Left Or Wright, Obama Is Screwed

I put off posting on the latest Jeremiah Wright anti-White, anti-American and anti-Obama sermon. Part of the reason was to see what Obama had to say, the other part was to think about why Wright actually made this public statement.

Well for starters at least now Obama is denouncing Wright, however I do not think he goes far enough in doing so. Yes Obama is distancing him self even farther from Wright, but he is not calling Wright what he really is, a racist. Obama needs to say it or atleast that Wright’s comments are racist, even if he does not want to call the man a racist.

The other problem with Obama is that his actions are too late. He should have done this in the first place, instead he came up with excuses and tried to explain what Wright really meant. Now, this pus sore has really grown out of control for Obama and he is trying to come up with excuses for what Wright’s beliefs are now.

Sorry Obama, this type of hatred that Wright has is not new, he has had it his whole life. It has not gotten worse or more severe in nature recently, it is only coming to the public light now because he was part of your campaign. You had him on board as your spiritual advisor and your/his church was you rebuttle to the rumors that you were a Muslim. Because you are in the spotlight, those around you that you bring  into the fray become part of that same act.

Enough on Obama’s lack of actual denouncement and on to Wright…

Wright said many things over the weekend, however some are key and revolve around a key point…

Obama only dismissed him because he has to play the politcal game

Now there two ways to take this, it is true or it is false.

If said notion is true then Obama’s credibility is shot because the American public are being lied to about what Obama really stands for.

If said notion is false, then Obama’s credibity is shot with the black church as that means that he is turning his back on them.

So why would Wright make such a statement… Well to be honest, it seems to me that Wright is trying to ruin any chance of Obama being elected President.

Why would he do that you ask, a Black man as President would surely be good for all Blacks right?

Well in most people’s eyes it would be a good thing, however the sinister liberal base comes out. The core of the liberal agenda.

I have heard from many that they think the reason Wright does not want Obama to win is because then it would prove him wrong and it would prove that the Civil Rights movement was successfull and that Blacks have an equal opportunity to suceed in the US.

That is a great take on this, however I think it needs to be taken one step further. I think there is a more twisted reason on why Wright wants Obama to loose…

If Obama wins, the proof of Equal Rights for Blacks is made and the ability to use the race card is abolished. It would take away Wrights, and others like him, ability to claim blacks are suppressed and that is why they have high crime rates, drug use and the like…

An Obama win would take away the liberal excuse of people being oppressed by the big bad Conservative Government…

As I like to say, liberals need people to be poor, less fortunate, oppressed. If everyone prospered then the liberal platform would disappear and they would serve no purpose. Conservatives want everyone to suceed and get rich, if everyone does that the platform is still there…

This looks like Wright is playing out my liberal philosophy to a tee…

Carter Is A Typical Liberal Who Only Listens To What He Wants To Hear

Since Carters little tea party with Syrian leaders and Hamas Terrorists, he keeps reporting back lies.

Obviously he missed the interview with Mashaal, where Mashaal said he never agreed to accept Israels existance, but rather he would agree to a temporary 10 year truce if Israel went back to pre 1967 boarders, after the 10 years are up, and Hamas and other terrorist organizations are armed, then the truce will be over.  Wake up Jimmy, is anyone home?

Now Carter is saying he was never warned not to go and meet with these Terrorists.

No one in the State Department or any other department of the U.S. government ever asked him (Carter) to refrain from his recent visit to the Middle East or even suggested that he not meet with Syrian President (Bashar) Assad or leaders of Hamas,” said the Carter Center, which often speaks on the former president’s behalf

“They had a very pleasant discussion for about 15 minutes, during which he never made any of the negative or cautionary comments described above. He never talked to anyone else,” the Carter Center statement said.

Now I recall many members of Congress making public statements asking him not to go. I believe Bush even made public statements to that effect, so bad enough he does not recognize these as requests not to meet with Hamas, but he contradicts himself by saying:

Carter has said that he met with Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, and that Welch told him it was not advisable to meet with Hamas. The former president maintains he was never told not to go.

NOT ADVISABLE TO MEET WITH HAMAS… What part of the English language does Jimmy “Crackhead” Carter not understand?

Former President Jimmy Carter stopped just short Wednesday of saying Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is lying about warning him not to meet last week with Hamas leaders in Syria.

“President Carter has the greatest respect for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and believes her to be a truthful person,” read a statement issued by the Carter Center in Atlanta. “However, perhaps inadvertently, she is continuing to make a statement that is not true.”

Carter has said that he met with Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, and that Welch told him it was not advisable to meet with Hamas. The former president maintains he was never told not to go.

“No one in the State Department or any other department of the U.S. government ever asked him (Carter) to refrain from his recent visit to the Middle East or even suggested that he not meet with Syrian President (Bashar) Assad or leaders of Hamas,” said the Carter Center, which often speaks on the former president’s behalf.

The statement said Carter tried to call Rice before making the trip and a deputy returned his call, since Rice was in Europe.

“They had a very pleasant discussion for about 15 minutes, during which he never made any of the negative or cautionary comments described above. He never talked to anyone else,” the Carter Center statement said.

Rice on Tuesday told a very different story.

“I just don’t want there to be any confusion,” Rice told reporters covering her trip to Kuwait. “The United States is not going to deal with Hamas, and we certainly told President Carter that meeting with Hamas was not going to help” the current situation in the region.

Carter, meanwhile, said that Hamas’ top official, Khaled Meshaal, told him during meetings in Damascus on Friday and Saturday that the militant political organization would “accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians.”

Hamas has stated its dedication to the destruction of Israel, and is listed by the State Department, European Union and Israel as a terrorist organization.

The Bush administration has said that Carter’s meetings could undermine the peace process started in Annapolis, Md., last year, and that Carter’s visit gave tacit recognition to a terrorist group.

Reuters and the Washington Post contributed to this story.

Islamicizing Time – Mecca Mean Time

The Muslim onslaught continues… The latest, change from GMT to MMT…

It may seem innocent at first, however there is a reason for this, to impose their religion upon the rest of society.

If the world were to change to this, then they would be argue that scientifically, Mecca is the center and further push the Islamic Nation as a world wide movement.

Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth.

Mecca is the direction all Muslims face when they perform their daily prayers.

The call was issued at a conference held in the Gulf state of Qatar under the title: Mecca, the Centre of the Earth, Theory and Practice.

One geologist argued that unlike other longitudes, Mecca’s was in perfect alignment to magnetic north.

He said the English had imposed GMT on the rest of the world by force when Britain was a big colonial power, and it was about time that changed.

Mecca watch

A prominent cleric, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy, said modern science had at last provided evidence that Mecca was the true centre of the Earth; proof, he said, of the greatness of the Muslim “qibla” – the Arabic word for the direction Muslims turn to when they pray.

The meeting also reviewed what has been described as a Mecca watch, the brainchild of a French Muslim.

The watch is said to rotate anti-clockwise and is supposed to help Muslims determine the direction of Mecca from any point on Earth.

The meeting in Qatar is part of a popular trend in some Muslim societies of seeking to find Koranic precedents for modern science.

It is called “Ijaz al-Koran”, which roughly translates as the “miraculous nature of the holy text”.

The underlying belief is that scientific truths were also revealed in the Muslim holy book, and it is the work of scholars to unearth and publicise the textual evidence.

But the movement is not without its critics, who say that the notion that modern science was revealed in the Koran confuses spiritual truth, which is constant, and empirical truth, which depends on the state of science at any given point in time.

Carter Doesn’t Even Know What Happened At His Terrorist Tea Party

Well well well, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal says the opposite of Carter, Hamas will NEVER recognize Israel. Not quite pretty bed of flowers that Carter described. What a lying sack of shit Carter is. Hamas will offer Israel a 10 year truce if it withdraws to pre 1967 borders, well what happens after the 10 years are up? I will tell you what, Hamas and other terrorist organizations will use that time to build up an army and weapons arsenal to attack Israel to finish the original goal of the Islamic Middle East…

This is why Israel keeps fighting against all of these organizations on it’s borders, because if it does not do that, then Israel will face a force that will defeat it. Most liberals cry about how Israel is a terrorist nation and kills civilians blah blah blah. They say Israel’s campaigns create more terror. Bullshit. It keeps asshats like Mashaal in check and prevents them from becoming a major threat.

People like Carter and the rest of the left wing liberal nuts only promote terrorist like Hamas to thrive by making it look like they are a legitimate entity. They concede to these bastards and give them power. When will the world learn to stop viewing at terrorists through rose colored anal looking glasses.

JERUSALEM —  Just hours after former President Jimmy Carter trumpeted Hamas’ agreement to let Israel “live as a neighbor,” the same terrorist leader he met with face-to-face vowed not to recognize the Jewish state.

But Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal did offer Israel a 10-year truce if it withdraws from all lands it seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Carter met twice with Mashaal over the weekend.

The former president also said Monday that he would never sit down with Al Qaeda because the terror network has no “redeeming features.”

“[Al Qaeda] are not involved in any sort of a fruitful process. They are not recognized by their own people,” Carter told FOX News in an interview Monday. “On the other hand, you have to remember Hamas in an honest and open and fair and transparent election were elected the leaders of the Palestinian government.”

Carter claimed his meetings with Hamas and Syrian leaders weren’t meant to circumvent the Bush administration, nor was it an attempt to formally negotiate with Hamas.

“I’m not undermining anything. I’m not negotiating. … I’m just here representing myself and the Carter Center. No one else,” he said. “My decision was just to talk to people who must be involved in the final peace agreement.

“Syria and Hamas will have to be involved in the long term,” he said. “And I thought I could at least talk to them and relay their opinions.”

When asked whether he’d ever meet with Al Qaeda, Carter replied, “No, of course not.”

“I don’t see any redeeming features of Al Qaeda at all,” he said.

When making a distinction between Usama bin Laden’s terror network and Hamas, which has been in power since the 2006 Palestinian elections, Carter said that Israeli citizens backed his talks with Hamas.

“The Israeli people strongly support what I have done, at least indirectly,” he claimed, citing polls that show “that 64 percent of all Israeli citizens strongly support direct talks between the government of Israel and Hamas.”

Speaking in Jerusalem, the former president said Hamas is prepared to accept the outcome of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, provided it is approved in a Palestinian referendum, or by a Palestinian government chosen in new elections.

“We do not believe that peace is likely and certainly that peace is not sustainable unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way,” he said. “The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working.”

Carter met with top Hamas leaders in Syria for two days last week. His speech capped a nine-day visit to the Mideast designed to break the deadlock between Israel and Hamas militants who rule Gaza.

In the past, Hamas officials have said they would establish a “peace in stages” if Israel were to withdraw to the frontiers it held before the 1967 Mideast War. But it has been evasive about how it sees the final borders of a Palestinian state, and has not abandoned its official call for Israel’s destruction.

Israel and the U.S. State Department consider Hamas to be a terrorist group. Israeli officials had shunned Carter during his visit because of his meetings with Mashaal, and other group leaders.

Syria harbors Hamas’ exiled leadership in its capital, Damascus, and supports the Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas who warred with Israel in 2006.

Carter said Hamas wouldn’t undermine moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said, Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Hamas leaders “said that they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders” and they would “accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace,” he said.

The borders he referred to were the frontiers that existed before Israel captured large swaths of Arab lands in 1967 — including the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza.

Israel, which evacuated Gaza in 2005, has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state there and in much of the West Bank, but has resisted Palestinian demands that it return to its 1967 frontiers.

Both the Israeli and U.S. governments disapprove of Carter’s overtures to Hamas, which they consider to be a terrorist organization. Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he did not meet with Carter in Israel because he did not wish to be seen as participating in any negotiations with Hamas.

During his trip, Carter met only with Israeli President Shimon Peres and Eli Yishai, one of several deputy prime ministers. Peres scolded Carter for meeting with Hamas, but Yishai, of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, said he was willing to meet with Hamas leaders to discuss a prisoner exchange.

Israel says Carter’s talks embolden Palestinian extremists and hurt Palestinian moderates as they try to make peace with the Jewish state. Abbas, who rules only the West Bank, is in a bitter rivalry with Hamas.

“The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria,” Carter said Monday. “The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved.”

Carter said direct communication between Israel and Hamas could facilitate the release of a captured Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Schalit, who has been held in Gaza for nearly two years.

Israel agrees in principle to trade 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for Schalit, but after back-and-forth talks through Egyptian intermediaries, has approved only 71 of the specific prisoners that Hamas wants freed, he said.

Carter said Hamas has promised to let Schalit send a letter to his parents to assure them he is in good health, and said the militants “made clear to us that they would accept an interim ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.”

Carter, however, said Hamas rejected his specific proposal for a monthlong unilateral truce.

“They turned me down, and I think they’re wrong,” he said.

FOX News’ Reena Ninan and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fireworks Kids – New Indictment Charges

Ahmed Mohamed has been charged with seven new crimes and Youssef Megahed  has another charge added to his indictment. The new charges range from gun possession to aiding terrorists. The defense if calling a bluff on the prosecution. We’ll see, but I think more will be coming out once the trials get underway… Don’t forget CAIR even dropped its support of these two terrorists.

TAMPA – Twelve days before they were scheduled to go on trial, two former University of South Florida students are facing new charges handed up by a federal grand jury.

The new seven-count indictment adds terrorism and weapons charges against one of the defendants, Ahmed Mohamed. It also includes a new charge against Mohamed and Youssef Megahed relating to the devices found in the trunk of their car when they were arrested Aug. 4 in South Carolina. It replaces a two-count indictment handed up last year.

Experts say the new indictment shows the prosecution trying to ensure success at trial by offering jurors alternative avenues to convict.

Stetson University College of Law professor Charles Rose said that when prosecutors do this, it usually means there is “either a weakness in the case they’re shoring up or additional evidence has come their way.”

The indictment, Rose said, “reads to me like a prosecutor has now had an opportunity to develop some additional evidence and has figured how to make it stick.”

“When you look at this indictment, there’s more holes than cheese,” said Jonathan Turley, who teaches at George Washington University Law School and who is currently representing former USF professor Sami Al-Arian in his terrorism case. “The indictment on its face seems to be a bit of overreaching based on the known facts. The indictment presents a far more sinister picture than what has been reported publicly.

“When it comes to explosive devices, the government has a long history of creative engineering theories,” Turley added. “If you take any house at random, the government can usually make out a case for a potential explosive device based on its contents.”

Some of the new charges against Mohamed are similar to a charge lodged against another former USF student, Karim Moussaoui, who was recently convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of his student visa. The charge, which carries a maximum of ten years in prison, relates to an incident in which Moussaoui visited a Tampa firing range with Megahed and held a gun for 2 1/2 minutes, posing for pictures.

Another Gun Violation Alleged

Prosecutors have alleged that Mohamed, who is also on a student visa, visited the same firing range on another date in July. Megahed is a legal, permanent resident and is allowed to possess a firearm.

“Moussaoui’s conviction was viewed as laughable by most defense attorneys,” Turley said. “Most prosecutors would never have charged that crime, never mind have forced a trial. The prosecutors are simply trying too hard in these cases to come up with anything that can be viewed as a crime.”

Megahed and Mohamed are scheduled to go on trial April 28 on one of the charges, illegally transporting explosives. Mohamed is scheduled to have a separate trial on a charge he tried to help terrorists by posting on the Internet a video in which he showed how to use a remote-controlled toy to detonate a bomb.

Defense attorneys disagreed on whether the new indictment should affect the trial schedule, with Megahed’s lawyer expecting no effect and Mohamed’s lawyer expecting a delay.

Megahed and Mohamed both are newly charged in the indictment with possessing a destructive device. The new indictment also includes the charge from the previous indictment of transporting explosive materials.

New Charge Of Aiding Terrorists

Mohamed also is newly charged with providing material support to terrorists, and possessing a pistol and a rifle in violation of visa guidelines. The new indictment also contains the charge in the previous indictment against Mohamed of teaching and demonstrating the use of explosives with the intent to help terrorists.

One new charge against Mohamed accuses him of carrying a destructive device while providing material support to terrorists on Aug. 4, the day of the men’s arrest. Attorneys have said that the video Mohamed is accused of posting on YouTube had been removed by that day. It’s unclear how prosecutors think Mohamed was helping terrorists on that date. That is the most serious charge in the indictment, carrying up to a life sentence.

Megahed’s attorney, Adam Allen, said the new indictment will have little effect on his client.

The new charge, he said, is the same as the old charge, and both carry a maximum possible penalty of 10 years in federal prison and a minimum of probation.

The new indictment, he said, “shows that after a year of investigation by the FBI, they have absolutely no new evidence of any wrongdoing by my client.”

Reporter Elaine Silvestrini can be reached at (813) 259-7837 or esilvestrini@tampatrib.com.

Obama And Clinton Politics Mud Slinging Turned Mud Wrestling

Well, the Democrats over the weekend have really shown that neither presidential hopeful should be elected. These two act more like little kids on a playground and only one ball.

Please America, neither candidate wants best for you, they want what is best for them. Look at the mudslinging in their own party, each trying to show how their opponent is not good enough.

I do not remember any in party fighting like this in my life. Usually they wait until it party against party…

As far as I am concerned, both Obama and Hillary are liars and cheats, who are motivated by greed and prestige.

I am a bitter America, Bitter at listening to these two idiots. I want Change, I want both of these idiots to SHUT UP.

Sunday was no day of rest for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, who each spent the day in Pennsylvania clamoring for any remaining votes as well as trying to dent their opponent’s image heading into Tuesday’s voting.

And presumptive Republican nominee John McCain also came to the foreground as the candidates sought to show they would be the best in November against the Arizona senator as well as to put a stop to any Democrats who might be thinking about voting for the other team.

Speaking in Reading, Pa., Obama told an audience that “either Democrat would be better than John McCain. … And all three of us would be better than George Bush.

“Seeing an opening, Clinton pounced on those words when she spoke later at a rally in Johnstown, Pa.

“Senator Obama said today that John McCain would be better for the country than George Bush,” Clinton said. “Now, Senator McCain is a real American patriot who has served our country with distinction, but Senator McCain would follow the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country the last seven years.”

“We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain. And I will be that nominee,” Clinton said in a speech in which she also touched on health care, jobs, the war, college costs and energy prices.

For its part, the McCain campaign said Obama’s remark just proves McCain’s the right man for the job. Said Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman: “The remark underscores that John McCain has the strength to change America and move this nation forward. Barack Obama is a new face who represents old ideas.

“It has been six weeks since any votes have been cast in the Democratic nomination and Clinton now faces a test in which she must not only win Tuesday’s vote, but continue to win by strong enough margins to regain the lead in the delegate count.

Clinton has 1,507 delegates to Obama’s 1,645. They both need 2,025 to win. There are 158 pledged delegates at stake in Pennsylvania.

The latest RealClearPolitics.com average of recent polls puts Clinton ahead by a scant 5.6 percent in a state where she once led Obama by nearly 20 points. Some observers say Clinton must at least win by double digits in the Keystone State if she wants to have a chance at taking the nomination.

Meanwhile, the campaign rhetoric between the two has ratcheted up to a fever pace.

Sunday the two candidates traded barbs as they pounded through the Keystone State in a blitz for votes in the final hours before voting begins. Health care, the economy, honesty and the question over who has the least questionable associations highlighted the candidates’ attacks on each other, and the two unveiled new advertisements aimed at crippling one another.

“She’s taken more money from lobbyists and special interest than any candidate, Republican or Democrat. … When you ask yourself why it is that we don’t have health care that everyone can count on, think that drug and insurance companies have spent a billion dollars in the last 10 years in lobbying and contributions and PR, so it’s surprising that laws that are passed in Washington are good for them, but not as good for you,” Obama said in Reading.

In Bethlehem, Pa., Clinton reminded her audience of the stakes later this week, and chided Obama for negative remarks.

“This week, we had a debate and it showed you the choice you have. And it’s no wonder that my opponent has been so negative these last few days of the campaign. Because I think you saw a big — you saw a big difference between us. It’s really a choice of leadership,” Clinton said. “I’m offering leadership you can count on.

“The two also blanketed the state with attack ads.”In the last 10 years Barack Obama has taken almost $2 million from lobbyists, corporations and PACs. The head of his New Hampshire campaign is a drug company lobbyist, in Indiana an energy lobbyist, a casino lobbyist in Nevada,” said a new Clinton commercial airing in the campaign’s final days.

If anything, Obama upped the ante with his rebuttal. His ad said he “doesn’t take money from special interest PACs or Washington lobbyists — not one dime.” Clinton does, it added, and accused her of “eleventh-hour smears paid for by lobbyist money.”

Clinton also has sought to paint Obama as elitist following remarks he made about small town voters, while Obama’s campaign has jumped on a recent poll showing new erosion among voters’ belief in Clinton’s honesty. Obama also has been forced to distance himself from his bombastic former pastor, and Clinton had to admit misspeaking about a trip to Kosovo in her husband’s administration.

In the meantime, campaign surrogates handicapped their candidate’s chances on the Sunday talk circles.Clinton supporter Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., says the race isn’t a lock, but Pennsylvania and the next-biggest remaining prize, Indiana, are in her sights.

“I think that she’s going to do very well in Pennsylvania, and I think she’s going to better than either the polls, which have always underestimated her, or the pundits have stated,” Schumer said on “FOX News Sunday.”

Predicting a win by a “significant amount” in Pennsylvania, she added: “I think she’s going to win in Indiana. And I think that she has momentum, and you’re going to see people saying Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to both beat John McCain.”

Clinton’s newly appointed chief strategist Geoff Garin suggested the New York senator will continue her campaign no matter what the outcome on Pennsylvania primary day.”

We’re going to let the process play through,” Garin said during an interview Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press.

And though he acknowledged that Clinton will have to “do well” in the remaining contests, Garin stressed that “neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates when the last votes are cast on June 3.” He also advised that unpledged superdelegates wait until the last contest to cast their votes.

But, also on “FOX News Sunday,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. — an Obama supporter — said the odds are stacked against Clinton.”

The math is very unforgiving at this point when it comes to delegate counts, and that’s what it’s all about,” Durbin said.”

Senator Clinton needs more than 60 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania. … If you look at the remaining contests, you understand that the Clinton campaign is running out of real estate. There are only a handful of states left. She needs over 60 percent of the vote in each one of them to catch up with Barack Obama,” Durbin said.

But the question of whether Clinton should step aside should be up to her, and her alone, said Obama’s chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, who appeared alongside Garin.”

I don’t believe anyone should tell Senator Clinton to get out of the race,” said Axelrod, who criticized Clinton on a wide range of issues.The two campaigns are also attacking each other on the airwaves, although Obama has been outspending his rival about 2-to-1.

The Clinton campaign was sore after a new Obama ad released this weekend that criticized Clinton’s health care proposal because, Obama’s ad said, Clinton’s plan mandates people to have health insurance, and would penalize those who do not.

Clinton responded Saturday: “I just heard that my opponent has put up an ad attacking my health care plan, which is kind of curious, because my plan covers of everybody, and his plan leaves out 15 million. … Now instead of attacking the problem, he chooses to attack my solution.

Obama Saturday night in Lancaster focused on on the subject of NAFTA, saying Clinton supported it during her husband’s administration, but then has come out against it during the campaign. “She can talk about supporting NAFTA when … her husband’s president. And she says, you know, she’s out there campaigning for it, and then suddenly she’s running for president and says she opposes it,” Obama said.

FOX News’ Bonney Kapp and Aaron Bruns and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

ABCNews has more with some of the more humorous ones in the start…

In the final push before the Pennsylvania primary Tuesday, the Democratic candidates traded some of their sharpest jabs yet, again raising concerns that when the brawl is over, the party will not be able to unite for the fight for the presidency.

Barack Obama accused Hillary Clinton of “slash and burn politics.” Clinton countered that he is all flash and no substance, and she claimed he is now throwing the kitchen sink at her.

Obama conceded that Clinton would be a better president than George Bush. “But that’s not saying very much,” he quickly added.

Obama said all three candidates — including presumptive Republican nominee John McCain — would be better than Bush.

Clinton took issue with Obama’s apparent olive branch for the Arizona senator.

“We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain,” she said.

Obama also launched a new ad, responding to Clinton’s previous attacks and accusing her of “11th-hour smears, paid for by lobbyists.”

Clinton’s campaign countered with another attack ad of its own, charging, “He couldn’t answer tough questions in the debate, so Barack Obama is making false charges about Hillary’s health plan.”

Supporters of both campaigns have gone even further.

A retired major general who supports Obama raised Clinton’s claims that she dodged sniper fire during her 1996 trip to Bosnia. Walter Stewart called that a “dishonor,” and said it should disqualify her from laying wreaths at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

A Clinton supporter is circulating a mailer raising the issue of Obama’s acquaintance with Bill Ayers, a Chicago professor who was once a member of the violent Weather Underground.

The mailer, created by union activist Rick Sloan of the International Association of Machinists, claims Republicans will “channel Joe McCarthy” in the fall, turning Obama’s “change we can believe in” into “change no patriotic American could stomach.”

Both campaigns have disavowed those particular statements.

But Democratic Party activists in Pennsylvania said they worry the bitterness could make it difficult to mend fences once the dust settles.

“This has gotten so bad this year, I’m not sure people can forget about it and put it behind themselves after Tuesday,” said Joe Morgan, a Democratic committeeman for Berks County.

He said the supporters are worse than the candidates when it comes to vindictive attacks.

“The bitterness and anger they have toward people who are not supporting their candidate is something I have never seen before,” he said.

Morgan has been writing his own blog on the race, so at first he decided to remain neutral. He said Obama fans in particular were incensed with him for doing so. His tires were slashed and a complaint was lodged with the Internet service provider for his blog. Morgan is now supporting Clinton.

Carter Has Ended The Palestinian/Israeli Conflict

No not really, but anyone that read the headline and believed, please contact me, I have a bridge for sale…

Carter claims Hamas ready for peace with Israel… Yeah right… This vile ex-President, who has meet on many occassions with a Terrorist Organization, claiming you have to talk with the enemy to make peace with them, disgraced the soldiers that died in Beirut at the hands of Hezbollah by meeting in Syria with Hamas on the 25th anniversary of the barracks bombing, is blowing smoke up the public’s ass, and has accomplished nothing.

Until Hamas stops its terror campaign, there cannot be any chance of peace.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, later said Carter’s comments “do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.”

Here is the key, no matter what peace agreement is reached, until Israel is no longer, Hamas will not stop.

 JERUSALEM —  Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to “live as a neighbor next door in peace.”

Carter said the group promised it wouldn’t undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Hamas, a militant Islamic group that both the U.S. and Israel consider a terrorist organization, calls in its charter for Israel’s destruction. It has also traditionally opposed peace negotiations with the Jewish state.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, later said Carter’s comments “do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.”

Carter’s comments came after his much criticized meetings with the top Hamas leaders in Syria in last week.

The Nobel laureate also urged Israel to engage in direct negotiations with the Islamic militant group, saying it was a “problem” that Israel and the U.S. refuse to meet with Hamas. Both governments consider it a terrorist organization.

“The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria,” he said. “The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved.”

“There’s no doubt that both the Arab world and Hamas will accept Israel’s right to exist in peace within 1967 borders,” he said, referring to Israel’s frontiers before it captured large swaths of Arab lands in the 1967 Mideast war.

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he decided not to meet with Carter in Israel because he does not wish to be seen as participating in any negotiations with Hamas.

In his comments Monday, Carter said Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has “regressed” since a U.S.-hosted Mideast conference in Annapolis, Md., in November.

Israel has been negotiating directly with Abbas, who heads a moderate government based in the West Bank. Abbas lost control of the Gaza Strip last June, when Hamas violently seized control of that territory.

Carter said Hamas has promised to let a captured Israeli soldier send a letter to his parents, and said the militants “made clear to us that they would accept an interim cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.”

However, Carter said Hamas rejected his specific proposal for a monthlong unilateral cease-fire.

 

I also find Carter’s timing a bit curious… He chose to meet with Hamas just before the start of Passover and again after Passover started… Hmmm… I guess maybe there was extra plague the bible left out, terrorists…

Now Hamas’ real answer to Carter’s peace making trip, a step up of attacks from Gaza. These attacks were authorized if not ordered during the talks with Carter.

As for Hamas, our intelligence sources report that Saturday, April 19, after the Gazan leaders Mahmoud a-Zahar and Siad Siyam, fresh from their Cairo stalemate, met former US president Jimmy Carter in Damascus – and heard his suggestion of a one- or two-week halt in rocket fire as a gesture of good will – they went straight into a conference with their masters.

Khaled Meshaal and Mussa Abu Marzuk were there as well as Iranian intelligence officers based permanently in Syria and Syrian intelligence officers who maintain liaison with Hamas. It was agreed that Hamas would not only continue to batter the Gaza-Israel border as in the last ten days, but intensify its assaults against a broader range of targets.

Sunday night, Hamas fired 8 Qassam missiles and half a dozen mortar rounds against Israel civilian locations, their first nocturnal attack of this kind.

Shortly before midnight, they directed fire at Israeli farmers who were harvesting the Kibbutz Nir Oz potato crop in bullet-proof vests by night to escape sniper fire from Gaza. Israeli air force strikes followed, hitting armed Palestinian bands. At least 8 gunmen were killed over the week end.

DEBKAfile’s military sources stress that these Israeli attacks and the deaths of its operatives offer Hamas neither disincentive nor impediment for its war preparations

Hillary Is An ObamaMamma

This was too funny…

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1809483

The Rezko Lie Continues

Barack Obama was brought up in the Rezko trial, where two witnesses have said Obama was at Rezko’s reception for Nadhmi Auchi. Now The liberals are going to say so what, well the so what is two fold:

1. Obama and his aides have claimed that Obama has no recollection of ever having met Auchi
2. Obama has lied consistantly through his campaign, yes implying things knowing they are not true is a lie

It seems lying is a common trait amongst Democrats, and what is sad, is that it is becoming an accepted standard in our country. Remember Bill Clinton lying under oath… The man holding the highest office in our country can lie, I guess that makes it ok for Barack and Hillary to lie as well.

Obama chose his words wisely, has no recollection… He was there, he knew he was there, who knew who the reception was for as he was an invited guest…

I wonder if how far this connection will go when the whole truth comes out…

When Tony Rezko held a reception at his home for Iraqi-born billionaire Nadhmi Auchi on April 3, 2004, White House hopeful Barack Obama and his wife were also there, Stuart Levine testified just now at Rezko’s trial.

Auchi is the man who provided Rezko a $3.5 million loan that Rezko did not disclose to the court—resulting in his January arrest.

“Mr. and Mrs. Obama were there, were they not?” Rezko lawyer Joseph Duffy asked.

“Yes, sir,” Levine said.

Obama and his aides have said Obama has no recollection of ever meeting Auchi.

I’m sure Obama will have another excuse for this along the lines of the “I wasn’t in church that day” denial with Wright, or the “I worded it clumsily” spin on the Pennsylvania comments.  But the big question is: How much longer can Obama, who has built a campaign around his authenticity as a “change” candidate, be taken seriously when he’s constantly having to parse these scandals?

 

 

False Email About Obama’s Senate Record

There is a false email circulating, and Obama supports like to post the “facts” from this email as comments on various news sites.

FactCheck has compiled the actual facts and Obama’s record is far from what the email purports. Why is this important, because it shows his track record of accomplishments is not very impressive and shows that he cannot push his agenda through if he becomes President of the United States.

A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama’s bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton’s. Don’t believe it.

Summary

A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We’ve had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what’s the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

• It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not. 

• It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body. 

• It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less. 

• It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.

Contrary to the e-mail’s assertions, Clinton’s and Obama’s contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

Analysis

Several alert FactCheck.org readers have passed on the following e-mail, which purports to compare the legislative effectiveness of Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). We reprint it verbatim:

You judge for yourself!

What impresses us is how misleading the e-mail is. Its anonymous author doesn’t apply the same standards to Clinton’s record and Obama’s, thus leading to false conclusions about their legislative records. For Clinton, the e-mail claims to examine bills that the senator has sponsored and that were passed into law during her Senate career. For Obama, however, it counts both sponsored and cosponsored bills, whether they were passed or not. And – something the e-mail doesn’t state clearly – it counts bills Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, before he was a United States senator.

Just counting bills sponsored by a particular senator is a poor way to gauge legislative clout or effectiveness, in our judgment. For example, one of the accomplishments that Clinton often boasts about – expanding health coverage for National Guard and Reserve troops –

came about as a result of an amendment, not a bill. And Obama claims credit for having helped “lead the Senate to pass” an ethics and lobbying bill that he never sponsored or even cosponsored, on grounds that it “drew key provisions” from a bill that he and two other senators cosponsored in 2007. The e-mail falsely claims that Obama sponsored the ethics legislation that became law, which he did not.

Nevertheless, we dug into the records and produced a true tally of the bills for which Sens. Obama and Clinton were in fact the sole, original sponsors. We take no position on which senator deserves credit for the most or best legislation overall. What we can demonstrate is that the numbers in this e-mail are all wrong.

 

Here’s how FactCheck.org tallies the real breakdown of bills and resolutions sponsored by the candidates in the U.S. Senate.

We counted only bills for which Obama or Clinton was the sole, original sponsor. The e-mail inflates Obama’s numbers by counting his cosponsored bills, but Sarah Binder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on legislative politics, tells FactCheck.org that often “cosponsorship does not require a commitment of time, energy or resources – let alone the political or policy ingenuity that might generate a bill idea in the first place.” Tallying sponsored bills, says Binder, is “a better metric of a senator’s agenda, efforts and interests.”

Clinton has been in the Senate a little more than seven years; Obama, a little more than three. Using the numbers above, we calculate that Clinton has been the sole sponsor of a few more bills and resolutions per year – 51, to Obama’s 43. And she has steered twice as many through the Senate and almost four times as many into law per year, on average, as Obama has.

Clinton’s Real Numbers

Clinton’s campaign claims that 22 of the senator’s solely sponsored bills have become public law, and the e-mail claims 20. We counted 19, three fewer than the campaign because it included several Clinton-sponsored provisions that were part of other major bills. (The measures were substantive, having to do with such issues as improving treatment for wounded service members, but they didn’t fit the rules of this tally.) Nine of her successful bills had to do with naming post offices or courthouses, but others involved building safety, unemployment assistance and support for family caregivers.

The list of her accomplishments in the e-mail, though, is not, as the author claims, a rundown of Clinton-sponsored bills that became law; it is in fact a mishmash of some that became law and others that were only passed by the Senate, without being a complete roster of her bills in either category. She actually sponsored, by herself, 32 bills and resolutions that passed the Senate, including all of those mentioned specifically in the e-mail plus 12 others. The omitted bills include a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah, and a resolution condemning the murder of an American journalist. And she has been sole sponsor of a total of 358 bills in her seven-year Senate career.

Here’s our list of bills solely sponsored by Clinton that became law (descriptions of each are verbatim from THOMAS.gov, the Library of Congress’ database of legislative information):

110th Congress:

• S. 694, A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes.

109th Congress:

• S. 272, A bill to designate certain National Forest System land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
• S. 1283, A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a program to assist family caregivers in accessing affordable and high-quality respite care, and for other purposes.
• S. 2376, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the “Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building.”
• S. 2722, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the “Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building.”
• S. 3613, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the “Major George Quamo Post Office Building.”
• S. 3716, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Pitcher Street in Utica, New York, as the “Captain George A. Wood Post Office Building.”
• S. 3910, A bill to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept the donation of a bust depicting Sojourner Truth and to display the bust in a suitable location in the Capitol.

108th Congress:

• S. 1241, A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York, and for other purposes.
• S. 1266, A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Dr. Dorothy Height, in recognition of her many contributions to the Nation.
• S. 1425, A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed Protection Program.
• S. 2838, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10 West Prospect Street in Nanuet, New York, as the “Anthony I. Lombardi Memorial Post Office Building.”
• S. 2839, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, as the “Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office.”

107th Congress:

• S. 584, A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 40 Centre Street in New York, New York, as the “Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.”
• S. 1422, A bill to provide for the expedited payment of certain benefits for a public safety officer who was killed or suffered a catastrophic injury as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
• S. 1622, A bill to extend the period of availability of unemployment assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the case of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
• S. 1892, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, New York, as the “Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building.”
• S. 2496, A bill to provide for the establishment of investigative teams to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life, and for other purposes.
• S. 2918, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 380 Main Street in Farmingdale, New York, as the “Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Post Office Building.”

A Legislative Powerhouse?

The e-mail claims that Obama “authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427” during “his first year in the U.S. Senate.” According to THOMAS.gov, this number is an accurate count of bills and amendments that Obama sponsored during the 109th Congress, which actually covered his first two years in the Senate, not one. (Amendments are changes to bills that were spearheaded by other lawmakers.) Discounting amendments and cosponsorships, Obama sponsored 66 bills during those two years. Clinton sponsored 90 in the same period. In his three years in the Senate, Obama has been the sole original sponsor of 129 bills.

The e-mail says Obama sponsored “over 820 bills” in the first “eight years of his elected service,” never mentioning that for most of that time, Obama was in the Illinois Senate. Since the rules and operations of that body are quite different from those of the U.S. Senate, we hardly think it’s fair to include the proposed legislation to which his name was attached in Springfield in any tally that’s being compared with Clinton’s record.

An accurate comparison with the Clinton bills listed in the e-mail would have included only the bills Obama has sponsored that have been signed into law. This comparison favors Clinton heavily, since 19 of her bills in seven years have become law, while Obama has had just two in his three years:

 

• S. 2125, A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
• S. 3757, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the “Katherine Dunham Post Office Building.”

The Meaning of Fluff

The question of whether a bill is “substantive” is often subjective. But the Clinton bills that the e-mail seems to characterize as frivolous have to do with such goals as recognizing and establishing national observances, honoring individuals’ memories, marking important events and congratulating sports teams. Five of the seven Obama-sponsored bills passed by the Senate have similar goals. So do more than 40 percent of all the bills that have been passed by the Senate since the beginning of 2008.

Surely we don’t elect senators just to name post offices. But given the contention that meatier bills can prompt, it’s much easier to push a seemingly frivolous bill through Congress. Every one of the Clinton and Obama bills that passed the Senate did so by unanimous consent. Bills that generate more opposition, meanwhile, can be struck down or left to languish. According to GovTrack.us, a legislative research site, 308 of 356 bills Clinton has sponsored haven’t made it out of committee. In the current (110th) Congress, that includes several bills on foreign policy, nuclear safety, poverty, housing and education, not to mention 19 bills regarding public health and coverage, 13 benefiting the armed forces, and 12 addressing children’s care and safety. Likewise, 120 of Obama’s 129 sponsored bills haven’t made it past the committee level – including, in the 110th Congress, nine bills on energy and environmental policy, nine on public health and eight benefiting the military and veterans, as well as multiple bills on education, foreign policy, product safety and voter access. These bills, being more substantive than, for instance, Clinton’s regarding the men’s lacrosse team or Obama’s on National Summer Learning Day, are also more likely to die in committee.

Blog Showdown

Several blogs have picked up and repeated the idea that Obama has sponsored more, or more important, legislation than Clinton has. One writer on the political blog Daily Kos looked at the senator’s record in detail but did not evaluate Clinton’s legislation. Another went through legislation from each candidate, analyzing the impressiveness of each bill from her perspective. On the other side, noted blogger Ezra Klein wrote, in his blog for the liberal magazine The American Prospect, that the second Kos article was “not anything even approaching a fair comparison of [the candidates’] legislative records” and that Clinton had in fact proposed important bills.

One final thought: Recently we published a special report warning readers about the high level of inaccuracy in chain e-mails. This one is no exception. In fact, with its anonymous author and grammatical errors, not to mention a redundancy or two, it’s a classic of the genre. If you find one of these e-mails in your in-box, our suggested course of action remains the same: Just hit delete.

Since the value of a piece of legislation is so often a matter of opinion, that’s a blogspat we won’t get into. We can say for sure, though, that Clinton has been the sole original sponsor of more bills than Obama at a slightly higher annual rate; that she’s been more successful than Obama at passing bills through the Senate and into law; and that, while she has sponsored a number of seemingly frivolous bills that were signed into law, these are comparable to many of Obama’s bills and common in the Senate generally.

Quite impressive!! It?s unfortunate that this information is not
being communicated effectively.
Let’s take a closer look at who’s really qualified and or who’s really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.
Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision.
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term – 6yrs. – and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law – 20 – twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress http://www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton’s bills are, more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact’s straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama’s, but the list is too substantive, so I’ll mainly categorize.
During the first – 8 – eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-
sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 – became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, – became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, – became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
He’s not just a talker.
He’s a doer.

Pass it on….It’s impressive!

– by Jess Henig

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular: