Obama cohort trial to start Monday

[jimpeel]

Obama sees corruption everywhere but in his own backyard.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4365942&page=1

Reformer: Trial Will Reveal 'Cesspool' of Obama's Allies
Trial for Indicted Fundraiser Tony Rezko Set for Monday

By BRIAN ROSS, RHONDA SCHWARTZ and AVNI PATEL
Feb. 29, 2008

With the corruption trial of one of Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friends and supporters set to begin Monday in Chicago, Ill., reform watchdogs say it will reveal the "cesspool" of Illinois politics in which Obama came of age and has said little about in his campaign for president.

"We have a sick political culture," said Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, "and that's the environment that Barack Obama came from."

Stewart says he does not understand why Obama has lectured others about corruption in Washington and Kenya but "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."

There was no immediate comment from the Obama campaign.

The trial Monday involves federal charges of bribery and extortion against Tony Rezko, a real estate developer who became known in Illinois politics as a behind-the-scenes operator and fixer.

While Obama is not considered a target of the Rezko investigation, Stewart says it will shed light on a man who was pivotal to Obama's political career.

"This wasn't just some guy who wrote a check once for Barack Obama, it's someone who was an early supporter and had a personal relationship with Sen. Obama for quite some time," Stewart said.

Indeed, even after he was elected to the United States Senate, Obama involved Rezko in a land deal that enabled the senator to buy his current home on Chicago's South Side.

Obama has since called his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."

"Tony Rezko is all that is wrong with the old kind of politics or any kind of politics," said the Better Government Association's Stewart.

The Rezko trial will focus on Rezko's alleged role in steering Illinois state contracts in exchange for kickbacks and political contributions to Rezko friends.

The most damning examples cited by prosecutors involve Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, but several of the contributions were directed to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign.

A motion filed by federal prosecutors identifies two instances when Rezko directed contributions to an unnamed "political candidate" who has since been identified by Chicago newspapers as Obama.

The Obama campaign says it has donated to charity some $160,000 that can be traced to Rezko or others involved in the corruption investigation.

In his campaign for president, Obama has railed against people like Rezko.

"If you are ready for change, then we can go ahead and tell the lobbyists and the fat cats that their days are over," he said in a speech last month in Akron, Ohio.

The Better Government Association's Stewart says Illinois politics is the opposite of the sentiments Obama now praises.

"That's a noble version he is describing. He is not talking about Illinois when he does that," said Stewart, who acknowledges Obama was "a cut above" most state legislators and reliably supported ethics legislation.

"I don't begrudge him for speaking out on it (corruption) in Washington or Kenya. If it's appropriate, you should say it. To say it's appropriate in Illinois is a huge understatement," Stewart said.

Click Here for the Investigative Homepage.

 

[Gato_Solo]

And this is different from any political campaign, how? Not to say I'm a supporter of Obama, but this is hardly news. One has only to look at the last democratic president to see more dirt.

 

[jimpeel]

And this is different from any political campaign, how? Not to say I'm a supporter of Obama, but this is hardly news. One has only to look at the last democratic president to see more dirt.

The last Democrat president isn't running for office -- although his wife is.

Just more of the same ol' Chicago style politics.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The last Democrat president isn't running for office -- although his wife is.

Really? Why do you think I addressed that, specifically? Also...if this was so well known before, why is it coming out now, just before the Texas and Ohio primaries...a must-win for the former first-lady?

Just more of the same ol' Chicago style politics.

Yeah. Chicago politics has been...hmm...shady since the 1950's. Voting the graveyard was a phrase born then.

 

[2minkey]

jim just doesn't like obama so he's looking for an angle to rationalize his feelings.

 

[Gonz]

Maybe Jim has read some of the limited stories that actually talk about Obamas past (like they do with other politicians). There are some serious questions about him & his friends.

 

[chcr]

Maybe Jim has read some of the limited stories that actually talk about Obamas past (like they do with other politicians). There are some serious questions about him & his friends.

He's a politician, much as any other. Why is anyone surprised?

 

[Gonz]

Not surprised at the pol. Surprised at the silence.

 

[catocom]

some may be like me...waiting for more details, and facts.

 

[chcr]

Not surprised at the pol. Surprised at the silence.

He's the flavor of the day. "Look how evolved our society has become. A black person may run for president."

If our society had really evolved, no one would care either way, would they?

Ah well, it's a start, I suppose

 

[jimpeel]

jim just doesn't like obama so he's looking for an angle to rationalize his feelings.

I don't need to rationalize anything. I don't like him because he is a Leftist hack. Liberal my ass. He is so far left he makes Angela Davis look like William F. Buckley's fawning secretary.

 

[2minkey]

you don't know left.

obama isn't that far left.

too liberal in a lot of ways for me.

but not really that far left.

 

[jimpeel]

you don't know left.

obama isn't that far left.

too liberal in a lot of ways for me.

but not really that far left.

Try this:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=288920093794177

Obama's 0.7% Solution For Poverty Gets Pass From Senate Republicans

BY PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

Posted 2/26/2008

Why are Republicans in Congress trying to help Barack Obama?

They allowed a bill that carries his name, among nine others, to pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by voice vote last week — without any hearings. That means there was no roll-call vote so no member can be held accountable. The same bill passed the House by voice vote last year.

The Obama bill passed out of committee with the cooperation of the co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. A Rhodes scholar like former President Bill Clinton, Lugar has never seen a United Nations enhancement he didn't like.

Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross domestic product on foreign handouts, which is at least $30 billion over and above the exorbitant and wasted sums we already give away overseas.

Shady Wording

The bipartisan bill would require the president "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

The bill's other co-sponsors include Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Russ Feingold, D-Wis.; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Charles Hagel, R-Neb., and Robert Mendez, D-N.J.

We should be on guard any time politicians use the word "comprehensive," an umbrella word that always shades a lot of mischief.

The notion that American taxpayers should or could cut in half the number of people worldwide who live in poverty by 2015 is ridiculous.

U.N. Tax

The scariest phrase in the bill is "Millennium Development Goal." That refers to the declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly and Summit in 2000 (blessed by President Bill Clinton) that called for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution (of) wealth and land," cancellation of "the debts of developing countries" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources" (from the U.S. to the rest of the world, of course).

The Millennium project is monitored by Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist. In 2005 he presented then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan with a 3,000-page report based on the research of 265 so-called poverty specialists.

Sachs' document criticized the U.S. for giving only $16.3 billion a year in global anti-poverty aid. He argued that we should spend an additional $30 billion a year in order to reach the 0.7% target that the U.N. set for the U.S. in 2000.

Sachs says that the only way to force the U.S. to commit that much money is by a global tax, such as a tax on fossil fuels.

Empowering the United Nations to impose a direct international tax on Americans has been a U.N. goal ever since the 1995 Copenhagen Summit embraced the so-called Tobin Tax.

By adopting the Millennium goals in 2000, the U.N. escalated its demands to impose international taxes. Specifically, the Millennium called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection — oil, natural gas, coal," "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

It doesn't bother U.N. sycophants that most U.S. handouts go into the hands of corrupt dictators who hate us and vote against us in the U.N., and that only 30% of our foreign aid ever reaches the poor. U.N. bureaucrats accuse the U.S. of being "stingy" in its handouts to underdeveloped countries.

There is much more to the Millennium goals than merely extorting more money from U.S. taxpayers. The goals set forth a comprehensive plan to put the United States under U.N. global governance.

Losing Sovereignty

These goals include a "standing peace force" (i.e. a U.N. standing army), a "U.N. Arms register" of all small arms and light weapons, "peace education" covering "all levels from preschool through university," and "political control of the global economy." The goals call for implementing all U.N. treaties that the United States has never ratified, all of which set up U.N. monitoring committees to compromise American sovereignty.

To achieve this level of control over U.S. domestic law, the plan calls for "strengthening the United Nations for the 21st century" by "eliminating" the veto and permanent membership in the Security Council. The goal is to reduce U.S. influence to one out of 192 nations, so we would have merely the same vote as Cuba.

The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the Millennium goal of global governance and international taxes on Americans. Tell your senators to kill this un-American bill.

Copyright 2000-2008 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.

 

[2minkey]

BY PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

'nuff said...

 

[spike]

What? She's great.

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape." - Schlafly

 

[jimpeel]

BY PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

'nuff said...

So the message is all wrong because the messenger is disliked. The bill doesn't really exist; the vote is really not imminent; the UN is not trying to impose a global tax; the sovereignty of the U.S. is not at risk; Obama is not really a sponsor; and all because the messenger was the wrong messenger.

Imagine that. I guess we can all sleep better tonight knowing that fact.

 

[jimpeel]

What? She's great.

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape." - Schlafly

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky." - Bill Clinton

One of these quotes is an opinion and one is a lie. Can you tell which is which?

 

[jimpeel]

Is this better?

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

Sen. Tom Coburn thinks this is real:

http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index....Store_id=6e79e076-9dac-401f-8b1a-c96fd9d95e15

 

[paul_valaru]

So the message is all wrong because the messenger is disliked.

No, the message is wrong because the messenger distorted it, mangled it, lied about it, or made it up.

 

[2minkey]

king selectively literal does not believe in such things when they come from the side of the aisle that is not the one he favors.