Sarah Palin’s Newsweek Cover


Surround yourself with the facts about Baraq




In an interview before the Republican National Convention, Niger Innis, the spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) expounded that “It was clear that Barack Obama’s ties to the left are familial, generational, and have lasted for several years.” He went on to say that “as a black American, he was exceedingly proud at the American people’s response to Barack Obama’s candidacy,” Innis expanded his perception by averring that “. . . to deny that he [Obama] has long-standing ties to left-wing elements in our polity is to deny reality. If you want to be president of the United States, it is not racism if you ask these kinds of questions, and he has to come up with the answers, hopefully they will be the truth.”


In conformity with this admonition, it is only prudent to acknowledge that the uncertainties that surround the democratic nominee for president must be brought to bear. As it is in the best interest of the public that. In the last 19 months, or so, that Obama has been involved in the bid for the United States Presidency, there have been many doubts expressed about Obama’s character and personal history. In some instances Obama has chosen to circumvent his obligations to provide specific answers that are defined by the certitude the American populace deserves. In other cases, he has chosen to simply ignore what has been asked of him. In light of his ambiguity, the only choice remaining for voters is to conceive what is likely to have transpired. His refusal to submit to the regulations encompassed in the requirements for presidential candidates is an insult to voters and to the United States Constitution.

There is something to be said about the aloofness surrounding Barack Obama. It’s not a pleasant thought; however, Obama’s misrepresentations and lack of transparency on numerous concerns surrounding his personal history, including his relationship with Bill Ayers, his lying about the extent of his relationship with Rezko, by not making his thesis public, by not making his State Senate papers public, by not making his medical records public, by not making his State Senate schedule public, by not making his Occidental records public, by not making his Columbia records public, by not making his Harvard records public, by never publishing his articles while he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, by never publishing his scholarly articles while at University of Chicago, by not making his law client list public, by not making any of his life associates and friends public, by resisting the call for the release of the Annenberg papers, and by precluding other transparencies while instructing people he associated to remain silent, and especially his refusal to present an original certificate of birth leave the public as though they are being hoodwinked. Most importantly, his lack of clarity about his ties to Middle Eastern interests has led some people to believe he is a ringer for the White House; accordingly his radical associations suggest that it is his intention to undermine the United States government, in favor of a less autonomous form of government. This mind-set is not just inherent skepticism; it is a genuine fear to some that Obama has been groomed for the presidency, by interests that are not beneficial to Americans.

Correspondingly, Obama also imparts the feeling that he has been planning a bid for the presidency since his being a community organizer. It’s decidedly apparent that his affiliation with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is not just happenstance. It’s evident that the experience he gained from “Project Vote” would serve him in running a political campaign at some point in the future. In addition his contact with and support for less fortunate people have made him out to be a hero championed by those people. His rise in stature in the eyes of the poor can be equated through his representation of ACORN, as part of a team of attorneys in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois for failing to implement a federal law designed to make it easier for the poor and others to register as voters. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with these involvements, in fact they appear philanthropic; however, it also reveals the basic tenets necessary for a surreptitious strategy that could lead to “socialist construction” in a free market society. By rallying the poor through the pretense that they are being exploited by the rich, Obama and his friends have created a voting base that helped him to gain his seat in the Illinois State Legislature. It s that same strategy and base, he used to get elected to the U.S. Senate, and the exact same one he is using in his bid for the presidency.

It’s uncanny that all the ducks on the Obama pond are in such a straight line, and are so squeaky clean; what is unsettling, is that his public image appears painstaking arranged. There is something illogical about a person spending so much time and money obtaining a Columbia education, and then immediately pursuing a life as a community organizer. The idea that someone who grew up dirt poor would immediately become a philanthropist after obtaining higher education just doesn’t add up. The only plausible explanation is that Barack Obama had some sort of an ulterior motive. It leads one to believe that his involvement in A.C.O.R.N. was nothing more than a vehicle to shuttle him along the route to national celebrity. Likewise, his many years of education are only a mechanism for propping up his over all agenda. It’s no coincidence he has chosen a curriculum steeped in the art of twisting the truth and the law.

Moving on, we see that among the many radicals Obama has been tied to since before his political career is the very dubious Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, formerly known as Don Warden. He is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, and an educator. His worldly resume reads as though he should be running for the presidency. He sits on numerous corporate boards, including the Chicago-based LaGray Chemical Co, which was formed to do business in Africa, the non-profit African Leadership Academy, Africa Venture Partners Saudi African Bank, Multimedia Super Corridor (Malaysia), Space Tech Inc., AmNet Corp. International, New Avenues Fund Ltd, United Bank for Africa, United Networks, and Landmark Entertainment, He is also an internationally acknowledged advisor to Heads of State and business leaders in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America and a representative of OPEC. He has been actively involved in structuring investments and joint ventures worldwide for over 35 years. Dr. Al-Mansour was also responsible for the Africa investment activities of Kingdom Holdings, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal’s Investment Company. He has also represented the Saudi Arabian interests of King Abdullah, Prince Alwaleed, Abdul Aziz, and Khalid al-Ibrahim. During his career, Dr. Al-Mansour has been a guest lecturer at Harvard University, Bombay University, Columbia University, UCLA, University of Kenya, London School of Economics and the University of Ghana. He is also listed in the Who’s Who in the World; the International Who’s Who in the Arab World, the Two Thousand Men of Achievement, the Royal Blue Book of London, and the World’s Who’s Who of Intellectuals and American Hall of Fame. Dr. Khalid Al-Mansour has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Howard University (Phi Beta Kappa) and Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of California at Berkeley.  

Indeed, Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour has a pretty impressive resume. And it is understandable that most of these labels are inconsequential as far as radicalism is concerned; but they are indicative of the influence and power that a man like Khalid al-Mansour can have over the people that surround him. Khalid al-Mansour’s far-reaching ideology is exhibited in the most impressionable years of life through his ties to the Black Panthers. “The Social Activism Sound Recording Project” has identified Khalid al-Mansour, A.K.A Don Warden, as the mentor of Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, co-founders of the Black Panthers. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale were also former members of the Revolutionary Action Movement. The same Revolutionary Action Movement, whose members were charged with conspiring to destroy the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, and the Washington Monument through the use of explosives. Such radical groups follow the basic tenets of “Maoism,” which is essentially a revolutionary struggle of the people for the purpose of promoting socialistic goals. Although the Black Panthers started out as an organization to promote Black Power and self-defense, they evolved into a militant organization that promoted socialist ideas. During their existence, various police organizations claim the Black Panthers were responsible for the deaths of at least 15 law enforcement officers and the injuries of dozens more. Although Khalid al-Mansour was not directly implicated in any acts of violence, the doctrinaire of radical ideas can be seen in the actions of the extremist faction; the potential influence he has upon people is made unmistakable.

What is more evident of Khalid al-Mansour’s radicalism is the principles outlined in his writings and articulations; they are littered with Muslim themes illustrating anti-American propaganda, outspoken effronteries against Israel, and anti-Semitic theories. On video he has advocated that white Americans should cut off the ears and noses, or whatever it takes to eliminate people of the Jewish faith. According to personal statements made at a New York City book signing, it is Khalid al-Mansour’s belief that the United States of America has committed genocide against persons of African dissent, and that America has future intentions “to remove 15 million Black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value, or benefit to the American society.” Granted, there is no doubting that slavery has existed in the past, but dark skinned people are not the only people to ever have been enslaved, as evidenced amongst the Germanic tribes and the Roman Republic-Empire; and there is also evidence that opposing tribes of the African continent have sold their enemies into slavery as well. Moreover, it is a safer bet to believe the reasoning for Khalid al-Mansour’s conspiracy theory surrounding genocide is merely subterfuge in order to inspire hate, thereby perpetuating the Maoist schema. Given this knowledge, it is not far fetched to surmise that there is a good chance that Khalid al-Mansour is not only a radical figure, but he has an unstable personality as well. It is frightening to think that he might hold influence over Barack Obama.

One example of Khalid al-Mansour’s sway is that in 1995 he was able to arrange a social gathering for the President of Ghana at the Clinton White House with the ostracized pop star Michael Jackson in attendance. If Khalid al-Mansour had the ability to wield enough power over Bill Clinton to entertain at the White House, what else is this guy capable of? Still, the real $64,000 question is why was Khalid al-Mansour, reportedly, sought out by Bill Ayers to procure funding for Barack Obama’s Harvard education? The fact that Khalid al-Mansour funded Obama’s education is evidenced in an interview with Percy Sutton on the news channel, “New York One;” Percy Sutton was a former lawyer for Malcolm X, the founder of Inner City Broadcasting, former borough president of Manhattan, and a frequent speaker at Harvard University functions. Percy Sutton was a former business associate of Khalid al-Mansour; Khalid al-Mansour contacted Sutton for the purpose of writing a letter of recommendation for Obama to secure Obama’s admission to Harvard University, in the process it was revealed that Khalid al-Mansour had secured an undisclosed source for financing Obama’s tuition. It is thought that the Saudi Arabian interests of Khalid al-Mansour are responsible for sponsoring Obama’s tuition money. The unknown quotient is what Khalid al-Mansour and his benefactors will required in return for helping Obama to attend such a prestigious institution. In the same instance, the public is still in the dark concerning so of the major financial contributions to the Obama campaign; the donors are required to be disclosed, as the public has a right to know.

Paralleling the radicalism of the Black Panthers is a group led by William Ayers known as the weathermen. Granted, Ayers is not as well connected as Khalid al-Mansour, but he is equally as radical, if not more so. Along with Bernardine Dohrn, the group is most famous for a campaign consisting of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots, from 1969 through the middle 1970s. The “Days of Rage“, the group’s first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago coordinated with the trial of the Chicago Eight. In 1970 the group issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government, under the name “Weather Underground Organization”

In any case, the ideologies practiced by Khalid al-Mansour, Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, and other left wing radical community leaders that Obama has been tied to, need to be called into question. In writing his book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” Obama alludes to the fact that while in high school he purposely chose a Communist Party USA member as his socio-political counselor and while in college he purposely sought out Marxist professors; also, while in college he spent a great deal of time studying the “Communist Manifesto of Neocolonial-ism,” authored by the infamous Frantz Fanon, who champions violence. He also mentions that, while at the University of Columbia, he neglected his studies to go to Cooper Union symposiums that had socialist themes. Given this knowledge, it’s not hard to identify that Obama had socialistic tendencies long before he met the likes of Khalid al-Mansour and William Ayers. 

          Commensurately, in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama tells us that, “It was into my father’s image . . . that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.”  He goes on to say, “I did feel that there was something to prove . . . to my father” in his efforts at political organizing. All one needs to do is read the senior thesis, “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” of Barak H. Obama Sr, to grasp the ideology that has been instilled in Barack Obama Jr. Some of the ideologies allowed for in Barak H. Obama Sr.’s senior thesis from UCLA are the nationalization and outright confiscation of foreign owned enterprises, the abolishment of free enterprise, the redistribution of wealth, price regulations for those businesses tied to the service industry, and 100% taxation of income as long as the people get benefits from the government. If that is not a radical approach to socialism then what is? More importantly, is the effect that ideology had on the young Obama. Off topic, but relevant is another mystery; why has Obama chosen to spell his name different from his father and why has he changed his name so many times? What is it that he is hiding from?

Further, his associations with leaders from organizations like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground who focused on socialistic ideas, masked as actions of self-defense, indicate his support for a socialistic society. There is no doubting that the ideologies espoused by these militant groups border on the communistic theories outlined in Friedrich Engels’ “Principles of Communism.” The Black Panther’s Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, and Don Warden [a.k.a. Khalid al-Mansour], and The Weatherman’s Bill Ayers, relied heavily on the works of Karl Marx, Lenin, and Mao to obtain information for coordinating their efforts as insurgent activists. Intentionally working toward a national insurrection, they considered themselves front line factions, “committed to organizing support for socialist revolutions.”

Obama’s interest in the “Communist Manifesto of Neocolonialism” authored by Frantz Fanon is not a fleeting ideology; his desire to rule and restructure our economy in socialistic ways is imbedded in his conscious and day to day actions, and his associations with leaders of radical organizations. Although he claims to be for unity, his driving a wedge between the populace in order to attract voters belies his real agenda.

The effect of the “Communist Manifesto of Neocolonialism” can be seen in Obama’s campaign, in the concept of using the “lumpenproletariat” as a base for his national debut. “Lumpenproletariat” is of German etymology and refers to the raggedy proletariat, or those who live on the fringes of life including criminals, ruffians and those who choose not to be employed, it is a term first defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in “The German Ideology”. “The German Ideology,” written by Marx and Engels, is a restatement of their theories of history. In any case, Khalid al-Mansour and the Black Panthers did not fully agree with Karl Marx’s analysis of the so-called lumpenproletariat. Marx thought that this class lacked the political consciousness required to lead a revolution. Huey Newton, on the other hand, was inspired by his reading of post-colonial theorist Frantz Fanon and his belief that the lumpen was of utmost importance. Newton said about these “brothers off the block” that, “If you didn’t relate to these cats, the power structure would organize these cats against you.” Obama takes this to heart and utilizes it by blaming McCain and the Republican Party.

In light of his lack of transparency, his campaign tactics, his known associations, his corrupt campaign financing, his association with ACORN and their monkeyshines, his support and acquiescence of for his father’s ideology, and his voting record, or lack thereof, voters need to seriously consider why they are willing to elect Obama for the highest office in the land.

States’ Actions to Block Voters


Article courtesy of the New York Times

Published: October 8, 2008

Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.

The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run.

Still, because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their party’s supporters disproportionately. The screening or trimming of voter registration lists in the six states — Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina — could also result in problems at the polls on Election Day: people who have been removed from the rolls are likely to show up only to be challenged by political party officials or election workers, resulting in confusion, long lines and heated tempers.

Some states allow such voters to cast provisional ballots. But they are often not counted because they require added verification.

Although much attention this year has been focused on the millions of new voters being added to the rolls by the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, there has been far less notice given to the number of voters being dropped from those same rolls.

States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and remove the names of voters who should no longer be listed; but for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, a review of the records shows.

The six swing states seem to be in violation of federal law in two ways. Michigan and Colorado are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been declared unfit to vote.

Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio seem to be improperly using Social Security data to verify registration applications for new voters.

In addition to the six swing states, three more states appear to be violating federal law. Alabama and Georgia seem to be improperly using Social Security information to screen registration applications from new voters. And Louisiana appears to have removed thousands of voters after the federal deadline for taking such action.

Under federal law, election officials are supposed to use the Social Security database to check a registration application only as a last resort, if no record of the applicant is found on state databases, like those for driver’s licenses or identification cards.

The requirement exists because using the federal database is less reliable than the state lists, and is more likely to incorrectly flag applications as invalid. Many state officials seem to be using the Social Security lists first.

In the year ending Sept. 30, election officials in Nevada, for example, used the Social Security database more than 740,000 times to check voter files or registration applications and found more than 715,000 nonmatches, federal records show. Election officials in Georgia ran more than 1.9 million checks on voter files or voter registration applications and found more than 260,000 nonmatches.

Officials of the Social Security Administration, presented with those numbers, said they were far too high to be cases where names were not in state databases. They said the data seem to represent a violation of federal law and the contract the states signed with the agency to use the database.

Last week, after the inquiry by The Times, Michael J. Astrue, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, alerted the Justice Department to the problem and sent letters to election officials in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio. The letters ask the officials to ensure that they are complying with federal law.

“It is absolutely essential that people entitled to register to vote are allowed to do so,” Mr. Astrue said in a press release.

In three states — Colorado, Louisiana and Michigan — the number of people purged from the election rolls since Aug. 1 far exceeds the number who may have died or relocated during that period.

States may be improperly removing voters who have moved within the state, election experts said, or who are considered inactive because they have failed to vote in two consecutive federal elections. For example, major voter registration drives have been held this year in Colorado, which has also had a significant population increase since the last presidential election, but the state has recorded a net loss of nearly 100,000 voters from its rolls since 2004.

Asked about the appearance of voter law violations, Rosemary E. Rodriguez, the chairwoman of the federal Election Assistance Commission, which oversees elections, said they could present “extremely serious problems.”

Skip to next paragraph“The law is pretty clear about how states can use Social Security information to screen registrations and when states can purge their rolls,” Ms. Rodriguez said.

Nevada officials said the large number of Social Security checks had resulted from county clerks entering Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers in the wrong fields before records were sent to the state. They could not estimate how many records might have been affected by the problem, but they said it was corrected several weeks ago.

Other states described similar problems in entering data.

Under the Help America Vote Act, all states were required to build statewide electronic voter registration lists to standardize and centralize voter records that had been kept on the local level. To prevent ineligible voters from casting a ballot, states were also required to clear the electronic lists of duplicates, people who had died or moved out of state, or who had become ineligible for other reasons.

Voting rights groups and federal election officials have raised concerns that the methods used to add or remove names vary by state and are conducted with little oversight or transparency. Many states are purging their lists for the first time and appear to be unfamiliar with the 2002 federal law.

“Just as voting machines were the major issue that came out of the 2000 presidential election and provisional ballots were the big issue from 2004, voter registration and these statewide lists will be the top concern this year,” said Daniel P. Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University.

Voting rights groups have urged voters to check their registrations with local officials.

In Michigan, some 33,000 voters were removed from the rolls in August, a figure that is far higher than the number of deaths in the state during the same period — about 7,100 — or the number of people who moved out of the state — about 4,400, according to data from the Postal Service.

In Colorado, some 37,000 people were removed from the rolls in the three weeks after July 21. During that time, about 5,100 people moved out of the state and about 2,400 died, according to postal data and death records.

In Louisiana, at least 18,000 people were dropped from the rolls in the five weeks after July 23. Over the same period, at least 1,600 people moved out of state and at least 3,300 died.

The secretaries of state in Michigan and Colorado did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for the Louisiana secretary of state said that about half of the numbers of the voters removed from the rolls were people who moved within the state or who died. The remaining 11,000 or so people seem to have been removed by local officials for other reasons that were not clear, the spokesman said.

The purge estimates were calculated using data from state election officials, who produce a snapshot every month or so of the voter rolls with details about each registered voter on record, making it possible to determine how many have been removed.

The Times’s methodology for calculating the purge estimates was reviewed by two voting experts, Kimball Brace, the director of Election Data Services, a Washington consulting firm that tracks voting trends, and R. Michael Alvarez, a political science professor at the California Institute of Technology.

By using the Social Security database so extensively, states are flagging extra registrations and creating extra work for local officials who are already struggling to process all the registration applications by Election Day.

“I simply don’t have the staff to keep up,” said Ann McFall, the supervisor of elections in Volusia County, Fla.

It takes 10 minutes to process a normal registration and up to a week to deal with a flagged one, said Ms. McFall, a Republican, adding that she was receiving 100 or so flagged registrations a week.

Usually, when state election officials check a registration and find that it does not match a database entry, they alert local election officials to contact the voter and request further proof of identification. If that is not possible, most states flag the voter file and require identification from the voter at the polling place.

In Florida, Iowa, Louisiana and South Dakota, the problem is more serious because voters are not added to the rolls until the states remove the flags.

Ms. McFall said she was angry to learn from the state recently that it was her responsibility to contact each flagged voter to clear up the discrepancies before Election Day. “This situation with voter registrations is going to land us in court,” she said.

In fact, it already has.

In Michigan and Florida, rights groups are suing state officials, accusing them of being too aggressive in purging voter rolls and of preventing people from registering.

In Georgia, the Justice Department is considering legal action against the state because officials in Cobb and Cherokee Counties sent letters to hundreds of voters stating that their voter registrations had been flagged and telling them they cannot vote until they clear up the discrepancy.

On Monday, the Ohio Republican Party filed a motion in federal court against the secretary of state to get the list of all names that have been flagged by the Social Security database since Jan. 1. The motion seeks to require that any voter who does not clear up a discrepancy be required to vote using a provisional ballot.

Republicans said in the motion that it is central to American democracy that nonqualified voters be forbidden from voting.

The Ohio secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, said in court papers that she believes the Republicans are seeking grounds to challenge voters and get them removed from the rolls.

Considering that in the past year the state received nearly 290,000 nonmatches, such a plan could have significant impact at the polls.

Article courtesy of the New York Times

Click Here For Link >>> States’ Actions to Block Voters 

Top 10 Reasons to Blame Democrats for Soaring Gasoline Prices

By William Tate

This started out as an attempt to create a light and humorous, Letterman-esque Top 10 list. But the items on the list, and the drain Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats’ actions (sometimes inaction) are just too tragic for that.

10) ANWR  If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress’s 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day–5% of the nation’s consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that “one million barrels per day,” would cause the price of gasoline to fall “50 cents a gallon almost immediately,” according to a recent George Will column.


9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: “Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so.” 

A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast,  wouldn’t that have been a good thing?


8) Insistence on alternative fuels  One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that “calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards.”  By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump. 


7) Nuclear power   Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world’s largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.


The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the “River Bend” plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977


 Need I say more?


6) Coal   “The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world,” writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world’s known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and–at current prices–a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants. 


5) Refinery capacity  “High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010,” according to Peak Oil News.  And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years,  the Dems’ environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. 


4) Reduced competition  With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers — Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco — happened on Clinton’s watch.  The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton’s two terms.


3) The Global Warming Myth  At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari “described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions … to address both issues simultaneously”.   As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005  –the year that trading  was initiated–and this year  –when the trading expanded dramatically — saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number…


2) Speculation  “Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices … it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation,” writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.  According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically “were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States… The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.” The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office. 


1) Defeat of President Bush’s 2001 energy package   According to the BBC, “Key points of Bush(‘s 2001) plan were to:


-Promote new oil and gas drilling


-Build new nuclear plants


-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels


A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:



“President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of ‘energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.


Mr. Bush’s plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals… for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies.” [The Bush plan] “mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline.”






The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, “this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California” if his plan was not adopted in 2001.


The Times account continued:


“Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers…Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives…”


Just as President Bush’s predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:


“World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful,” he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said “exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality.”


But, as a later Times article notes, “the president’s ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan.”


In other words, Democrats refused the President’s plea to “break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.”


Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump … or the voter’s booth.


William Tate is a former award-winning journalist and the author of the new novel, A Time Like This  (




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.

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…

original article can be found at this link   click here

Obama: Gestapo Tactics



This should scare the hell out of every single American – Text of the e-mail the Obama campaign sent to supporters (via

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack. 

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He’s currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

Call into the “Extension 720″ show with Milt Rosenberg at (312) 591-7200

(Show airs from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. tonight)Then report back on your call at

Kurtz has been using his absurd TV appearances in an awkward and dishonest attempt to play the terrorism card. His current ploy is to embellish the relationship between Barack and Ayers.

Just last night on Fox News, Kurtz drastically exaggerated Barack’s connection with Ayers by claiming Ayers had recruited Barack to the board of the Annenberg Challenge. That is completely false and has been disproved in numerous press accounts.

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.

Kurtz is scheduled to appear from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. in the Chicago market.

Calling will only take a minute, and it will make a huge difference if we nip this smear in the bud. Confront Kurtz tonight before this goes any further:

Please forward this email to everyone you know who can make a call tonight.

Keep fighting the good fight,

Obama Action Wire


Obama: Storm Troopers



A St. Louis television station reports — their words — “The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”

Prosecutors and sheriffs from across Missouri are joining “The Barack Obama Truth Squad.”

They mention Jennifer Joyce, St. Louis Circuit Attorney and Bob McCullough, prosecutor for St. Louis County in Missouri.

The reporter says, “They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 a year.”

While the report never quite comes out and says that anyone running an ad saying those things would be subject to prosecution, that certainly is the message implied. 

Not all things that are wrong are illegal. Saying that Barack Obama is a Muslim is wrong, but it does not warrant prosecution by the state.

I would cite Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, but an angry mob just took my copy to their book-burning…

UPDATE: AIP responds:

Washington, DC – September 26, 2008 – Barack Obama is now using local law enforcement officials to carry out his campaign of legal intimidation by assembling a group of high-ranking Missouri police officials and prosecutors – including St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough and City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce – to identify and target anyone the campaign determines is producing “misleading” political advertisements.

“This is an outrageous and shocking attempt by the Obama campaign to again employ Stalinist, police state tactics against those who dare to disagree with Barack Obama,” said Ed Martin, American Issues Projects president.   “I am frankly stunned to see public officials like McCullough and Joyce abusing their official prosecutorial positions to serve as attack dogs for a national political campaign.  I am quite certain Missourians elected these individuals to enforce the laws and arrest criminals, not to throw people in jail for daring to practicing free speech.

“The Obama campaign continues to provide a chilling preview of what would happen to political freedom in an Obama administration.”

This new effort is only the most recent attempt by the Obama campaign to crack down on free speech.  Obama’s lawyers twice demanded the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute the American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors.  The campaign also threatened stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot, and ran its own ad in response.