SCUMBAGS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER

 

Like the racist Reverend Wright, Obama downplays his connection with left wing radicals and white collar crooks such as Father Pfleger, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, Donald Warden (aka Dr. Khalid al-Mansour), pro-Palestinian Rashid Khalidi, Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Joseph Aramanda and Louis Farrahkan.

Guilt by Association? Or Scumbags of a Feather Sink Together?

 By JB Williams  Thursday, September 25, 2008

 

The long list of evil Obama associates seems to grow daily and although Obama has spent the last few years dodging questions, ignoring demands for full open disclosure of his past and making excuses about a plethora of bad associations, one fact seems glaringly obvious…

Obama has far more to hide than to share!

A Christian?

For months, despite his Arab Muslim name and background, Obama told the public via his surrogates in the press, that he was not a Muslim but a devoted Christian and he offered as proof, his twenty year membership in the Rev. Wright’s church of radical racism, where he and wife Michelle were married, their children were baptized and the Obama family sat in a pew for twenty years without ever noticing that they belonged to a radically anti-American church of racism.

Such a story begs a great lapse in judgment on the part of the listener…

Only after “the new media” released actual video footage of the Rev. Wright’s weekly tirades against “white America” did he reluctantly denounce his pastor of twenty years, claiming that this was not the Rev. Wright he had known, and that the founder and pastor did not speak for the church…

Then “the new media” released video of the new pastor who replaced the suddenly retiring Rev. Wright, and his vitriolic racist rhetoric was no different.

In the end, he left the church and denounced his pastor of twenty years, as well as the congregation he raised his children around. This was his proof of a Christian life? America looked the other way….

A Community Organizer?

Listed as the sole accomplishment on Obama’s résumé was “community organizing.” So, people naturally wanted to know what his community organizing was all about.

That’s when the names Saul Alinsky and William Ayers surfaced. Saul Alinsky was the father of the communist practice known as “community organizing,” the practice of exploiting poor and under-educated communities through race-baiting and class warfare. William Ayers is of course the famed convicted terrorist from left-wing homegrown terror organization Weatherman.

The basis for this particular group of community organizers is the communist strategy of exploiting poor, youthfully ill-informed and easily manipulated pockets of the population into mobilizing on behalf of their organizers’ agenda. In this case, Alinsky and Ayers set the radical left-wing agenda.

Though the initiative operated under the cover of a Vietnam era anti-war movement and Students for a Democratic Society, connected to the Black Panther movement and several other college campus initiatives led by the Communist Party, it was nothing more than standard run-of-the-mill communist propaganda parties aimed and exploiting the ignorant into moving the leftist agenda forward.

While Ayers is a prominent figure due to his bombing of government buildings, acts he still believes were justified today, the most famous member of the movement was infamous convicted murderer, Charles Manson.

This was Obama’s community organizing years in a nutshell. Radical leftists and Black Nationalists, all of whom operated violent illegal activities in opposition to American principles and values, in particular, capitalism. This is where Obama met the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It’s also where he first came in contact with other radicals operating in common. Meanwhile, the leftist American press continued to look the other way.

Birds of a Feather?

During the early years of radical left-wing community organizing efforts, William Ayers and his father Thomas came into cooperative contact with the Black Panther’s and Black Panther behind the scenes mentor Donald Warden, known today as Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, the name he took when he adopted the radical Wahabbi Muslim faith through friends in the Saudi Royal family.

In a March 2008 TV interview, former Malcom X lawyer and Harlem burough president Percy Sutton named Khalid al-Mansour as the manchurian puppetmaster behind Barack Hussein Obama. He told of how al-Mansour was raising money for the education of Barack Obama, and asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation to Harvard University on Obama’s behalf.

Politico blogger and Obama supporter Ben Smith immediately sought, received and printed a “ family retraction” of Sutton’s TV statements on the Politico blog. Newspapers across the country ready to run with the story of a manchurian candidate groomed by Saudi Royal family deal maker al-Mansour stopped dead in their tracks, biting on the Sutton retraction effectively manufactured by Smith in a rush to defend his candidate, Barack Obama.

However, the alleged Sutton retraction, issued by former Hillary Clinton Harlem campaign chief Kevin Wardally, turned out to be fake. When questioned about the retraction by Newsmax investigative journalist Ken Timmerman, official Sutton family representatives answered, “that neither Mr. Sutton or his family had ever heard of Kevin Wardally.”

”Who is this person?” asked Sutton’s assistant, Karen Malone. When told that he portrayed himself as a “spokesman” for the family, Malone told Newsmax, “Well, he’s not.”

Wardally refused to retract his false retraction, stating to Newsmax that, “he had been retained by a nephew of the elder Sutton, who is in our office almost every week.”

Timmerman reports, “Wardally works for Bill Lynch Associations, a Harlem political consulting firm. The nephew, Chuck Sutton, no longer works with the elder Sutton at Inner City Broadcasting, but for a high-tech start-up called Synematics.”

Still, nothing in the left-wing lamestream press about a growing number of miscreants who appear to be lying on behalf of the Obama campaign, including campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt…

The Harvard Law Grad?

The combination of ill-fated coincidences and shady characters surrounding what increasingly appears to be a corrupt Obama campaign is now leading honest investigative journalists like Ken Timmerman at Newsmax to ask more obvious questions.

Like, how did a poor black boy from a broken home, who never held down steady work or disclosed student loan information on his tax returns, managed to pay for seven years of the most expensive schooling in the country?

In searching for answers to this and many other obvious questions, reporters have received the runaround from Obama campaign spokespersons who can’t seem to stop cornering themselves in blatant contradictions.

While the Obama campaign continues to use his Harvard years as a centerpiece for a White House bid which he claims to be an “open book,” his Harvard records remain under lock and key, beyond the reach of journalists seeking to know more about a man who wants to be President of the United States.

Why won’t Obama sign a release for his college records at Harvard, Columbia or Occidental? And why is the left-wing lamestream press still silent on all of it? The answers should be obvious to everyone by now.

Guilt by Association?

In a candidate with no real relative experience on his résumé, the company he has chosen to keep over the years may be the only means of knowing what the man actually believes in. Yet the man is desperate to run from almost every associate he has ever known. This is because his life is filled with personal associates whom have a very public history of highly anti-social and very anti-American backgrounds.

The public has a right and good reason to know if Barack Hussein Obama is the Manchurian candidate of the Saudi Royal Family and at present, all evidence certainly points in that direction. At a minimum, there are way too many unanswered questions regarding an endless string of less than acceptable associations.

As a general rule, people who hide things have something to hide.

When Obama’s twenty year pastor and mentor became a racially charged public disgrace, Obama cried “guilt by association.”

When Obama was caught lying about the depth and breadth of his personal relationship with Weatherman terrorist William Ayers, he again cried “guilt by association.”

When former Black Panther lawyer Percy Sutton connected Obama to Black Panther mentor and Saudi front man Khalid al-Mansour, Obama cried “guilt by association” yet again.

When the nation learned that Obama’s “community organizing” was nothing more than Alinsky style communist bent Black community rabble-rousing in an effort to manipulate the most easily manipulated segments of our population, Obama cried “foul and more guilt by association.”

As Obama is linked to Arab Muslim after Arab Muslim, and mountains of money pour in from all over the globe through more than 500 campaign bundlers, with no means of backtracking where all of that money is really coming from, Obama runs for cover and redirects press attention away from himself by sending an army of investigators to Alaska to dig up (or invent if necessary) dirt on Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Meanwhile, nobody in the left-wing lamestream press is asking a single serious question of the Obama campaign and there is NO mass public outcry for full disclosure from the candidate who is running on “full disclosure.”

Scumbags of a Feather Sink Together?

Best I can tell from all available evidence, Barack Hussein Obama is the Manchurian candidate of the Saudi Royal Family.

He has been propped up for years by Black Nationalists, former Black Panther thugs, Wahabbi wealth and communist sympathizers masquerading as Alinsky styled “community activists” who have bilked the poorest and most unsuspecting members of society out of their freedom and liberty in pursuit of left-wing political power.

Dr. Khalid al-Mansour is certainly capable of being the official puppet master behind what is clearly a puppet presidential candidate. More than forty years of political alignments by al-Mansour demonstrate that he is a brilliant individual, of great wealth and power, extraordinarily well connected, with a hardcore anti-American agenda and a life long desire to seat the first Black Nationalist President, maybe even operating under the command and control of the Saudi family that made al-Mansour the international power-broker he is today.

We have lots of facts, lots of questions and very few forthright answers here. We have all seen Obama’s alleged intellect disappear the minute he is without a teleprompter. He’s only eloquent when someone is feeding him words. So, who is feeding Obama those words?

Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, Percy Sutton, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, Donald Warden (aka Dr. Khalid al-Mansour), pro-Palestinian Rashid Khalidi, Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Joseph Aramanda and Louis Farrahkan.

These names and more like them are repeatedly intertwined with Obama’s entire adult life over the last twenty odd years. The list of Obama associates is distinguished and consistent. Consistently corrupt, radically leftist, racially charged and anti-American…

When one has nothing but evil associates in his past, it is very difficult not to draw the natural conclusion that this individual, with such a long history of association with a multitude of corrupt friends, complete with very anti-American rap sheets, is also corrupt and anti-American at best.

Obama has the power to lay all such suspicions to rest by simply offering full disclosure of his brief but busy background.

Yet for some reason, Obama continues to run from his past and his past associations, leaving investigative journalists crisscrossing the country kicking over rocks and following trails that would lead any honest critical thinker to conclude that Obama is nothing he reports himself to be.

With each passing day, investigative journalists uncover another and then another Obama connection to leftist corruption, Arab money and tyrannical communist friends. If Obama refuses to answer the questions directly by fully opening up his life, he does so at the risk of allowing reporters and the voting public to draw their own conclusions from whatever evidence they are able to uncover on their own.

Meanwhile, the “candidate of full disclosure” can not run on his own “full disclosure” since he has offered no disclosure concerning his life.

People working around the clock to hide their past generally have something in their past worth hiding. People willing to open up their past for all to see, generally have nothing to hide.

His defenders call it guilt by association. But try running a Republican candidate who sat in the pew of a White Supremacist church for twenty years, hung out with skin heads on weekends and was groomed and funded for twenty years by Fidel Castro and see how long it takes leftists and their press to lynch that candidate by way of his associations…

Unless and until Obama is ready to stop running from his past, I suggest that every honest investigative journalist in America spend the next few weeks kicking over every rock around Obama and Dr. Khalid al-Mansour. At the moment, all evidence implicates Obama as a left-wing Saudi puppet and al-Mansour as the Saudi puppet master.

If this is the basis upon which Obama wants American voters to make their November decision, so be it. But losing in November won’t be the result of “racism.” It will be the result of life long “guilt by association” and the fact that Obama refused to answer a plethora of very real and reasonable questions about his past.

If he won’t explain the vast number of ill-conceived relationships, he will sink with his friends, including those in the lamestream press, who stopped being the unbiased eyes and ears of the people years ago.

I sincerely hope that Obama decides to open his résumé up to the standard scrutiny expected in every run for the highest office in the land. But I won’t be holding my breath… jb-williams.com/

 

original article can be found at this link   click here

Underestimating Palin

ANCHORAGE — When she appeared for a candidate’s forum in front of a room filled with unionized Alaskan electrical workers during her run for governor in early October 2006, Sarah Palin arrived woefully unprepared. When the union members grilled her on labor policy, Palin faltered. Afterward, a furious Palin berated her staff, recalled two former senior campaign aides who blamed her unwillingness to bone up on workplace issues for the blunder. But just a few weeks later, when Palin jousted with her two main rivals during critical pre-election debates, she was much more at ease. Palin distilled policy questions into simple answers and countered her opponents’ attacks with verbal stiletto thrusts delivered with a sunny smile. When one moderator asked about abortion and pressed about what she would do if her daughter had a child out of wedlock, Palin had a ready answer, defending her anti-abortion stance and deflecting the question toward her male rivals: “I would choose life. And I am confident you will be asking my opponents these same scenarios?”

During Palin’s brief exposure to the high-stakes environment of political debates, she has unnerved both her handlers and her opponents. At times she has been handicapped by her lax approach to learning the nuances of policy and state issues, but she has also projected a Reaganesque ability to offer up concise and to the point answers and charm on camera. “The political landscape here is littered with people who have underestimated Sarah Palin,” said Eric Croft, a former state representative who ran for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2006 and appeared with Palin during several early forums. Palin’s split-personality debate persona — mirrored both in her confident speech to the Republican convention in Minneapolis in early September and in a series of wobbly performances in recent television interviews — poses a challenge for her Democratic opponent, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, as each approaches Thursday’s nationally telecast vice presidential debate in St. Louis. Biden could face trouble, Alaskan political observers said, if he takes Palin too lightly. But he also has to take care not to be overly aggressive against a candidate who radiates telegenic appeal. “She has a Reagan-like ability to win over audiences. But for someone who cares about issues and facts, it was rather startling to see her gloss over important questions,” said Andrew Halcro, an Alaska businessman who ran as an independent candidate for governor against Palin.

For its part, Sen. John McCain’s campaign appears to be taking no chances that Palin will prepare properly. It flew her Monday to McCain’s Arizona ranch to cram with a coterie of the presidential candidate’s advisors. As she began her run for governor of Alaska, Palin repeatedly proved difficult to prep for a debate, recalled her two former political aides, who had pivotal roles during her campaign but declined to be identified because of their continuing involvement in Alaska politics. Palin, the former aides said, had a sharply limited attention span for absorbing the facts and policy angles required for all-topics debate preparation. Staffers were rarely able to get her to sit for more than half an hour of background work at a time before her concentration waned, preoccupied by cellphone calls and family affairs. “We were always fighting for her attention,” said one of the aides. In mid-October 2006, Palin’s staffers saw a presage of their worries in the first political forum of the campaign season, an event at Anchorage’s 49 Supper Club, where candidates unveiled their stump speeches before a room filled with political players. The former Wasilla mayor breezed through an upbeat speech about “taking back Alaska,” but struggled during a question-and-answer session. “To her credit she gave a lot of ‘I don’t knows,’ ” one former aide recalled. “But it was clear she didn’t start out with a great range of knowledge about Alaskan affairs.” In the weeks that followed, Palin’s senior campaign aides took care not to let her repeat the dismal performance. “I was always frustrated because 30 minutes before game time, I’d want to say, ‘let’s turn off the phone and lock the door. And please calm down,’ ” one of her former aides recalled.

But as time went on, Palin increasingly managed to zero in on the policy issues set before her during debate preparations, and her comfort level rose dramatically. During two final debates broadcast by Alaska public television and an Anchorage news station, Palin appeared to ace her performances, deftly crystallizing her talking points to voters. “If you can sit her down, she has a talent for listening to a policy presentation that is so boring it would bring tears to your eyes,” the aide said. “Then — boom — she will nail it down to its essence.” Palin often toted index cards when she walked out in front of the cameras, cribbing from them as the cameras swiveled while her rivals took their turns. “She’d carry these cards with her like she was cramming for a test,” Halcro said. Her debate strategists also warned Palin not to stray onto such hot-button topics as creationism and same-sex marriage. On questionnaires sent to social conservative activists, Palin backed “intelligent design” alternatives to the theory of evolution and opposed nontraditional unions. But she managed to avoid those subjects during most of the debates. Palin remained so low-key that even her pollster, David Dittman, confessed that he was unaware of her strong Christian conservative tenets. “I didn’t know what she believed in,” he said. “We never had any discussions about it, and from our polls, Alaska voters had the same impression.”

But by the final key televised debates in late October, Palin had grown used to the format, both her aides and rivals recalled. Still using index cards, she had grown breezily confident in her back-and-forth with Halcro and former Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles. Palin had ready answers on tough questions about social concerns such as native needs, abortion and assisted suicide. Sometimes her remarks seemed glib, but she was usually poised and sometimes kicked back at her opponents and her questioners when they took the offensive. Larry Persily, a panelist questioner in the [Alaskan Gubernatorial] campaign’s final televised debate, said Palin flummoxed her rivals “like Muhammad Ali dancing around the ring.” She avoided statements and tough questions that could have impaled her and repeatedly stung at her opponents. And Palin, a former sportscaster, was easily the most comfortable in front of the camera. “She knows television,” said Persily, who participated in other debates and has watched Palin closely for years. “She knows how to look at her interviewer.”

Palin saved her most devastating riposte for the final question of the debate, when Persily asked the three candidates whether they would hire their opponents for a state job. Knowles and Halcro offered halting jokes. But when it was Palin’s turn, she pounced. Smiling at Halcro, who recited reams of statistics by rote, Palin observed that the businessman “would make the most awesome statistician the state could ever look for.” As the debate audience laughed, Palin pivoted to Knowles, who had owned an Anchorage restaurant. “Do they need a chef down in Juneau?” Palin asked, smiling as she turned the verbal knife. “I know Mr. Knowles is really good at that.” Two years on, Halcro and Knowles admit they are still baffled how their mastery of policy and state issues was trumped by Palin’s breezy confidence and feel-good answers. “When you try to prove she doesn’t know anything, you lose, because audiences are enraptured by her,” Halcro said. “And her biting comments give you a sense of how competitive she is. Anybody who doesn’t take her seriously does so at their peril.”

By Stephen Braun and Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
1:45 PM PDT, September 30, 2008