$28,000 per plate for Obami ? Am I invited?

Yep, Matt Drudge just posted that Obamibiden will be attending a $28,000 a plate dinner tonight in his honor in Beverly Hills.

Am I missing something here? What kind of pass does a $28K plate offer to the White House? And let's not forget how in touch he is with the little people. Are you kidding me?

Let me count the ways he is mis-stepping his way to become POTUS.

Look at how morose this is...and the Democrats are for the little people, the under-privileged, the cast-down, the poor, the hungry...excuse me?

OBAMA BOOM ECONOMY: RECORD BANK IN BEV HILLS, $28,500 A PLATE!
Tue Sep 16 2008 06:25:55 ET

The nation's financials may be in a spiral, but cash is flowing into the Obama campaign faster than Marvin Hamlisch can play "Niagara"!

Yesterday, Obama declared how we are in "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

Today he will host a dinner in Beverly Hills --- costing attendees $28,500 dollars each!

Hundreds of high rollers, including some of the biggest executives in film, television and music, will munch gourmet chow and hang out with the candidate.

Streisand will then sing at the five-star Beverly Wilshire, no doubt reviving the Depression-era standard "Happy Days Are Here Again" with new urgency.

Obama is set to break a single-day fundraising record of $9 million.

Tuesday's events in Tinseltown come after Obama racked up a record-breaking $66 million dollars in fundraising last month, beating his previous high mark of $55 million last winter.

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are still very, very difficult times," rival McCain said, sunny-side up.

"Sen. McCain, what economy are you talking about?" smiled Obama.

Developing...

Looks like its going to be a hot time in the old town tonight...

Obama vs McCain - a clear choice

Larry Elder, a frequent contributor on World Net Daily, posted the article Obama vs McCain - a clear choice, September 11, 2008.

To get this information out there, I will post the entire article here. It truly gives food for thought.

A matter of "neighborliness." That's how Democratic presidential aspirant Barack Obama justified raising taxes.

Obama compared the circumstances of a person who is "sitting pretty" with that of a waitress. The waitress struggles, said Obama, while the rich can, and should, pay more. Nothing more, really, than a standard soak-the-rich plan, redistributing the wealth from the haves to the have-nots. But does Obama practice his own "neighborliness"?

When Obama and his wife earned between $200,000 and $300,000 annually from 2000 through 2004, they donated less than 1 percent to charity. As a result of the sales from Obama's two books, he and Michelle earned as much as $4 million per year the past couple of years. Then the Obamas' charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Let's turn to Iraq. Obama grudgingly concedes that the surge worked "beyond our wildest dreams." But he points out an "underlying problem." What "underlying problem"? Obama accuses the Iraqi government of failing to attain "political reconciliation," insisting that the government refuses to "take responsibility." Really?

Of the 18 so-called Iraqi government benchmarks demanded by Congress, the Iraqi government has met or is close to meeting nearly all of them. Of the 18 provinces in Iraq, the Iraqi military and police now control 11 of them. Gen. David Petraeus, the region's commander, recently said that by next summer, he expects the Iraqis to take over control of Baghdad. In July, there were six American combat-related deaths, down from 66 last July.

Let's turn to the economy and Bush's allegedly failed economic policies. Under President Bush, the economic pie grew. Tax receipts grew by 20 percent, to the highest level in our nation's history. And remember, Bush inherited an economy going into a recession. On Sept. 11, 2001, America suffered the worst attack on its soil in its history. Spending increased for Homeland Security and the war in Iraq. And of the current economic sluggishness, most can be attributed to the slump in housing. Does anybody, except for the most ardent Bush-hater, blame the president for the housing downturn? Following 9/11, polls showed that Americans overwhelmingly expected another attack within six months to a year. We have not had another attack on American soil in the seven years since 9/11.

One of Obama's plans to "rescue" the American economy includes a "windfall" profits tax to punish oil companies for their "obscene profits." But the price of a barrel of oil fell from $147 per barrel in July to $101 today. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., assails the "oilmen" in the White House for rising oil prices. But the same "oilmen" remained in the White House during the more than 30 percent decline in prices. For what it's worth, the United States produces almost 7 percent of the world's crude oil supply. So somehow, someway, the greedy oilmen managed to push oil prices to worldwide historic levels, despite controlling only 7 percent of supply.

So, what does this all mean for the presidential race between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain? Issue No. 1, for most voters, remains the economy. Obama recently said he may delay tax hikes in the event of continued economic sluggishness. Obama thus admits that higher taxes negatively affect the economy during hard times. But during good times, higher taxes affect the economy positively? And as to the war in Iraq, polls show Americans now confident of victory. Credit the "surge" – an increase in forces and a change in tactics long championed by McCain. Obama not only opposed the surge but also predicted its failure. He was wrong, and McCain was right.

Obama offers the George McGovern/Walter Mondale/Al Gore/John Kerry prescription of class warfare and class envy. It blames American "aggression" for its alleged loss of "respect" in the eyes of the world.

The other side shows greater belief in free markets and free trade, and considers American success in Iraq a matter of national security. Democrats attack McCain and his image as a "maverick" by claiming that the Arizona senator voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time. But Sen. Barack "hope and change" Obama, in the past three years, voted with his party nearly 97 percent of the time.

Americans, in the final analysis, want a strong economy and wish to live in safety and security. So the choice is simple. It's McCain.

Obama tries to block early GI withdrawal or what the Bastard was really doing on his world tour!

Folks, I don't make this stuff up as many other blogs do, however, we MUST get this out...NOW!

BHO, has a really inflated ego and it goes to show by this piece in the New York Post. I will post it all here, but I will also include the link for you to see for yourself, as no one could just make this stuff up!

Hat Tip to Jay over at America's Right blog...and especially Amir Taheri at the New York Post for writing this!

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

September 15, 2008 --

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

Sickening - Latest attacks

Personally, I thought Sarah Palin held her own with the charlie interviews. I watched most of them and noted that she didn't bounce about as Obiden did on The View. Her feet didn't nervously tap as did charlie's during his elitist interview. How I could possibly think he would give her a little more respect, instead of grilling her, unlike prior interviews of democrats.

I can only hope the media is creating for themselves a no win situation for Obiden especially as he continues his attacks; the latest being McCain can't send an email.

What the jackhole fails to note is that McCain, due to his torture in Vietnam, can't use a keyboard, nor can he comb his hair or tie his shoes. That is Cindy's job, which she readily accepts. After all, twenty-eight years of marriage, knowing the man who, with God's will, will serve our country as the next President of the United States, she knows the true character of his heart.

Just as he made the statement about lipstick on a pig, Obiden knew what he was saying and doing. Oh, sure others have said it, but he referenced it to Palin's comparison to a hockey mom and pit bull. How do I know that? Well, lest we forget his emphasis when speaking of Hillary, by then putting his middle finger on his cheek, as if to scratch his face, giving her the f-you sign. The audience picked up on it and heartily laughed. Just as they did when he referenced the lipstick remark. Oh, but that was not what he meant. Can such a demeaning personality serve as POTUS?

Keep up your self-serving moves you idiot...and your elitist media...hopefully you too, will bring this bastard political wing down.

Its true, that THISwill be the election of my lifetime. I don't believe I am ready for the world to change so radically. However, I know it must as it is inevitable.

Seeing and hearing Susan Sarandin make the statement she did on the RED carpet the other evening, gave me pause. She was asked about her thoughts on the contest and she said, "Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilot was a governor." Ugh? Are you making the case for Obiden as the new messiah?

From a personal perspective, I know the anti-Christ must arrive before Christ, but are we, as Christians ready for that? As this is not a place for my personal religious beliefs, I will refrain from doing so.

I only want to present just the facts mam.

Before I close, rumors are now circulating that Obiden wants to replace bidey boy with Hillary for veep, with biden bowing out due to health reasons.

Now I doubt that will occur, but it sure would make for an interesting diversion now, wouldn't it?

Obama's Letters for Rezko Unearthed

Chicago Sun-Times reported in June 2007 that Barack Obama backed the effort by Tony Rezko and Allison Davis - Rezko's partner and Obama's former boss - to win taxpayer funds to build the Cottage View Terrace apartments built on property that contained high level of toxins for $1, owned by the city.

As the saying goes...follow the money! Rezco either has been sentenced or will be as he was convicted.

The following story appeared June 13, 2007 and was written by Tim Novak, staff reporter:

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.

Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko -- a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and client of the law firm where Obama worked -- who was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich.

The letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, "I've never done any favors for him.''

On Tuesday, Bill Burton, press secretary for Obama's presidential campaign, said the letters Obama wrote in support of the development weren't intended as a favor to Rezko or Davis.

"This wasn't done as a favor for anyone," Burton said in a written statement. "It was done in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project.

"I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago," the statement said. "There was a consensus in the community about the positive impact the project would make and Obama supported it because it was going to help people in his district. . . . They had a wellness clinic and adult day-care services, as well as a series of social services for residents. It's a successful project. It's meant a lot to the community, and he's proud to have supported it.''

The development, called the Cottage View Terrace apartments, opened five years ago at 4801 S. Cottage Grove, providing 97 apartments for low-income senior citizens.

Asked about the Obama letters, Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said Tuesday, "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project."

Davis couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday.

'Boneheaded' deal in 2005

Since announcing his presidential bid, Obama has faced repeated questions about his 17-year relationship with Rezko, one of his earliest political contributors, who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama.

Rezko backed Obama's election to the Illinois Senate in 1996, his successful re-election bids and his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate.

Two years ago, the two men were involved in a real estate deal that Obama later apologized for, calling it "boneheaded'' and a "mistake'' because the transaction occurred while Rezko was widely known to be under federal investigation. Rezko's wife paid full price for a vacant lot in Chicago's historic Kenwood district on the same day Obama bought the mansion next door from the same property owner for $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife subsequently sold a sliver of the land to Obama.

Obama's relationship with Rezko dates to the senator's days as a student at Harvard Law School, when Rezko offered him a job, which Obama turned down.

After graduation, Obama returned to Chicago and joined Davis' small law firm -- then known as Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland -- which specialized in helping developers build housing for the poor. Five of those deals included Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp. Those Rezmar projects ran into trouble. Some buildings ended up being boarded up. Some went into foreclosure.

While Obama served in the Illinois Senate, he continued to work for the law firm, which Davis left in 1997 to become a developer.

Davis soon went into business with Rezko, creating a company called New Kenwood LLC to build the seven-story apartment building for senior citizens on a vacant stretch of land once occupied by a gas station at 48th and Cottage Grove. The city of Chicago owned the land -- nearly two acres tainted by lead, benzene and other toxic chemicals.

Davis is a member of the Chicago Plan Commission. He was originally appointed to the commission in 1991 by his friend, Mayor Daley. Davis, like Rezko, has been a prolific campaign fund-raiser for politicians including Daley and Obama.

Soon after they incorporated New Kenwood in 1998, Davis and Rezko got letters of support from elected officials -- Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) and state Rep. Lou Jones (D-Chicago), whose districts included the proposed project.
Firm paid city $1 for land
New Kenwood LLC also got letters of support from Obama, who represented a nearby Senate district.

"I am writing in support of the New Kenwood LLC's proposal to build a ninety-seven unit apartment building at 48th and Cottage Grove for senior citizens,'' Obama wrote in separate letters, each dated Oct. 28, 1998, to city and state housing officials. "This project will provide much needed housing for Fourth Ward citizens.''

At the time he wrote the letters, Obama was also a lawyer with Miner Barnhill & Galland, the law firm Davis formerly headed. Among the firm's clients were several companies owned by Davis and Rezko. The firm did not represent New Kenwood.

Davis and Rezko hired Daley & George, the law firm of the mayor's brother Michael, to help them get $3.1 million from bonds issued by the city of Chicago.

Rezko and Davis paid the city $1 for the land and spent more than $100,000 to clean it up, including the removal of an underground storage tank. Some tainted land was left behind, but state environmental officials approved construction after Rezko and Davis agreed to cover the polluted areas with parking lots, sidewalks or three feet of dirt, records show.

The $14.6 million Cottage View Terrace was funded entirely by city, state and federal taxpayers.

The project included $855,000 in development fees for New Kenwood. Records don't show how Davis and Rezko split the money. Davis owned 51 percent of New Kenwood, Rezko 49 percent, according to the records.

In addition to the development fees, a separate Davis-owned company stood to make another $900,000 through federal tax credits.

Cottage View Terrace was supposed to be managed by Davis' longtime business partner, William Moorehead. But Moorehead said last week that his company was dumped before the apartments opened in 2002. The apartments are now managed by Urban Property Advisors, a company owned by Davis' son, Cullen Davis.

Moorehead is due to report to prison next month to begin serving a four-year sentence for stealing more than $1 million from the Robert Taylor Homes and other public housing projects he managed for the Chicago Housing Authority and the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department, as well as from two developments he co-owned with Davis near Cabrini-Green on the North Side.

Just a little digging - reveals so much!

It is amazing what you can uncover if you dig just enough. Seems like all the dirt comes up, if you dig deep enough.

While doing just that, digging, that is, this morning, I found an article, recently dug by Tom Blumer, on http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/07/barack-obamas-1-1-million-botanical-garden-er-100-000-gazeb
.

You see, Tom found this interesting story in the Chicago Tribune archives...

ENGLEWOOD IS EYED FOR BOTANICAL GARDEN
Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Jan 15, 2000. pg. 5

A group of politicians, school administrators and community activists unveiled a plan Friday for a $1.1 million botanical garden in the city's Englewood neighborhood.

The proposal calls for a walk beneath the "L" tracks on Princeton Avenue, from 59th Place to 62nd Place. Backers said they hope it will help spur redevelopment in the impoverished area, boost neighborhood pride and soften the impact of traffic and pollution from the nearby Dan Ryan Expressway.

State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) said he planned to seek state funding for the effort and estimated that ground could be broken in early 2001.

The proposed garden also would include a gazebo, a parrot sanctuary and a walk of fame.

Tom says, "That sounds exciting. Let's go visit:" he then puts a Google map up showing within the yellow outline where this magical sanctuary would be built.

Imagine that. No garden. No parrot sanctuary. No walk of fame.

How can that be? What happened? The Chicago Sun-Times tells us the answer, while revealing that "at least" there's a gazebo -- but not much of one.

He posts a link for the video. Well, with my dial-up connection, I have a feeling that we would be waiting for hours, and, I want this info out there.
I didn't make it up, nor did Tom.

Here is Obama's wasted garden grant...that he vowed to 'work tirelessly' to build an oasis for Englewood. It never happened.

July 11, 2008

As a state senator, Barack Obama gave $100,000 in state money to a campaign volunteer who failed to deliver on a plan to create a botanic garden in one of Chicago's most blighted neighborhoods.

..... what was supposed to be a six-block stretch of trees and paths is now a field of unfulfilled dreams, strewn with weeds, garbage and broken pavement.

Kenny B. Smith, whose nonprofit group got the money, said it was spent legitimately, mostly on underground site preparation. But he admitted Thursday that the garden is a lost cause because other government money never came through.

..... Smith -- an early Obama supporter who gave $550 to his state and congressional campaigns -- said he gave his paperwork documenting the work to a state agency and no longer has it.

..... a reporter walked the site last week with a landscape architect from the Illinois Green Industry Association who found no evidence of the work Smith cited. The only major changes since 2000: A gazebo was added, and some trees were cut down.

Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said through a spokesman he wasn't responsible for monitoring the work; the staffs of Gov. Blagojevich and former Gov. George Ryan were.

..... In 2001, at Obama's direction, a $100,000 Illinois FIRST grant went to Smith's group. The garden site was part of Rosewood Estates, an affordable-housing development being built by the group, whose unpaid board chairman was Brian Washington, a Sun-Times security guard.

Plans called for more than 50 homes, but only a dozen were built, Smith said.

The remaining $1 million for the botanic garden was never raised.

Those legendary $400 hammers for the military have nothing on this $100,000 gazebo.

A trifling matter? I don't think so. More like a revealing one:

* Obama feels no sense of responsibility for the results of money directed to someone HE chose. This isn't "the buck stops here" of Harry Truman fame; this is "the buck went somewhere else."

* Gubernatorial staffs aren't responsible for monitoring projects like this. State agencies are. If the agency involved didn't do their job (according to the article, it's the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity), that's one thing, but the blame-shifting to other pols is either hopelessly naive (a legitimate possibility, given the candidate's seemingly endless well of ignorance) or irresponsible.

* If you look at the full text of the press release that announced the project, you'll see that Kenny Smith was on hand, and that he made representations about how he was "work(ing) with a variety of governmental agencies and not-for-profit groups to secure funding this project including the Chicago Transit Authority, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the American Society of Landscape Architecture. We have made some progress ...." My bet: Smith had, at most, met with these orgs once or twice, and was blowing smoke about the realistic chances of getting money. For a nominal $550 in campaign contributions, Smith got 100 grand, which "somehow" has mostly gone bye-bye. Bottom line: Obama got hustled. Did he even look into how the rest of the "fund-raising" was going before directing the release of the grant funds?

* Perhaps that's why Obama seems oddly indifferent to what ultimately happened. The response from his spokesman (and not the candidate) is tired boilerplate about "provid(ing) residents with a livable neighborhood." Zzzzzz.

The larger point is this: The guy is hopelessly gullible, can't even get a $100,000 grant right, and now wants to have the final say in matters relating to a $3-plus trillion federal budget and a $14-trillion economy in a town chock full of con artists and tricksters.

Yikes.

Now folks, why do we have to DIG for the real Obama deeds? Lord knows what else is out there and there is more for sure...and I will keep on a diggin!

We won't be bullied!

Heard Obiden in a recent fundraizer (that is spelled incorrectly, on purpose) with the Bon Jovi's, told the audience that he won't be smeared, bullied or lied about.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What is he afraid that the truth will come out?

Do you realize that he didn't sign the campaign fundraizing agreement, to limit monies raized to $84 million....AS DID MC CAIN?

Did you know that there were 12,000 U.S. Flags that were thrown into the trash after their convention, while the Republicans recycled theirs? Obami didn't know nothing bout that...must have been the vendors. But the McCain folks used them at their town meeting today and told the crowd that if they didn't want them, then they would re-cycle them. I guess Obami has nuff money he can buy more...who is the more wasteful party now?

As a student of history, the NASDP, the National Socialist Democratic Party (thus forward called the Lemoncrats), was the party of change. The Lemoncrats brought Hitler to power...is Obamimami a Messiah, or a Hitler?

They both have similar backgrounds...broken family, both wanting power...both wanting to annihilate the Jewish nation...both believing in using deception to achieve greatness.

Who do you want to vote for?

If you would look at the McMaverick one good time, you would see the honorable background he comes from and the fact that in a national religious forum, he said his greatest mistake was that of him failing his first marriage. I don't think the great O made any such statement.

The great O, although he has not said it publicly, those that want him in the greatest house in the land, want a race war, should he lose.

If you find any of these arguments worthwhile, you are more than welcome to pass them on.