Honestly, it's all about power

• Compassionate conservatism - A. Nonymous
  • Honestly, it's all about power - sm
  • Letting people into your house means letting them - mar
  • You did a wonderful thing, and I agree with your ultimatums, but....psm - Cyndiee
    • I really should add..... - A.Nonymous
    • Most dems see everyone as "victims", hence, want them dependent on the gov't... - sm
    • I think that people are just fed up - sm
    • and that should have read "NO MORE than being a Republican means," I am typing terrible, migra - Cyndiee
  • That is a perfect example of - sm
  • Such a perfect post... Thank you. - nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I pray our country will not be sold out from under us.  Sorry, but this election has me very worried.  So many things to consider.  About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than.  I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another.  I must say this drives my husband crazy.  But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.  About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'.  I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight.  We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California.  He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.  During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip.  Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.  My question - Where did he get the money for this trip?  Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.  When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York.  It is at this time he  wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.  Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia?  It's not cheap! to say the least.  Where did he get money for tuition?  Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year.  Why Chicago?  Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
 

By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago.  Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year.  Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.  About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.  Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School?  Where did he get the money for Law School?  More student loans?  After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down.  But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what?  They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm.  Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.  In 20 03, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money'  for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).  With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property?  On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased.  Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
 

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

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

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

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

 All of the above information I got on line.  If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

 Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
 

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

that you can't tell the difference between someone hoping someone burns in hell AFTER they die (having had nothing to do with their death) and openly and publicly encouraging America to ASSASSINATE the leader of a country?

Are you really that much of a moron, and as Gadfly said, why in the world do you WANT to openly reveal that to others?  Some of you people need some SERIOUS professional help.

That is my true feeling on the matter.  I am absolutely zero vested in conspiracy theories or ascribing blame.  Blame will not bring back anyone and at the same time, I feel there was a long long line of failures leading up to 9/11 that started way before President Bush and continued through many presidencies.  I hope, no matter what, in the end they can have peace of mind.  I am sure it has to be hard for them. 

There are kinds of folks in this country.  There are right-wing kooks, religious kooks, left-wing kooks, serial killers, child pornographers, bigots/racists, right-wing militia people-whose-exact-names-I-forget and all types worse and better.

The thing is, in this country the decent people are the majority, whether right or left in politics/beliefs.  That's why this country is so great.

When you fixate on folks who are overly negative you give them power.  Please rise above the comments of those who represent a very tiny minority.  I pay no attention to those who voice unreasonable beliefs and I advise you do the same.  Take the power away from those people.

Although this story doesn't emphasize the fact, others do.  The outrage that exploded when the conservative teacher in Kansas lost his job has caused school officials to reverse their decision:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528484,00.html

Never buy into the lie that demon-crats and the media try to sell you that conservatism is dead.  Not only ain't we dead, we ain't begun to fight!  We're the same handful of colonial militia who defeated the whole durn British army a long time ago.  First they laughed at us...and then they died.

God bless those people who came all the way down there, slept in their trucks in stifiling weather (because the media and gawking politicians hogged all the hotels that were left) and helped string line and get our power back on.  They are heros, as well as all those who donated time and goods.

On the other hand, SHAME on the people from Indiana who printed up a bunch of Katrina T-shirts and had the nerve to come down there to sell them!  Those who survived Katrina need no darn T-shirt proclaiming they did!

By Tom Daschle
Friday, December 23, 2005; A21

In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done.

As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.

On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States. Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words in the United States and after appropriate force in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

The shock and rage we all felt in the hours after the attack were still fresh. America was reeling from the first attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. We suspected thousands had been killed, and many who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not yet accounted for. Even so, a strong bipartisan majority could not agree to the administration's request for an unprecedented grant of

authority.

The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.

All Americans agree that keeping our nation safe from terrorists demands aggressive and innovative tactics. This unity was reflected in the near-unanimous support for the original resolution and the Patriot Act in those harrowing days after Sept. 11. But there are right and wrong ways to defeat terrorists, and that is a distinction this administration has never seemed to accept. Instead of employing tactics that preserve Americans' freedoms and inspire the faith and confidence of the American people, the White House seems to have chosen methods that can only breed fear and suspicion.

If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.

In the meantime, if the president believes the current legal architecture of our country is insufficient for the fight against terrorism, he should propose changes to our laws in the light of day.

That is how a great democracy operates. And that is how this great democracy will defeat

terrorism.

The writer, a former Democratic senator from South Dakota, was Senate majority leader in 2001-02. He is now distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

to do this to you?

*I die a little inside each time I see President Bush on TV or read about another dumb thing he said.  It bothers me so much!!!*

Wow, if you give someone that much power over your emotions and life you have to be living a sad existence.

He's really not THAT BAD, but of course you already know that.