away.”
“The devil is not going to steal ORU,” he said.
Oral Roberts said the university was born out of a healing ministry, and so ORU would turn to mediation this week to resolve the lawsuit.
“This will be over and behind us, and my son will be back and be president of Oral Roberts University,” he said.
. . .
Pearsons said in a written statement from ORU that whether Richard Roberts will return as president is undetermined.
More from Tulsa World
Mind you, that’s Christian mediation Brother Oral’s talking about. Funny, innit, how religious folks rail against the interference of the state in church affairs — but when it comes time to face the music in a purely civil (or criminal) matter, they want it all settled through Christian means.
But, just in case God forces ORU through the court system:
ORU hires law firm for probe
Oral Roberts University has hired the Washington, D.C., law firm of Miller & Chevalier Chartered to investigate allegations of misspent money and more made in a lawsuit that three former professors filed Oct. 2 against ORU, its board of regents and four administrators.
. . .
The review will result in a report to ORU regents, “who will take appropriate action,” the statement said.
ORU regents Chairman George Pearsons said this week that the board looked for a law firm that was high-profile, out-of-state and had not worked for ORU.
Pearsons said last week that ORU President Richard Roberts’ leave of absence during the investigation would help assure the public of the independence of the review.
More from Tulsa World
See also:
Everything You Need to Know About the Oral Roberts Scandal… So Far
Oral Roberts U Scandal: Exit Richie, Enter “Convicted Sexual Deviant”
More discussions in the Lavender Liberal Forums:
Scandal hits TV preacher’s academy
Oral Roberts University facing huge scandal
University leader requests leave amid lawsuit
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Corruption,
Crime,
Education/Schools,
Oklahoma,
Oral Roberts,
Radical Religious Right
