November 30, 2011 § 5 Comments
Summary of Part I
* Obama raised by communist parents
*Mentored by a communist through out Obama’s drug and alcohol addicted teens
* Obama attends two colleges which are havens for far left, America hating professors
* Befriends Communist terrorist William Ayers and his girlfriend Bernardine Dohrn
* Obama becomes community organizer including working at a Communist organization that was supported by radical Saul Alinsky.
Although Ayers was a known terrorist and later arrested by the FBI for several bombings including the Pentagon and the Capitol building in Washington, DC, he and Bernardine Dohrn were subsequently released due to a technicality, to which Ayers announced: “guilty as hell and free as a bird.”
Ayers would later clean up his act, or at least he convinced some that he had and he eventually got a job as an associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago where Obama was also a lecturer. It has been reported that the two sat for long hours in the faculty lounge engaged in deep conversations. But a not so chance situation threw the two men together in a more formal setting.
The creation of The Annenberg Foundation by philanthropist William Annenberg led to documentable meetings between Ayers and Obama. The foundation had a goal of improving education through grants. One of the targeted cities was Chicago which sought a grant. In 1994, William Ayers co-wrote the winning grant which resulted in an educational program called the Annenberg Challenge.
At this time, Barak Obama, a civil rights attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, was named as head of the Board of Directors of the Annenberg Challenge which was charged with determining which schools would receive grants. Ayers has been credited with putting Obama on the Board, but that is not true. The operational arm of the Challenge was the 23 member Chicago School Reform Collaborative which worked hand-in hand with the Obama and other board members of the Challenge. On that board sat William Ayers.
The members of both boards held numerous meetings, retreats and informal get togethers in the course of doing business. There is a rumor that Ayers wrote, or at least helped write Obama’s book, Dreams of my Father in 1995. No evidence of that has as yet been found. On the other hand, what can be documented is Obama’s gushing review of a book Ayers wrote in 1997, A Kind and Just Parent. The review swooned, “A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.”
An additional connection of these two men is evident by their both serving for a consecutive three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a charitable organization which Obama joined in 1993 and remained on until 2002. Bill Ayers served on the Woods board for three years of Obama’s tenure and remained on the board after Obama departed.
It was while he was at the Woods Fund that Obama had other questionable relationships. For example, his former boss, Allison S. Davis, came looking for money. At the time, Davis was a developer represented by the law firm where Obama worked, as well as a small contributor to Obama’s political campaign funds. Davis wanted the charity to help fund his plans to build housing for low-income Chicagoans. When Davis approached the Woods Fund, he was building another apartment building with now convicted felon and later Obama friend/fundraiser, Tony Rezko. The Chicago Sun-Times recounted: “Obama agreed. He voted with other directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago to invest $1 million with Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners L.P., a $17-million partnership that Davis still operates.”
One recipient of a grant from the Woods Foundation was Jeremiah Wright, an America hating pastor at a church that Obama would attend for twenty years.
Another relationship was formed with a Woods Fund board member, Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian activist and now professor at Columbia University who was a former spokesman for Yasser Arafat. His wife headed the controversial Arab American Action Network (AAAN), thought to be aiding the strikes against Israel. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group. Despite that label, and despite the fact that Khalidi strongly opposes the state of Israel, Obama has gladly accepted political fund raising efforts on his behalf.
As bad as these associations are, it was the Bill Ayers connection that may be the most troubling. It is no wonder that Obama denies even talking to him, but the evidence shows otherwise. However, Ayers has since admitted that they shared bus rides together, had coffee together and were in meetings and retreats together.
Of no question, however, is a meeting at Ayers home. Following Obama’s serving at the Woods Fund, he decided it was time for him to use his connections to launch a political career. In 1995, a small group of people were invited to Bill Ayers’ house, to learn that
Alice Palmer, was stepping down from the state senate and running for Congress. One of the people invited to Ayer‘s house was Barak Obama. Palmer, a known Communist, identified Obama as her successor.
Thus, it was Bill Ayers, a terrorist, an America hating Communist and a killer, who was the first to propel Obama into a political career.
Michelle Obama had, in the meantime, developed extensive connections with the Daley political machine after she had accepted a job in Mayor Daley’s office. Using Chicago style thug political tactics on his rival state senate candidates, Obama forced their names to be withdrawn from the running thereby guaranteeing him victory as an Ilinois State Senator.
He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He won election to the U.S. Senate in November 2004. His presidential campaign began in February 2007.
Readers are invited to make comments or send corrections, additions, or new information. Click on ’comments’.
Next: Obama’s Saul Alinsky influence
November 21, 2011 § 4 Comments
While this is hardly the first time Obama’s connection to Communism has been discussed, here is perhaps a more detailed narrative of why he is who he is, and how he made use of highly questionable associations to gain political advantage.
UPDATE: 11/2211: Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was involved in various questionable or outright illegal dealings with Obama in Chicago, was sentenced today to 10½ years in prison for extorting millions of dollars from firms seeking state business or regulatory approval while he was a top fundraiser and adviser to then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
From the moment of his birth, Obama has been exposed to members or sympathizers of the Communist Party. His mother
Stanley Ann Dunham was a Communist sympathizer, Obama’s Brother Roy and Cousin Odinga are Marxists. Obama was mentored as a teen by Frank Marshall Davis (a known Communist Party of the USA member CPUSA). This mentoring was arranged by Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham. FBI records covering an investigation of Dunham for alledgedly sabotaging airplanes during the Vietnam war were mysteriously destroyed in 1997. But it was no secret that Dunham was known as a “fellow traveler”, the euphemism for a Communist sympathizer.
During this period of indoctrination into Communism, Obama was using drugs and drinking heavily. Whether these mind altering agents were purposely thrust on the young malleable Obama to make him more susceptible to their propaganda is unknown.
After traveling back and forth with his mother between Indonesia and Hawaii, where Obama got his high school diploma, he enrolled at Occidental College in Los Angeles, California. He spent two years there before transferring to Columbia University which he attended in 1982 and 1983. This had to be a perfect environment for young Obama, now primed and ready to further develop his Communist education. From a website named The Other half of History: “When it comes to left-wing politics … one university stands alone as the all-time champion. Columbia University has been a training ground for America-hating radicals since at least the start of the twentieth century.”
Obama spent two years in New York after he graduated, then he moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years, from June 1985 to May 1988. During this time, Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute with extreme communist ideas that practice the teachings of Saul Alinsky, a radical communist sympathizer. Gamaleil is so extreme that even a communist organization finds it offensive. The CPUSA writes, “The Gamaliel Foundation and its affiliates are one of America’s fifth column agencies that seek to destroy America from within by aiding, abetting and comforting the enemy… This foundation is a dangerous, leftist, ACORN-like community organization that has settled in 19 states.” Acorn, of course, was involved in illegal vote tampering and campaign fund raising frauds for Obama’s 2008 election.
Obama, now fully immersed in radical left-wing and Communist teachings, entered Harvard Law School in late 1988, where Obama went on to get his law degree. If Columbia is a training ground for ‘America hating radicals,’ Harvard has to be where they go to hone their skills.
In 1989, Obama was placed as a summer intern at the corporate law firm, Sidley Austin LLP in Chicago. It was there where he met Michelle Robinson, his summer adviser and future wife.
Also working there was Bernardine Dohrn who a decade earlier had worked in a baby boutique where stolen customer ID’s were used to rent trucks used in the series of robberies culminating in the 1981 slaughter in which 9 kids lost their fathers, the youngest of which was six-months. Dohrn served seven months in a NYC federal jail in 1983 for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the Brinks robbery of 1981, in which two policemen and a security guard were killed.
Because of the criminal convictions Dohrn, who received a law degree from the University of Chicago in 1967, was refused admission to the New York bar. Nonetheless, she was hired as a legal clerk by Sidley and Austin, a major Chicago law firm, in their New York office in 1984 where she met Michelle Robinson.
Dohrn was a communist and a terrorist who planned and conducted numerous bombings of federal and other buildings. Her boyfriend was William Ayers, also a communist and terrorist bomber, who was responsible for bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol building among dozens of other places.
In 1974, he had written his equivalent of a communist manifesto entitled “Prairie Fire”. In it is this passage describing his organization, the Weatherman. “We are a guerilla organization. We are communist men and women, underground in the United States for more than four years” and “We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society” and “Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.”
To what extent Obama and Ayers maintained contact over the years is unknown since Obama refuses, even now, to admit that he even met the man. But it very clear that the two had some kind of on-going relationship. They were neighbors. The Obamas and the Ayers had met through Michelle Obama’s job at a law firm where Ayers girlfriend worked and where Obama interned. Ayers later admitted that he and Obama had coffee together and shared bus rides together. It is illogical to think these two far left radical thinkers would not have had a lot of face time together.
Communist Party USA Endorses Obama for 2012
August 4th, 2011
World Net Daily has the story:
While noting he is disappointed with “some aspects” of the Obama administration’s domestic and foreign policy, Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA, threw his support behind Obama’s re-election bid.
NEXT; AYERS AND OBAMA WORK TOGETHER
READERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMMENT ON THIS AND ANY POSTING. IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION TO ADD, OR CORRECT, PLEASE PASS IT ALONG BY CLICKING ON ‘COMMENT’.
November 14, 2011 § 1 Comment
In a poll just released by PPP, Newt Gingrich is now the leading GOP candidate, a 10 percentage points ahead of Mitt Romney and three points ahead of HermanCain.
Will Newt be able to pull this off and could be win against Obama? Despite a recent Real Clear Politics poll average showing Obama leading Gingrich by 11 points , Gingrich could take Obama. Why?
First, simply because the several other contenders dilute the overall selection of any one candidate. If Gingrich -or anybody else – was the nominee, we would see a dramatically different set of numbers. Second, and related to the first reason, the noise level of all the candidates is diluted. Obama is on one side and eight GOP candidates are on the other. That means only one-eighth of the total messages apply to any one candidate. And third, Gingrich would absolutely demolish Obama in the presidential debates. He’s smarter, quicker and has vastly more experience than Obama.
Once serious campaigning begins for a single Republican going up against Obama, the playing field will be dramatically changed. The other side of the coin, of course, is that the Democrats will be able to concentrate their venom on that candidate. And there will be venom. Our current president is nothing if he isn’t a slime-baller. He was raised on Chicago thuggery style politics and doesn’t care if he has to destroy the reputation of a candidate’s mother to win.
With a billion dollar war chest, Barry will have plenty of weapons to employ. hopefully, the public will start to learn just how low he can go and be turned off by it.
Some poll findings:
Gingrich has jumped 13 points since one month ago, taking them from his two closest rivals. Surprisingly, Gingrich has a whopping 73% favor ability rating among Cain supporters. Among those same supporters, both Romney and Perry are about 40 percentage points lower than Gingrich regarding favor ability.
Cain appears to be losing some ground as a result of the accusations made about him by former employees. Perry is in the single digits and seems destined to stay there despite and much better debate performance on the subject of foreign policy.
A CBS poll shows that most Tea Party support is now going to Gingrich rather than Cain.
All the other candidates are also stuck in the single digits and show little chance for any great improvement barring something dramatic occurring with them or the three leaders.
Other polls confirm PPP’s findings.
New CNN poll shows 11 point drop for Herman Cain in one month; Romney 24%, Gingrich 22, Cain 14, Perry 12
The latest poll from Iowa has Cain 23, Romney 19, Gingrich 15, Paul 11, Perry.
November 11, 2011 § 2 Comments
Any Republican would be better than Obama, but it’s time to get real. Below, messages to all the candidates.
To: Rick Perry
Governor, you are done. It isn’t just because you oops-ed giving us the longest 53 seconds in television history. What matters, brother, is that you simply are not in the same league as the others. Just because you could whip any other candidate at arm wrestling doesn’t make you qualified to be president. Your place is in Texas. You lack knowledge on just about every aspect of national issues. You haven’t done your homework. (see “What Rick Perry needs to do right now” in the archives). You come across as someone who is less qualified to run for president than the average citizen who stays on top of the news. Time to go home.
To: Rick Santorum
Senator, you are obviously a bright guy with a good understanding of the issues, a good debater and have some ideas about how we can solve our problems. Trouble is, you’re not gaining any traction, or haven’t you noticed? Your number is almost 1%. What are you doing this for? It’s time to get off the stump and let real contenders battle it out.
To Michel Bachmann
Congresswoman, maybe you and Rick Santorum could share a cab back home. Forget about being president. No, no, really, just forget about it. You are a good conservative and there are people who think you are great, but both of them are not going to be able to get you elected. We need to start having debates between viable candidates. Sorry, buh-bye.
To John Huntsman
Governor, you are probably one of the most qualified candidates in the race. But you’re not in the race. If you add up all the people supporting you, Santorum and Bachmann, you could barely put together a pillow fight. If lightning struck and you suddenly did end up in the White House, you would make a fine president. Your problem is that you have the charisma of a number two pencil and you lack the ability to excite. However, stick in it because we need a man of your caliber, maybe as Secretary of State. Oh, you already thought about that? Silly me.
To Ron Paul
Congressman Paul, you are getting more and more credible the more you are seen, and fewer people think you are actually a martian with glued-on eyebrows. Ok, that wasn’t nice. You are obviously bright and knowledgeable and you certainly would make a better president than that incompetent twit we have now. Some of your ideas, however, are way too far out there to make you viable, you know, like making it legal to be a ho or to buy weed. If you moderate your message, it is distantly possible you could gain some traction. And if you do get to be president, let us know where we can score some good Acapulco Gold.
To: Governor Romney
You’ve been campaigning for what, six years and still can’t get your numbers much above twenty percent? You are the guy we will have to take if we have no one else, but three quarters of all Republicans don’t want you. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. You are the Republican’s version of Bill Clinton; slick, glib, dodging fast balls, jukin‘ and turnin‘. Only difference is you have your pants on and you‘re not a liberal – we hope. Well, you can’t change yourself, but maybe you can start by doing some straight talking about where you actually stand on issues. What’s that? You stand wherever you need to at the moment? Thought so. OK, we’ll try to give you some love if you win the nomination, but none of that Monica Lewinsky stuff.
To: Herman Cain
Mr. Cain, you of course, are likable, charismatic and smart. But look what that brought us in 2008. There may be some crass folks who would like you as the nominee so Republicans can have their Black Guy go up against their Black Guy. Let’s hope that plays no part in this. Your bimbo eruption problem will go away if there is truly no merit to the accusations. So let’s hope that also plays no part in this. What does matter is that a lot of people don’t see you as being qualified to be president. Sure, anybody would be better than Obama, but we need someone who can pull us out of the mess we are in, both domestically and out in the big bad world. You need to convince us that you have that ability. P.S chatting up 999, ain’t the way to do it.
To: Newt Gingrich
Mr. Speaker, you are starting to look like our last best chance at having a real, knowledgable, articulate conservative. A lot of people are taking another look at you and that’s starting to show in your poll numbers. Some ideas; slow down on the media. This is not Family Feud and you’re gonna need these people on your side, or at least not hating you. Do a little sucking up, but forget the New York Times. You couldn’t get a fair shake with them if you achieved sainthood. Aside from the media, your two biggest problems need to be tackled very soon; your personal baggage (the wives and girlfriends hoo-ha) and the lack of trust in you by the public. You have very little time to get your favorable number up. Also, lose some weight and pretend to be more humble. Give it all you’ve got and win just one for the Gipper!
UPDATE: GINGRICH NOW LEADS NATIONALY IN ONE POLL
November 8, 2011 § 1 Comment
A new ad just out from the Obama team seems to send a message that is more appealing to his critics than his supporters. Against a background of cheering, half crazed Obamabots, we see these words superimposed: We did something no one thought possible…….We changed the course of history. It signs off with this: One year from now, all our progress could be erased
The irony, of course, is that one year from now, millions of Americans would like to see that ‘progress’ erased. Why? Let’s look at Obama‘s ‘progress‘ in terms of the economy:
Unemployment: It was 7.7 percent when Obama took office. It has been as high as 10.1 percent and has been at 9 percent or higher since May 2009 (excluding two months when it dipped a tenth of a point). Unemployment had not been above 8 percent for this long since the Great Depression.
Business Climate: According to the World Bank, doing business in the U.S. is getting considerably more difficult under the watch of the Obama Administration. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “In 2007, the U.S. ranked third in the ‘ease of starting a business’ category. This year it ranks 13th. The cost of starting a business, measured as a percentage of per capita income, has doubled to 1.4% from 0.7% in 2007.”
Standard of Living: Even the left-leaning Christian Science Monitor recently admitted, “The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago.”
Poverty: The Wall Street Journal reported “Nearly 15% of the U.S. population relied on food stamps in August, as the number of recipients hit 45.8 million,” a rise of 8.1 percent in the past year. An article in Atlantic Magazine almost gleefully reported at the end of the Bush presidency that “Bush’s record on poverty is … bleak. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 26.1 per cent.” However, a Census report just released shows that poverty is now an astonishing 49.1 percent, the worst it’s been in 52 years and nearly double the ‘bleak’ level under G.W. Bush.
Housing: A recent CNN Money article reported, “According to Fiserv, a financial analytics company, home values are expected to fall another 3.6% by next June, pushing them to a new low of 35% below the peak reached in early 2006 and marking a triple dip in prices.”
Household Income: According to an October report, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, median annual household income fell twice as fast as it had been falling before Obama’s stimulus.
Weekly Earnings: The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that average weekly earnings for employed workers have fallen by 2.3 percent following enactment of President Obama’s stimulus bill.
Consumer Confidence: According to CBS News, “Americans say they feel worse about the economy than they have since the depths of the Great Recession .” Under Obama, consumer confidence was 61.2 percent in January 2009 and fell to 54.9 percent last month—the lowest total since May 1980. According to The Hill, “A resounding 69 percent of respondents said the country is ‘in decline,’ the survey found, while 57 percent predict today’s kids won’t live better lives than their parents. Additionally, 83 percent of voters indicated they’re either very or somewhat worried about the future of the nation, with 49 percent saying they’re ‘very worried.’
The so-called ‘misery index’ is now at a 28-year high. It rose from 8 when Obama took office, to 13, where it stands now As reported by CNBC.com, “When it comes to measuring the combination of unemployment and inflation, it doesn’t get much more miserable than this.”
It might be safe to conclude that we really don’t need any more of Obama’s ‘progress’. Perhaps, to this president, going backward is progress.
- Does Obama deserve second term? One year out, half say no. – Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor.com)
Obama, economy, unemployment, new campaign ad, poverty
November 5, 2011 § 2 Comments
Obama has been consistently running neck in neck with Romney in most polls but don’t let that fool you. It is Herman Cain whom the president most fears. There are good reasons for this and many of those reasons are based on the fact that Cain is black.
– Nominating a black man totally destroys the democrat talking point that Republicans are all racists who want to get the black boy out of the White House. This is the subtext underlying every liberal talking head and editorial writer commentary about the upcoming election, just as it was in 2008. A Cain nomination would kill this issue.
– Obama would no longer have a totally free ride with black voters. He certainly would remain strong with those who are looking for a free ride, or to state it more politically correct, those who depend on government assistance. Blacks comprise only 12 percent of the nation, but, according to a recent study, they comprise 37 percent of the welfare rolls. Big government hand-out programs are going to appeal far more to this group, and entitlements and wealth redistribution are what Obama is about. But Cain could drain off a lot of the votes of the black population who believe achieving the American Dream is done through hard work and being responsible citizens.
– Cain is a straight shooter who could take on Obama face to face without any fear of black backlash or charges of racism when Cain goes after the president on issues. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have a tough time convincing voters, as they already have set out to do, that Cain ‘isn’t really a black man’.
– Not related to race is the fact that Cain is a businessman who knows how America works. Obama is clueless about how the economic system works as we have seen. In a head to head debate, Cain would trounce Obama on this issue. While Cain is weak on foreign affairs issues, he also has a better part of a year to strengthen his hand on this.
Even with the allegations against Cain, he is still leading in the Republican polls and shows well in national polls against Obama. And Cain has been gathering steam. This is the best time for Obama to cut Cain down to size or totally eliminate him as a candidate.
The president is good at destroying his adversaries being well versed in slimey Chicago style politics. When the community organizer decided to run for office in 1996, he found a way to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers, allowing Obama to run unchallenged.
“That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a Chicago Tribune columnist is quoted as saying about Obama. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right?”
So for Obama to once again try to destroy an enemy is a natural act, And make no mistake about it, anyone who is a threat to him or his far left agenda is an enemy. After all, this is a president with an enemies list that would make Nixon blush: Insurance companies, oil companies, coal companies, S&P, rich people, corporate jet owners, corporate jet manufactures, yacht owners, credit card companies, student loan companies, McDonald’s, FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Koch brothers, the Supreme Court, BiBi Netanyahu, Arizona and Texas. It is very conceivable that Obama would attempt to kill off Cain.
Isn’t the case for accusing Obama of dirty tricks just as compelling and fact-based as the case against Caine? Any woman can accuse any man of sexual misconduct. The woman always gets the benefit of doubt. The more powerful the man, the more potent the accusation. All we really know is that a woman made a complaint and by doing so, she was apparently enriched.
Beyond that, we know a left-wing blog has made that information public, and repeated it in 90 separate ‘news’ stories. That blog, Politico, is staffed by a bunch of former Washington Post employees. Anyone who has not been living under a rock knows that the Post carries the water for Obama, just as it does in general for all Democrats.
Now of course, an intelligent and objective person reading this might conclude it is all speculation and incrimination based on little or no real facts. But isn’t that what is being done to Herman Cain?
Senator Obama, Chicago corruption, mayor daley, enemies list, dirty tricks Chicago
October 27, 2011 § Leave a comment
A News article published by the New York Times, dated Oct. 26, is headlined; “Poll Finds Deep Distrust In Government”.
No one needed one more poll to tell us that people get it that the country is headed in the wrong direction. But it took the New York Times to somehow devise a poll that parrots Democrat talking points and puts all the blame on Republicans. Worse yet, the supposed results also suggest that everyone has decided to adopt Marxism, an ideology, it is alleged by some, to be embraced by Obama. Speeches like one he gave in 2008 while at a campaign stop give rise to that thinking: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”, said Obama. Not a lot of ambiguity in that.
This outrageous Times summary included in their poll report leaps off the pages: “With nearly all Americans remaining fearful that the economy is stagnating or deteriorating even further, two-thirds of the public said wealth should be distributed more evenly. Seven in 10 Americans think the policies of Congressional Republicans favor the rich. Two-thirds object to tax cuts for corporations and a similar number prefer increasing income taxes on millionaires.”
Consider this appalling line; “two-thirds of the public said wealth should be distributed more evenly”. Wow! So your average American, brought up in our wonderful country with its huge opportunities that resulted from a free market economy, now feels we should embrace Marxism and redistribute wealth? Not a chance.
To illustrate how closely this specious poll connects to the president’s agenda, consider these excerpts from a recent speech by Obama “…for us to solve this problem, everybody, including the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, have to pay their fair share.” And from elsewhere in the speech; “And that’s why this plan (jobs plan) eliminates tax loopholes that primarily go to the wealthiest taxpayers and biggest corporations –-
Obama then tells his audience of his run-in with Speaker Boehner. Obama says that he told Boehner; “… we can’t afford these special lower rates for the wealthy…it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
The credibility of the Times poll is zero. There are few people who would argue against the well-known fact that the Times has turned into a Democrat bullhorn. But to create a specious poll to support the Democrat agenda is breath-taking in its audacity.
A last note about the Times article is this odious sentence; “The poll findings underscore a dissatisfaction and restlessness heading into the election season that has been highlighted through competing voices from the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements…”
‘Competing voices’? Where does this nonsense come from? This is a pathetic attempt to drop the Tea Party down to the level of the dumb and dumber Occupy clods. The Occupy mob has no clue about what they are doing, why they are doing it or what they want to happen as a result. When questioned, some of these unemployed losers say they want ‘all money to be gotten rid of’ or ‘all spending on the military should stop’ or that everyone should be given a salary whether they work or not.
The Tea Party movement has a purpose: Reduce the size and influence of government and do so by getting rid of politicians who feel otherwise. To mention them in the same sentence with Occupy buffoons is insulting to the millions of Americans who belive in the Tea Party’s objectives.
It is sad that the once great New York Times is no longer a credible source of new. We’d like to see exactly what was in that poll. Show us the specific questions, the poll protocol and most importantly, the poll demographics and political affiliation of responders.
NOTE: ONE DAY AFTER POSTING THIS ARTICLE, CNN RAN AN ONLINE STORY BY SOMEONE WHO PRAISED KARL MARX FOR ALL THE WONDERFUL THINGS THAT HE HAS DONE FOR AMERICA. NO, REALLY. THEY EVEN RAN THE SAME PICTURE. HMMMM.
New York Times, Poll, Obama, Obama poll numbers, Karl Marx, distribute wealth, Tea party, Wall Street Occupy, approval, approval rating