Sunday, June 29, 2008

Scrubadub Bub

In February, the American press picked up on the possible Obama-Auchi connection. The key–and widely known–allegation is that there is a cash trail between and Auchi and Obama, via the notorious slum landlord Tony Rezko. It is understood that Auchi wired $3.5 million to Rezko, who in turn gave $625, 000 to the Obamas so they could buy a mock Georgian house on Chicago’s south side.

There is of course no evidence that Obama did anything wrong or illegal. Still, the candidate’s association with Rezko, who is still on trial for 16 counts of corruption, and Auchi, who was given a 15-month suspended sentence for his part in the French Elf Scandal, could have severely damaged his campaign. As it was, the story lost its legs, in part because–in the words of Private Eye–Auchi’s lawyers had “scrubbed the web of newspaper reports which displeased their master”.

For example, the Observer, fearing a libel suit, pulled down a series of articles on Auchi printed in 2003, which some U.S. bloggers had started to notice. The reports described how the arms and oil tycoon, who left Iraq in 1979, had kept close enough ties with Saddam’s regime to help with the sale of Italian Frigates to the Iraqi Defense Ministry. One report noted how Auchi collected politicians “the way other men collect stamps” .

---- In September 2005 Auchi hired hands easily had scrub KAB posts regarding Auchi, after his attorneys Carter/Ruck threatened to sue me and demanded a public apology - hahaha. Screw you Mr. Big. At that time I felt the Auchi crew were most upset regarding my claim to a Panama connection, which Auchi adamantly denied anything to do in Panama.

But lo and behold Bubba - recently it's been reported ... Auchi " ... as it is alleged, lent money via a Panama company, Fintrade Services -- of which his wife, Ibtisam Auchi, is said to be a director -- to a freshmen U. S. senator from Illinois just a few months after he is sworn in as a very junior member of what was then a Democratic minority.

Anyhoooo ... just a reminder of one of the international thugs who has added your hope and change artist Obama, to his collections of pols.

Friday, June 27, 2008

How Hard It Is To Be a Liberal

Roy Zimmerman

Southside Bling

Last year in the Chicago Tribune Obama believed the D.C. handgun law was constitutional. Chicago has the same or similar law, although Chicago, particularly the southside, is less safe today than it was before the 1982 ban, which makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city. (I have a lot of outlaw in-laws in Chicago.)

Chicago had nine people killed in 36 shootings during one weekend this spring and 27 students have been killed by gunfire since last September. The city had to deploy SWAT teams earlier than usual to some of the most violent 'hoods. It's something the department normally does during the summer after Memorial Day.

Mayor Daley and new police superintendent Jody Weis have plans to arm Chicago's finest with semi-automatic M4 carbines. Kaching kaching.

Building a third world police force - one municipality at a time. It's "progressive."

Geese Bubba - good thing the southside had Obama's 2 decades as "activist and organizer" and as state senator representing a southside district, along with his good friend and mentor Reverend Wright, of the Blame Whitey First Church of Victimhood.

Bling, bling, it ain't you fault, the guvmint made you a criminal.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Whores For War

These are the advisers on Obama's senior working group on national security, and likely hired hands if he wins the presidency.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT - Served a secretary of state in former President Bill Clinton's administration and was a top adviser to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
DAVID BOREN - Former governor and senator from Oklahoma chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
WARREN CHRISTOPHER - Bill Clinton's first secretary of state and also served as deputy secretary of state in the Carter administration.
GREG CRAIG - Former senior adviser to Albright in the Clinton administration and later led the team defending Bill Clinton against the impeachment charges involving Clinton's affair with a White House intern. Despite long ties to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Craig was an early supporter of Obama and has been part of his inner circle of advisers.
RICHARD DANZIG - Served as secretary of the Navy under Bill Clinton and is an expert on counterterrorism.
LEE HAMILTON - The former Indiana congressman co-chaired the blue-ribbon commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks and was a lead author of Iraq Study Group report that offered recommendations on Iraq to President George W. Bush in 2006.
ERIC HOLDER - Deputy attorney general in Bill Clinton's administration and is working with Caroline Kennedy, daughter of slain President John F. Kennedy, in helping to guide Obama's search for a vice presidential running mate.
ANTHONY LAKE - National security adviser to Bill Clinton and has been part of the inner circle of Obama's campaign.
SAM NUNN - A former senator from Georgia who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee, Nunn has long been viewed as a leading Democratic voice on foreign policy and some have speculated he might be looked at by Obama as a potential running mate.
WILLIAM PERRY - Secretary of defense under Bill Clinton.
SUSAN RICE - The former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs is Obama's senior foreign policy adviser.
TIM ROEMER - A member of the 9/11 commission.
JAMES STEINBERG - Deputy national security adviser to Bill Clinton.

According to Bob Beckel (liberal gasbag), Obama Should Pick Clinton for VP because - one among other reasons - "no one will be a more affective attack dog against McCain and the Right than Hillary." And that choosing Hillary is "A message of change combined with a record of past success is a more comforting message than change alone."

---- Hmmm. Albright? Tony Lake? Lee Hamilton? Hey, I know! Lets put a brown face on the Clinton/Bush mob ... and call it hope, call it comforting, call it CHANGE!

In other news, actress Mia Farrow, activist and representative for the Human Rights group Dream for Darfur, wants to send Blackwater to save Darfur : "Mia Farrow, the actress and activist, has asked Blackwater, the US private security company active in Iraq, for help in Darfur after becoming frustrated by the stalled deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force. She acknowledged that many people might have reservations about Blackwater being involved in Darfur - the company's men were involved in the fatal shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians last September - but said the threat of violence to refugees meant all options had to be explored."

Mia was sort of the Angelina of my generation - actress, activist, involved with odd lovers/husbands (Sinatra old enough to be her daddy, married man Previn, Woody the pedophile Allen), trotting the globe adopting babies of color, and speaking out on which grievous situation the US should commit humanitarian intervention. And now Farrow supports sending Blackwater mercenaries to Africa.

Of course, Obama's crew will see the necessity of "saving" African (oil) versus "liberating" Iraqi (oil).

God, the powers that be really do think we're all very stupid.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

The Moynihan Report 1965

Most of you may not be gray enough to remember the uproar caused by the Moynihan Report, but I remember.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003) served as assistant secretary of labor under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and it was in that capacity that he issued a report in March 1965 titled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.”

Originally intended as an internal memorandum providing support for Johnson’s War on Poverty, the report asserted that a disturbing proportion of African-American families suffered from instability and breakdown, that this condition resulted in a cycle of joblessness and poverty, and that the root of the problem was the psychological and social damage caused by slavery.

Soon after being issued, the report was leaked to the press and immediately became the object of violent controversy. Critics accused Moynihan of attacking the black family, stigmatizing black men, and marginalizing black women. One such response to what came to be called “The Moynihan Report” was the book “Blaming the Victim” (1970) by William Ryan (who coined this still-popular phrase). On the other hand, prominent black leaders like Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, and Martin Luther King Jr. endorsed Moynihan’s findings.

An excellent piece on the Moynihan Report - From The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies by Kay S. Hymowitz :

Convinced that “the Negro revolution . . . , a movement for equality as well as for liberty,” was now at risk, Moynihan wanted to make several arguments in his report. The first was empirical and would quickly become indisputable: single-parent families were on the rise in the ghetto. But other points were more speculative and sparked a partisan dispute that has lasted to this day. Moynihan argued that the rise in single-mother families was not due to a lack of jobs but rather to a destructive vein in ghetto culture that could be traced back to slavery and Jim Crow discrimination. Though black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier had already introduced the idea in the 1930s, Moynihan’s argument defied conventional social-science wisdom. As he wrote later, “The work began in the most orthodox setting, the U.S. Department of Labor, to establish at some level of statistical conciseness what ‘everyone knew’: that economic conditions determine social conditions. Whereupon, it turned out that what everyone knew was evidently not so.”

But Moynihan went much further than merely overthrowing familiar explanations about the cause of poverty. He also described, through pages of disquieting charts and graphs, the emergence of a “tangle of pathology,” including delinquency, joblessness, school failure, crime, and fatherlessness that characterized ghetto—or what would come to be called underclass—behavior. Moynihan may have borrowed the term “pathology” from Kenneth Clark’s The Dark Ghetto, also published that year. But as both a descendant and a scholar of what he called “the wild Irish slums”—he had written a chapter on the poor Irish in the classic Beyond the Melting Pot—the assistant secretary of labor was no stranger to ghetto self-destruction. He knew the dangers it posed to “the basic socializing unit” of the family. And he suspected that the risks were magnified in the case of blacks, since their “matriarchal” family had the effect of abandoning men, leaving them adrift and “alienated.”

More than most social scientists, Moynihan, steeped in history and anthropology, understood what families do. They “shape their children’s character and ability,” he wrote. “By and large, adult conduct in society is learned as a child.” What children learned in the “disorganized home[s]” of the ghetto, as he described through his forest of graphs, was that adults do not finish school, get jobs, or, in the case of men, take care of their children or obey the law. Marriage, on the other hand, provides a “stable home” for children to learn common virtues. Implicit in Moynihan’s analysis was that marriage orients men and women toward the future, asking them not just to commit to each other but to plan, to earn, to save, and to devote themselves to advancing their children’s prospects. Single mothers in the ghetto, on the other hand, tended to drift into pregnancy, often more than once and by more than one man, and to float through the chaos around them. Such mothers are unlikely to “shape their children’s character and ability” in ways that lead to upward mobility. Separate and unequal families, in other words, meant that blacks would have their liberty, but that they would be strangers to equality. Hence Moynihan’s conclusion: “a national effort towards the problems of Negro Americans must be directed towards the question of family structure.”

Astonishingly, even for that surprising time, the Johnson administration agreed. Prompted by Moynihan’s still-unpublished study, Johnson delivered a speech at the Howard University commencement that called for “the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights.” The president began his speech with the era’s conventional civil rights language, condemning inequality and calling for more funding of medical care, training, and education for Negroes. But he also broke into new territory, analyzing the family problem with what strikes the contemporary ear as shocking candor. He announced: “Negro poverty is not white poverty.” He described “the breakdown of the Negro family structure,” which he said was “the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice and present prejudice.” “When the family collapses, it is the children that are usually damaged,” Johnson continued. “When it happens on a massive scale, the community itself is crippled.”

Johnson was to call this his “greatest civil rights speech,” but he was just about the only one to see it that way. By that summer, the Moynihan report that was its inspiration was under attack from all sides. Civil servants in the “permanent government” at Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) and at the Children’s Bureau muttered about the report’s “subtle racism.” Academics picked apart its statistics. Black leaders like Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) director Floyd McKissick scolded that, rather than the family, “[i]t’s the damn system that needs changing.”

Less forgivable was the refusal to grapple seriously—either at the time or in the months, years, even decades to come—with the basic cultural insight contained in the report: that ghetto families were at risk of raising generations of children unable to seize the opportunity that the civil rights movement had opened up for them. Instead, critics changed the subject, accusing Moynihan—wrongfully, as any honest reading of “The Negro Family” proves—of ignoring joblessness and discrimination. Family instability is a “peripheral issue,” warned Whitney Young, executive director of the National Urban League. “The problem is discrimination.” The protest generating the most buzz came from William Ryan, a CORE activist, in “Savage Discovery: The Moynihan Report,” published in The Nation and later reprinted in the NAACP’s official publication. Ryan, though a psychologist, did not hear Moynihan’s point that as the family goes, so go the children. He heard code for the archaic charge of black licentiousness. He described the report as a “highly sophomoric treatment of illegitimacy” and insisted that whites’ broader access to abortion, contraception, and adoption hid the fact that they were no less “promiscuous” than blacks. Most memorably, he accused Moynihan of “blaming the victim,” a phrase that would become the title of his 1971 book and the fear-inducing censor of future plain speaking about the ghetto’s decay.

That Ryan’s phrase turned out to have more cultural staying power than anything in the Moynihan report is a tragic emblem of the course of the subsequent discussion about the ghetto family. For white liberals and the black establishment, poverty became a zero-sum game: either you believed, as they did, that there was a defect in the system, or you believed that there was a defect in the individual. It was as if critiquing the family meant that you supported inferior schools, even that you were a racist. Though “The Negro Family” had been a masterpiece of complex analysis that implied that individuals were intricately entwined in a variety of systems—familial, cultural, and economic—it gave birth to a hardened, either/or politics from which the country has barely recovered.

By autumn, when a White House conference on civil rights took place, the Moynihan report, initially planned as its centerpiece, had been disappeared. Johnson himself, having just introduced large numbers of ground troops into Vietnam, went mum on the subject, steering clear of the word “family” in the next State of the Union message. This was a moment when the nation had the resources, the leadership (the president had been overwhelmingly elected, and he had the largest majorities in the House and Senate since the New Deal), and the will “to make a total . . . commitment to the cause of Negro equality,” Moynihan lamented in a 1967 postmortem of his report in Commentary. Instead, he declared, the nation had disastrously decided to punt on Johnson’s “next and more profound stage in the battle for civil rights.” “The issue of the Negro family was dead.”

Well, not exactly. Over the next 15 years, the black family question actually became a growth industry inside academe, the foundations, and the government. But it wasn’t the same family that had worried Moynihan and that in the real world continued to self-destruct at unprecedented rates. Scholars invented a fantasy family—strong and healthy, a poor man’s Brady Bunch—whose function was not to reflect truth but to soothe injured black self-esteem and to bolster the emerging feminist critique of male privilege, bourgeois individualism, and the nuclear family. The literature of this period was so evasive, so implausible, so far removed from what was really unfolding in the ghetto, that if you didn’t know better, you might conclude that people actually wanted to keep the black family separate and unequal.

----- I have often been accused of "blaming the victim" when I point out much of the self-inflicted self-destruction in black America. And I've been called worse when questioning if the social and political powers that be have intentionally socially nutured the decades-long self-destruction of the black family in America.

This sunny Sunday morning as my soup kettle simmers, I can come up with only 2 reasons for liberals/progressives who still cling to their fantasy : They are uninformed, misinformed, or simply stupid, or they profit from continuing the industry of "blame the system first."

Friday, June 13, 2008

After The Fall

Regarding the US war on Iraq I often comes across comments like this: "The utter collapse of any country that invades another nation and slaughters children would be a good thing."

I see similar sentiments on all the "progressive" sites, regarding most everything the US does.

Hoping for a collapse of the "homeland" - it's a polite way of saying "Goddam America" - for being greedy white imperialists. The folks behind such statements consider themselves intelligent, caring, rational, righteously anger over injustice, the torch carriers for social justice.

But, have these folks seriously thought about a US collapse? What would be the likely scenario at home and abroad if there is an "utter collapse" of the US? A collapse that would encompass the social, economic, and political.

I can't think of a better way than "utter collapse" to install totalitarian rule of the masses, and by the way, Americans have a lot further to fall than the Soviets, and the US will bring many other countries/regions down with it; unlike the USSR which had very little foreign investment at the time of its collapse.

What do progressives think will rise from the ashes of a US collapse? That a new and improved government will provide folks with the minimum of food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and little else? My great, great, great grandfather furnished the same to his slaves.

And I have no doubt that these self-same righteous progressives, under a collapsed US, would demand shoot-to-kill troop protection when folks from the 'hood breach their gated communities for essentials.

Makes ya wonder Bubba who the "left/progressives" are really working for.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Political Vermin

There's a lot of nitpicking of candidate comments and very little on issues that matter. Whether it's Michelle Obama's "first time" of being proud of her country or John McCain's "constitution" comment.

The only time in my adult life I recall feeling extremely proud of America was the first space shuttle launch and landing in 1981. Astronauts would now land on an airstrip as opposed to being dumped in the ocean in capsules. Michelle's pride is more of a personal nature about hope making a comeback with the cheering masses - mine was pride in generic American effort and accomplishment.

Robert Parry/Smirking Chimp: During a political talk in Philadelphia, McCain claimed that Obama had described “bitter” small-town voters as clinging to religion or “the Constitution” – when the second item in Obama’s comment actually was “guns.”

Either Parry is a pinhead or he believes his readers are pinheads. We know, don't we, that McCain's substituting "Constitution" for guns was referring to the right to bear arms, and pure political rhetoric. Par for the course. SOP of politics.

If you think about it for a moment or two - Obama's remark about frustrated white folks who "... get bitter ... cling to guns or religion ..." is contemptuous of gun owners (unless its Secret Service). And Obama should be the last one to sneer at religion as he laid the foundation of his political career "clinging" to Reverend Wright's Church of Black Folks Angry at Rich White Men.

Robert Parry: In other words, McCain didn’t just make a slip of the tongue. He willfully accused Obama of disparaging the U.S. Constitution, a very serious point that, if true, might cause millions of Americans to reject Obama’s candidacy.

Yep Bubba, Parry believes millions of American pinheads might reject Obama because of a willfully disparaging comment from McCain. The "very serious point" me thinks is at the top of Parry's pin/pen head.

It's been gays, guns, gods, and abortion every 4 years, although almost nil has changed legislatively on any of these issues in decades. And any changes made are usually to the "left" not "right." Those are the 4 safe political issues because both parties know they will never stop, outlaw, or ban any of them - nor do they want to.

I expect meaningless election comment dissection from shills like Coulter, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh - but nitpicking is equally prevalent from the left/progressives. When the last American job is shipped to Mexico, China, or India, and the unwashed voters in the bread lines are swooning over the latest big screen chiseling tinpot - our two-bit political pundits will still be focusing on the little nits.

Monday, June 09, 2008

Progressing Right Along

I have spent the last couple of months reading, sometimes arguing, with "progressives/leftists" on various on-line sites. Here's only a small sampling of what I find.

I have argued with professors, "scholars," over the politics of Latin America, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Professors (glorified propagandists) who will support any and all leftists, Chavez, Correa, Morales, Castro, FARC, etc., south of the border because America's progressive "left" has always done so, without letting facts get in the way.

Although please note, a US equivalent to these socialist firebrands has never arisen on American soil - well there was Eugene Debs but nobody wears his mug on a T-shirt. Where is the American Che? Who will lead the oppressed Americans to freedom? Dennis Kucinich? No, he and Ms. Elizabeth ran back to Ohio to save his senate seat after yet another brief spit and run at the presidency.

Is it Ralph Nader who would lead the American masses to socialist freedom? No, Ralph is more akin to the fetishy Howard Hughes than the sexy martyred Che. Nader, an old and apparently asexual oddball, father of the creaking multi-billion dollar fail-to-do-their job bureaucracies - the EPA and OSHA. Thousands of federal employees thank you Ralph.

More than one of these "highly respected scholars" rebutted my comments on-line respectably - but emailed me something else, proving they knew shorter 4-letter words and how to use them. Proof also that they consider my opinion as having no value and themselves so vaunted they can privately be nasty to me, a nobody. How smart are they, as I do save emails. :) Dumbed down from believing their own book jacket blurbs.

One black prof was trying publicly to be polite regarding my comments that 90% of black America's problems are self-inflicted, i.e. drugs, promiscuity, uneducated, lack of family unity. Publicly he remarked my stance was more in tune to the "blame the victim" ranting of Bill Cosby. Privately he told me I was mouthing that crazy Nation of Islam self-sufficiency Malcolm X bullshit. Obviously he would not want NOI to know how he really feels about their creed - he has publicly never spoken an ill word against NOI or Minister Farrakhan, and publicly says Malcolm came to be more like MLK (especially after the professor saw Oliver Stone's movie X - his higher education, what can I say).

Another time, engaged in a discussion about Cuba's medical care and the fact that decades ago when our 2-year-old daughter was diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer I had checked out Cuba's treatments and was not impressed. I was accused of being a "rich America" who could afford to search for the best health care. Bubba, I guess "rich" and progressive is only okay when you are Albert Gore or George Soros. And in the words of another and newer American Wright "left" hero "god damn me" for trying to save my daughter while millions of Americans have no medical coverage. I tell you Bubba, sometimes progressives are heartless.

In a discussion on an article regarding same sex marriage by a gay professor, a poster commented he believed the age of sexual consent should be 12 - that Americans are too sexually uptight and/or oppressive. Excuse me, but that's known as pedophilia - which the "right" tries to connect to homosexuality. Of course, gays are not looking for Che or socialism - but social acceptance and recognition that they are "normal." And of course, when I commented I considered transgender, transsexual, transvestites, homosexuality as an "alternative" with the rights to choose, but not "normal" - I was a bigot. Well excuuuuuse me for thinking straight.

Another time, a "respected" author wrote of a US sniper in Iraq shooting a child while in her father's car. It was the typical "troops as baby killers" commentary but written with more hyperbole than a cheap formula novel. I thought it disrespected the victim as the author was using the tragedy for nothing more than to further his own career as "anti-war" warrior. He portrayed the shooting as intentional and calculated without any facts. When I commented as such I was told to eff-off and others commented that all US troops are murderers, that a "few bad apples" is Pentagon bullshit.

Well, excuse me, but if you happen to be a consumer in the US you are just as guilty of pulling the trigger as any troop. And, how progressive is it to blanket condemn a couple of million because they're in uniform? Progressives do not "support the troops" - they just don't have the balls to admit it. They have no respect for anything in a uniform (remember, they prefer mugged T shirts). Progressives will purge the troops once the "left" saves the world and forces peace on 6+ billion of us. They cannot save their own families, neighborhoods, towns, cities, or country - but by god they're gonna save the world.

Another time, and often seen on "progressive" dissident sites, the topic is blaming Zionists/Neocons. Isn't it convenient to have a name for that goat(s) to stake to the post? The talking point is the wars in the Middle East are not about oil! but war for Israel. Some day, when Americans "wake up" they will rid themselves of Zionist/Neocon influence and live happily ever after. Jews and Gentiles and Republicans and Democrats - will just all get along (and save the world).

I found progressives/leftists who preached the gospel of peak oil, peak food, peak water, and climate change. There are just as many qualified folks who will tell you it's not peak anything - I'll go with those folks. We are trashing the planet - not destroying it. Peaking is for profiteers and if you haven't connected those dots .... sigh ... yep Bubba, can't blame mother nature for running out of oil, food, water, and climate change cannot be blamed on the Zionists/Neocons - you have only your wasteful greedy self to blame for that and you will pay and suffer for it, the lords of the environment say so from their private jets and villas.

Some "progressive" sites have argued against both political parties. Good idea, spot the corruption on both sides - work for something better. But better, according to progressive definition, is usually Kucinich, Nader, or Ron Paul. And now that those lifelong embedded party clowns have left the arena on their cycles - 99% of "progressives" are supporting Obama and/or the Hillary. Huh?

Yep, politics as usual Bubba. Baa baa baa. Progressives will drown in a sea of their own politically correct hypocrisy.

Sometimes, I think the "progressive left" has pushed me so far that I'm coming around to the right.

Friday, June 06, 2008


Obama Bans DNC from Taking Lobbyists' Money. Presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama, exerting his new power as leader of his party, has told the Democratic National Committee to eschew all contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.

Obama has spurned money from lobbyists and PACs ever since he declared himself a candidate for president. On Thursday, he extended that policy to the DNC.

Speaking in Bristol, Va., he told a cheering crowd: "We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. We're going to change how Washington works. They will not fund my party. They will not run our White House. And they will not drown out the voice of the American people when I'm president of the United States of America."

From last year. But the Obama fundraising operation provides a contrast to an image that the campaign has ceaselessly cultivated as a movement powered by everyday Americans.

Among the high-level fundraisers on a list that the Obama campaign posted on its Web site late Tuesday is Kenneth Griffin, head of the Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel Investment Group LLC and among Mayor Richard Daley's top financial patrons. Griffin's $1.4 billion pay in 2006 made him the second highest-paid hedge fund manager in the country, according to Institutional Investor's Alpha Magazine.

Obama's fundraisers include many other financial industry executives. At least 17 of his major fundraisers are managers at either hedge funds or private equity funds, two loosely regulated financial service sectors that recently have stirred political controversy because of the soaring pay of fund managers and a legal loophole that allows them to pay lower tax rates on their earnings.

CHICAGO June 6 — Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a once-powerful fundraiser who helped propel the career of Sen. Barack Obama, was found guilty Wednesday by a federal jury of 16 criminal counts, including fraud, money-laundering and bribery in an influence-peddling scheme that touched the top levels of the administration of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

In reaction to the conviction, Obama expressed disappointment. "I'm saddened by today's verdict," he said. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform."

----Hmmm. No talk of outlawing lobbyists and PACs - just take their money at the backdoor of the fundraisers.

Obama must lack the capacity for personal communication - as he doesn't seem "to know" any of the people he's known for 20 years.

Look little lemmings, look. It's going to be a bumpy ride with all your bodies under the bus.

Content © 2005-2020 by Kate/A.