About Me

Name: Marie-Jacqueline
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

LA Times Refusing to Allow the American People See Video Of Obama, Ayers and a Full House of Other Radicals at a Party Held In Honor of Rashid Khalidi PLO Mouth Piece

Should The LA Times release the video tape for the public to see before Election day?

I always heard that the media could protect their source by not saying who gave them info but in this case they are with holding the info itself. If they fully covered the meeting with out leaving out anything then what would it hurt? By withholding the video it tells me that some facts must not have made it to print or they would have nothing to hide.

Ok, So the LA Time claims that they promised not to show it to anyone. If that is true, then it is logical to assume that the reason for inhibiting free viewing would be to hide information that is on the video tape and release only selective facts via print media that they wished to disclose. If this were not so …If it were only reflective of the information that the LA Times wrote in their article then what would be the harm of letting us see it? It would not tell us who supplied them with the video so that defense does not seem to hold water? Question wasn’t this video supplied to them during the primaries - Could Hillary or another Democrat candidate have been the source? Not that I would have blamed any of them for doing so. What other source would have had access to the video to begin with? Why withhold it now?

The LA Time should allow us to see the unedited video so that we the voters, the American Public, can judge what we thought of the content and of Obama’s conduct.
It is not just about what Obama said but perhaps more about how he reacted to what was being said and what he didn’t say, that perhaps he should have said.

I would like to see for myself if there is footage of Obama’s face and his reactions to the hate speech that was being spewed in the form of anti-Israel poetry.

Did Obama look indifferent? Did he agree or did he seem disgusted? If he was offended by what was being said wasn’t he obligated ( using his own measure and words here..) to repudiate this hate full talk.

Also, from what I hear, there were a number of people at this going away party also tearing apart our country for standing with Israel. Did he find it politically expedient to let it go with out speaking out to defend our national policies?

Was he sitting next to Ayers or some other radical ? We don’t know because once again — the elite media is deciding what we need to know.. The LA Times is being a filter…they act as if we are to stupid and simple minded to read between the lines and judge for ourselves what we think of Obama. They endorsed Obama, so now I would suggest they have a conflict of interest and they officially have a dog in the fight.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obamas Kenyan Connection and Support of Raila Odinga: The Man Who engaged in Ethnic Cleansing

I would like to share a piece written by Cindy Buck based on an investigative piece by Mark Hyman is an award-winning news commentator for Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc.
 
Obama campaigned for the perpetrator of genocide by the name of Raila Odinga.  I guess some people don't mind voting for people with CLOSE ties to terrorists.  There is a You Tube Video of Obama campaigning with/for Odinga

From the Washington Times by Mark Hyman.  
 
About 50 parishioners were locked into the Assemblies of God church before it was set ablaze. They were mostly women and children. Those who tried to flee were hacked to death by machete-wielding members of a mob numbering 2,000.

The 2008 New Year Day atrocity in the Kenyan village Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi, had all the markings of the Rwanda genocide of a decade earlier.

By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians.

The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama's father.

Mr. Odinga had the backing of Kenya's Muslim community heading into the election. For months he denied any ties to Muslim leaders, but fell silent when Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, appeared on Kenya television displaying a memorandum of understanding signed on Aug. 29, 2007, by Mr. Odinga and the Muslim leader. Mr. Odinga then denied his denials.

The details of the MOU were shocking. In return for Muslim backing, Mr. Odinga promised to impose a number of measures favored by Muslims if he were elected president. Among these were recognition of "Islam as the only true religion," Islamic leaders would have an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original]," installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction, a ban
on Christian preaching, replacement of the police commissioner who "allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists," adoption of a women's dress code, and bans on alcohol and pork.

This was not Mr. Odinga's first brush with notoriety. Like his father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, the main opposition leader in the 1960s and 1970s, Raila Odinga is a Marxist He graduated from East Germany's Magdeburg University in 1970 on a scholarship provided by the East German government. He named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

Raila Odinga was implicated in the bloody coup attempt in 1982 against then-President Daniel Arap Moi, a close ally of the United States. Kenya has been one of the most stable democracies in Africa since the 1960s. The ethnic cleansing earlier this year was the worst violence in Kenya since that 1982 coup attempt.

Mr. Odinga spent eight years in prison. At the time, he denied guilt but later detailed he was a coup leader in his 2006 biography. Statue of limitations precluded further prosecution when the biography appeared.

Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama's six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials," Mr. Obama announced.

"Kenyans are now yearning for change," he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama's remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans - he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama had met several times before the 2006 trip. Reports indicate Mr. Odinga visited Mr. Obama during trips to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Mr. Obama sent his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate his summer visit. Mr. Obama's August trip coincided with strategizing by Orange Democratic Movement leaders to defeat Mr. Kibaki in the upcoming elections. Mr. Odinga represented the ODM ticket in the presidential race.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama's father were both from the Luo community, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, but their ties run much deeper. Mr. Odinga told a stunned BBC Radio interviewer the reason why he and Mr. Obama were staying in near daily telephone contact was because they were cousins. In a Jan. 8, 2008, interview, Mr. Odinga said Mr. Obama had called him twice the day before while campaigning in the New Hampshire primary before adding, "Barack Obama's father is my maternal uncle."

President Kibaki requested a meeting of all opposition leaders in early January in an effort to quell the violence. All agreed to attend except Mr. Odinga. A month later, Mr. Kibaki offered Mr. Odinga the role of prime minister, the de facto No. 2 in the Kenyan government, in return for an end to the attacks. Mr. Odinga was sworn in on April 17, 2008.

Mr. Obama's judgment is seriously called into question when he backs an official with troubling ties to Muslim extremists and whose supporters practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. It was Islamic extremists in Kenya who bombed the U.S. Embassy in 1998, killing more than 200 and injuring thousands. None of this has dissuaded Mr. Obama from maintaining disturbing loyalties.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: Just another Mule in a Horses Harness

Having spend hours and hours studying the candidates through out the primaries- pouring through journals, scouring the Internet for government legislative records, reviewing the candidates voting records and comparing their stump speeches throughout the election with an eye towards flip flopping on issues I suspect I spend more time than the average voters on trying to determine who was being forth right. I have even discovered that the so called fact checkers get it wrong so I have made it a point to go to the actual pieces of legislative to confirm the veracity of the the various candidates claims.
 
Having said that I really respect that McCain continues to challenge us to look into his record. I can understand why he hopes voters will do as he asks because those who do will see that he does in fact have a clear record of breaking with his own party on key pieces of legislation and bucking the status quo when it comes to government overspending. This is a man who in fact has NEVER once asked for a single piece of pork barrel spending in his entire career as a Congressman or as a Senator. 

Regarding Obama I can tell he has a legal background -he is smooth communicator but his words seem very measured and calculated. I was somewhat surprised to see that he was presenting as part of his plan to deal with the economy something's that I had heard McCain and Palin say over the past few weeks. Mind you, he used his own words to make the a point but the point was originally made by McCain and Palin.

How many times have we heard McCain say that he wants to keep, the $700,000,000.00 dollars that we are sending abroad to countries that do not like us very much, here in America by becoming energy independent? Tonight Obama added that to his proposal. He did casually as if it had always been a part of his plan. He almost quoted Mccain verbatim. Lets not forget that Obama has only recently come around to the idea of drilling at all. In the last debate he could barely force himself to say that he would drill for oil. Tonight he was talking about drilling and drilling right away. Again those sentiments ranked VERY HIGHLY with the focus groups and Palin and McCain both have gotten points for drilling that message home so could it be said that Obama is cherry picking whatever seems popular with the voters?

For example, last weeks Palin received exceptionally high marks from the focus groups when she addressed the impact of the economy on the middle class. Tonight, I heard Obama say something very similar to what Palin had said in the VP debate. Prior to the VP debates he never said anything remotely like it his stump speeches. Did he lick his finger and hold it up to the wind or did he see that what Palin said resonated with middle America? Was Obama once again cherry picking?
 
In both Presidential debates I noted something interesting. Two times in particular when McCain was up first and gave particularly in depth foreign policy responses. Obama responded saying" I actually agree with Sen McCain " and then he rephrased it a bit and fluffed it out with more wordy words but added nothing of genuine depth. He also did this several times when debating Hillary Clinton during the primaries. I have come to believe that it is an attempt by Obama to appear more knowledgeable on the subject by riding piggy back on the more sophisticated and thought out response that McCain and Hillary Clinton could bring to the issue. In the first McCain-Obama debate I watched Obamas face, as McCain delivered a complex, detailed response and I found myself wondering if Obama actually even fully understood what McCain was saying.
 
Having studied Obamas voting records, speeches and so forth it seems he is forever altering his policy by cherry picking whatever policies seem popular with the voters. What then does this man actually believe? Will he always rule by defaulting to whatever is politically expedient or will he be able to make tough choice in our best interest?
This makes me nervous. Yes, Obama is a very skilled speaker, he is young and charismatic but does he have the judgement, experience, authenticity that we want in a President?  I have to ask because other issues not brought up in this debate require that I must..Is Obama being fully honest with us?  The dark spectors of Terrorist William Ayres, the racist hate monger Jeremiah Wright who Obama claimed for 20 years was his close Spiritual advisor, the Hammas endorsement of Obama's canidacy, the illegal campaign contribution from a Palestinian group that had to be returned. Certainly lets not forget the Freddy and Fannie funds that were sent his way or his connection to Acorn... the list of associates and questionable dealings goes on and on and i have only begun to scratch the surface.  

I keep remembering the wisdom of my grandmother regarding symbolism over substance. "You can put a shinny horses saddle and fancy horse harness on a mule but despite the fancy dress it is still just a mule in a horses harness." McCain on the other hand may not be a show horse, but he is work horse and his records show that he is defintly not a big bloated government mule.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »