©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

by ShallowHal
SavagePolitics.com Contributor
(ShallowHal is the ORIGINAL AUTHOR of the now famous “Barack Obama’s LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES”)

INTRODUCTION

A warning should be issued, right here, and right now. What I am about to tell you could hurt you. It could set you free. It could be told in a way you might not like or respect. It could be all of these things and a few you never wanted to know.

In your Divided House there exists a paper thin weakness, a figure behind a curtain, with feet of clay, living only for the hour because tomorrow may never come. The soft underbelly your Champion harbors in hopeful oblivion exists, I and many others, together, have seen it. There are just too few of us. We know what it fears, for we are ‘The Sword’. It has it’s Achilles Heel, this Body Politic, if one only knows where to look. But to look requires the opening of one’s eyes. And yes, it could be awful. That is why I’ve warned you.

Nothing ever worth knowing is easy and this is no different. I need you to see. I need you to think. I need you to understand where I am coming from. But first you must understand who I am because if you cannot recognize me, there is no point in us going any further. So allow me to introduce myself - my name is Truth.

By definition I am simple. TRUTH: 1. the true or actual state of a matter; 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement; 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle; 4. the state or character of being true; 5. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; 6. honesty; integrity; truthfulness; 7. (capitalized first letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.

So as you can see, I can be many things but I cannot be controverted. I can weather opinions but am never changed by them. No matter the twisting of the wind or the shade of the glass, the sky is still blue and the grass is still green, and a version of the truth is only true if unchanged.

So this brings me to my portrait, the one I am about to paint. It is mine, and yet others have drawn the same conclusion. It has taken years for this picture to ‘expose’ itself, but just a month and a day, for me to paint the image, that I have discovered was not in my mind alone. But this is not a reproduction; this is not an opinion. After all, I am Truth, am I not? So I must tell you the image is real; it is set. This portrait is more Dorian Gray, knife in canvas, then Dorian Gray, young illusionist, misleading his audience, while hiding from the world his sins behind a curtain. Indeed, this is the Dorian Gray found on the floor, horrible to look upon, but undeniably him.

THE TRUTH VS. BARACK OBAMA

* * *
CHARGE 1 – “The March on Selma got me born.”

EVIDENCE - Senator Obama was born August 4th, 1961. The march on Selma began March 7th, 1965. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2

COUNTER CLAIM – Senator Obama was talking about the general movement, not specifically about Selma.

REBUTTTAL – Senator Obama was in Selma, Alabama, before a mostly AA crowd at the Brown Chapel AME Church on March 4th, 2007. He clearly stated “because some folks were willing to march across a bridge . . . they (his parents) got together, and Barack Obama, Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama!” Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961. The first march on Selma, Alabama occurred on March 7, 1965.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 2 – “My father was just a simple, impoverished goat herder.”

EVIDENCE – Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a privileged, well educated youth, who’s tribal family owned and controlled all tribal land. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3

COUNTER CLAIM – He was poor to start off with, he only became an educated and successful man later in life.

REBUTTAL – Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was privileged from the moment of his birth. Being born into the powerful tribe of the Luo, he was graced with an ‘upper class’ lifestyle. He later would go on to be ‘Big Man’ of the tribe and work as a Senior Economist in the Kenyan Government.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 3 – “My father believed in the ‘power of the people’. I believe in the ‘power of the people’.”

EVIDENCE – Senator Obama has often stated that his ‘father’s attributes’ are ones that he has sought in his own life. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was part of a corrupt Kenyan government in the 1960s. He believed in taking land from it’s owners and taxation up to 100%, ‘if benefits’ were ‘commensurate to their income’. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2

COUNTER CLAIM – What does it matter what Senator Obama’s father believed in?

REBUTTAL– Senator Obama portrays himself as a ‘new politician’ with a ‘new way’ of getting things done. Senator Obama has stated, “I did feel that there was something to prove . . . to my father.” Senator Obama also stated further, in his book Dreams Of My Father, “It was into my father’s image . . . that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.” His father’s ‘attributes’ included ‘100% taxation’ and repossession of land and property against the will of the rightful owner. Thus seeking the ‘favor’ of his father, and using his father’s ‘attributes’ as a model, Senator Obama therefore must maintain similar ideals and respect for ‘the people’. How these ‘policies’ are an example of ‘belief in power of the people’ is obviously highly questionable.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 4 - “My family has strong ties to ‘African freedom’.”

EVIDENCE - Raila Odinga committed genocide while attempting to overturn the 2007 Kenyan elections. Senator Obama and Raila Odinga are first cousins. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2 , SOURCE 3

COUNTER CLAIM – What does it matter what Senator Obama’s African relatives do in Africa?

REBUTTAL – Senator Obama campaigned for his cousin while on a visit to said country. Senator Obama claims a distinct debt to his familial ties, painting them in a light that is downright revisionist.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 5 - “President Kennedy rescued my father from Kenyan obscurity and airlifted him to the American Dream.”

EVIDENCE – Senator Obama’s father came in September 1960, while EISENHOWER was President. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2

COUNTER CLAIM – But his father did come to the U.S. so what is the big deal?

REBUTTAL – Senator Obama misrepresents historical events. No speech by President John F. Kennedy brought Senator Obama’s father to the U.S. in 1960. John F. Kennedy was not President in 1960, Dwight D. Eisenhower was President. The Senator is attempting to subtly equate himself with J.F.K., subconsciously implying he would be a similar President. Senator Obama, you are no Jack Kennedy.

VERDICT - SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 6 - “My Kenyan Grandmother has always been a Christian.”

EVIDENCE - Senator Obama’s Grandmother’s own interviews contradict this statement. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2

COUNTER CLAIM – What does it matter what Senator Obama’s African relatives do?

REBUTTAL –It goes to a person’s character and willingness to evade, distort, or rewrite history. Senator Obama’s Grandmother does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews (per Islamic law). Not to mention, Christianity does not allow for a woman to be one of 14 wives to 1 man. Senator Obama’s use of his Grandmother as an example of how ‘Christian’ his family is, in order to counter accusations of secretly being a Muslim, sustains the idea that the Senator is deliberately distorting the truth to cover-up associations and ‘fatherly attributes’ that he knows are problematic to his election, should he be forthcoming about them. His decision to make statements patently false in order to propagate a more ‘electable’ image speaks not only to his character but to his judgment. Distortions or edits to evidence that wholly misrepresent the truth is dishonest.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 7 - “My first name (Barack) is not Arabic - it is Swahili.”

EVIDENCE – Senator Obama’s name is Arabic in origin, not Swahili. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3, Columnist Says Barack Obama ‘Lied To The American People;’ Asks Publisher to Withdraw Obama’s Book, NEW YORK, Aug. 10 /PRNewswire/

COUNTER CLAIM - What does it matter where Senator Obama’s name originates?

REBUTTAL - If the origin of his name doesn’t matter, then why publicly lie about it? There is no transliteration between the alphabets of Arabic and Swahili. The Africanized derivative of the Arabic ‘Baraka’ is Barack, but the origin and source is entirely Arabic. Senator Obama again distorts the facts in an attempt to distance himself from associations he deems politically inexpedient. Senator Obama’s middle name, Hussein, is also Arabic. Naturally, so is the Senator’s last name, Obama.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 8 - “I never practiced Islam.”

EVIDENCE – Senator Obama practiced Islam daily at Meteng Primary school, where he was registered as a Muslim. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3

COUNTER CLAIM - What does it matter whether Senator Obama practiced Islam as a child?

REBUTTAL – If there is no importance to the fact that Senator Obama practiced Islam as a child, then what is the motivation for lying about it publicly? Indonesia requires students to study religion. Barry Soetoro was registered as a Muslim at the Meteng Primary School. One cannot participate in any studies within a Madrassa without practicing Islam.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 9 - “My school in Indonesia was Christian.”

EVIDENCE – Senator Obama was registered as a Muslim at Meteng Primary School. The school offered Christian classes as well. Barry Soetoro did not attend them. He later spent 2 years in a Catholic school SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2

COUNTER CLAIM - What does it matter that Senator Obama’s school was Islamic or Catholic?

REBUTTAL - Again, If there is no importance to the fact that Senator Obama practiced Islam as a child, then what is the motivation for lying about it publicly? Indonesia requires all students to study religion. Barry Soetoro was enrolled as a Muslim at the Menteng Primary School where he studied among other subjects, Islam. In 1969 Barry attended a Catholic School. This is the only schooling Senator Obama discusses, thus Meteng has been somewhat covered up. Why one would ask? The only conclusion that can be drawn from this scenario is that Senator Obama lied about this school and its subject matter for political expediency. In later comments the Senator stated he did not attend an Islamic school, but in his book “Dreams Of My Father” he states that he ‘got in trouble for making faces in Koranic studies’ and was disciplined by his mother. One would ask how many Catholic students remember being taught the Koran by their nuns.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 10 - “I am fluent in Indonesian.”

EVIDENCE - Not one teacher says that Senator Obama could speak the language at the time. SOURCE 1, (Kirsten Scharnberg and Kim Barker, “The Not-So-Simple Story Of Barack Obama’s Youth,” Chicago Tribune)

COUNTER CLAIM - What does it matter that Senator Obama can’t speak fluent Indonesian?

REBUTTAL - YET AGAIN, if it does not matter, what is the motivation for lying about it publicly? Apparently we are to infer, by Senator Obama’s supposed “fluency” in Indonesian, that he is very sophisticated and experienced in “foreign affairs”. Perhaps Senator Obama feels that grade school French and Spanish qualifies most U.S. students as UN diplomats.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR

* * *

* * *

CHARGE 11 - “I lived in Indonesia. I have more foreign experience than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.”

EVIDENCE - Senator Obama lived in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3

COUNTER CLAIM - Living in a foreign country is a much more in-depth experience than just visiting one.

REBUTTAL - To imply that living in a foreign country, for 4 years as a child, is equitable to official trips representing the U.S. Government is completely without merit. Also, implying that it also equates to receiving classified information and studying these subjects with personal political experience is quite ludicrous to say the least.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 12 - “My foreign travels and life experience better qualify me to address our nation’s closest Allies.”

EVIDENCE - Except for Africa and Middle Eastern Muslim countries, Senator Obama has never been anywhere else in the world. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2

COUNTER CLAIM - The Middle East is an important area and so is Africa.

REBUTTAL - Indeed it is, but that is not what Senator Obama was arguing in this statement. He categorically stated he would be better qualified to meet with our nation’s ‘closest’ allies. Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Kenya, and Iraq can hardly be considered America’s ‘closest’ allies. Implying visits to 7 countries in nearly 47 years (4 of which were in his youth) is somehow equitable to visiting 80 countries in 18 years, (as has his opponent, Senator Clinton, in various official governmental capacities) is completely dishonest.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 13 - “I was ethnically confused, that is why I used drugs.”

EVIDENCE – Fellow classmates describe racial tensions and meetings discussing such issues. Barry Obama was not in attendance. SOURCE 1, (Kirsten Scharnberg and Kim Barker, “The Not-So-Simple Story Of Barack Obama’s Youth,” Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07), Dreams From My Father, pages 93-94.

COUNTER CLAIM - He admitted to using drugs in his youth. So what?

REBUTTAL - Either Senator Obama’s family was to be idealized and their ‘attributes’ incorporated into his life to assist with his success, or his family’s ambiguity, and latent racism drove him to drug use. Either the first is a false reality, or the second, but they cannot both be correct.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 14 - “I understand what it is to be an African American.”

EVIDENCE – Senator Obama is not African American according to U.S. Law. Senator Obama is an Arab-American according to U.S. Law. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3

COUNTER CLAIM - Senator Obama’s father is from Kenya (Black African) and he (Obama) was born in America. How can you say he is not African American?

REBUTTAL – Senator Obama’s racial background consists of the following: 50% white (mother, both sides), 43.25% Arabic (father, both sides), and 6.25% African Negro (father, one side, 1 generation removed). 12.5% is the legal threshold one must prove to claim racial status under the law. In addition, Senator Obama cannot make a sociological claim as an African American either. He was not raised as an African American, was not raised by African Americans, and was not raised in an African American neighborhood.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 15 - “I was an underprivileged youth.”

EVIDENCE – Senator Obama attended prep schools and later on went to Harvard Law. His Grandparents were wealthy bankers and his Step-father was an Oil Executive. His mother was also a P.H.D.. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3

COUNTER CLAIM - He went to school on a scholarship and had to use food stamps to survive.

REBUTTAL - From the ages of 2 – 6, Senator Obama was raised by his wealthy, grandparents. From the ages of 6 – 10, Senator Obama was raised by his mother and his step-father who was an Oil Executive in Indonesia; from the age of 10 until his early adulthood, Senator Obama was living again with his wealthy grandparents, one of which was the Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii. Senator Obama has attended prep schools like Occidental College, paid for by HIS FAMILY. He then went on to Harvard, the State Senate of Illinois, and the U.S. Senate.

VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

This is merely the framework of the portrait; there is more to the image on the canvas then first meets the eye. It’s details await examination. ‘Inside’ you will find magazine articles that never existed, Not-So-Universal healthcare, bill-jacked legislation, the promise not to run for office in 2008, ‘Present’ votes, ‘Oops’ votes, Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Meeks, Farrakhan, Khalidi, Auchi, Palmer, Michigan, Florida, Guns, Exelon, Lobbyists, PAC Bundlers, Big Oil, SubPrime, Passports, NAFTA, FARC, Altgeld, Caucuses and Classmates, Trinity and Terrorism, Bitter, Typical White People, Flag Pins and Anthems, Investment Conflicts and Un-proud, Overpaid Wives. For starters.

Follow the link - and down the rabbit hole you go . . .

http://savagepolitics.com/?page_id=326

 

©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

Much has been already discussed about Barack Obama’s disturbing associations with a domestic terrorist (Ayers), to a prominent Palestinian advocate of suicide bombings (Khalidi), a corrupt Iraqi billionaire (Auchi), a sleazy personal fundraiser and mafioso (Rezko), and to his own genocidal maniac of a cousin from Kenya (Odinga), for whom Obama led a “positive” campaign effort to achieve his “election” a few years back. As many of us know, Obama’s camp has recently taken a defensive stance and have dedicated countless hours to spread the word around the internet that these issues are “irrelevant” to a Presidential campaign and that bringing them up are thus a full exemplification of “dirty politics”. All of this has been done while simultanously stating that John McCain would be a third term for George W. Bush because he is “associated” with him by being a member of the same party, thus implying “similar” ideological beliefs (a sound argument without a doubt, unless it applies to Obama, or so they wish to convey).

Obama’s rhetoric for the last month has been that McCain offers an identical vision for our Nation as the clearly failed one of George W. Bush, therefore making the case that he (Obama) is the only candidate who would represent a real change to our current ‘quagmire’. But all of this appears to have changed yesterday, at least for a few seconds.

Speaking at a Town Hall meeting at Reading High School in Pennsylvania, Obama said to the crowd: “You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain. And all three of us would be better than George Bush.” Obviously undercutting his own (and the Democratic Party’s) argument against McCain, he nonetheless continued arguing: “but what you have to ask yourself is, who has the chance to actually, really change things in a fundamental way?”

As could have been imagined, Obama’s comments quickly fueled another controversy, as they obviously underscored his prior statements regarding McCain’s candidacy, and they simultaneously ridiculed plenty of his own supporters who have been trying to make the opposite case throughout this election, “screaming” throughout the airwaves that only “their candidate” represents a change from Bush.

Obama, on the other hand, has not retracted from his ‘praiseful’ statements and instead has tried to put them behind him by going back to his original campaign message against the Republican nominee. This he did by continuing his campaign dogma a bit later on the same day: “We are going to bring an end to the George Bush era, his name won’t be on the ballot {but} one name that will be on the ballot is John McCain!” To make the case even stronger, he restated that: “The problem is that he’s {McCain} running for George Bush’s third term.”

The obvious irony here is hard to evade, and it once again raises many questions about the integrity of a candidate that seems to be criticizing “associations” as a weak measure of an individual’s beliefs, but then goes right ahead and makes the exact same case against his opponent (new politics?). Then, to make matters worse, he makes the dull-witted error of undercutting his own argument by stating the idea that no matter who is elected, it will clearly be a departure from George W. Bush.

What remains of Obama’s original case in favor of his Democratic nomination?

He has already proven to be highly unelectable, he has demonstrated to be so “far Left” as to virtually destroy his original contention that he would “bring the Country together”, and has personally made enough racially insensitive statements (the “typical white people” remark, and his 20 year attendance to Trinity) to destroy his aim of appearing as “post racial”. Now, to comically add insult to injury, he has given additional fodder to the Republicans to use against him and to prep up their own campaign, something that Clinton herself may have done before, but only within the context of berating her opponent, without poking holes in her entire political argument (experience, etc).

Will these statements disturb enough of Obama’s own supporters to at least push them into openly criticizing him for adding another flop to the already big list of previous boneheaded misstatements (bad judgment?), or will they once again claim that this was another simple mistake? All of this, we must understand, comes from a man who is not only trained in the art of speaking and utilizing words to reach settlements (attorney), but from one who has founded his whole premise of being qualified to lead our Nation, in his supposed ability to “inspire” people with WORDS.

A McCain spokesman rapidly responded to Obama comments: “The remark underscores that John McCain has the strength to change America and move this nation forward. Barack Obama is a new face who represents old ideas.”

©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

As it was expected, Barack Obama and his supporters have dedicated plenty of time to whine and complain about the supposedly unfair treatment that their candidate received from ABC in it’s debate. The claim of most of these characters (and the rest of the Mainstream Media) is that “the issues” were not discussed and instead “petty and irrelevant” subjects like flag pins, Rev. Wright, bitter comments, and his association with a domestic terrorist were given importance in their stead. Apparently, these countless months of campaigning and dozens of debates were not enough for Obama’s followers to already figure out what his (and Clinton’s) policies are. It seems, we have arrived at a new political tradition in this Country, were we believe every single proposal that a politician sends our way, without ever questioning a single aspect of it. Suddenly, we are supposed to throw away thousands of years of accumulated knowledge “out the window”, and instead accept the subjects that a campaign establishes for us, discarding any information that might give us a clue as to who these people really are.

What this uproar demonstrates is that our modern culture has become so enamored with receiving predigested information, that they readily prefer when a candidate gives them their prearranged proposals and talking points, than when they actually have to go through the “trouble” of placing any of them in an unwelcoming forum to see how they fare amongst their countless lies and verbal gymnastics.

Are we to believe that what matters in a candidate is not how he chose to identify himself, nor how he defines his ideological perspectives, nor the background that formed said ideas, not the people who chose to finance him, nor the networks that the candidate decided were important enough to merit his attention, but instead a copy of their campaign’s published proposals? Would it be preferable that we just sit back and expect our candidates to willingly disclose all of their unwholesome past? Do we expect them to openly make public any information that might somehow prove that they have horrendous judgment?

Apparently, the same people who are complaining about wanting to hear “the issues”, forget that George W. Bush also had “great issues” to discuss. He was, after all, the candidate who claimed that learning about his sordid past with alcohol and cocaine were mere “distractions” from the “real” aspects of his “mission”, which included “compassionate conservative” measures and a polished but “populist” approach. Bush also claimed that matters so “trivial” as his inability to communicate appropriately were inconsequential to his ability to become President. Bush often stated that discussing his apparent “baling out” from serving in the Vietnam War was irrelevant to the character that had “shook him for the better” when he found Christ. Never mind the fact that he had always lied about how and with whom he converted into an evangelical believer, and that he had (and has) never sent any of his own daughters to a “born again” function or church. But the Media told us that what was important were not the “negative details”, but the overall fact that he HAD become a better Christian. Ironically, many of his supporters also argued that Bush’s friendliness with the Saudi royal family was “guilt by association” and that it was thus “silly” to bring up. What did it matter that Bush had gone to Yale thanks to his family name? Who cared if he ran to the ground all of the companies that he administered before becoming a governor?

Was it a distraction to fully understand his personal dynamic with his father and younger brother (the fact that Bush was already being “skipped” as the new ‘pater familia’)? Did these aspects in the penumbra of George W. Bush tell us anything important about the type of individual that he was (and is)? (Please read the book: “The Bush Tragedy”–which you can find at the end of this article through the Amazon link–for many of these answers.)

History has demonstrated that these “side issues” do tell us plenty about a leader. If we had only given full credence to these aspects of a candidate in the past, we would not be in this current mess. Just like it happened in the era of fascism in Europe, Americans have been manipulated into thinking that details about a politicians past misgivings, associations, and friendly relations (even if they are with countless unsavory individuals) are somehow “petty” and unimportant. Never mind the fact that what determines how a President responds in a crisis is directly related to who he is. Or that psychology teaches us that all of the experiences and decisions that a person has made in his life shape his ability to become a good or bad leader of a Nation.

Today, Americans prefer the popular “whine game”, which involves complaining ONLY after they have elected an incompetent buffoon to our highest office. Americans have somehow decided (with the Media’s help) that they will only judge a President’s character AFTER they have made the dumb mistake of electing him (just like they did with Bush when they berated his reaction to the 9/11 attacks).

In an almost comical and pathetic naivety, the American people seem to be honestly expecting our politicians to suddenly come out in public and say: “Look, I have a crass inferiority complex that I will thus ventilate within my executive post. I will probably become randomly belligerent, invade an Asian Nation, appoint many of my unqualified personal friends (the one you say don’t matter) to key posts within my administration, suppress freedom of speech, and then dedicate the rest of my term to convince you that I was not that bad of a President.” Although that may sound silly, the logical consequence of the current attitude towards “discussing the issues without the pettiness” leads to said incoherent expectations.

The truth is, that politicians will only discuss the issues that they feel are best suited to sell their ‘case’ for election. Thus, you have a lot of “we will bring new jobs”, “we will keep you safe”, “we will give health care to everyone”, “we will educate your kids”, etc. But these are not REAL issues, they are well elaborated and developed advertisements. They are simply empty ideas that cannot come into fruition without the consent of congress and those who are charged with executing said policies. At the end of this charade, what DOES matter is the character of these individuals.

Whether or not these individuals are insane, whether or not they have a history of drug use, whether they are mentally unstable, whether they have a record of being HIGHLY dishonest (if we remove dishonesty we can’t have a president), whether or not they have a sordid familial past (like Bush), whether they have exchanged recipes with Jeffrey Dahmer, whether they have received campaign contributions from anti-American lunatics, and even the “petty” factor of whether or not they have ever had a Nazi flag in their bedroom, is crucial to understand a candidate’s ability (and justification) to run our lives (and determine our future) for 4 or more years.

It is not because these things necessarily entail “negatives” or “positives”, since this is a factor that only a voter should decide, but because they tell us a great deal about a person, and because they definitely reveal a lot more about who they are than what their supposed “policy ideas” are willing to expose. How a person chooses to carry himself, the people that he/she CHOOSES to acquire as friends and to include in his personal and political circle, define his moral and philosophical values.

As Americans, we should know better than to allow any political salesman to tell us what his “morals” or “plans” are when he gets elected, without the logical desire to investigate and question said person about his past and present. Knowing about a candidate’s “associations” is crucial for the basic purpose of understanding how he/she views the world. Blindly accepting what a campaign has published, which was written by hundreds of unseen interns, is not only very immature but dangerous to our National existence. We have already seen the consequences of “brushing off” important aspects of our current President’s past, friends and associations. If we do the same with ANY of these candidates, we will surely deserve what we get, and I can assure you that the consequences will be worse this time around.

©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

Most Americans tend to respond negatively to anyone who informs them that they have been submitting themselves and their children to an aggressive and coordinated campaign of political and cultural indoctrination by the American Mainstream Media. The concept of such a ‘thing’ simply does not sound real nor ‘becoming’ of a “free citizen”, and thus it is easily brushed off by most people as simple “paranoia”.

The reaction is quite similar to the one I get when I tell people that when they purchase a Saab, a Corvette, or a Cadillac, they are basically buying the same vehicle, since these brands are all owned by General Motors. The same goes for acquiring a Lamborghini and a ‘Beetle’ (both owned by Volkswagen Group) or a Ford Taurus and S-Type Jaguar (which are basically the EXACT same car under the hood). Most members of our populace simply enjoy the illusion of independence and personal choice, even if it is simply a hoax by the auto industry to make them feel comfortable about their personal prospects (and choices). Nonetheless, without this important knowledge about a vehicle’s internal characteristics (and source), it would be quite difficult to make an intelligent decision when purchasing an automibile. This same principle applies to the important understanding that our Media is not “objective” or “independent” but instead completely subservient to their owners, who just so happen to be only a minute group of our own citizens.

If you knew that the History Channel is basically owned by the same people that own and produce MSNBC (General Electric), or that the same companies that control CNN and MTV (Time Warner and VIACOM respectively) also control Comedy Central, your viewing experience (and patronage) of these channels would be slightly modified. As an example, there have been many times in my young life when I have watched the Biography Channel (owned by GE and Disney) and have clearly noticed drastic misrepresentations of history and/or fact, all because the CEO of their parent company has a personal perspective on those historic events (or wishes his viewers to have a particular one). I have also watched how many documentaries blatantly mischaracterize a particular historical video image by allowing you to assume that what you are watching is something else (a good example is when, in some WW2 reels, they continuously show SOVIET soldiers–wearing Soviet uniforms–executing civilians while the commentary during it’s showing is relating a story about the violence of NAZI soldiers–they do that in the inverse as well–).

What is ironic but pathetic about our current circumstance is the fact that we (as a population) have become so enamored with our own ignorance, that we have ended up accepting what we are fed, as long as it is already comfortably digested for us. The lies and outright biases that many have recently observed during this election (for the first time and against or in favor of the candidate to which they have donated and supported) extends far beyond their particular ‘News coverage’ puppets (pundits). It actually continues through all of their other domains with which they enjoy selling the illusion of choice, dissent and independence. Their outright lies and deceit have become so obvious and blatant that we must presume that they fully comprehend the utter naiveness and feeblemindedness of the majority of their consumers.

If you think that watching a movie about Malcolm X in HBO and/or later on noticing that the airing of a History Channel documentary about the perils of White racism in the 40’s was simply “coinciding” with the whole Rev. Jeremiah Wright Controversy, you are sadly mistaken. These programming schedules are executed in a coordinated fashion, and that is why you will see that when there is a particular political agenda being pushed through one medium, the whole entertainment world seems to suddenly get into the “bus” and begin to give their own “opinion” on the matter. As an additional example, when most of these same companies decided that the War in Iraq was not “politically expedient”, you clearly noticed how “suddenly” most channels on our TV followed suit with documentaries about the perils of Vietnam, the horrors of war, and you could even view how Hollywood suddenly began to release dozens of films about Iraq and the suffering of our soldiers, etc. The exact same thing happened when they actually SUPPORTED the same war, in which they also inundated our airwaves with a massive array of documentaries and War Glorifying reruns like Iwo Jima and Saving Private Ryan, which were placed on loop 24/7 in Cinemax, et al.

All is not necessarily lost, we still have the internet and the ability to think independently, but NOT without first understanding and KNOWING about who is dominating your mind and your emotions. Will we ever know if most Americans are FOR or AGAINST the current war because of our own convictions or because we saw a bunch of “analysis”, “documentaries”, and movies about War (in positive and negative lights) which persuaded us otherwise, depending on THE MEDIA’S mood? Are we allowing ourselves to think critically, away from what these “Editors in Chief” behind these Corporate desks are deciding for us?

Understand that these same entities are now scavenging the Internet in search of blogs and independent periodicals into which they can sink their teeth in and finally dominate as well. Understand that we are now experiencing something that may not exist in a decade; INDEPENDENT MEDIA. If we don’t all work to make sure this does not happen, we will all be collectively thrust into the pile of drones that are today slowly walking to their intellectual graves.

The list bellow will basically give you an overview of which companies own what and to what extent these 6 to 7 ‘giants’ have dominated (and continue to dominate) your entertainment and political coverage:

GENERAL ELECTRIC –(donated to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign and is now donating to Barack Obama through their corporate officers)

GE/NBC’s ranks No. 1 on the Forbes 500. Prior to its merger with NBC and an alliance with Microsoft, GE specialized in electronics. The peacock owns many New York sports team. It also owns or has equity stakes in many popular websites, including Snap.com and iVillage.

Television Holdings:
* NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.
* NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
* CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
The “MS” in MSNBC
means microsoft
The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected.

Other Holdings:
* GE Consumer Electronics.
* GE Power Systems: produces turbines for nuclear reactors and power plants.
* GE Plastics: produces military hardware and nuclear power equipment.
* GE Transportation Systems: runs diesel and electric trains.

==================================================

WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC.
{Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than: Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group)}

Television Holdings:
* CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
* CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
* Country Music Television, The Nashville Network, 2 regional sports networks.
* Group W Satellite Communications.
Other Holdings:
* Westinghouse Electric Company: provides services to the nuclear power industry.
* Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company: disposes of nuclear and hazardous wastes. Also operates 4 government-owned nuclear power plants in the US.
* Energy Systems: provides nuclear power plant design and maintenance.

================================================================

VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.
Viacom’s purchase of Paramount, CBS and Blockbuster Video enables them to use cable, television, movies, comic books, theme parks, music publishing and book publishing to cross-market their products. Broadcasting alone brings in over $6 billion in revenues.

Television Holdings:
* Paramount Television, Spelling Television, MTV, VH-1, Showtime, The Movie Channel, UPN (joint owner), Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Sundance Channel (joint owner), Flix.
* 20 major market US stations.
Media Holdings:
* Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, Blockbuster Video, Famous Players Theatres, Paramount Parks.
* Simon & Schuster Publishing.

=============================================

DISNEY / ABC / CAP
With its 1995 merger with Capital Cities/ABC, Disney has become a fully-integrated media giant. In addition to its theme parks, the company profits from retail outlets, magazines, book publishers, websites, motion pictures, sports teams, TV, cable, radio, music and newspapers.

Television Holdings:
* ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
* ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
* ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
* Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.
Media Holdings:
* Miramax, Touchtone Pictures.
* Magazines: Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, W, Discover.
* 3 music labels, 11 major local newspapers.
* Hyperion book publishers.
* Infoseek Internet search engine (43%).
Other Holdings:
* Sid R. Bass (major shares) crude oil and gas.
* All Disney Theme Parks, Walt Disney Cruise Lines.

======================================================

TIME-WARNER TBS - AOL
The largest media corporation in the world, Time Warner owns film and music production companies, theme parks, sports teams, magazines, websites and book publishers as well as Turner Broadcasting. America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.

Television Holdings:
* CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
* Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
Media Holdings:
* HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
* Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world’s largest music company.
* 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
Other Holdings:
* Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling.

=======================================================

NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch)
CEO Rupert Murdoch’s style has inspired respect and fear, and it has also made his multinational ventures in publishing, television and satellite services very successful. The company owns 20th Century Fox, the New York Post, the London Times, TV Guide, many stadiums, the LA Dodgers and five New York sports teams.

Television Holdings:
* Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households.
* Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and News Broadcasting, Japan (80%).
* The Golf Channel (33%).
MEDIA HOLDINGS:
* Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight.
* 132 newspapers (113 in Australia alone) including the New York Post, the London Times and The Australian.
* 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard.
* HarperCollins books.
OTHER HOLDINGS:
* Sports: LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, National Rugby League.
* Ansett Australia airlines, Ansett New Zealand airlines.

Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA)

=======================================================

“NEW PLAYER” on the scene: AT&T (TCI)
Recently acquired by AT&T, TCI’s hold on cable, internet and local phone services contributed to $7.6 billion in 1997 revenues. TCI is the second-largest US cable television system provider, and it has 10% ownership of Time-Warner/Turner.

Television Holdings:

The company owns all or part of USA Network, Sci-Fi Network, E!, Court TV, Starz! and Starz! 2, Black Entertainment Television, BET on Jazz, BET Movies/Starz! 3, CNN, TNT, Headline News, Prime Sports Channel, The Learning Channel, Discovery Channel, QVC, Q2, Fox Sports Net, The Travel Channel, Prevue Channel, Animal Planet, The Box, Telemundo, International Channel, Encore, MSG Network, Action Pay-per-view, and the Home Shopping Network.

©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

*(from left to right) William Ayers, Barack Obama, Tarif Khalidi*

Last night’s ABC debate was the first official “beating” that Barack Obama has ever received from a MAINSTREAM news-network. It’s moderators finally asked tough questions to both candidates and forced them to be as honest as possible about their answers. The reason I label it a “beating” is because, most of Obama’s supporters have never had to experience their candidate facing tough questions about issues related to his OBVIOUS unelectability in November.

The night started with a discussion of Obama’s “bitter” comments, which refer to a speech that he gave a week ago to a group of billionaire fundraisers (in a private meeting), that small town people “cling to guns and religion to explain their frustrations”. Once again, Obama tried to defend his statements by saying that although he “chose his words poorly”, the basic message of his statements was true. Similar to his previous controversies, Obama seems unwilling to ever admit to a substantive mistake, and is only willing to go as far as acknowledging “technical” mistakes in speaking, something that is quite dishonest when it comes from any attorney, specially if they graduated from Harvard Law.

Another interesting aspect of the debate was the fact that they dedicated a lot of time to Obama’s association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Once again, Obama made the fantastical claim that he was “never there when those types of comments were preached” and assured his supporters that he doesn’t approve of them. One telling moment in this exchange came when he mistakenly stated that he had “disowned” Wright, at which point he was abruptly interrupted and asked “you disowned him?”, forcing Obama to make the clarification that he DID NOT disown Wright but instead that he had disowned the particular comments which became the subject of controversy.

Hillary was also hit hard about her Bosnia gaff, to which she candidly admitted to have exaggerated her story “a bit”, justifying it as a “simple mistake, which was not intended to defraud the voters”. This answer, although dubious in it’s context, was the first time that she was able to answer said controversy with enough firmness and conviction, probably laying the topic to rest, at least for a while. Nonetheless, this would have been a great opportunity for Obama to equate her “misspeaking” to his own “bitter comments”, an opportunity that he did not exploit appropriately and that he could have used as an excuse to maybe nail it shut in the eyes of the mainstream press.

Both candidates did stumble when they were asked about the subject of raising taxes and the war. When directly confronted with the fact that every time the Capital Gains Tax is decreased, revenues (and the economy for that matter) go up, they were both unable to give a straight answer on whether or not they would raise said Tax, irrespective of it’s apparent benefits to the economy. A similar problematic was presented to both candidates when they were asked about the current war in Iraq. When asked if they would remove troops from the ground, even if all of the evidence (and the Generals) make the case to them that getting out of the conflict in an abrupt manner would create a lot more chaos and death, they boldly claimed that they would remove said troops anyhow, using as justification the constitutional fact that our military is “civilian controlled”, and should not be dictated by what the military establishment thinks is appropriate. Of course, the mere fact that two civilians without any military experience would openly claim that what their commanders tell them is irrelevant, gives them a reasonable disadvantage in a general election, specially if most Americans decide that leaving Iraq should NOT mean an increase in violence and in the proliferation of Al-Qaeda in the region (irrespective of how they got there). Only time will tell if these candidates will eventually change their tune when they head towards November and they no longer have to cater to their respective demographics, if they don’t, their chances will be quite dim no matter who their candidate is (although Hillary could have a better stance against a Republican since she ironically DID vote for the Iraq war resolution).

But, the most revealing and important issue that came up in last night’s debate was Barack Obama’s ‘Ayers connection’. It was an important moment because it was the first time that this theme has ever come out in the Mainstream “liberal” press and has thus been pushed into the National discussion. Last night, for the first time, Barack Obama had to openly explain his relationship with William C. Ayers, the Weather Underground leader who was accused of bombing the Pentagon during the 1960s. He is also infamous for telling the New York Times, the day after the terrorist attacks of 9-11, that: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia’s take on Ayers background: “Ayers joined the Weather Underground in 1969, but went underground with several associates after the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion in 1970 which killed three members (Ted Gold, Terry Robbins, and Diana Oughton, who was Ayers’ girlfriend at the time). While underground, he and fellow member Bernardine Dohrn had two children, Zayd and Malik. They were purged from the group in the mid-1970s, and turned themselves into the authorities in 1981. All charges against him were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct during the long search for the fugitives. They married, and later became legal guardians of Chesa Boudin, the biological son of former Weathermen David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, after his parents were arrested for their part in the Brinks robbery (1981). In the 1980s Ayers undertook graduate training in education and earned his doctorate in 1987. He has served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a anti-poverty philanthropic foundation, since 1999.”

Although Obama (last night) attempted to separate himself from Ayers, by insinuating that he only knew him “in passing” as one of his neighbors, the fact is that his relationship is quite deeper and it goes all the way back to the above mentioned “Woods Fund of Chicago” (a connection that Hillary Clinton made herself during the debate). In addition to this ideological connection, Ayers has also contributed in (and has directed) a few official fundraisers for Barack Obama in Chicago. They have both also coincided and participated in several speaking engagements throughout the years. Is this then an innocent and superficial association, completely independent to Obama’s campaign? Was Obama telling the truth when he said that what Ayers did when he was a “young man” is completely inconsequential to his own presidential bid?

The facts point in a different direction and suggest that Obama is PURPOSEFULLY lying about his relationships with this man. Barack Obama was a director of the ‘Woods Fund’ board from 1999 to 2002, according to the Fund’s own website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000. This not-for-profit outfit, which Obama lead during those years, actually funded (with more than $40,000) the founding of the Arab American Action Network, a creation itself of Rashid Khalidi, who is an ex-spokesman for the PLO, and who is now professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia University. Khalidi himself, by the way, was the one responsible for the invitation of President Ahmedinejad (of Iran) to speak at Columbia University a few years back (and in which he was given a large forum to besmirch Israel and to dedicate many hours to his theories regarding the “Jewish role” in the domination of the world). The Woods’ funding of this individual clearly goes beyond an innocent charity, since Khalidi has openly and in countless times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings a natural response to “Israeli aggression.” He also dedicated his 1986 book, “Under Siege,” to “those who gave their lives … in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon.” Is it really possible to claim that they didn’t know about Khalidi’s views? What is the connection between Khalidi and Obama?

Obama first met Khalidi when they were both lecturers in the University of Chicago in 1993 (Obama was in the University’s law school) and said relationship lasted for more than 12 years of shared interests (many professors attest to this, but under anonymity). In the year 2000, Khalidi held a very successful fundraiser for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. When Khalidi was asked, in the John Batchelor Show of New York’s WABC Radio and Los Angeles’ KFI Radio about his fundraising activities on behalf of Barack Obama, he answered that Obama “is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause.” Khalidi also said, that he likes the fact that Obama is “saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can’t talk with the Iranians.”

Do associations matter in politics? It is a basic rule of networking that they do. And their political views always come into account when we a politician makes these “acquaintances”, since these will define the method and process in which you acquire said power (in his case is radical liberalism and “lefty” politics). Obviously, this can be easily understood when we observe how one individual supports one candidate over another (by funding their organizations, etc.). We must also understand that William C. Ayers, who was made famous yesterday because of ABC’s push of the story into the mainstream, has OPENLY stated that the best method of effecting “real change” in the United States is by “killing all the rich White people”. Bill Ayers OWN connection to Arab terrorism and the PLO are well established, in addition to his association to Khalidi himself, and cannot be “swept under the rug” as obscure philosophies which Obama “has never heard about”. (If Obama is this incompetent in choosing his friends out of “innocent ignorance” about their character, then he is obviously NOT FIT to be President of the United States!)

As a curious side-note, if you go to William Ayers’ main website (CLICK HERE), you will notice a very prominent name in the middle of the page: ABU-ZAYD. For those of you who are not familiar with Islamic culture, the name means “FATHER OF ZAYD” and it is Ayers OTHER name. As you may have noticed above, Ayers has two children which he raised as Muslims (Malik and Zayd), a fact that he openly exalts by applying to himself an honorary Muslim name.

Nonetheless, as Obama stated in ABC’s debate, if we simply suspend our reason and knowledge of how politics ACTUALLY works, then we must assume that being associated to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers is not sufficiently substantive to ascribe to him the same and exact philosophical views of the world that they have. But, even if this was absolutely true (for the sake of argument), these unwholesome friendships and partnerships, at the very least, open the possibility of interpreting Obama’s own political policies through the same lens that his friends and their views have established for him (thus their friendship and support of Obama).

As the Castillian saying goes; “tell me with whom you are with, and I will tell you who you are”.

©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.