Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Hussein Onyango and Obama's longstanding grudge against England

Several months ago, I searched for an article, I had once read, pertaining to Barack Obama's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, and the alleged suffering he had endured while being imprisoned by the British army during WW 2. This information, I believed, would shed some light as to why the President had given former British PM, Gordon Brown an unusually chilly reception at the White House last year. It would also explain why the President felt compelled to remove a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office shortly after he was sworn into office - in February 0f 2009.

But unfortunately, I came up short, and couldn't relocate this piece of information. However, upon hearing Rush Limbaugh discuss this subject on his radio program today, I decided to give it another go, and managed to find the information within minutes.

The following article is from the January 16, 2009 edition of the London Evening Standard. You may prefer to read the article there in its entirety. It's definitely an interesting read, and one that offers the reader a glimpse into the President's peculiar psyche, and his idiosyncratic policies/agenda:
Will Obama forgive Britain for his grandfather’s torture?

SIXTY years ago, a Kenyan working for a British Army officer in Nairobi was incarcerated in a high-security prison. The 54-year-old cook had become involved in his country's struggle for independence and his British captors brutally tortured him to extract information about the insurgency that later became known as the Mau Mau rebellion.

According to the cook's family, the British held him for two years during which he was "whipped every morning and evening". "They would sometimes squeeze his testicles with metal rods," they recalled...

That cook, we now know, was Hussein Onyango Obama, the paternal grandfather of the American President-elect Barack Obama. His beatings at the hands of the British Army, alongside whom he'd served in Burma during the Second World War, had left him, his family say, "prematurely aged", with "permanent physical scars" and "a lifelong loathing of the British".

On the eve of Tuesday's historic inauguration of the first black US President, we may pause to wonder: has the torture of his grandfather affected Obama's feelings towards the British? Might it subtly impact American foreign policy and the primacy of the so-called "special relationship" between the US and Britain?

These questions are perhaps not as fanciful as they may seem. Obama has no obvious link to Britain and is likely to be the least Anglophile American leader in decades. Unlike Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, and George W Bush, who venerated Winston Churchill and kept a bust of him in the Oval Office, all Obama has is a grandfather who was tortured by British colonialists...

In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father, [Obama] gives great prominence - 35 pages - to his grandfather's life story as told to him by his step-grandmother Sarah on his first trip to his ancestral home in western Kenya in 1986, prefacing it as follows: "It had all started with him. If I could piece together his story, everything else might fall into place."

When Sarah had finished, Obama recounts, he dropped to the ground between the graves of his father and grandfather and wept. "When my tears were spent I felt the circle finally close. I saw that my life in America - the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy - all of it was connected with this small plot of earth an ocean away. The pain I felt was my father's pain. My questions were my brothers' questions. Their struggle, my birthright."

He tells of his grandfather's shocking physical state after his release by the British. "When he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice. From that day on he was an old man." At another point in his book, he describes sitting on an airplane next to "a pale, gangly young Brit still troubled with acne" and feeling a "flush of anger" and wondering, "Was I angry at him?"

If, as Obama poetically puts it, his pain is his father's pain, and by implication his grandfather's, has he internalized his ancestor's embitterment against the British?

Interestingly, some foreign policy briefing papers currently circulating on Capitol Hill raise this very question. Wess Mitchell, co-founder of the independent think-tank the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington, says there has been speculation as to whether Obama's putative "submerged psychological grievance" might affect a special relationship that goes back decades - to Ronald Reagan's powerful chemistry with Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair's "third way" consanguinity with Bill Clinton...

[Some] political analysts say Obama's background - white American mother, black African father - has taught him to see racism through both lenses. "He's not going to bear a grudge," says Stryker McGuire, an expert in Anglo-American relations and the former London bureau chief of Newsweek. "He's likely to view the torture in the broader context of the ills of colonialism, and might even see parallels with American abuses of power."

But Richard King, professor emeritus of American history at Nottingham University, wonders what Obama really feels about his grandfather's story. "He's constructed an adult self that handles personal racial situations with such coolness that it's hard to know what he truly feels, but his grandfather's story seems to have deeply affected him and how it gets woven into his performance as President is going to be fascinating to watch."

As Barack tells it, Hussein Onyango Obama was born in 1895 - the year that the 600-mile-long railway from Mombasa to Lake Victoria was begun by the British... During the Second World War, Onyango left his family to serve as cook to a British Army captain and traveled with the regiment to Burma, Ceylon and Arabia before returning home three years later.

Barack listened to Sarah, now 88, telling him this story, a feeling of "betrayal" came over him, he says. "My image of Onyango was of an independent man, a man of his people, opposed to white rule. What Granny told us scrambled that image completely, causing ugly words to flash across my mind. Uncle Tom. Collaborator. House nigger."

But Onyango's life was about to take a dramatic turn. He'd returned from the war at the age of 50 to find things changing rapidly and his countrymen clamoring for independence. At first he was skeptical it would amount to anything but in 1949 he appears to have got caught up in events and was imprisoned, accused of being "a subversive" and of passing sensitive information to the fledgling independence movement.

In his book, Obama says only that his grandfather "received a hearing" and was "found innocent" after being held "for more than six months", but recently Sarah elaborated, saying that he had supplied information to the insurgents...

Sarah added: "He was arrested by two soldiers and taken to Kamiti prison outside Nairobi. This was like a death camp because some detainees died while being tortured. We were not allowed to see him, not even taking him food. He was told he would be killed or maimed if he refused to reveal what he knew of the insurgency. This was the time we realized that the British were actually not friends but enemies...

According to Sarah, the "fighting combative spirit" shown by her husband during Kenya's independence struggle lives on in his grandson, Barack.

It's a quality the new American president will need in abundance when he is sworn in on Tuesday. Gordon Brown is unlikely to be the first national leader invited to Washington but it remains to be seen whether Obama's grandfather will, from the grave, dent the special relationship.
Indeed, it seems as if Obama's grandfather has already, from the grave, dented that special relationship. Obama's psyche and his political agenda have been greatly shaped by his grandfather's past.

But in truth, Obama's mindset has been molded by a great many luminaries, who are not counted among his kin, including the distinguished Reverend, Jeremiah Wright; the venerable die-hard communist, Frank Marshall Wright, and a host of American patriots and veritable heroes, who've kindly bequeathed unto this nation, not only their incredible and inspiring legacies, but also one of the greatest American Presidents of all time, Barack Obama.

I leave the reader with one final question to ponder:

Why does Barack Obama choose to express his grievances solely with Britain, and America - because of slavery - and yet, he - and Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright, for that matter - seem to be completely enthralled by the very countries who sold their ancestors into slavery?

Go figure!

Monday, September 20, 2010

My take on NY Times article corraborated by Politico: Obama Advisers Weigh Ad Assault Against GOP & Tea Party

On Sunday, I opined that a New York Times article, which reported that the White House and DNC may soon wage an ad campaign depicting the GOP as a "dangerous" party controlled by "Tea Party extremists", had been revised and toned down due to White House pressure.

Monday, the Politico posted an article which corroborates this point.

First, here's a recap of my previous post: The New York Times on Sunday quoted a Democratic strategist - who had spoken with White House advisers - as saying that the aforementioned ad campaign [fear-mongering campaign] was necessary because "we need to get out the message that it's now really dangerous to re-empower the Republican Party because the people who have taken over the party are radical, and there are going to be real consequences if we put them in charge."

As I noted yesterday, The New York Times later revised the aforementioned quote.
The newly revised and edited article no longer contains the quote in its entirety. The article, in its current form, now quotes the Democratic strategist as simply saying: "We need to get out the message that it's now really dangerous to re-empower the Republican Party..."

Although, the word "dangerous" was still left in tact, the second half of the sentence: "because the people who have taken over the party are radical, and there are going to be real consequences if we put them in charge," has been deleted.

Looks like the New York Times' editorial staff got scared off by someone. The statement - which reflected a strategy of fear-mongering on the part of the White House - was subsequently edited, and toned down.

Here's a couple of links where the unedited version of the article can be read:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/09/20/obama_advisers_consider_national_ad_assault/

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_16119876

The current edited version can be read here -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/us/politics/20dems.html

Also, the title, as originally posted on the Times website, had read: "Obama advisers weigh ad assault against the GOP".

The title, in its newly edited and more milder form, now reads: "Obama Aides Weigh Bid to Tie the G.O.P. to the Tea Party"
That was gist of my previous post.

And, here's what the Politico wrote on Monday:
The White House is pushing back hard against a New York Times report that the president's political team is considering a national ad campaign that would cast the GOP as taken over by tea party extremists.

The story is “100 percent inaccurate,” a White House official told POLITICO.

Times Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet counters that the "piece is accurate.”

But White House complaints have had some effect. Although the Times has not posted a correction or otherwise acknowledged making changes to the piece, it dialed back its claims overnight, changing the headline and the lead sentence of the story to de-emphasize the notion that the White House is weighing an anti-GOP ad campaign.

The initial headline read, “Obama Advisers Weigh Ad Assault Against the GOP,” and the first sentence reported that “President Obama’s political advisers, looking for ways to help Democrats and alter the course of the midterm elections in the final weeks, are considering a national advertising campaign that would cast the Republican Party as all but taken over by Tea Party extremists, people involved in the discussion said.”

The Times subsequently changed the headline to: “Obama Aides Weigh Bid to Tie the GOP to the Tea Party.”

And the opening sentence now says that the White House is considering a “range of ideas, including national advertisements."
[Ed. note: I too, had noticed that the opening paragraph had been altered, but I did not deem it necessary to discuss this point in my post.]

Incidentally, the Politico fails to mention that the Democratic strategist's quote had also been edited. I would also add that the New York Times' revision was not merely an attempt to "de-emphasize the notion that the White House is weighing an anti-GOP ad campaign," but also, and perhaps more importantly, an attempt to obscure the fact that the White House was embarking on a fear-mongering campaign and resorting to scare tactics.

Back to the Politico:
Richard W. Stevenson, the paper's deputy Washington bureau chief, said: "The sourcing on the story was solid. When [the White House] provided us an on-the-record statement late Sunday night disputing the story, we promptly inserted it into the piece in a prominent way. We often tweak the wording of stories and headlines between editions to reflect editing judgments and additional reporting, and that’s what happened in this case."
Sorry, Mr. Stevenson, I don't buy that for a moment. The truth of the matter is, you caved into White House pressure and toned down your report so as to obfuscate the true nature of the White House and its deceitful, fear mongering tactics... President Obama has consistently accused his critics of using scare tactics against him, when in truth, it is the President and his cronies who are the real fear-mongers. And it is precisely this point that you intentionally tried to obscure from the public.

More from the Politico:
Those changes were not enough to satisfy the White House, according to sources.

“The Times is just flat-out, 100 percent wrong,” a White House official said. “The first time Obama’s advisers heard about a national ad campaign is when the story showed up on the Times’ website last night.”
Yeah, right!

Ultimately, the editors at the 'Grey Lady' caved in to the White House: spliced the aforementioned quote, tinkered with other portions of the article, and manifested nothing more than dishonest and shoddy journalism.

As it turns out, my observations and suspicions were well-founded. And I'm feeling pretty good about that..... real good!

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Obama may use fear-mongering ads to target G.O.P. & Tea Party - Unedited version of NY Times article



From the New York Times - unedited version. [The article has since been revised. Read on.]:
President Barack Obama's political advisers, looking for ways to help Democrats and alter the course of the midterm elections in the final weeks, are considering a national advertising campaign to warn voters against returning to power a Republican Party all but taken over by tea party extremists, people involved in the discussion said...

"We need to get out the message that it's now really dangerous to re-empower the Republican Party because the people who have taken over the party are radical, and there are going to be real consequences if we put them in charge," said one Democratic strategist who has spoken with White House advisers but requested anonymity to discuss private strategy talks.

The newly revised article no longer contains the quote from the Democratic strategist in its entirety. He is now quoted as simply saying: "We need to get out the message that it's now really dangerous to re-empower the Republican Party..."

Although, the word "dangerous" was still left in tact, the second half of the sentence: "because the people who have taken over the party are radical, and there are going to be real consequences if we put them in charge," has been deleted.

Looks like the New York Times' editorial staff got scared off by someone. The statement - which reflected a strategy of fear-mongering on the part of the White House - was subsequently edited, and toned down. Hmmm......

Here's a couple of links to the unedited version of the article:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/09/20/obama_advisers_consider_national_ad_assault/

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_16119876

Current version - Link - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/us/politics/20dems.html

[Also, the title, as originally posted on the Times website, read: "Obama advisers weigh ad assault against the GOP"

The title, in its newly edited and more milder form, now reads: "Obama Aides Weigh Bid to Tie the G.O.P. to the Tea Party"]

Update - Read subsequent post: My take on NY Times article corraborated by Politico: Obama Advisers Weigh Ad Assault Against GOP & Tea Party

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Did Michelle Obama really say 'it's hell' to be First Lady?

The White House is denying a report published in yesterday's Daily Mail alleging that Michelle Obama told France's First lady, Carla Bruni, [last March] that being America’s First Lady is ‘hell’.

The Daily Mail on Wednesday reported that Bruni had revealed to the authors of a new book, entitled Carla and the Ambitious, that Mrs Obama, when asked about her position as the U.S. president’s wife, replied "Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!" The Daily Mail noted that "the book was written by journalists Michael Darmon and Yves Derai, in what they claim is a collaboration with Miss Bruni."

The White House, however, went into damage-control mode on Thursday and vehemently denied the allegation. [White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, posted the following link from CBS News on his twitter account]:
"The First Lady never said that," said a spokesperson for First Lady Michelle, Katie McCormick-Lelyveld. French Embassy spokesman Emmanuel Lenain also called the claim false."Mrs. Bruni-Sarkozy distances herself completely from the content of the book 'Carla and the Ambitious,' which was not authorized and the authors alone are responsible for its contents," Lenain, spokesman at the French embassy in Washington DC, said. "The words attributed to the First Lady of the United States were never said."
However, various news outlets previously reported [watch the video at Videocrux] that the book was indeed authorized by Carla Bruni and that the French First Lady gave several hours of interviews with the authors, Michael Darmon and Yves Derai, in an effort to counter a recently published book critical of her, entitled Carla Bruni, Une vie Secrète, written by Besma Lahouri.

Similarly, the Independent - UK reported as follows:
A much-awaited "unauthorized" biography [Une vie Secrète], of the French first lady, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, published yesterday, paints a scathing picture of a vain and selfish woman who neglects her official and charitable work.

But the Elysée Palace has not allowed the book's author to have the field to herself. Having failed in a bid to block its publication, Ms Bruni's supporters are reported to have encouraged the writing of a rival biography [Carla and the Ambitious] that is to be published tomorrow – and which is said to paint a far more positive picture of the supermodel and pop singer.
What's more, Carla Bruni, in the past, has expressed admiration for the authors, Michael Darmon and Yves Derai, and their works:

The following is a Google translation of an article written in French in 2009 - [excerpt] [The original article in French is here]:
Carla Bruni would she hold a grudge against Rachida Dati?

The Point, on newsstands today, reports that Carla Bruni has long complimented Michael Darmon on his latest book, written with Yves Derai, Belle Amie..., a book of more acidic Rachida Dati ! Under the bemused glances of several witnesses, including her husband, who looked visibly embarrassed, Le Point magazine reported that Carla had said: "Congratulations on your book I read it all night, I learned many things, I am much amused ... "
The First Post asserted that the French First Lady helped prepare the book, 'Carla and the Ambitious':
Le Parisien reports that Besma Lahouri, who two years ago wrote a well-received biography of the former French football team captain Zinedine Zidane, has been researching a book on Bruni, the wife of French president Nicolas Sarkozy - and it sounds like a classic tell-all. The book will cover Bruni's youth, her friends and lovers, her relationships with her doctors and her modeling career. "Everything is scrutinized," according to Le Parisien...

A spokesman for the book's publisher, Flammarion, says lawyers have seen the manuscript and they were ready for any legal action from the Elysee Palace.

But there are signs Bruni has more than just lawyers on her side. According to Marianne magazine, she has helped two other writers, Yves Derai and Michaël Darmon, prepare a more sympathetic biography, which is also expected to be published during September.
Also from Marianne - Please note, the following article is also a Google translation, hence it may be a bit difficult to comprehend, nevertheless, here's an excerpt:
What can a person [do] when she learns that [an] unauthorized biography [is] being prepared... [against her]?

[snip]

Find - and pay - a jiffy... journalist... and convince him to do another biography... which will receive extra few scoops "from the horse's mouth", as they say in the trade, that is to say, the person concerned...

[snip]

Journalist and editor, Yves Derai... has also published "Nicolas and Carla, the real story", soon after the publication of an investigative book quite critical of the French President, entitled, "Sarkozy and his women" ... As for Michael Darmon, a journalist for France 2, he has to his credit a bio on Sarkozy, very friendly with the President at the time candidate... Unlike the case of Besma Lahouri - [who] the lady at the Elysee Palace refused to meet..., - Carla Bruni did indeed meet with Derai and Darmon] . [In other words, Carla Bruni met with Derai and Darmon, but refused to meet with the author of the book which was critical of her.]
Here's another [Google translated] article from Marianne:
Fans of saucy revelations will be disappointed [by Besma Lahouri's book.] The book does not tell us much about the emotional life of the president's wife. Not enough to blow up the republic. However, the publication of this unauthorized biography was deemed sufficiently embarrassing by the Elysée Palace for the President's advisers to call for a [favorable?] biography , to be released the same day....
[Ed. Note: I edited the excerpts a bit to make them more comprehensible.]

Ultimately, I believe the French Embassy lied when it stated, "Mrs. Bruni-Sarkozy distances herself completely from the content of the book 'Carla and the Ambitious,' which was not authorized and the authors alone are responsible for its contents."

The question arises: Did the French embassy also lie when it stated that, "The words attributed to the First Lady of the United States were never said?" Or was it the authors of the aforementioned book - who apparently are quite cozy with the Zarkozys, whom the Zarkozys seem to admire and who've consistently presented the Zarkozys in a favorable light - who lied?

And what about the White House and Michelle Obama? Are they telling the truth? Or does Michelle Obama really feel it's "hell" to be America's First Lady?

Who knows.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Michelle Obama: I hate being first Lady, it's hell, but it's a lot of fun and a real joy

From the Daily Mail:
Michelle Obama thinks being America’s First Lady is ‘hell’, Carla Bruni, [France's First Lady], reveals today in a wildly indiscreet new book.

Miss Bruni reveals that Mrs Obama replied when asked about her position as the U.S. president’s wife: ‘Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!’
From the Chicago Sun Times: April 23, 2009 - [excerpt]:
Michelle Obama celebrated "take your child to work day" at the White House by taking questions from kids of White House staffers:

Q If you had to choose a job in the White House for a day, what would you choose?

MICHELLE OBAMA: If I had to choose a job in the White House, it would be this job, being First Lady. I think I have the best job in the White House, because like I said, I get to -- I don't have to deal with the hard problems every day... And there's so much fun to be had in service. And it's -- because I don't get paid, I get to do whatever I want to do. And it's kind of a -- it's kind of a good mix of substantive stuff, things dealing with issues, but it's also fun stuff. So I think I have actually one of the best jobs in the White House...

Q What's your least favorite thing to do in the White House?

MICHELLE OBAMA: What's my least favorite thing to do at the White House? Wow. You know, I don't know that there's a least favorite thing to do. Gosh, I don't have to do anything that is all that bad. That's a really good question. I don't think I can list one thing that I just don't like to do... Maybe it's running on the treadmill... Sometimes I don't like to do that. But pretty much everything that I've done here so far has just been a real joy...

Q How does it feel to be the First Lady?

MICHELLE OBAMA: You know, it feels just like probably being a mom... I wake up every morning..., making sure that my kids get to school on time and they do their homework. And then I get to have a lot of fun because I get to do things like come and talk to you guys and go out to schools and plant a garden and go visit military families. So I think it's a lot of fun, the job that I have. But it feels good, actually...

Q My name is Cynthia..., and what is it like to be at the White House, to live at the White House?

MRS. OBAMA: Well, since I answered that question already, it's fun, okay? It's great...
Related post - September 16: Did Michelle Obama really say 'it's hell' to be First Lady?

Rauf: 'It is a requirement of Sharia to follow the laws of the land' and to skip court hearings

"Islamic jurists have said from the earliest of times... that wherever Muslims are a minority, they are required to follow the laws of the land. It is a requirement of Sharia to follow the laws of the land."
Ground Mosque developer, Feisal Abdul Rauf, speaking before the Council for Foreign Relations - September 13, 2010

From the New York Post - September 15, 2010:
While the Imam behind plans for a mosque near Ground Zero was jetting around the globe and advocating for his Downtown project, a pair of dilapidated apartment buildings he owns in New Jersey fell into such disrepair that cops have to stand watch in the event of a fire.

The fire watch, at taxpayer expense, was revealed during a court hearing today when Union City lawyers asked to have two buildings owned by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf placed into receivership so that rents could be used to fix dozens of violations, including inoperable alarms and sprinklers.

Rauf skipped today’s hearing as did his wife Daisy Khan. Their lawyer, Tomas Espinosa, said he didn’t know why the Imam didn’t come to court...
"Islamic jurists have said from the earliest of times... that wherever Muslims are a minority, they are required to follow the laws of the land. It is a requirement of Sharia to follow the laws of the land."
Ground Mosque developer, Feisal Abdul Rauf, speaking before the Council for Foreign Relations - September 13, 2010

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Faiz Khan - colleague of Feisal Abdual Rauf - in 2006, says 9/11 was a covert operation, a big lie

Faiz Khan, for years, led prayer services at the mosque where Ground Zero mosque developer, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the Imam. [Khan also filled in for Rauf last year.] In the following clip - similar to the widely publicized clip of him - Khan is seen dishing out 9/11 'truths' to a group of '9/11 Truthers', calling the September 11 attack a 'covert operation' - 'a lie'. Khan also praises the audience - his fellow '9/11 Truthers' - and says, "That Libertarian spirit is very alive and well here. So, it's very patriotic what we're doing!":



Related Posts: Faiz Khan, 9/11 Truther & associate of Feisal Abdul Rauf, speaks about his oratorical skills and 9/11

Feisal Abdul Rauf in 2006: US terrorism fostered Islamic terrorism!

Faiz Khan, 9/11 Truther & associate of Feisal Abdul Rauf, speaks about his oratorical skills and 9/11

9/11 Truther, Faiz Khan, for years, led the the prayer services at the mosque where Ground Zero mosque developer, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the Imam. Khan maintains that as a result of being raised in the U.S., he is better able to convey "the language of Islam in English". See the video below. Also watch as Mr. Khan deftly conveys, what he refers to as, 'the language of Islam' to a crowd of 9/11 Truthers:



Related Posts: Faiz Khan - colleague of Feisal Abdual Rauf - in 2006, says 9/11 was a covert operation, a big lie

Feisal Abdul Rauf in 2006: US terrorism fostered Islamic terrorism!

Ground Zero imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, sued in New Jersey

From Crain's:
Union City has filed charges against Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the community center/mosque near Ground Zero, for failing to address complaints by tenants and orders by the city on issues like moldy bathrooms and fire hazards. The suit was filed Monday in state Superior Court in Jersey City and identifies Mr. Rauf as the sole officer of Sage Development LLC.
See full article at The Star Ledger.

From Fox News:
The Mayor of Union City, New Jersey blasted the Imam who wants to build a mosque and community center two blocks from ground zero for being a “slumlord.”

At hastily called news conference Union City Mayor Brian Stack accused Imam Faisal Rauf of neglecting two apartment houses and ignoring numerous citations from the Union City’s Fire and Health Departments. Mayor Stack described the Imam as “unscrupulous” and questioned his statements about wanting to help people and build bridges while his own tenants were living in “shoddy conditions.”...

The mayor said the Imam was among the worst landlords in Union City and that the lawsuit had nothing to do with the controversy associated with the project the Imam wants to build in lower Manhattan. When asked to give advice to New York the Mayor warned, “any town where he (Imam Rauf) buys property, be alert, because he is not a good landlord.”

Both the Imam and his wife were not available to comment.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Obama hired media expert to monitor negative, positive news coverage of BP oil spill; Anti-Palin group get govt Gulf work

Details here.

And, according to a poll of Louisianans released Friday, "Former President George W. Bush showed more leadership in dealing with the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina than President Obama has shown in handling the oil calamity in the Gulf of Mexico."

White House will try to silence me again on oil spill, says marine scientist

Samantha Joye - a Marine Science Professor from the UGA, who was among the first researchers to identify underwater plumes of oil gushing from the BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico - says the White House will no doubt attempt to silence her once again on her latest findings:

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Obama: "A lot of 'Shelter Dogs' are Mutts like me" - "They talk about me like a dog"



[P.S. Upon uploading the above video, I learned that a caller to the Rush Limbaugh program had already mentioned this point on Tuesday.]