Al Sharpton is supporting Obama, but no one's supposed to know about it.

During rally, Al Sharpton says he's keeping support for Obama quiet

By ADAM SERWER and MICHAEL SAUL
DAILY NEWS WRITERS

Story Linked here

Wednesday, March 19th 2008

The Rev. Al Sharpton is backing Barack Obama, but he's made the strategic decision to keep his support quiet.

That's the message Sharpton delivered to his flock last Saturday as he boasted of talking to Obama "two or three times a week" - and insisted the Democratic front-runner knows the rev is in his camp.

"I said, 'I'm gonna do whatever I gotta do to help you. Hillary Clinton has never done nothing for us,'" said Sharpton, recounting a conversation with Obama for his followers at his group's weekly rally.

"'I won't either endorse you or not endorse you,'" Sharpton said he told the Illinois senator as the two made their way to a Nov. 29 dinner at Sylvia's Restaurant in Harlem. "'But I will tell you I can be freer not endorsing you to help you and everybody else.'"

According to Sharpton, Obama protested and asked for his public support. "'No, no, no. I want you to endorse,'" Sharpton recalled Obama saying.

Sharpton told Obama that it would be better strategically for him to remain publicly neutral.

"If I endorse you, and they jump on somebody in Jena, you're going to want me not to go because the press is going to ask you what about your supporter," Sharpton said.

"Negroes just [ask], 'What, what's Sharpton gonna do,'" he explained. "If you understand strategy, you get somewhere."

An endorsement from the controversial Sharpton is a double-edged sword, impressing some voters and driving others away.

Sharpton told the Daily News yesterday he has no plans to officially endorse Obama, but admitted he's "absolutely supportive" of his White House bid.

"If people got that impression on Saturday, that is the right impression," he crowed.

Sharpton said one of the reasons he has "started discussing my private feelings is because of the disappointment I've had in the public conduct of the Clinton campaign."

He specifically cited racially tinged statements from former President Bill Clinton, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro as troubling.

Asked to explain his comment that Clinton had "done nothing for us," Sharpton said he was referring to his organization, the National Action Network, not the black community.

A spokesman for Clinton declined to comment, while an Obama spokesman refused to comment on private conversations with Sharpton.

© Copyright 2008 NYDailyNews.com.

Obama's pastor rants against America.

9/11 SLUR BY OBAMA'S REV.
By GEOFF EARLE

Story Link Here

March 14, 2008 -- WASHINGTON - Barack Hussein Obama's pastor has blamed the United States for bringing the 9/11 attacks upon itself and has said Hillary Rodham Clinton "ain't never been called a n-----," a review of his sermons reveals.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who for decades ministered at Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago, has also preached about the vast influence of "rich white people" and slammed Clinton from the pulpit for never having experienced the suffering of African-Americans.

"Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people," Wright preached in one Christmas sermon.

"The Romans were rich. The Romans were Italian, which means they were European, which means they were white. And the Romans ran everything in Jesus' country."

But Obama was different, Wright said.

"He ain't white, he ain't rich, and he ain't privileged. Hillary fits the mold," he said.

"Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car . . . Hillary ain't never been called a n-----."

Wright, 66, who stepped down from his post after 36 years, preaches a form of black liberation theology, stressing ties to Africa and ways to empower Chicago's struggling black community.

He built his church flock from a few dozen to more than 8,000. The motto displayed on the church Web site reads, "Unashamedly black. Unapologetically Christian."

Wright has also referred to the "US of KKK A" and, after 9/11, brought up the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as US policy toward the Palestinians and South Africa, saying "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

"Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton were seen chatting together on the Senate floor yesterday.

Clinton spoke animatedly, gesturing with her hands, while Obama listened and occasionally nodded his head. After several minutes, he gave her a pat on the back as they each smiled and rose to leave.

Concerning his pastor, Obama said last week that Wright "has said some things that are considered controversial because he's considered that part of his social gospel."

Obama scrapped plans to have Wright speak at his campaign kickoff last year.

A person answering the phone at Trinity said there was no one available to take questions about Wright's sermons.

"This is a sophisticated man who does a lot of good work, and if you just take a little slice of a sentence, it can be very skewed. Those things could be a challenge for the Obama campaign to work out," said the Rev. Kent Matthies, of Philadelphia's Unitarian Society of Germantown, who is acquainted with Wright.

"It comes across as radical to people. Jeremiah Wright, when he preaches the gospel, is not a spin master. He's a truth teller."

Wright has been Obama's spiritual mentor, and Obama even fashioned the title of his memoir, "Audacity of Hope," from a Wright sermon.

The new focus on Wright comes after Clinton apologized for controversial statements by former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, who quit Clinton's campaign finance committee after saying, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

Of Ferraro's remarks, Clinton said Wednesday night, "I certainly do repudiate it, and I regret deeply that it was said."

Ferraro fumed about being tagged a racist and wrote Clinton, saying, "The Obama team is attacking me to get at you."

A "testimonial" from Wright on Obama's Web site reads, "I support Barack because of his incarnated faith - his faith made alive in the flesh."

Even as the Obama camp prepares for new scrutiny of sermons the candidate may have heard at church, a new poll reveals that an Internet smear campaign may have impacted views of his religion.

Copyright 2008 NYP Holdings, Inc.

Obama’s America

Obama's America
He's told us what he really thinks.

By Mona Charen

Barack Obama's words are often attractive but oddly concealing. His speeches are all balm and mood. It's all very well to seek, as Obama claims, to transcend old categories, to reject the "old politics." But then what? This graceful rhetorician leaves you wondering: Who is he really? What does he want for himself and for his country?

In search of answers that go deeper than the Congressional Record, I read his first book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Once you get past the happy surprise of finding a politician who can actually write, the book contains some disquieting elements.

Obama is the product of a union between a white Kansan and a black Kenyan who met in Hawaii. I had assumed, before reading his memoir, that Obama viewed himself as a natural bridge between the races and that his message of unity sprang in part from his biology. That was wrong. From his earliest years, Obama engaged in a preoccupying internal struggle to make himself a fully authentic black man.

Young Barack hardly knew his father because the elder Obama left when he was two. One meeting when Barack was ten and a few letters were all he had. Only much later would Obama discover that his father had many wives and many children — all of whom wound up disappointed in him. Barack's mother, Ann, went on to marry another non-American, an Indonesian named Lolo, and took the young Barack to live in Jakarta. Perhaps she was hoping to live some sort of third-world idyll. Obama never reveals her political views nor her feelings about America. But we get one glimpse in this passage: "Looking back, I'm not sure Lolo ever fully understood what my mother was going through . . . why the things he was working so hard to provide for her seemed only to increase the distance between them. . . .  He landed a job in the government relations department of an American oil company. . . . Sometimes I would overhear him and my mother arguing in their bedroom, usually about her refusal to attend his company dinner parties, where American businessmen from Texas and Louisiana would slap Lolo's back and boast about the palms they had greased to obtain the new offshore drilling rights, while their wives complained to my mother about the quality of Indonesian help. He would ask her how it would look for him to go alone, and remind her that these were her own people, and my mother's voice would rise to almost a shout.

'They are not my people.' "

Grasping, insensitive Americans? Businesspeople? Or just Americans? Whom did she reject?

Whom does he reject — or what? Left-wing ideas are not so much articulated in this memoir as presumed. Obama has claimed that his experience living abroad gives him a valuable perspective for a chief executive. Yet his reflections on the effect Western capitalism has had on Jakarta and Chicago's south side sound like warmed over Herbert Marcuse. "How could we go about stitching a culture back together after it was torn? How long might it take in this land of dollars? . . . . The very existence of the factories, the timber interests, the plastics manufacturer, will have rendered their [Indonesian] culture obsolete; the values of hard work and individual initiative turn out to have depended on a system of belief that's been scrambled by migration and urbanization and imported TV reruns."

Obama's self-portrait in this book is that of a searching, nonjudgmental young man attempting to find his rightful place after a confusing start in life. But he is attracted by the harshly ideological Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose church he joins. Wright peddles racial-grievance religion. Following 9/11, he said, "[W]hite America got a wake-up call. . . . White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."

Obama says he doesn't agree with Wright about everything. Fine. And maybe he doesn't agree with his wife when she (twice) said that she'd never been proud of her country until its people began to support her husband. But then, what did he mean when he said on March 4 that making a little girl proud to say she is an American is the "change we are calling for"?

One suspects that beneath the soothing talk, there is bitterness in the man that we'd best learn more about before voting.

Linked here - National Review Online

© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

'Barack Hussein Obama'

'Barack Hussein Obama'
By Mike Gallagher

This week, a lot of people I admire and respect have scolded me for my frequent on-air use of Barack Hussein Obama’s full name.

I cannot – and will not – take exception to anyone who disagrees with my use of Sen. Obama’s full legal name. But I will continue doing so because I think there are substantive reasons to consider his life in total. The man who wants to be commander-in-chief should expect to have his childhood, his family, his entire belief system scrutinized by the voters.

And a year-old New York Times article that I found gives anyone ample reason to wonder about his feelings about the Muslim world. At a time when we are at war with Muslim extremists who want us all dead, isn’t that fair?

This controversy reminds me of the righteous indignation offered up by Mitt Romney supporters when anyone wondered aloud about his religious beliefs as a Mormon. Despite the reality of plenty of Evangelicals wondering how they could pull the lever in a voting booth for a man whose religious practices and beliefs are so contrary to their own church doctrine, Gov. Romney’s people shrieked that those folks were “bigots” and guilty of religious intolerance.

At the risk of sounding harsh, who does anyone think they are to lecture voters about what reasons they are not allowed to consider in voting for a presidential candidate? Voters can have any doggone reason they wish in determining who they will – or won’t – vote for.

If a voter chooses to select someone based on religious reasons, that’s their business. How dare any pundit or talk host denigrate a voter for what he or she feels is a legitimate reason not to cast an important vote?

And those of us who continually refer to the leading Democrat nominee for president by his legal birth name have the right to invoke his Muslim middle name whenever we damn well want to. Because there is some solid, compelling evidence to suggest that his foreign policy beliefs could very well be influenced by his familiarity with the Muslim world.

When Nicholas D. Kristof wrote a column entitled, “Obama: Man of the World” that appeared a year ago this week in the New York Times, it was intended to be a fawning, complimentary profile of a candidate who continues to receive a lot of fawning and compliments from the mainstream press these days.

Kristof, a well-established lefty, argues that this “worldly” man brings a wealth of foreign policy experience to the White House by virtue of the fact that he “has actually lived abroad.” Kristof wrote, “(Obama) spent four years as a child in Indonesia and attended schools in the Indonesian language, which he still speaks. ‘I was a little Jakarta street kid’, (Obama) said. He once got into trouble for making faces during Koran study classes…but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics – and more likely to be AWARE OF THEIR NATIONALISM – if he once studied the Koran with them.”

Aware of their nationalism?

The puff piece goes on to say: “Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer (there is no such thing, more on that in a moment) reciting them with a first-rate accent. Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’ Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim.”

You see what I mean, Karl? Michelle, this is from the New York Times, not some conservative publication. Kristof goes on to say, “Our biggest mistake since World War II has been a lack of sensitivity to other people’s nationalism…perhaps as a result of his background, Mr. Obama has been unusually sensitive to such issues and the need to project respect rather than arrogance.”

This, of course, is the same ridiculous tone that Obama himself tries to sound by suggesting that we should sit down and negotiate unconditionally with tyrants and terrorists, as if breaking bread with a lunatic who wants to break our neck would accomplish anything.

Even Nicholas D. Kristof must have been aware of how over the top his column was. As I said, there is no such thing as an “Arabic call to prayer” as he put it. That’s like saying a “Caucasian call to prayer.” One of my radio colleagues is an Arabic Christian named Lee Habeeb who took great umbrage at Kristof’s characterization. I suspect the writer or his editors recognized that bragging about a presidential candidate flawlessly reciting the Muslim call to prayer might be a bit much for the average reader, even of the New York Times, to absorb. After all, the English translation of a portion the Islamic call to prayer is, “Allah is the greatest, I bear witness that there is no God other Allah, there is no God other than Allah.”

The imagine of hearing presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Obama reciting those words sort of makes his refusal to put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem or wear an American flag lapel pin kind of pale in comparison, doesn’t it? With all due respect to some terrific conservative voices in America, I will continue to call him Barack Hussein Obama. We all should. What’s in a name? As Kristof’s column suggests: plenty.

Mike Gallagher is a nationally syndicated radio host, Fox News Channel contributor and guest host and author of Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America.

Linked here

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network.

An Obama-Rezko Primer

An Obama-Rezko Primer

March 10, 2008

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been questioning her rival Sen. Barack Obama's relationship to political donor Tony Rezko, now on trial for fraud - particularly Rezko's involvement in the purchase of Obama's Chicago home. Here's a look at what's going on and what it means:

Q: Who is Tony Rezko?

A: Antoin "Tony" Rezko is a millionaire Chicago businessman who has long helped young politicians raise money and make connections. Raised in Syria, he moved to Chicago to study engineering but wound up making money in real estate and fast food. He is now on trial in federal court on mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and attempted extortion charges.

Q: What is his relationship to Obama?

A: He's been friendly with Obama for years, even offering him a job after Obama finished law school. Obama turned down the offer, but a political friendship developed. Rezko and his family donated at least $21,457 to Obama - and helped raise tens of thousands more - for his campaigns in Illinois, though not for his presidential bid. He also advised Obama on the purchase of a new Chicago home and, in his wife's name, purchased a vacant lot next to the new Obama home at the same time.

Q: Why is Rezko on trial?

A: Prosecutors allege he tried to shake down companies seeking contracts from Illinois regulatory boards for campaign contributions and payoffs. They say he used his influence with Gov. Rod Blagojevich to get people appointed to the boards and then threatened to have them block contracts unless the companies paid millions of dollars in kickbacks.

Q: Did Rezko help Obama buy his Chicago home?

A: Yes and no. Obama says he sought Rezko's advice as a real estate developer and even toured the property with him but got no financial assistance from Rezko. Instead, Obama paid $1.65 million for the house in June 2005 by using money from a book contract and taking out a mortgage.

But Rezko's wife did buy the vacant lot next door, which made it easier for Obama to buy the house. Both pieces of property were owned by the same couple and they insisted on selling them at the same time, but Obama couldn't afford both. Rezko's purchase of the empty lot allowed the home sale to go through, although Obama says Rezko wasn't the only person interested in the lot.

Q: Did Obama and Rezko coordinate their purchases?

A: Obama says they didn't. He says Rezko became interested in the lot while advising him on the house and then bought the land on his own, for $625,000.

Q: Where did Rezko get the money to buy the lot?

A: That's not clear. Some court documents related to his criminal case show that at the time of the land purchase, creditors were pursuing Rezko for more than $10 million. Rezko argues in the case documents that he is essentially broke now. This raises the question of how he was able to come up with $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage to buy the property. He later resold the lot at a profit.

Q: Did Obama get a special deal on the price of his home?

A: The sellers originally asked for $1.95 million but agreed to sell for $1.65 million after rejecting two lower offers from the Obamas. The Obama campaign says it has an e-mail from the sellers stating that this was the best offer they got and that the price for the house had nothing to do with Rezko buying the vacant lot.

Q: So Rezko bought the lot next door. Was that the end of his involvement?

A: No. Obama later bought one-sixth of that lot so that he would have a bigger side yard. Its value was appraised at $40,500, Obama says, but he paid one-sixth of what Rezko originally paid, or $104,500.

Q: What does Obama say about all this?

A: Obama says he went out of his way to make sure he violated no laws or ethical guidelines, and that he has never done any favors for Rezko as a result of the arrangement. But he also says he regrets the "boneheaded" move and would not do it again because of the questions it raises about ethics and insiders currying favor with him.

Q: Did Obama know Rezko could be an ethical land mine for him?

A: He should have. When Obama was buying the house, there were plenty of news stories about a federal investigation of the governor and Rezko's role in the administration, including the fact that Rezko had been subpoenaed. Obama has acknowledged that "things had surfaced" by that time.

Q: Why is this an issue in the presidential campaign?

A: Clinton cites it as an example of Obama not living up to his promises to move away from old-fashioned insider politics. She also argues it suggests there are other ethical problems that could be uncovered by Republicans if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee.

Q: Does Clinton accuse Obama of any specific misconduct?

A: No. Her campaign suggests there must be something improper in Rezko's involvement but doesn't say what. "If the relationship was aboveboard, why won't Sen. Obama address basic inquiries about it? What is it that he is hiding?" said a spokesman.

Q: Has Obama refused to answer "basic inquiries"?

A: No, but he hasn't been completely open either. For instance, he did not disclose until last month that Rezko actually toured the home with him before the purchase. He also has released the e-mail from the home's seller to only one news organization.

Obama hasn't provided details of the fundraisers Rezko held for him, nor has he released documents related to the property, such as the appraisal of the strip of land he bought from Rezko.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Obama Not Ready for 3 a.m. Call

Obama Aide: Neither Candidate Ready for 3 a.m. Call
By Kate Phillips

Susan Rice, a foreign policy adviser to Senator Barack Obama, discusses the foreign policy credentials of both Democrats against the tableau of Mrs. Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call advertisement about who would be best prepared for an international crisis. (While your children are safely asleep.)

Mr. Carlson: So Hillary Clinton runs this ad, the famous red phone ad, that says when the phone rings at 3 o’clock in the morning, you know, who do you trust to make those snap decisions that could hold all of our lives in the balance? And the Obama campaign, I thought very wisely, came back and said, name one that you — you know name a situation where you’ve judged a foreign policy crisis, and she couldn’t.
I’m going to ask the same question to you. Where has — Barack Obama been in a position where he has to make those kinds of decisions?

Ms. Rice: He hasn’t and he hasn’t claimed that he’s been in a position to have to answer the phone at 3 o’clock in the morning in a crisis situation. That’s the difference between the two of them. Hillary Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at 3 o’clock in the morning. And yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They’re both not ready to have that 3:00 a.m. phone call. The question is and what Barack Obama raised is, when that phone call is received for each of them for the first time, who’s going to make the right judgment? Who is going to make the right decision?  So neither one of them have had that 3 o’clock phone call that others have had. And I think we have to be honest about that.

LINK: NYT 03/06/2008