brenda krause's Blog
About the Author
Hillary and obama
Page 1 of 2
| Next
To: Caroline Kennedy
I was a Hillary Clinton delegate. I worked hard for the senator over the past 8 months. I was so excited to finally have a viable woman candidate for the presidency. We have had 43 men and no real female contenders ever in the history of this country. My heart was so happy to hope to have my granddaughters look in a civics book and finally see the 44th president be a woman who little girls could finally have their own hero-a role model to give them hope to expand and have great chances in life.
But then more and more of the powerful people in this country starting supporting Obama and my heart sank. It was like the analogy of a woman working for a company for 35 years and a man with ½ of those years sweeps in and takes over the ceo position. My heart sank more and more, I couldn’t sleep-I cried many times. People in the national news media and some people in Obama’s camp were calling her the most horrific sexist names. And my anger grew.
I don’t know the “inner”working of powerful people. I did know that Senator Clinton was not perfect-that she was a politician and made many mistakes. One of those mistakes was she just didn’t have the charisma that Obama had. I didn’t realize how vital that was to the sound bite society we live in. But I did know that she had worked hard for families and women in this country. The media trashed her unrelentlessly while women in this country turned their backs.
Thank you for thinking and caring about the millions of women in this country and world wide who have hungered finally for female leaders to be proud of. Hillary had given me hope-not Obama There are millions of us out here who don’t have your money or power that you were born into. We don’t receive the respect that you automatically received. We watched while world wide women are brutalized because middle class and poor women generally are not given great amounts of respect.We remember when middle class and poor women never even dreamed of any real viable career except a mrs degree. You didn’t live in that world. Its great you support an African American. But you turned your back on middle aged and older women. And when did you decide to throw your two cents in? Not in 2000 or 2004 but when the first viable woman came along-then you decided to move in against her.
I no longer love this country like I used to. If Senator Clinton had lost fair and square and if the country hadn’t called her all those terrible misogymistic names I could get over this. But its hard to love a country who would go to such lengths to knock out a woman by calling her names like bitch and fu….whore. Yes she was called those names and many more.
So we have made headway in the social justice department except toward Senator Clinton and older women in general. Because when the media called her a bitch they called us all that name. And this country could have cared less.
I was a Hillary Clinton delegate. I worked hard for the senator over the past 8 months. I was so excited to finally have a viable woman candidate for the presidency. We have had 43 men and no real female contenders ever in the history of this country. My heart was so happy to hope to have my granddaughters look in a civics book and finally see the 44th president be a woman who little girls could finally have their own hero-a role model to give them hope to expand and have great chances in life.
But then more and more of the powerful people in this country starting supporting Obama and my heart sank. It was like the analogy of a woman working for a company for 35 years and a man with ½ of those years sweeps in and takes over the ceo position. My heart sank more and more, I couldn’t sleep-I cried many times. People in the national news media and some people in Obama’s camp were calling her the most horrific sexist names. And my anger grew.
I don’t know the “inner”working of powerful people. I did know that Senator Clinton was not perfect-that she was a politician and made many mistakes. One of those mistakes was she just didn’t have the charisma that Obama had. I didn’t realize how vital that was to the sound bite society we live in. But I did know that she had worked hard for families and women in this country. The media trashed her unrelentlessly while women in this country turned their backs.
Thank you for thinking and caring about the millions of women in this country and world wide who have hungered finally for female leaders to be proud of. Hillary had given me hope-not Obama There are millions of us out here who don’t have your money or power that you were born into. We don’t receive the respect that you automatically received. We watched while world wide women are brutalized because middle class and poor women generally are not given great amounts of respect.We remember when middle class and poor women never even dreamed of any real viable career except a mrs degree. You didn’t live in that world. Its great you support an African American. But you turned your back on middle aged and older women. And when did you decide to throw your two cents in? Not in 2000 or 2004 but when the first viable woman came along-then you decided to move in against her.
I no longer love this country like I used to. If Senator Clinton had lost fair and square and if the country hadn’t called her all those terrible misogymistic names I could get over this. But its hard to love a country who would go to such lengths to knock out a woman by calling her names like bitch and fu….whore. Yes she was called those names and many more.
So we have made headway in the social justice department except toward Senator Clinton and older women in general. Because when the media called her a bitch they called us all that name. And this country could have cared less.
Come on Fact check compared apples to oranges when comparing legislative records for the two candidates. They only compared Clintons bills that PASSED to Obamas bills he sponsered, co sponsered, put out in the Ill legislature, and passed bills. That is not a fair comparison-they should have compared all the bills Clinton sponsered, cosponsered also They should have compared clintons passed bills to obamas passed bills etc It was an obvious attempt to make Obama look better. Why can't Obama stand on his own record if he is so great?
Here's how FactCheck.org finally tallies the real breakdown of bills and resolutions sponsored by the candidates in the U.S. Senate.
Obama Clinton
Years in Senate 3 7
Bills sponsored* 129 358
Bills passed by Senate 7 32
Bills signed into law 2 19
Sponsored, per year 43 51.1
Passed by Senate, per year 2.3 4.6
Signed into law, per year 0.7 0.7
*Sole original sponsor
We counted only bills for which Obama or Clinton was the sole, original sponsor. The e-mail also inflates Obama's numbers by counting his cosponsored bills, but Sarah Binder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on legislative politics, tells FactCheck.org that often "cosponsorship does not require a commitment of time, energy or resources – let alone the political or policy ingenuity that might generate a bill idea in the first place." Tallying sponsored bills, says Binder, is "a better metric of a senator's agenda, efforts and interests."
Clinton has been in the Senate a little more than seven years; Obama, a little more than three. Using the numbers above, we calculate that Clinton has been the sole sponsor of a few more bills and resolutions per year – 51, to Obama's 43. And she has steered twice as many through the Senate and almost four times as many into law per year, on average, as Obama has.
This information is from Newsweek.
Again if Obama is so great why does his supporters feel the need to massage the truth about him? This isn't change or hope this is the same old misleading politics we already are tired of.
Here's how FactCheck.org finally tallies the real breakdown of bills and resolutions sponsored by the candidates in the U.S. Senate.
Obama Clinton
Years in Senate 3 7
Bills sponsored* 129 358
Bills passed by Senate 7 32
Bills signed into law 2 19
Sponsored, per year 43 51.1
Passed by Senate, per year 2.3 4.6
Signed into law, per year 0.7 0.7
*Sole original sponsor
We counted only bills for which Obama or Clinton was the sole, original sponsor. The e-mail also inflates Obama's numbers by counting his cosponsored bills, but Sarah Binder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on legislative politics, tells FactCheck.org that often "cosponsorship does not require a commitment of time, energy or resources – let alone the political or policy ingenuity that might generate a bill idea in the first place." Tallying sponsored bills, says Binder, is "a better metric of a senator's agenda, efforts and interests."
Clinton has been in the Senate a little more than seven years; Obama, a little more than three. Using the numbers above, we calculate that Clinton has been the sole sponsor of a few more bills and resolutions per year – 51, to Obama's 43. And she has steered twice as many through the Senate and almost four times as many into law per year, on average, as Obama has.
This information is from Newsweek.
Again if Obama is so great why does his supporters feel the need to massage the truth about him? This isn't change or hope this is the same old misleading politics we already are tired of.
. Obama ‘Borrows’ His Campaign Lines
One Obama statement that has become emblematic of his campaign is, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
Original? Actually it’s the title of a book of essays by Alice Walker, “We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For” " which in turn came from a poem published in 1980 by feminist poet June Jordan.
Ferguson, in a Weekly Standard Story titled “The Wit & Wisdom of Barack Obama,” points to other Obama utterances " and the sources they echo:
Americans “need a president who will tell you what you need to know, not what you want to hear.” Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said in 1984: “Leadership is not just telling people what they want to hear, it’s telling them what they need to know.” And Arnold Schwarzenegger used almost the same language when he ran for governor of California in 2003.
“Politics is broken.” Bill Bradley said he was leaving the Senate in 1996 because “politics is broken.” George W. Bush used those same three words during a 2000 stump speech.
“This is a defining moment in our history.” Elizabeth Dole said the same thing when her husband ran for president in 1996.
“Washington has become a place where politicians spend too much time trying to score political points.” Bill Clinton said in 1992 that Washington was a place “people came just to score political points.”
“We’re going to take this country back.” Howard Dean in 2004: “We’re going to take this country back.”
“We can disagree without being disagreeable.” Gerald Ford used those words in his 1976 campaign against Jimmy Carter.
“We will choose unity over division.” Jesse Jackson said the same thing in 1992.
“We will choose hope over fear.” Bill Clinton and John Kerry both used that expression in 2004.
“We will choose the future over the past.” Al Gore, 1992.
Referring to Obama’s speechifying, Ferguson notes: “Obama has had the unbelievable luck to attract listeners who seem to think he’s minted it fresh.
One Obama statement that has become emblematic of his campaign is, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
Original? Actually it’s the title of a book of essays by Alice Walker, “We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For” " which in turn came from a poem published in 1980 by feminist poet June Jordan.
Ferguson, in a Weekly Standard Story titled “The Wit & Wisdom of Barack Obama,” points to other Obama utterances " and the sources they echo:
Americans “need a president who will tell you what you need to know, not what you want to hear.” Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said in 1984: “Leadership is not just telling people what they want to hear, it’s telling them what they need to know.” And Arnold Schwarzenegger used almost the same language when he ran for governor of California in 2003.
“Politics is broken.” Bill Bradley said he was leaving the Senate in 1996 because “politics is broken.” George W. Bush used those same three words during a 2000 stump speech.
“This is a defining moment in our history.” Elizabeth Dole said the same thing when her husband ran for president in 1996.
“Washington has become a place where politicians spend too much time trying to score political points.” Bill Clinton said in 1992 that Washington was a place “people came just to score political points.”
“We’re going to take this country back.” Howard Dean in 2004: “We’re going to take this country back.”
“We can disagree without being disagreeable.” Gerald Ford used those words in his 1976 campaign against Jimmy Carter.
“We will choose unity over division.” Jesse Jackson said the same thing in 1992.
“We will choose hope over fear.” Bill Clinton and John Kerry both used that expression in 2004.
“We will choose the future over the past.” Al Gore, 1992.
Referring to Obama’s speechifying, Ferguson notes: “Obama has had the unbelievable luck to attract listeners who seem to think he’s minted it fresh.
Funny now Obama's group is coming out with all kinds of negative press on Clinton to deflect and try to defend his Wright connection.He is blaming her for the leak. The leak came from Sean Hannity from Fox News. He put in on national tv not Clinton Hannity said it on his radio program last Wednesday-He put out the story nationally and now he is getting hate mail.Obama isn't as nice as he would like to make you think....punishing Clinton for what Hannity did. Gosh that is CHANGE we can count on Senator Obama
Can anyone verify this: Obama's Trinity church published on July 22, 2007 writings of Hama's the radical Islamic group condemning Jews and asking for their destruction.It was in one of their handouts supporting this group and their mandate?
Your partial truths about the proposed legislation for Obama and Clinton has only the information you wanted to support Obama.
Statistic: Barack Obama missed 208 of 1171 votes (18%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Exceedingly Poor relative to peers). It is worse since he started his campaign-missing 39% of his votes.
SurveyUSA reports Clinton's job approval rating at 60% as of 2007-11-20. The average approval rating among senators in states surveyed is 53%.
Hillary Clinton missed 181 of 2479 votes (7%) since Jan 23, 2001. Clintons worsened also to missing 28% since she started campaigning. Still her voting record is better than Obama's.
As far as your critique on the mortgage abuse her actual bill is:
9/27/2007-Clinton introduced S2114:
American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007 - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to require certain mortgage originators or lenders with primary responsibility for underwriting an assessment on a home mortgage loan to include a borrower's ability to repay certain associated costs.
Requires a mortgage broker to clearly disclose its relationship to the borrower.
Directs the federal banking agencies to establish a nationwide registry and databa system in which all mortgage brokers in the United States must register.
Eliminates prepayment penalties for home mortgages.
Instructs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make grants to state governments and tribal organizations to assist: (1) programs established for foreclosure mitigation; and (2) housing trust funds supporting low- and moderate-income housing.
Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to direct the HUD Secretary to establish an annual goal for each government-sponsored enterprise to identify and assist homeowners at risk of default or foreclosure on their mortgage, but who would be able to stabilize the situation with fixed rate 30- or 40-year mortgages.
Authorizes appropriations for mortgage fraud enforcement and prosecution.
This is the actual bill-where does it say "enhanced disclosures to consumers" It has language to punish mortgage fraud. There is already harsh laws in place concerning disclosures. How will the government stop mortgage transactions that are fraudulent? You won't know about the fraud until it is done unless every housing transaction is audited by the government before a loan closes. How is that possible with conventional loan?
Her bill is actually more comprehensive, helps people currently in trouble and punishs people who do commit fraud.
Obama was rated POOR on his ability to get his bills passed.so was Clinton So you noted 4 of his proposed legislation-doesn't mean they will pass At least I will admit some of the failures of my candidate and be honest.
Last you didn't really research Clintons record. Since 2001 she has sponsered over 100 bills-. Most did not pass but those are the facts.
Statistic: Barack Obama missed 208 of 1171 votes (18%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Exceedingly Poor relative to peers). It is worse since he started his campaign-missing 39% of his votes.
SurveyUSA reports Clinton's job approval rating at 60% as of 2007-11-20. The average approval rating among senators in states surveyed is 53%.
Hillary Clinton missed 181 of 2479 votes (7%) since Jan 23, 2001. Clintons worsened also to missing 28% since she started campaigning. Still her voting record is better than Obama's.
As far as your critique on the mortgage abuse her actual bill is:
9/27/2007-Clinton introduced S2114:
American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007 - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to require certain mortgage originators or lenders with primary responsibility for underwriting an assessment on a home mortgage loan to include a borrower's ability to repay certain associated costs.
Requires a mortgage broker to clearly disclose its relationship to the borrower.
Directs the federal banking agencies to establish a nationwide registry and databa system in which all mortgage brokers in the United States must register.
Eliminates prepayment penalties for home mortgages.
Instructs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make grants to state governments and tribal organizations to assist: (1) programs established for foreclosure mitigation; and (2) housing trust funds supporting low- and moderate-income housing.
Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to direct the HUD Secretary to establish an annual goal for each government-sponsored enterprise to identify and assist homeowners at risk of default or foreclosure on their mortgage, but who would be able to stabilize the situation with fixed rate 30- or 40-year mortgages.
Authorizes appropriations for mortgage fraud enforcement and prosecution.
This is the actual bill-where does it say "enhanced disclosures to consumers" It has language to punish mortgage fraud. There is already harsh laws in place concerning disclosures. How will the government stop mortgage transactions that are fraudulent? You won't know about the fraud until it is done unless every housing transaction is audited by the government before a loan closes. How is that possible with conventional loan?
Her bill is actually more comprehensive, helps people currently in trouble and punishs people who do commit fraud.
Obama was rated POOR on his ability to get his bills passed.so was Clinton So you noted 4 of his proposed legislation-doesn't mean they will pass At least I will admit some of the failures of my candidate and be honest.
Last you didn't really research Clintons record. Since 2001 she has sponsered over 100 bills-. Most did not pass but those are the facts.
Did it occur to you how when the media makes fun of, minimizes, and makes Senator Clinton out to be a joke that it is a commentary on women in general? How fair is it to only concentrate on negatives when she has worked so hard all her life for this country? Do you understand alot of this has to do with how some people on a very fundamental level do not believe in the dignity and respect of women? I thought this country was more progressive but many have villified her for her strength and courage and held her up to double standards. Instead of giving her some credit for these qualities the media and others prefer to call her names and see nothing good about her. I know her record-I have studied her extensively.Please do not say I am only voting for her because she is a woman. I am voting for her because she has a great resume. The woman issue is only a piece of the puzzle. It breaks my heart when young women don't even know how she and other women have been the flagbearers of change if you study her. Yet women participate in blasting her without really really studying her life. Please at least be fair. Read her biography, read her record-at least be balanced on what she is about instead of parroting the major news reporting sound bites of negativity and minimization toward her.You owe your daughters and granddaughters to try and know her both bad and GOOD.She has made history-give her credit for what she has done.
In 2007 Obama was interviewed about the Imus remark on the girls African American basketball team. Obama was asked "Would you fire Imus?" Now mind you this was one statement-I am not condoning it but one statement. Obama said, "That is up to MSNBC ETC BUT HE WOULDN'T BE WORKING FOR ME." However, now we find out that Rev. Wright has been working for Obama on his spiritual advisory team for his campaign for months. Why wouldn't the racist Imus not be allowed to work for Obama but the racist Rev Wright can and did work for Obama? And Wright made many racist statements not just one. It doesn't pass the smell test.
Will the Real Barrack Obama stand up?
Barrak Obama’s campaign continually says he is the change, hope, and reconciliation that America needs. He is not the business as usual politician- a fresh new face for American politics. Unfortunately what he says and what he does are two different things.
After Obama was exposed to different religions by his mother, he chose a church that is a separatist church, owing allegiance to Africa and whose reverend makes inflammatory bigoted remarks .Yet Obama attends this church for 20 years. Then in his statement on CNN he professes to not know Rev Wright was preaching this anti American rhetoric and claims he had no idea? This is preposterous. Obama had the potential to hear 1040 sermons by Rev Wright and says he didn’t know what this minister is about. I could have figured Rev Wright’s mandate after one month. Rev Wright also gave a life time award and supports the ideas of Farrakhan-a black separatist Muslim who hates Jews and whites. While Obama can go to any church he wants to, how will his underlying belief systems possibly help unite this country. We usually go to a church where we believe in the basic tenants. One of his churches basic tenet is alliegence to Africa. I thought the president of the us had to have his basic allegience to the u.s.? Obama says he does. Then why didn't he go to a church that has its allience to the u.s. instead of Africa?
Obama says he is for the civil liberties for the American people. Yet he voted for the Patriot Act which took away many civil liberties. He states he is for the common man and yet in the U.S. senate he voted against an interest rate cap aimed at predatory credit card lenders.(had excuses of course) In December 2007 he boasted that he had passed a bill requiring a particular
nuclear plant to report radioactive leaks. The truth is he allowed the bill to be watered down, sided with Republicans and it never passed. Yet Exelon who owns the nuclear plant gave him $221,000 for his campaign.
His health care plan would leave millions still uninsured. He said he was against NAFTA and yet on Feb. 26, 2008 he said we should pursue more deals such as NAFTA. He says he was against the Iraq war and yet voted for every funding bill for the war. He has missed 39% of his votes in the recent U.S. 110 session of congress.
What he does have is talent to make people believe whatever he says which is usually vague but uplifting. I want hope and change just like everyone else. But he is not the man to deliver his lofty promises-his rhetoric and his resume do not match. He cannot deliver. He is too busy pandering to everyone and not making any real CHANGE anywhere except to get people to vote for him.
Barrak Obama’s campaign continually says he is the change, hope, and reconciliation that America needs. He is not the business as usual politician- a fresh new face for American politics. Unfortunately what he says and what he does are two different things.
After Obama was exposed to different religions by his mother, he chose a church that is a separatist church, owing allegiance to Africa and whose reverend makes inflammatory bigoted remarks .Yet Obama attends this church for 20 years. Then in his statement on CNN he professes to not know Rev Wright was preaching this anti American rhetoric and claims he had no idea? This is preposterous. Obama had the potential to hear 1040 sermons by Rev Wright and says he didn’t know what this minister is about. I could have figured Rev Wright’s mandate after one month. Rev Wright also gave a life time award and supports the ideas of Farrakhan-a black separatist Muslim who hates Jews and whites. While Obama can go to any church he wants to, how will his underlying belief systems possibly help unite this country. We usually go to a church where we believe in the basic tenants. One of his churches basic tenet is alliegence to Africa. I thought the president of the us had to have his basic allegience to the u.s.? Obama says he does. Then why didn't he go to a church that has its allience to the u.s. instead of Africa?
Obama says he is for the civil liberties for the American people. Yet he voted for the Patriot Act which took away many civil liberties. He states he is for the common man and yet in the U.S. senate he voted against an interest rate cap aimed at predatory credit card lenders.(had excuses of course) In December 2007 he boasted that he had passed a bill requiring a particular
nuclear plant to report radioactive leaks. The truth is he allowed the bill to be watered down, sided with Republicans and it never passed. Yet Exelon who owns the nuclear plant gave him $221,000 for his campaign.
His health care plan would leave millions still uninsured. He said he was against NAFTA and yet on Feb. 26, 2008 he said we should pursue more deals such as NAFTA. He says he was against the Iraq war and yet voted for every funding bill for the war. He has missed 39% of his votes in the recent U.S. 110 session of congress.
What he does have is talent to make people believe whatever he says which is usually vague but uplifting. I want hope and change just like everyone else. But he is not the man to deliver his lofty promises-his rhetoric and his resume do not match. He cannot deliver. He is too busy pandering to everyone and not making any real CHANGE anywhere except to get people to vote for him.
Obama's Iraqi Oil for Food connection
By Andrew Walden
Out on bail awaiting trial, dual US-Syrian citizen, Antoin ʽTony' Rezko, was rousted out of bed by police pounding on the doors of his Chicago mansion the morning of Monday, January 28. According to the Associated Press:
"U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve jailed Rezko...saying he had disobeyed her order to keep her posted on his financial status. Among other things, he failed to tell her about a $3.5 million loan from London-based Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi -- a loan that was later forgiven in exchange for shares in a prime slice of Chicago real estate. Rezko gave $700,000 of the money to his wife and used the rest to pay legal bills and funnel cash to various supporters."
Funds from Auchi's loan may have helped finance a complex series of transactions between Rezko and Democratic Presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama involving the 2005 purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion and Rezko's purchase of an adjoining landlocked parcel.
The Times of London reports:
"A company related to Mr. Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr. Obama's bagman Antoin ʽTony' Rezko on May, 23 2005. Mr. Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.
"Three weeks later, Mr. Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15. Mr. Obama says he never used Mrs. Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn."
Rezko's relationship with Barack Obama goes back to at least 1990, when Obama's law firm did work relating to a Rezko housing development. Rezko was a key early-money fund raiser in Obama's state Senate campaigns and his failed run at the US Congress. In June 2005, when the mansion was purchased, Rezko was widely known to be under federal investigation. Rezko also is a key fundraiser for Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich.
The sudden emergence of Auchi into this story indicates Rezko's deals may include a money trail leading back to dead Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Auchi's Saddam links trace back to a failed 1959 assassination attempt on the life of then-Iraqi-prime-minister Abdul Karim Qasim.
Auchi's General Mediterranean Holdings company was also the largest private shareholder in Banque Nationale de Paris which later merged with Paribas to become BNP Paribas. At Saddam's insistence, billions of dollars of Oil for Food transactions passed through BNP from its 1995 inception until 2001.
In January 2004, Iraqi newspaper Al-Mada published a list of 270 Oil for Food beneficiaries. The list was translated and published on line by The Middle East Media Research Institute. Hundreds of millions of dollars of Oil for Food money was illegally diverted to buy Saddam favor from the United Nations, possibly reaching as high as Secretary general Kofi Annan's son. Also receiving million's from Saddam's slush fund were heads of state and their associates from Russia, France, China, and numerous Islamic countries.
The Auchi-Obama links go beyond the mansion deal. The Times of London February 1 reports uncovering, "state documents in Illinois recording that Fintrade Services, a Panamanian company, lent money to (an) Obama fundraiser in May 2005. Fintrade's directors include Ibtisam Auchi, the name of Mr. Auchi's wife."
Auchi, a Chaldean Christian, was later pardoned by Qasim. As Saddam's Baath party took power, Auchi prospered. He went to work for the Iraqi Ministry of Oil in 1967. He rose to be Oil Ministry Director of Planning and Development before leaving Iraq in 1979. His brother was apparently killed by Saddam's regime as were family of many high-ranking Baathists. But there are also claims that Auchi continued secretly working for Saddam's intelligence services, a kind of dual reality not uncommon in the twisted world of Saddam's upper echelons.
What is certain is that Auchi prospered mightily collecting "commissions" on sale of weapons and other goods to Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s. Living in the UK, he is now listed as Britain's 18th-richest man. The Times of London reports, "On the 20th anniversary of his business in 1999, Mr. Auchi received a greeting card signed by 130 politicians, including (Prime Minister) Tony Blair, (Conservative Party leader) William Hague and (Liberal-Democratic Party leader) Charles Kennedy...."
In spite of his British connections and an earlier 2004 US visit, Auchi was denied entry into the US in 2005. It is believed that he was attempting in 2005 to win a US visa with the help of Rezko several as-yet-unnamed Illinois political figures. Among Auchi's many international awards is a 2005 election as an "Honorary Member in the International College of Surgeons in Chicago, Illinois." Obama has denied trying to help Auchi.
Auchi has played a role in BNP since the late 1970s. When BNP was privatized by the French government in 1993, Auchi acquired stock in the banking giant through his Luxembourg-based company, General Mediterranean Holdings. Auchi played a key role in BNP's 2000 merger with Paribas. According to the New York Times, "As recently as 2001, General Mediterranean Holdings described itself in an annual report as one of largest single shareholders in BNP Paribas." Saddam used Oil for Food fraud to channel millions of dollars to heads of state, activists, terrorists, and journalists--many of whom returned the favor by backing Saddam in 2003 when the US finally invaded.
In 2003 Auchi was convicted in France for receiving about $100 million in illegal commissions as part of a scandal involving the French oil giant Elf Aquitane. The UK Guardian wrote:
"(Elf was) the biggest fraud inquiry in Europe since the Second World War. Elf became a private bank for its executives who spent £200 million on political favours, mistresses, jewellery, fine art, villas and apartments."
Auchi's General Mediterranean Holdings also has connections to the new Iraq-connections which lead right back to Tony Rezko. Auchi's company helped finance a 250 megawatt power plant in the Kurdish town of Chamchamal, Iraq, teaming up with Rezko and Iraq's former Minister of Electricity, Aiham Alsamarrae. Alsamarrae, a Chicago resident with dual US-Iraqi citizenship is accused of graft involving Iraq reconstruction projects-an embarrassing connection for the war critic Obama.
Returning in 2003 to post-Saddam Iraq, Alsamarrae had been made Minister of Electricity under the occupation government of Paul Bremer. Alsamarrae escaped in what he called "the Chicago way" from the Green Zone in December, 2006 after being held for four months in relation to a $2 billion Iraqi reconstruction corruption case. He is now living in his Chicago mansion.
Writing in Human Events, March 3, 2008, John Batchelor reports on an Alsammarae-Obama-Rezko connection:
"...in April 2005, one month before Mr. Alsammarae left his post, his Ministry of Electricity signed a contract for $50 million with Companion Security to provide training to Iraqis to guard electrical plants by flying them to Illinois for classes.
"Companion Security was headed by a former Chicago policeman with a troubled history, Daniel T. Frawley, in partnership with Mr. Rezko and in association with Daniel Mahru, the lawyer for the original contract and Mr. Rezko's former business partner. In April 2006, Mr. Frawley entered negotiations with Governor Rod Blagojevich's staff to lease a military facility in Illinois to be a training camp. In August 2006, Mr. Frawley started negotiations with Mr. Obama's U.S. Senate staff to complete the contract....
"The timeline of Companion discussions in 2006 is important to note: April 2006 Frawley speaks to governor's office; August 2006 Frawley speaks to senator's office; October 2006 indictment of Rezko revealed; October 2006 Rezko arrested upon return from Syria; October 2006 Alsammarae convicted in Baghdad and makes his first escape attempt; December 2006 Alsammarae escapes from Baghdad. ...
"(In 2004) Mr. Auchi traveled by private aircraft to Midway Airport in Chicago and then to a fete at the Four Season Hotel, where he met with his business partner in Chicago real estate, Mr. Rezko, as well as with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Also present that night, according to a fresh report by James Bone and Dominic Kennedy of the London Times, was State Senator Barack Obama, who had recently won the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat...."
Most politicians try to keep their financial backers out of trouble until after the election. But Rezko, is already indicted by a federal grand jury. And now his trial has begun in a Chicago federal court.
Rezko, along with Ali Ata and Abdelhamid Chaib, face federal grand jury charges presented in October 2006 by U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald. The case revolves around allegations of fraud between 2000 and 2004 in the sale of 17 Papa Johns' Pizza parlors in Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee. The case may begin with pizza but it could easily lead back to Europe, Syria, Iraq, and the UN Oil for Food program.
Fitzgerald is the prosecutor who won perjury convictions against Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, in March, 2007. Chaib is an officer of several of Rezko's restaurant chains including Chicagoland Panda Express franchises. Ata was appointed Executive Director of the Illinois Finance Authority by Governor Blagojevich. Ata was also a former president of the Chicago Chapter of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and had a financial interest in Rezko's restaurants. Ata reportedly donated as much as $60,000 to Blagojevich and $5,000 to Obama. Rezko reportedly raised as much as $500,000 for Blagojevich and at least $70,000 for Obama's various campaigns. Obama has redirected as much as $150,000 in donations "bundled" by Rezko.
Rezko has other unsavory financial ties. Arab American Media Services reports:
"In 1997, Panda Express won the right to open a lucrative concession at O'Hare International Airport under the city's Minority Set-Aside program which directs large contracts to companies owned by Women, African Americans or Hispanics. The city awarded a 10-year contract for O'Hare Airport to Crucial Inc. in 1999, which the city believed was owned by an African American, Jabir Herbert Muhammad, the son of the late Elijah Mohammad."
Elijah Mohammad led the Nation of Islam until his death in 1975. Jabir Herbert Muhammad was sued in 1999 by boxer Muhammad Ali for unauthorized use of his name in connection with the so-called Muhammad Ali Foundation. Rezko served as Executive Director of the Foundation.
Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago told the LA Times:
"Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble. When he got indicted, there wasn't a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming. . . . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you're planning to run for president?"
At a March 3 news conference in San Antonio, Texas, Chicago-based reporters peppered Obama with some of the questions the national news corps has avoided for over a year. Obama claims he had already answered the questions in the Chicago media. He said: "These requests, I think, could just go on forever. At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what's pertinent."
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote:
"Reporters, however, had a different idea of what was pertinent, and the questions about Rezko, NAFTA and other unpleasant subjects continued to come. An aide called out ʽlast question,' and Obama made his move for the exit -- only for reporters to shout after him in protest. ʽC'mon, guys,' he pleaded. ʽI just answered, like, eight questions.'"
Obama has refused to sit down at length with the Chicago reporters who have worked this story for years. But as Milbank pointed out, "The questioning...has only just begun." With old-time Chicago corruption now going international-and Presidential--finding those answers is more urgent than ever.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html at March 09, 2008 - 03:52:44 PM EDT
I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have
persuaded him he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as
he is scared, and then he is gone. -Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. general and
34th president (1890-1969)
By Andrew Walden
Out on bail awaiting trial, dual US-Syrian citizen, Antoin ʽTony' Rezko, was rousted out of bed by police pounding on the doors of his Chicago mansion the morning of Monday, January 28. According to the Associated Press:
"U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve jailed Rezko...saying he had disobeyed her order to keep her posted on his financial status. Among other things, he failed to tell her about a $3.5 million loan from London-based Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi -- a loan that was later forgiven in exchange for shares in a prime slice of Chicago real estate. Rezko gave $700,000 of the money to his wife and used the rest to pay legal bills and funnel cash to various supporters."
Funds from Auchi's loan may have helped finance a complex series of transactions between Rezko and Democratic Presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama involving the 2005 purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion and Rezko's purchase of an adjoining landlocked parcel.
The Times of London reports:
"A company related to Mr. Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr. Obama's bagman Antoin ʽTony' Rezko on May, 23 2005. Mr. Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.
"Three weeks later, Mr. Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15. Mr. Obama says he never used Mrs. Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn."
Rezko's relationship with Barack Obama goes back to at least 1990, when Obama's law firm did work relating to a Rezko housing development. Rezko was a key early-money fund raiser in Obama's state Senate campaigns and his failed run at the US Congress. In June 2005, when the mansion was purchased, Rezko was widely known to be under federal investigation. Rezko also is a key fundraiser for Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich.
The sudden emergence of Auchi into this story indicates Rezko's deals may include a money trail leading back to dead Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Auchi's Saddam links trace back to a failed 1959 assassination attempt on the life of then-Iraqi-prime-minister Abdul Karim Qasim.
Auchi's General Mediterranean Holdings company was also the largest private shareholder in Banque Nationale de Paris which later merged with Paribas to become BNP Paribas. At Saddam's insistence, billions of dollars of Oil for Food transactions passed through BNP from its 1995 inception until 2001.
In January 2004, Iraqi newspaper Al-Mada published a list of 270 Oil for Food beneficiaries. The list was translated and published on line by The Middle East Media Research Institute. Hundreds of millions of dollars of Oil for Food money was illegally diverted to buy Saddam favor from the United Nations, possibly reaching as high as Secretary general Kofi Annan's son. Also receiving million's from Saddam's slush fund were heads of state and their associates from Russia, France, China, and numerous Islamic countries.
The Auchi-Obama links go beyond the mansion deal. The Times of London February 1 reports uncovering, "state documents in Illinois recording that Fintrade Services, a Panamanian company, lent money to (an) Obama fundraiser in May 2005. Fintrade's directors include Ibtisam Auchi, the name of Mr. Auchi's wife."
Auchi, a Chaldean Christian, was later pardoned by Qasim. As Saddam's Baath party took power, Auchi prospered. He went to work for the Iraqi Ministry of Oil in 1967. He rose to be Oil Ministry Director of Planning and Development before leaving Iraq in 1979. His brother was apparently killed by Saddam's regime as were family of many high-ranking Baathists. But there are also claims that Auchi continued secretly working for Saddam's intelligence services, a kind of dual reality not uncommon in the twisted world of Saddam's upper echelons.
What is certain is that Auchi prospered mightily collecting "commissions" on sale of weapons and other goods to Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s. Living in the UK, he is now listed as Britain's 18th-richest man. The Times of London reports, "On the 20th anniversary of his business in 1999, Mr. Auchi received a greeting card signed by 130 politicians, including (Prime Minister) Tony Blair, (Conservative Party leader) William Hague and (Liberal-Democratic Party leader) Charles Kennedy...."
In spite of his British connections and an earlier 2004 US visit, Auchi was denied entry into the US in 2005. It is believed that he was attempting in 2005 to win a US visa with the help of Rezko several as-yet-unnamed Illinois political figures. Among Auchi's many international awards is a 2005 election as an "Honorary Member in the International College of Surgeons in Chicago, Illinois." Obama has denied trying to help Auchi.
Auchi has played a role in BNP since the late 1970s. When BNP was privatized by the French government in 1993, Auchi acquired stock in the banking giant through his Luxembourg-based company, General Mediterranean Holdings. Auchi played a key role in BNP's 2000 merger with Paribas. According to the New York Times, "As recently as 2001, General Mediterranean Holdings described itself in an annual report as one of largest single shareholders in BNP Paribas." Saddam used Oil for Food fraud to channel millions of dollars to heads of state, activists, terrorists, and journalists--many of whom returned the favor by backing Saddam in 2003 when the US finally invaded.
In 2003 Auchi was convicted in France for receiving about $100 million in illegal commissions as part of a scandal involving the French oil giant Elf Aquitane. The UK Guardian wrote:
"(Elf was) the biggest fraud inquiry in Europe since the Second World War. Elf became a private bank for its executives who spent £200 million on political favours, mistresses, jewellery, fine art, villas and apartments."
Auchi's General Mediterranean Holdings also has connections to the new Iraq-connections which lead right back to Tony Rezko. Auchi's company helped finance a 250 megawatt power plant in the Kurdish town of Chamchamal, Iraq, teaming up with Rezko and Iraq's former Minister of Electricity, Aiham Alsamarrae. Alsamarrae, a Chicago resident with dual US-Iraqi citizenship is accused of graft involving Iraq reconstruction projects-an embarrassing connection for the war critic Obama.
Returning in 2003 to post-Saddam Iraq, Alsamarrae had been made Minister of Electricity under the occupation government of Paul Bremer. Alsamarrae escaped in what he called "the Chicago way" from the Green Zone in December, 2006 after being held for four months in relation to a $2 billion Iraqi reconstruction corruption case. He is now living in his Chicago mansion.
Writing in Human Events, March 3, 2008, John Batchelor reports on an Alsammarae-Obama-Rezko connection:
"...in April 2005, one month before Mr. Alsammarae left his post, his Ministry of Electricity signed a contract for $50 million with Companion Security to provide training to Iraqis to guard electrical plants by flying them to Illinois for classes.
"Companion Security was headed by a former Chicago policeman with a troubled history, Daniel T. Frawley, in partnership with Mr. Rezko and in association with Daniel Mahru, the lawyer for the original contract and Mr. Rezko's former business partner. In April 2006, Mr. Frawley entered negotiations with Governor Rod Blagojevich's staff to lease a military facility in Illinois to be a training camp. In August 2006, Mr. Frawley started negotiations with Mr. Obama's U.S. Senate staff to complete the contract....
"The timeline of Companion discussions in 2006 is important to note: April 2006 Frawley speaks to governor's office; August 2006 Frawley speaks to senator's office; October 2006 indictment of Rezko revealed; October 2006 Rezko arrested upon return from Syria; October 2006 Alsammarae convicted in Baghdad and makes his first escape attempt; December 2006 Alsammarae escapes from Baghdad. ...
"(In 2004) Mr. Auchi traveled by private aircraft to Midway Airport in Chicago and then to a fete at the Four Season Hotel, where he met with his business partner in Chicago real estate, Mr. Rezko, as well as with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Also present that night, according to a fresh report by James Bone and Dominic Kennedy of the London Times, was State Senator Barack Obama, who had recently won the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat...."
Most politicians try to keep their financial backers out of trouble until after the election. But Rezko, is already indicted by a federal grand jury. And now his trial has begun in a Chicago federal court.
Rezko, along with Ali Ata and Abdelhamid Chaib, face federal grand jury charges presented in October 2006 by U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald. The case revolves around allegations of fraud between 2000 and 2004 in the sale of 17 Papa Johns' Pizza parlors in Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee. The case may begin with pizza but it could easily lead back to Europe, Syria, Iraq, and the UN Oil for Food program.
Fitzgerald is the prosecutor who won perjury convictions against Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, in March, 2007. Chaib is an officer of several of Rezko's restaurant chains including Chicagoland Panda Express franchises. Ata was appointed Executive Director of the Illinois Finance Authority by Governor Blagojevich. Ata was also a former president of the Chicago Chapter of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and had a financial interest in Rezko's restaurants. Ata reportedly donated as much as $60,000 to Blagojevich and $5,000 to Obama. Rezko reportedly raised as much as $500,000 for Blagojevich and at least $70,000 for Obama's various campaigns. Obama has redirected as much as $150,000 in donations "bundled" by Rezko.
Rezko has other unsavory financial ties. Arab American Media Services reports:
"In 1997, Panda Express won the right to open a lucrative concession at O'Hare International Airport under the city's Minority Set-Aside program which directs large contracts to companies owned by Women, African Americans or Hispanics. The city awarded a 10-year contract for O'Hare Airport to Crucial Inc. in 1999, which the city believed was owned by an African American, Jabir Herbert Muhammad, the son of the late Elijah Mohammad."
Elijah Mohammad led the Nation of Islam until his death in 1975. Jabir Herbert Muhammad was sued in 1999 by boxer Muhammad Ali for unauthorized use of his name in connection with the so-called Muhammad Ali Foundation. Rezko served as Executive Director of the Foundation.
Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago told the LA Times:
"Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble. When he got indicted, there wasn't a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming. . . . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you're planning to run for president?"
At a March 3 news conference in San Antonio, Texas, Chicago-based reporters peppered Obama with some of the questions the national news corps has avoided for over a year. Obama claims he had already answered the questions in the Chicago media. He said: "These requests, I think, could just go on forever. At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what's pertinent."
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote:
"Reporters, however, had a different idea of what was pertinent, and the questions about Rezko, NAFTA and other unpleasant subjects continued to come. An aide called out ʽlast question,' and Obama made his move for the exit -- only for reporters to shout after him in protest. ʽC'mon, guys,' he pleaded. ʽI just answered, like, eight questions.'"
Obama has refused to sit down at length with the Chicago reporters who have worked this story for years. But as Milbank pointed out, "The questioning...has only just begun." With old-time Chicago corruption now going international-and Presidential--finding those answers is more urgent than ever.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html at March 09, 2008 - 03:52:44 PM EDT
I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have
persuaded him he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as
he is scared, and then he is gone. -Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. general and
34th president (1890-1969)
With all Obama's rhetoric about change I noticed on the Senate web site he only showed up for 39% of the U.S senate votes Hmmmmm sounds his record in the Illinois Senate. He always has excuses for not working instead smoozing everyone with all his charm and not changing anything substantial. Please some Obama person tell me about all this change that he hasn't done and how he proposes to "start" all this change when he has very little record of changing anything except getting lots of people mimicking his rhetoric.
Would you like to Contribute to Hillary's Campaign?
can you put a contribution on the Democratic web site for Obama this isn't his web site. This has to be a violation!
Well CNN could hardly take it when Senator Clinton won Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. Evidently these so called unbiased but oh so biased news reporting agencies didn't listen to the people but prefer to tell people who they want to win instead of just doing their job of fair news reporting.
Well Senator Clinton has been blasted over and over-her flaws ,her mistakes and rarely do people tell about the work and some of the great things she has done for this country.
But lets talk about the illusion of perfect Senator Obama.
1. I am talking about the U.S. Senate-he has missed 39% of his votes in the 110 congress. He is big on the talk of change but is barely doing his current job where "change ain't happening" because he isn't there. Too busy campaigning.
2. The Iraq war-voted 27 times to fund it-a)2005-Vote #117 Bill HR1268,5/10/2005-vote # 326 S1042 etc etc..and in 2006 voted to continue the war.
3.Voted against Senator Kerry's bill for a timely withdrawl from Iraq.
4.Rezko connection-Rezko is a developer who has given money to the Obama campaign.He is being indicted for extortion, money laundering, and fraud. The Chicago Sun Times unearthed two letters Obama wrote to state officials in 1998 to grant extra funds to Rezko's building of a state funded low income housing project. Second, Obama mysteriously got 300,000 off the cost of his Chicago home after Rezko bought the adjoining lot the same day.
5. Obama joined with republicans in 2005 to pass the cafa Act that would shut down state courts as a venue for law suits. It was a win for big corporations.
6.Obama voted against the capped credit card of 30% saying that was too high. But at least there would have been a cap. He never offered an amendment or anything as an alternative to help people against these predatory credit card companies but we all know credit card companies are predators.
7. Some of his contributors-Goldman Sachs-420,000 Citigroup-221,000,Exelon-221,ooo(owner of a nuclear power plant that Obama helped pass favored bills to) the list is too expansive to list. He outspent Clinton 2-1 in Ohio and Texas. Who is the under dog? And where is this so called under dog getting this huge amount of money?
Bottom LIne-His supporters think he is new, fresh , and different. He may look and talk well but make no mistake he is an ambitious politician just like many of the rest. The difference is he is an ambitious politician with a very small resume.
Well Senator Clinton has been blasted over and over-her flaws ,her mistakes and rarely do people tell about the work and some of the great things she has done for this country.
But lets talk about the illusion of perfect Senator Obama.
1. I am talking about the U.S. Senate-he has missed 39% of his votes in the 110 congress. He is big on the talk of change but is barely doing his current job where "change ain't happening" because he isn't there. Too busy campaigning.
2. The Iraq war-voted 27 times to fund it-a)2005-Vote #117 Bill HR1268,5/10/2005-vote # 326 S1042 etc etc..and in 2006 voted to continue the war.
3.Voted against Senator Kerry's bill for a timely withdrawl from Iraq.
4.Rezko connection-Rezko is a developer who has given money to the Obama campaign.He is being indicted for extortion, money laundering, and fraud. The Chicago Sun Times unearthed two letters Obama wrote to state officials in 1998 to grant extra funds to Rezko's building of a state funded low income housing project. Second, Obama mysteriously got 300,000 off the cost of his Chicago home after Rezko bought the adjoining lot the same day.
5. Obama joined with republicans in 2005 to pass the cafa Act that would shut down state courts as a venue for law suits. It was a win for big corporations.
6.Obama voted against the capped credit card of 30% saying that was too high. But at least there would have been a cap. He never offered an amendment or anything as an alternative to help people against these predatory credit card companies but we all know credit card companies are predators.
7. Some of his contributors-Goldman Sachs-420,000 Citigroup-221,000,Exelon-221,ooo(owner of a nuclear power plant that Obama helped pass favored bills to) the list is too expansive to list. He outspent Clinton 2-1 in Ohio and Texas. Who is the under dog? And where is this so called under dog getting this huge amount of money?
Bottom LIne-His supporters think he is new, fresh , and different. He may look and talk well but make no mistake he is an ambitious politician just like many of the rest. The difference is he is an ambitious politician with a very small resume.
Senator Clinton sponsered the Paycheck Fairness Act to strenthen penalties associated with wage discrimination.she has championed the Prevention First Act for birth control access for poor women. She passed the Family and Medical Leave Act
Women's Rights Are Human Rights Famous Speech
by Hillary Clinton
Women's Rights Are Human Rights Famous Speech by Hillary Clinton
Beijing, China: 5 September 1995
Women's Rights Are Human Rights Famous Speech by Hillary Clinton
Beijing, China: 5 September 1995
Mrs. Mongella, Under Secretary Kittani, distinguished delegates and guests:
I would like to thank the Secretary General of the United Nations for inviting me to be part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. This is truly a celebration - a celebration of the contributions women make in every aspect of life: in the home, on the job, in their communities, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers, citizens and leaders.
It is also a coming together, much the way women come together every day in every country.
We come together in fields and in factories. In village markets and supermarkets. In living rooms and board rooms.
Whether it is while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come together and talk about our aspirations and concerns. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and our families. However different we may be, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future. And we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world - and in so doing, bring new strength and stability to families as well.
By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and participate fully in the political life of their countries.
There are some who question the reason for this conference.
Let them listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces.
There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe.
Let them look at the women gathered here and at Huairou - the homemakers, nurses, teachers, lawyers, policymakers, and women who run their own businesses.
It is conferences like this that compel governments and people everywhere to listen, look and face the world's most pressing problems.
Wasn't it after the women's conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic violence?
Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum, where government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are working on ways to address the health problems of women and girls.
Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local - and highly successful - programs that give hard-working women access to credit so they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families.
What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish.
And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish.
That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on our planet has a stake in the discussion that takes place here.
Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children and families. Over the past two-and-a-half years, I have had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the world.
I have met new mothers in Jojakarta, Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care.
I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in creative, safe, and nurturing after-school centers.
I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping build a new democracy.
I have met with the leading women of the Western Hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for the children of their countries.
I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, rickshaws, thread and other materials to create a livelihood for themselves and their families.
I have met doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.
The great challenge of this Conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard.
Women comprise more than half the world's population. Women are 70% percent of the world's poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught to read and write.
Women are the primary caretakers for most of the world's children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued - not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.
At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries.
Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or treated; they are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation; they are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers; they are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the bank lending office and banned from the ballot box.
Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not.
As an American, I want to speak up for women in my own country - women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can't afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.
I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air and clean airwaves; for older women, some of them widows, who have raised their families and now find that their skills and life experiences are not valued in the workplace; for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, and fast food cooks so that they can be at home during the day with their kids; and for women everywhere who simply don't have time to do everything they are called upon to do each day.
Speaking to you today, I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for women around the world who are denied the chance to go to school, or see a doctor, or own property, or have a say about the direction of their lives, simply because they are women. The truth is that most women around the world work both inside and outside the home, usually by necessity.
We need to understand that there is no formula for how women should lead their lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her God-given potential.
We also must recognize that women will never gain full dignity until their human rights are respected and protected.
Our goals for this Conference, to strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies, cannot be fully achieved unless all governments - here and around the world - accept their responsibility to protect and promote internationally recognized human rights.
The international community has long acknowledged - and recently affirmed at Vienna - that both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear.
No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture.
Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated.
Even in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict. Women and children make up a large majority of the world's refugees. When women are excluded from the political process, they become even more vulnerable to abuse.
I believe that, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break our silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights.
These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.
The voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loud and clear: It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.
It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.
It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.
It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes.
It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.
It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is that human rights are women's rights - and women's rights are human rights. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely - and the right to be heard.
Women must enjoy the right to participate fully in the social and political lives of their countries if we want freedom and democracy to thrive and endure.
It is indefensible that many women in nongovernmental organizations who wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend - or have been prohibited from fully taking part.
Let me be clear. Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize, and debate openly. It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of the peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions.
In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage. It took 150 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote.
It took 72 years of organized struggle on the part of many courageous women and men. It was one of America's most divisive philosophical wars. But it was also a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot being fired.
We have also been reminded, in V-1 Day observances last weekend, of the good that comes when men and women join together to combat the forces of tyranny and build a better world.
We have seen peace prevail in most places for a half century. We have avoided another world war.
But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that continue to diminish the potential of half the world's population.
Now it is time to act on behalf of women everywhere. If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too.
Families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care; families rely on women for labor in the home; and increasingly, families rely on women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other relatives.
As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace around the world - as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled and subjected to violence in and out of their homes - the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.
Let this Conference be our - and the world's - call to action.
And let us heed the call so that we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future.
Thank you very much.
God's blessings on you, your work and all who will benefit from it.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Women's Rights Are Human Rights Famous Speech
by Hillary Clinton
Women's Rights Are Human Rights Famous Speech by Hillary Clinton
Beijing, China: 5 September 1995
Women's Rights Are Human Rights Famous Speech by Hillary Clinton
Beijing, China: 5 September 1995
Mrs. Mongella, Under Secretary Kittani, distinguished delegates and guests:
I would like to thank the Secretary General of the United Nations for inviting me to be part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. This is truly a celebration - a celebration of the contributions women make in every aspect of life: in the home, on the job, in their communities, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers, citizens and leaders.
It is also a coming together, much the way women come together every day in every country.
We come together in fields and in factories. In village markets and supermarkets. In living rooms and board rooms.
Whether it is while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come together and talk about our aspirations and concerns. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and our families. However different we may be, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future. And we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world - and in so doing, bring new strength and stability to families as well.
By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and participate fully in the political life of their countries.
There are some who question the reason for this conference.
Let them listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces.
There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe.
Let them look at the women gathered here and at Huairou - the homemakers, nurses, teachers, lawyers, policymakers, and women who run their own businesses.
It is conferences like this that compel governments and people everywhere to listen, look and face the world's most pressing problems.
Wasn't it after the women's conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic violence?
Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum, where government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are working on ways to address the health problems of women and girls.
Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local - and highly successful - programs that give hard-working women access to credit so they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families.
What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish.
And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish.
That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on our planet has a stake in the discussion that takes place here.
Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children and families. Over the past two-and-a-half years, I have had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the world.
I have met new mothers in Jojakarta, Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care.
I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in creative, safe, and nurturing after-school centers.
I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping build a new democracy.
I have met with the leading women of the Western Hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for the children of their countries.
I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, rickshaws, thread and other materials to create a livelihood for themselves and their families.
I have met doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.
The great challenge of this Conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard.
Women comprise more than half the world's population. Women are 70% percent of the world's poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught to read and write.
Women are the primary caretakers for most of the world's children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued - not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.
At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries.
Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or treated; they are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation; they are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers; they are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the bank lending office and banned from the ballot box.
Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not.
As an American, I want to speak up for women in my own country - women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can't afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.
I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air and clean airwaves; for older women, some of them widows, who have raised their families and now find that their skills and life experiences are not valued in the workplace; for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, and fast food cooks so that they can be at home during the day with their kids; and for women everywhere who simply don't have time to do everything they are called upon to do each day.
Speaking to you today, I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for women around the world who are denied the chance to go to school, or see a doctor, or own property, or have a say about the direction of their lives, simply because they are women. The truth is that most women around the world work both inside and outside the home, usually by necessity.
We need to understand that there is no formula for how women should lead their lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her God-given potential.
We also must recognize that women will never gain full dignity until their human rights are respected and protected.
Our goals for this Conference, to strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies, cannot be fully achieved unless all governments - here and around the world - accept their responsibility to protect and promote internationally recognized human rights.
The international community has long acknowledged - and recently affirmed at Vienna - that both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear.
No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture.
Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated.
Even in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict. Women and children make up a large majority of the world's refugees. When women are excluded from the political process, they become even more vulnerable to abuse.
I believe that, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break our silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights.
These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.
The voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loud and clear: It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.
It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.
It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.
It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes.
It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.
It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is that human rights are women's rights - and women's rights are human rights. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely - and the right to be heard.
Women must enjoy the right to participate fully in the social and political lives of their countries if we want freedom and democracy to thrive and endure.
It is indefensible that many women in nongovernmental organizations who wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend - or have been prohibited from fully taking part.
Let me be clear. Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize, and debate openly. It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of the peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions.
In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage. It took 150 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote.
It took 72 years of organized struggle on the part of many courageous women and men. It was one of America's most divisive philosophical wars. But it was also a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot being fired.
We have also been reminded, in V-1 Day observances last weekend, of the good that comes when men and women join together to combat the forces of tyranny and build a better world.
We have seen peace prevail in most places for a half century. We have avoided another world war.
But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that continue to diminish the potential of half the world's population.
Now it is time to act on behalf of women everywhere. If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too.
Families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care; families rely on women for labor in the home; and increasingly, families rely on women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other relatives.
As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace around the world - as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled and subjected to violence in and out of their homes - the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.
Let this Conference be our - and the world's - call to action.
And let us heed the call so that we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future.
Thank you very much.
God's blessings on you, your work and all who will benefit from it.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Obama's rhetoric bears little resemblence to his record. He says he was against the war but in 2004 in the New York Times he said his views on the war were close to Bush's at a time when the war was still ok with many Americans and voted 27 times with the u.s. senate to fund and continue the war in Iraq. He says he is for civil rights and yet voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act which took away many of our civil liberty right to privacy . He says he is for the poor and yet voted against a cap for interest rates against predatory lenders.And we know very little about his life.
He says he is against special interests and yet takes millions from major companies like Bank of America and other huge corporations. He says he will work for us but did not show up to vote for 39% of the votes in the 110 congress.
In reality he is a good orator that is nothing more than a typical politician. Rather than doing our homework about the candidates we want an easy fix to a future that holds war, recession, and complex problems and he lulls us into thinking he is our man. Well he is not based on his record. I challenge you all to really study this candidate rather than listening to sound bites from MSNBC, Fox, and CNN. They are the ones Americans count on for information but they have an agenda and are anything but unbiased.
His uplifting rhetoric is empty and his career bears no resembalence to his words.
He says he is against special interests and yet takes millions from major companies like Bank of America and other huge corporations. He says he will work for us but did not show up to vote for 39% of the votes in the 110 congress.
In reality he is a good orator that is nothing more than a typical politician. Rather than doing our homework about the candidates we want an easy fix to a future that holds war, recession, and complex problems and he lulls us into thinking he is our man. Well he is not based on his record. I challenge you all to really study this candidate rather than listening to sound bites from MSNBC, Fox, and CNN. They are the ones Americans count on for information but they have an agenda and are anything but unbiased.
His uplifting rhetoric is empty and his career bears no resembalence to his words.
In researching voting records I found the following:
In the 110 Congress-the most recent congressional record
Obama missed 39% of his votes
Clinton missed 28% of her votes
Both too high but looks like Obama is campaigning much more than he is doing his job. No wonder he is doing so well. Wonder what kind of president that would make?
2/28/08 On the Cloture Motion H.R. 3221
Obama didn't even vote on this bill for energy independence
Obama voting record:
Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation. Cloture Motion Rejected (48-46, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting-Senator Obama
On the Cloture Motion S. 2634
A bill to require a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-3, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting-Senator Obama
We are supporting someone because he speaks well and creates energy.But above where words actually moves into action you can see part of Obamas record. There is no action only words that makes everyone feel good.
But at least he's popular.
In the 110 Congress-the most recent congressional record
Obama missed 39% of his votes
Clinton missed 28% of her votes
Both too high but looks like Obama is campaigning much more than he is doing his job. No wonder he is doing so well. Wonder what kind of president that would make?
2/28/08 On the Cloture Motion H.R. 3221
Obama didn't even vote on this bill for energy independence
Obama voting record:
Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation. Cloture Motion Rejected (48-46, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting-Senator Obama
On the Cloture Motion S. 2634
A bill to require a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-3, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting-Senator Obama
We are supporting someone because he speaks well and creates energy.But above where words actually moves into action you can see part of Obamas record. There is no action only words that makes everyone feel good.
But at least he's popular.
Valedictorian-Wellesley
Yale Law School
Board member-Childrens Defense Fund
Lawyer
First Lady Arkansas-supported Educational reform-mandatory teacher testing-smaller class rooms. Supported and worked on committee for Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting by professionals/committee to get foster children into permanent homes more quickly.
Sponsered the Fair Pay Act
Senator New York-2000-helped families of 9/11 grants for small businesses, helping to secure funds for rebuilding after 9/11
Member of the Senate Arms Committee-supported Legislation in Texas to get health care for the National Guard
Supports middle class tax cuts and taking back the tax cut on the richest 1% of the country that Bush gave them.
Supports cutting tax breaks for oil companies who made record profits in 2007.
Supported Childrens Health Insurance Program, authored legislation that enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs/best pharmaceuticals for childrens act,
She introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.
In the Energy Sector-she supportes an aggressive agenda to stop green house emissions. She supports science and new technology and plans to create 100,000 new jobs in the technology sector.
She has definite structured plans for us which is exactly country needs We need jobs We need to balance the budget. We need to withdraw from Iraq-she has detailed plans not promises.
Yale Law School
Board member-Childrens Defense Fund
Lawyer
First Lady Arkansas-supported Educational reform-mandatory teacher testing-smaller class rooms. Supported and worked on committee for Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting by professionals/committee to get foster children into permanent homes more quickly.
Sponsered the Fair Pay Act
Senator New York-2000-helped families of 9/11 grants for small businesses, helping to secure funds for rebuilding after 9/11
Member of the Senate Arms Committee-supported Legislation in Texas to get health care for the National Guard
Supports middle class tax cuts and taking back the tax cut on the richest 1% of the country that Bush gave them.
Supports cutting tax breaks for oil companies who made record profits in 2007.
Supported Childrens Health Insurance Program, authored legislation that enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs/best pharmaceuticals for childrens act,
She introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.
In the Energy Sector-she supportes an aggressive agenda to stop green house emissions. She supports science and new technology and plans to create 100,000 new jobs in the technology sector.
She has definite structured plans for us which is exactly country needs We need jobs We need to balance the budget. We need to withdraw from Iraq-she has detailed plans not promises.
Before you vote, please make sure YOU know your candidate.
If you take time to fill in the blanks that most of mainstream media leaves out, you'll learn that Obama has been 'missing in action' for a lot of things because he's been too busy inflating his presidential suit:
He was 'missing in action' ...
- from his own state legislative record in Illinois. His entire record was created in ONE YEAR's time, facilitated by Emil Jones Jr.
- from leadership in a host of critical community issues in his own district in Chicago during his State Senate years
summary: http://wonkette.com/361542/barack-obamas-dastardly-rage-and-corruption-revealed
summary:
original article: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/
- by failing in his chairmanship of a Senate subcommittee on Europe to hold a hearing on NATO's presence in Afghanistan
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/29/clinton-obama-missing-in-action/
- from a Senate vote last year on a nonbinding resolution in that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization (Clinton voted for the measure and faced heat from Obama and other Democratic rivals for supporting a measure pushed by the Bush administration.)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/29/clinton-obama-missing-in-action/
- at the Black State of the Union address in New Orleans last week
Obama takes heat for skipping State of the Black Union
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/
- at a "controversal" photo op
“As God Is My Witness”: Obama Snubs Newsom, Gays (article at noquarterusa.net)
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/29/as-god-is-my-witness-obama-snubs-newsom
"Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position."
http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com/
If you take time to fill in the blanks that most of mainstream media leaves out, you'll learn that Obama has been 'missing in action' for a lot of things because he's been too busy inflating his presidential suit:
He was 'missing in action' ...
- from his own state legislative record in Illinois. His entire record was created in ONE YEAR's time, facilitated by Emil Jones Jr.
- from leadership in a host of critical community issues in his own district in Chicago during his State Senate years
summary: http://wonkette.com/361542/barack-obamas-dastardly-rage-and-corruption-revealed
summary:
original article: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/
- by failing in his chairmanship of a Senate subcommittee on Europe to hold a hearing on NATO's presence in Afghanistan
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/29/clinton-obama-missing-in-action/
- from a Senate vote last year on a nonbinding resolution in that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization (Clinton voted for the measure and faced heat from Obama and other Democratic rivals for supporting a measure pushed by the Bush administration.)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/29/clinton-obama-missing-in-action/
- at the Black State of the Union address in New Orleans last week
Obama takes heat for skipping State of the Black Union
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/
- at a "controversal" photo op
“As God Is My Witness”: Obama Snubs Newsom, Gays (article at noquarterusa.net)
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/29/as-god-is-my-witness-obama-snubs-newsom
"Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position."
http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com/
Senator Clinton has supported the following bills for Texas:
sponsered and supported 350,000 Texas children to have medical health insurance
Helped and supported the bill to 21,000 national guard to have access to medical care.
supported the bill to get $28 million to train more teachers in Texas.
That is the kind of support Texas needs.
Action not rhetoric
Senator Clinton-support her candidacy
sponsered and supported 350,000 Texas children to have medical health insurance
Helped and supported the bill to 21,000 national guard to have access to medical care.
supported the bill to get $28 million to train more teachers in Texas.
That is the kind of support Texas needs.
Action not rhetoric
Senator Clinton-support her candidacy
I please ask all people to search their very core belief systems. The sexist news media has broken my heart in this country. It is important-it tells us what we truly believe about women and about the prejudice that is still rampant. I ask you to Vote for a person because of their stand on issues and their resume not rhetoric and promises. Please the issues are too important to sweep the candidates resumes under the rug.We must vote for the candidate who has the resume not one who says they WILL have the resume.I ask you all to be fair to look at the flaws and strengths of both candidates. Below is part of the resume for Obama. It is not mud. It is facts on where he actually has voted on issues. Use that type of information when you vote not vague feelings and to be on the popular side. Historically when that has happened, cultures usually deteriorate they do not improve. Obama is charasmatic but make no mistake he is a politician first and fore most. Senator Clinton is a politician that has proven herself with her record.
By the way she did vote for the war. Obama wasn't around to vote. But he did vote over 20 times to fund and reauthorize the war when he got in the u.s senate. He is not forthright on his record.
This is the excerpt:
Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.
Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here's why:
This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.
But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.
THE WAR IN IRAQ
Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.
First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation " a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”
Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.
Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.
And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.
And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?
Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.
At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which includes “striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.” What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to “redeploy” the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.
This is hardly a position to get excited about.
CLASS ACTION REFORM:
In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.
By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers.”
Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: “On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions " most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations " all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work "off the clock," four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide.”
Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?
CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:
Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.
Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.
Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.
LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:
These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.
In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.
MINING LAW OF 1872:
In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.
The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.
Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News “Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him,” November 14, 2007).
REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:
The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.
The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate” by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:
"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."
As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: “Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”
ENERGY POLICY:
On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t “green” according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. “It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)
So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capitol of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.
SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:
Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:
Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: “In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers.”
Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as “pole-vaulting” over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid “right to organize,” “minimum wage,” and other worker protections.
SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:
On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.
Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)
Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)
On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.
It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.
Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president (“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words “I’m amazed at Democrats … cowering with this president’s number’s so low.” Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.
CONCLUSION:
Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.
I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.
Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
By the way she did vote for the war. Obama wasn't around to vote. But he did vote over 20 times to fund and reauthorize the war when he got in the u.s senate. He is not forthright on his record.
This is the excerpt:
Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.
Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here's why:
This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.
But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.
THE WAR IN IRAQ
Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.
First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation " a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”
Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.
Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.
And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.
And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?
Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.
At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which includes “striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.” What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to “redeploy” the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.
This is hardly a position to get excited about.
CLASS ACTION REFORM:
In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.
By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers.”
Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: “On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions " most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations " all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work "off the clock," four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide.”
Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?
CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:
Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.
Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.
Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.
LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:
These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.
In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.
MINING LAW OF 1872:
In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.
The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.
Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News “Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him,” November 14, 2007).
REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:
The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.
The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate” by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:
"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."
As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: “Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”
ENERGY POLICY:
On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t “green” according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. “It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)
So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capitol of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.
SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:
Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:
Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: “In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers.”
Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as “pole-vaulting” over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid “right to organize,” “minimum wage,” and other worker protections.
SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:
On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.
Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)
Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)
On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.
It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.
Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president (“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words “I’m amazed at Democrats … cowering with this president’s number’s so low.” Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.
CONCLUSION:
Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.
I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.
Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
Page 1 of 2
| Next
Posts By Month
Posts
