Rezko for Radicals book, Kenneth J. Conner author and whistleblower in the Rezko Obama lot transactions, Qui Tam lawsuit, Mutual Bank of Harvey, Adams Valuation Corp.
“Why did Mutual Bank fire whistleblower Kenneth J Connor after he
challenged the appraisal on the land purchased by Rita Rezko, just
prior to the land sale to Obama?”…Citizen Wells
“Why did the Rezkos enter into an agreement to purchase the lot next to the Obama house and pay the asking price of $ 625,000 at a time when they were broke and heavily in debt?”…Citizen Wells
“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich
Rezko for Radicals
A new book by Kenneth J. Conner
whistleblower in the Rezko Obama lot transactions
Kenneth J. Conner, whistleblower in the Rezko Obama lot transactions, is the author of a new book, “Rezko for Radicals.” The scheduled release date for the book is October 1, 2012. I am not at liberty to divulge the contents yet, but as soon as I am permitted, I will do so. At some point more information will be available here as well.
With all of the books being written about Chicago pay to play politics and corruption, why would this book be of interest? Kenneth J. Conner was there at Mutual Bank of Harvey, doing his job, asking questions about another questionable appraisal froma Adams Valuation Corp. except this time the borrower was Rita Rezko, wife of Tony Rezko. And the other party involved in these transactions was Barack Obama, an IL senator at the time. Here is why Conner’s story has credence.
In early 2005, the Rezkos were broke and heavily in debt.
In June 2005, Rita Rezko obtained a loan from Mutual Bank of Harvey in the amount of $ 500,000 for the lot next to the mansion purchased by the Obama’s at the same time.
The Rezkos paid the full asking price $ 625,000.
The sellers mandated that both properties close at the same time.
Rita Rezko’s salary was approx. $ 37,000.
Kenneth J. Conner was a real estate specialist at Mutual Bank in 2005.
In late 2005 to early 2006, Mr. Conner was asked to review the appraisal by Adams.
Mr. Conner reported to his bosses that the property was overvalued by $ 125,000 and that based on comparables it was worth $ 500,000.
On November 21, 2005 Barack Obama had an appraisal of the lot done by Howard B. Richter & Associates. That appraisal was for $ 490,860.
The Rezkos and Obamas signed a purchase agreement on January 4, 2006 for one sixth of the lot. The Obamas paid $104,500 instead of the appraised value of $40,500.
Mr. Conner’s valuation was subsequently removed from the loan file.
On October 19, 2006 Mutual Bank received a grand jury subpoena requiring it to produce information concerning Rita Rezko’s purchase, including the bank’s files on the property.
On December 28, 2006 former Rezko business attorney Michael J. Sreenan purchased the Rezko lot.
“In 2007, Conner observed that his ARR of the 5050 S. Greenwood property was not in the Rezko 5050 Greenwood loan file and in it’s
place was the Murphy Checklist purportedly dated “06/15/2005.”…On June 18, 2007, Conner sent an email to James Murphy which provides, in part, “I spent time trying to track down work of mine that should be in a particular high profile loan file, though it is not–having been replaced by a checklist.”
” In October, 2007, Conner had various communications with Mutual Bank’s Human Resources Department representative, Lana Schlabach. In an email communication of October 15, 2007, Conner directly referenced “Resentment over my mentioned discovery of the removal/replacement of an appraisal review that I conducted. That appraisal review contained substantial observations and suggestions. The transaction and parties involved were high profile in the media.I am under the impression that the FBI has since looked at the file.”
“On October 23, 2007, eight days after Conner’s October 15, 2007
email to Schlabach attached as Exhibit J, Mutual Bank terminated
Conner’s employment”
Late 2007 the FBI investigated the lot transactions. Mr. Conner stated. “Agents and I talked about payoff, bribe, kickback for a long time, though it took them only a short number of minutes of talking with me while looking at the appraisal to acknowledge what they already seemed to know: The Rezko lot was grossly overvalued,”
On October 16, 2008 Kenneth J. Conner filed his first lawsuit for retaliatory dismissal.
On October 25, 2011 the FDIC initiated a lawsuit against Mutual Bank officers, directors and the bank lawyer. “5. Collectively, the Director Defendants and Officer Defendants (“Director and Officer Defendants”) (a) recklessly implemented a strategy of rapid asset growth through approving a high concentration of risky CRE, ADC and out-of-area loans to a small concentration of high-volume borrowers; (b) failed to implement appropriate underwriting and credit administration practices; (c) ignored the Bank’s loan policies; (d) ignored federal lending regulations; and (e) disregarded warnings from the Bank’s regulators regarding the Bank’s lending activities.”
Mr. Conner has filed a Qui Tam lawsuit against the officers, directors and employees of Mutual Bank as well as Adams Valuations Corp. and others. The lawsuit is no longer under seal.
Rezko for Radicals
The whistleblower account of Obama’s $125,000 real estate scam.
Kenneth J. Conner Qui Tam whistleblower lawsuit unsealed, Mutual Bank officers, Amrish Mahajan, Rezkos lot purchase, Adams Valuation corp, False statements and omissions
“Why did Mutual Bank fire whistleblower Kenneth J Connor after he
challenged the appraisal on the land purchased by Rita Rezko, just
prior to the land sale to Obama?”…Citizen Wells
“Why did the Rezkos enter into an agreement to purchase the lot next to the Obama house and pay the asking price of $ 625,000 at a time when they were broke and heavily in debt?”…Citizen Wells
“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich
This is a Citizen Wells exclusive.
I have been in regular contact with Kenneth J. Conner since he filed his original whistleblower lawsuit in 2008. As you may recall, Conner, a former employee of Mutual Bank of Harvey, was asked to do an appraisal review of the lot the Rezkos purchased in June 2005 for the full asking price of $ 625,000. Adams Valuation Corp. had appraised the lot earlier for $ 625,000. After review, Kenneth J. Conner concluded, based on comparable properties, that the lot was worth $ 500,000. An appraisal requested by Barack Obama by Howard B. Richter & Associates on November 21, 2005, near the time of Conner’s evaluation, determined the value of the lot to be $ 490,860. The Obama’s purchased one sixth of the lot in 2006.
From Citizen Wells October 31, 2011.
“9. In June, 2005, Mutual Bank President and CEO Amrish Mahajan and
other Mutual Bank officers approved a loan to Rita Malki Rezko (Rita
Rezko) which was guaranteed by Antonin Rezko so that Rita Rezko could
purchase a 9,090 square foot vacant parcel of real estate at 5050 S.
Greenwood Avenue, Chicago. As part of the Mutual Bank loan
underwriting process, Mutual Bank obtained a real estate appraisal
from Adams Valuation Corporation (Adams Appraisal) which purported to
provide an opinion of value of the subject 5050 S. Greenwood real
estate (the collateral for the Rezko loan) at $ 68.76 per square foot.
A copy of the Adams Appraisal is attached as Exhibit C. In June, 2005,
Rita Rezko closed on the purchase of the 5050 S. Greenwood property at
a purchase price of $ 625,000.00 along with the loan from Mutual Bank
in the amount of $ 500,000.00 with Mutual bank obtaining a first
mortgage lien position on the Greenwood vacant parcel.”
“10. On or about January 4, 2006, Rita Rezko entered into an
agreement with Senator Barack and Michelle Obama (Obamas) to sell a
ten-foot strip of the 5050 S. Greenwood property to the Obamas. A copy
of the Obama/Rita Rezko contract is attached as Exhibit D. As a result
of that transaction, the Rezkos requested that Mutual Bank release
it’s first collateral position to the ten-foot strip parcel
transferred to the Obamas. In that same general time frame, Richard
Barth, Mutual Bank Senior VP of construction lending and James Murphy,
Mutual Bank Senior VP Internal Auditor/Risk Manager, requested that
Conner perform an appraisal review of the Adams Appraisal attached
hereto as Exhibit C.”
“11. In late 2005 or early 2006, Conner performed an appraisal review
of the Adams Appraisal (Exhibit C) per the directive of Richard Barth
and James Murphy. Conner prepared a written Appraisal Review report
(ARR) opining that the Adams Appraisal overvalued the Greenwood lot by
a minimum of $ 125,000.00 and that a reasonable and fair valuation for
Mutual Banks’s underwriting purposes should be no greater than $
500,000.00 for the entire 5050 S. Greenwood parcel as originally
purchased by Rita Rezko. In that same general time frame an appraisal
was performed for the 5050 S. Greenwood property by Howard B. Richter,
MAI which valued the 5050 S. Greenwood property at $ 54.00 per square
foot but then discounted the ten-foot strip being transferred by Rita
Rezko to the Obamas by fifty percent, as the ten-foot strip was
unbuildable standing alone…The valuation by the Richter Appraisal for
the 5050 S. Greenwood lot was substantially to Conner’s ARR
valuation.”
“12. Conner notified Richard Barth and James Murphy orally of his ARR
findings and Conner’s ARR was filed in the “Rezko 5050 Greenwood” loan
file at Mutual Bank.”
“13. In addition to Conner’s ARR stating that the Adams Appraisal
overvalued the 5050 S. Greenwood property, Conner had reported on
other occasions that Adams Valuation Corporation had overvalued real
estate subject to Mutual Bank loan underwriting valuation.”
“14. On or about October 19, 2006, Mutual Bank received a Grand Jury
Subpoena (GJS) requiring Mutual Bank to produce the Rezko 5050
Greenwood loan file, as well as a Rita Rezko Riverside District
Development LLC checking account and loan file. Electronic mail
(email) communications about the subpoena were circulated to Mutual
Bank officers and attorneys, including Amrish Mahajan, James Murphy
and Conner. A copy of an October 19, 2006 email string pertaining to
the Rezko GJS is attached as Exhibit F. On information and belief,
Conner’s ARR was removed from the Rezko 5050 Greenwood loan file prior
to the submission of that file pursuant to the GJS, and in it’s place
Mutual bank submitted an appraisal checklist which was purportedly
dated “06/15/05″ from Senior VP James P. Murphy (Murphy Checklist). A
copy of the Murphy Checklist is attached as Exhibit G.”
“16. In 2007, Conner observed that his ARR of the 5050 S. Greenwood
property was not in the Rezko 5050 Greenwood loan file and in it’s
place was the Murphy Checklist purportedly dated “06/15/2005.”…On June
18, 2007, Conner sent an email to James Murphy which provides, in
part, “I spent time trying to track down work of mine that should be
in a particular high profile loan file, though it is not–having been
replaced by a checklist.””
“17. In October, 2007, Conner had various communications with Mutual
Bank’s Human Resources Department representative, Lana Schlabach. In
an email communication of October 15, 2007, Conner directly referenced
“Resentment over my mentioned discovery of the removal/replacement of
an appraisal review that I conducted. That appraisal review contained
substantial observations and suggestions. The transaction and parties
involved were high profile in the media.I am under the impression that
the FBI has since looked at the file.””
“18. On October 23, 2007, eight days after Conner’s October 15, 2007
email to Schlabach attached as Exhibit J, Mutual Bank terminated
Conner’s employment for pretextual reasons.”
On October 25, 2011 the FDIC initiated a lawsuit against Mutual Bank officers, directors and the bank lawyer.
From Citizen Wells October 31, 2011.
From the lawsuit:
“5. Collectively, the Director Defendants and Officer Defendants (“Director and Officer Defendants”) (a) recklessly implemented a strategy of rapid asset growth through approving a high concentration of risky CRE, ADC and out-of-area loans to a small concentration of high-volume borrowers; (b) failed to implement appropriate underwriting and credit administration practices; (c) ignored the Bank’s loan policies; (d) ignored federal lending regulations; and (e) disregarded warnings from the Bank’s regulators regarding the Bank’s lending activities.”
The Kenneth J. Conner Qui Tam lawsuit includes the Rezko lot purchase along with other transactions as part of an ongoing pattern of deception.
The lawsuit begins:
“This action, brought on behalf of the United States, concerns various knowing false statements and omissions caused by certain officers, directors and employees of Mutual Bank of Harvey (collectively, “Mutual Bank”) to the Federal deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) in part in order to reduce deposit insurance premiums due to the FDIC and otherwise conceal risk.”
“Qui tam is a law passed by Congress that allows a private individual with knowledge of fraud committed against the federal government to act as a government whistleblower and bring about a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the US. Any situation where a company or individual has defrauded the government comes under the False Claims Act, including Medicare fraud and pharmaceutical fraud.”
“Qui tam is a provision of the False Claims Act that allows a whistle blower to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the US government for a fraud committed against the United States. A government whistleblower who successfully files a qui tam lawsuit is entitled to receive between 15 percent and 30 percent of the lawsuit settlement funds recovered for the government.
A considerable amount (estimates are as high as 10 percent) of the US annual budget is paid to companies or individuals who defraud the government, usually by overcharging, submitting bills for services never performed, or over-billing for services provided. Qui tam whistleblower lawsuits include government contract fraud, defense contractor fraud, Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud, pharmaceutical fraud and other public benefit fraud.
Qui tam Lawsuits and Settlements
Over one thousand qui tam lawsuits were filed between 1987 and 1995 and from 1988 to 1995 over $1 billion was recovered by qui tam lawyers, either in settlements or lawsuit verdicts filed by government whistleblowers. Since 1986, the government has recovered over $2 billion as a result of these lawsuits, of which almost $340 million has been paid to whistleblowers, also known as “relators”.
Typically, fraud cases are related to where the government is spending the most money. For instance, in the late 1980s, many qui tam lawsuits involved the defense industry. Recently, health care and pharmaceutical cases have been foremost.”
“Whistleblower Protection
“Congress added Whistleblower protections to the False Claims Act in 1986, which entitles the whistleblower to reinstatement with seniority, double back pay, interest, special damages sustained as a result of discriminatory treatment, and attorneys fees and costs, even if the case is never filed, as long as the whistle blower’s allegations could legitimately support a False Claims Act case.
The False Claims Act also protects qui tam plaintiffs who are “demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment” for acts done in furtherance of filing a claim under the Act.”
Obama Rezko lot purchases, Court records prove Obama lied about contact with Rezko and Rezko requests, Obama Rezko et al Chicago pay to play
“Why were portions of the motion to subpoena Obama by the Blagojevich defense team, damning to Obama, redacted?”…Citizen Wells
“Why did the Rezkos enter into an agreement to purchase the lot next to the Obama house and pay the asking price of $ 625,000 at a time when they were broke and heavily in debt?”…Citizen Wells
“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich
My research, review and discussions regarding Obama’s involvement in Chicago pay to play are progressing. Yesterday I got a clarification from someone who was involved in one of the transactions. Before I proceed, I want to clarify the Obama Rezko relationship and Obama lies about it.
From TPM Muckraker March 3, 2008.
“The connection has dogged Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ever since it was first reported in November of 2006. With Tony Rezko’s trial finally beginning this week, and with the trial expected to last for months, it will keep dogging him.
You know the general outline. In June of 2005, Obama bought a home in Chicago’s South Side. On the same day, Tony Rezko bought an adjoining lot, the house’s side yard. It was not an isolated association between the two. Rezko was a big-time fundraiser and supporter of Obama, who raised more than $150,000 for Obama’s state and federal campaigns over the span of nine years ($20,000 of that was from Rezko himself). Over the past 16 months, Obama has donated almost $160,000 of those Rezko-linked contributions to charity.
Rezko, a big-time real estate developer and mucky-muck in Illinois politics, was indicted in October of 2006 on fraud and extortion charges.
Although Obama’s longterm relationship with Rezko has gained plenty of scrutiny, the house purchase has understandably gotten the most. Given Rezko’s central role in Illinois’ influence-buying and cronyism scandal, suspicion is natural. Obama himself has called his subsequent purchase of a strip of the adjoining lot from Rezko “bone-headed.” It’s hard not to agree.
There is no sure evidence that the house deal was worse than bone-headed. Not that the question has been put to rest. A number of unanswered questions remain.
For instance, it’s unclear whether Rezko was actually doing a favor for Obama: whether Obama could not have bought the house otherwise or whether Obama derived a financial benefit from Rezko’s involvement in the deal. The main suspicion has been that Rezko’s purchase of the side yard at the seller’s asking price allowed Obama’s purchase of the house to go through since the seller insisted on closing both properties on the same day. But both Obama and Rezko have said that someone else had bid on the side yard, raising the bidding to the asking price. If that’s the case, then Obama could have bought the house without Rezko’s involvement. And Obama has said that his family has stayed off the side yard and never used it for family activities.
Obama has acknowleged, however, that Rezko’s likely motivation for buying the lot was to curry favor with him. Rezko reportedly admitted as much to his business associates. And as The New York Times reports today, Rezko was so heavily in debt at the time he purchased the lot that he did it under his wife’s name in order to protect it from creditors.
And then there’s the other big question, whether Obama ever did anything for Rezko in return for his purchase of the side yard or all those contributions. Obama has said that Rezko “never asked me for anything” and “I’ve never done any favors for him.” No substantial evidence has surfaced to contradict that claim. (The Chicago Sun-Times did dig up letters from Obama in 1998, some seven years before the house sale, urging Illinois and Chicago officials to provide funding for a Rezko company to build apartments for senior citizens, but both Obama and Rezko denied that Rezko had asked Obama to write the letters, and there’s no evidence to the contrary.)
As Rezko’s trial nears, you’re sure to hear the two names raised together again and again. And you’ll be hearing about that house purchase. So we’re laying it all out here. We’ve compiled the main details in our timeline of Rezko and Obama’s relationship here.
Recently, NBC News got a good aerial view of the Obama’s home and side lot, which is now owned by Michael Sreenan, a former business attorney of Rezko’s:
Back in 2004, the home’s owner put both parcels on the market. There was no fence between the two properties, since the undeveloped land served as the house’s side yard, but the properties were listed separately.
In January of 2005, the Obamas made three successive bids on the home, which had been listed at $1.95 million. After bids of $1.3 and then $1.5 million, the Obamas, through an agent, finally offered $1.65 million, a bid which the seller ultimately accepted. Obama has said that the house was on the market for a number of months and was overpriced. The seller, a doctor at the University of Chicago named Fredric Wondisford who has refused to speak to the media, has stated in an email released by the Obama campaign to Bloomberg that Obama’s bid was the highest bid on the home. Obama has said that he didn’t purchase the side yard because he could not afford it.
It’s still unclear exactly how Rezko came to buy the side yard. Back in November of 2006, when Obama was first interviewed by The Chicago Tribune about the deal, he was very hazy on the details: “I don’t recall exactly what our conversations were or where I first learned, and I am not clear what the circumstances were where he made a decision that he was interested in the property.”
In answering written questions from The Chicago Sun-Times later that week, he was clearer: “to the best of [his] recollection,” he’d told Rezko about the side yard and that “he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.”
Last month, an Obama spokesman divulged more: that at some point before the purchase, which closed in June of 2005, Obama and Rezko had toured the property together “because Rezko was a real-estate developer in the area” and Obama wanted his opinion. The spokesman could not specify when, exactly, this tour had occurred — before Obama had made successive bids on the home in January of 2005, or after.
It’s not clear when Rezko bid on the property, but Obama has said that the seller accepted Rezko’s bid on the yard before accepting Obama’s bid on the house.
Both Obama and Michael Sreenan, Rezko’s former attorney who now owns the adjoining lot, have said that at least one other party bid on the yard, as an explanation for why Rezko ultimately paid the seller’s asking price, $625,000. The burning question, of course, is whether Rezko was doing Obama a favor by buying the side lot at the asking price. Though the seller, via the campaign, has corroborated other details about the purchase, he has not confirmed that there were other bids on the lot.
Though Obama made his final offer in January of 2005, the purchase did not close for another five months. It’s unclear why.
By June of 2005, when the purchases did close, Rezko’s ethical and legal troubles had begun unraveling on the pages of the city’s major newspapers. Just a month before, The Chicago Tribune had run a major profile of Rezko and his many entanglements, including the fact that he’d been subpoenaed as part of a sprawling corruption probe of the state government.
As you can see from the picture of the property above, the two properties are now divided by a fence. But there was no fence when the purchases were made. The Obamas have provided documents to The Chicago Tribune to show that, immediately following the purchase, they began making preparations for installing a fence — an undertaking that required considerable paperwork since the properties are landmarked. That process lasted several months.
When it finally came time to install the fence, the Obamas also wanted to extend their property by another five to ten feet so that the fence would be at a distance from the house. The Obamas ultimately purchased from Rezko a 10-foot wide strip adjacent to and paralleling their property line.
Obama has said that he approached Rezko personally in January of 2006 about buying some of the adjacent lot. To set the price for the 1,500-square-foot strip, which was one-sixth of the entire lot, Obama hired a firm to appraise its value. When that appraisal came in at $40,500, Obama says he judged it too low for appearance’s sake and instead set the price at $104,500, which was one-sixth of the price Rezko had paid for the entire lot. There’s been no suggestion that Rezko actually negotiated with Obama on the price. In any case, he accepted.
Rezko’s rapidly deteriorating situation might explain Obama’s extra caution. Since its profile of Rezko the previous May, the Tribune had also brought word (as you can see on our timeline) that Rezko had been subpoenaed on a number of other matters, all pertaining to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation of influence-buying, cronyism, and extortion in Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s (D) government. It was increasingly clear that he was of central interest to prosecutors. He was finally indicted in October of 2006.
Though Obama’s name may come up at the trial, since Rezko allegedly made illegal “straw” contributions (via intermediaries) to Obama in addition to a number of other politicians, he is expected to be only a peripheral player. As The Los Angeles Times puts it this morning, Obama will be in “the background.” But unfortunately for Obama, Rezko is also certain to be in the background of his campaign through November.”
“Though Obama made his final offer in January of 2005, the purchase did not close for another five months. It’s unclear why.”
Answer: The Obamas did not have the money or income in January 2005 (see 2004 tax return). The Rezkos were flat broke and heavily in debt (from Rezko Trial records and other sources). More later.
“And then there’s the other big question, whether Obama ever did anything for Rezko in return for his purchase of the side yard or all those contributions. Obama has said that Rezko “never asked me for anything” and “I’ve never done any favors for him.” No substantial evidence has surfaced to contradict that claim. (The Chicago Sun-Times did dig up letters from Obama in 1998, some seven years before the house sale, urging Illinois and Chicago officials to provide funding for a Rezko company to build apartments for senior citizens, but both Obama and Rezko denied that Rezko had asked Obama to write the letters, and there’s no evidence to the contrary.)”
We know from Rezko trial transcripts that Obama lied about his contact with Tony Rezko.
Chicago SunTimes February 10, 2008.
“In the media, Obama always made it sound like he rarely saw Rezko, saying they met for breakfast or lunch once or twice a year. However, the FBI mole John Thomas helped investigators “build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005,“
Chicago SunTimes March 14, 2008 interview with Obama.
“Thomas is an FBI mole and he “recently told us that he saw you coming and going from Rezko’s office a lot.””
From the Blagojevich Trial subpoena of Barack Obama. Portions related to Obama were initially redacted but then discovered.
“21. Tony Rezko is one of the government’s main witnesses.8 Mr. Rezko’s credibility is extremely relevant in this trial. In many instances, Mr. Rezko is the government’s crucial witness to prove up their allegations.9 Mr. Rezko wrote a letter to a federal judge stating “the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never happened. They are pressuring me to tell them the “wrong” things that I supposedly know about Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama. I have never been a party to any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes.” (Exhibit A)”
“22. However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such
conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the
public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and
administration, which the public official denies having had.”10?
“10 The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama. See, “Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake”, Dave McKinney, Chris Fusco, and Mark Brown, Chicago Sun Times, November 5, 2006. Senator Barack Obama was asked: “Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you?” Senator Obama answered: “No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interest. In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al Johnson and Tony
Rezko were interested in being part of. I never discussed a casino license with either of them. I was a vocal opponent of the legislation.” Obama’s involvement with Tony Rezko and this legislation coincides with the three paragraph summary the government has provided to the defense referenced above.”
“23. President Obama is the only one who can testify as to the veracity of Mr. Rezko’s allegations above.
24. President Obama has pertinent information as to the character of Mr. Rezko.
President Obama can testify to Mr. Rezko’s reputation for truthfulness as well as his own opinion of Mr. Rezko’s character. See, Fed. R. Evid. 405(a) and 608. Mr.
Rezko and President Obama became friends in 1990. According to President Obama, Mr. Rezko raised as much as $60,000 in campaign contributions for Obama.11
25. Based on the relationship that President Obama and Mr. Rezko had, President Obama can provide important information as to Mr. Rezko’s plan, intent, opportunity, habit and modus operandi. See, Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 406. For example, in June 2005, President Obama purchased a house for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price. On the same day Tony Rezko’s wife, Rita, paid full price — $625,000 — for the adjoining land. In January 2006, Obama paid Mr. Rezko $104,500 for a strip of the adjoining land. The transaction took place when it was widely known that Mr. Rezko
was under investigation.12 President Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko is
relevant and necessary Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 406 evidence.”
Gallup attacked by David Axelrod aka Joseph Goebbels and Justice Dept., Gallup presented unfavorable polling and jobs data for Obama, 1984 Nazi Germany
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels
“Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially not insofar
as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent.”
… Adolf Hitler
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
From Breitbart September 6, 2012.
“GALLUP SUED BY DOJ AFTER UNFAVORABLE OBAMA POLLS, EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS”
“Senior Obama Campaign adviser David Axelrod reportedly contacted The Gallup Organization to discuss the company’s research methodology after their poll’s findings were unfavorable to the President. After declining to adjust their methodology, Gallup was named in an unrelated lawsuit by the DOJ.
Axelrod took to Twitter to direct people to an article by the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein suggesting a flaw in Gallup’s methodology. Brownstein compared Gallup’s demographic sampling predictions to previous election exit polls as well as contemporaneous research released by Pew, CNN/ORC and ABC/WaPo.
The heart of the Obama camp complaint lies with varying predictive models for 2012 turnout. Gallup had predicted a lower minority turnout, effecting Obama’s margin against Romney.
An email chain from Gallup employees reveals the deliberations about how to handle Axelrod:
In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”
That Gallup official, the email continued, “has a plan that includes blogging and telling WH [the White House] he would love to have them come over here etc. This could be a very good moment for us to [show] our super rigorous methods compared to weak samples etc. …”
The writer named several news organizations with their own polling methodologies, all of which resulted in numbers more favorable to President Obama at the time.
In response to that email, a third senior Gallup official said he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.”
“Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘[Name redacted], I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology…You got a nice poll there….would be a shame if anything happened to it…’”
Since Axelrod first contacted Gallup, the DOJ has become interested in an old allegation made by a former Gallup employee, claiming that the firm violated the False Claims Act by overcharging on their contracts with other federal agencies. Michael Lindley, a former Gallup employee, filed suit against Gallup in 2009 and Gallup was served and responsed to Lindley’s suit in 2010. The DOJ signed on to Lindley’s suit in August of 2012.
Lindley, was a former field organizer in Iowa for the Obama campaign in 2008.
In addition to Gallup’s unfavorable polling numbers on the Obama re-election effort, they have also published employment numbers that are not “politically helpful” for Obama.
“Gallup publishes its research without seasonal adjustments,” William Tate wrote for the American Thinker. ”The BLS’s version applies adjustments in an alchemic formula that’s more mysterious than the Shroud of Turin.”
“I have been comparing the Obama campaign to pre World War II Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler for many weeks. Of course my claims have been dismissed by Obama supporters and many times I have been personally attacked for asking simple questions about Obama. I am a student of history and have read a great deal about the era leading up to the second world war and also during and after. The more I observe and think about it, the closer the parallels are.
The rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party
The economic conditions in Germany after World War I were horrible.
Adolf Hitler honed his oratory skills and became a superb speaker.
Adolf Hitler surrounded himself with thugs and Jew haters.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis blamed the Jews for their problems.
Adolf Hitler spoke of change and a new Germany.
The people of Germany got caught up in the euphoria of the changes that Hitler promised.
The Nazis burned books to eradicate records and contrary thoughts.
The Nazis bullied Jews and other segments of society.
The Nazis were elitists with talk of the Arayan Race.
Adolf Hitler had many people fooled including many jews that never thought all of that evil could happen in their country. moinansari reminded me of this important point. Thank You!
The Barack Obama Campaign
The perceived economic conditions are bad. The economic conditions are perfect here compared to post War War I Germany.
Obama worked on his oratory skills. He is a superb speaker with the ability to mesmerize his followers.
Obama has been surrounded by racists, anti semites, criminals and drug users.
Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and others have blamed white people and Jews for their problems.
Obama constantly speaks of change.
Obama supporters are caught up in the euphoria of the moment and Obama’s promise of change.
Obama has denied having records, not provided records and been extremely evasive when asked to supply records.
Obama supporters have bullied bloggers when questions about Obama or his past are asked. Some of these attacks are clearly orchestrated by the Obama Campaign. Some of these bullies have attacked family members of bloggers.
Obama has recently shown his elitist attitude during his speech in San Francisco. His arrogance parallels Hitler’s Aryan race comments in regard to Obama’s God Like omnipotence in regard to having the answers to problems.
Obama has many people fooled including many Jews that are ignoring all the evil and anti semitism surrounding Obama. Thanks moinansari and God bless you.
The parallels are clear and they are scary!
What is the lesson to be learned?
The German people blindly followed Hitler with his promises of change. Hitler and his cohorts were not scrutinized by enough people. Barack Obama is promising change and many are blindly following in a similar euphoric state. All candidates for the presidency must be questioned and carefully scrutinized.”
Blagojevich appeal delay perfect Chicago crime, Prosecution and appeal delay protect Obama help Blagojevich, Judge Zagel USDOJ violate federal court rules
“Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich, Governor of IL, prosecuted before Tony Rezko, a businessman?”…Citizen Wells
“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells
“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich
The delay in the prosecution and appeal of Rod Blagojevich.
A perfect Chicago Crime?
From Citizen Wells July 19, 2011.
“We await the appeal of Rod Blagojevich. He was convicted of most counts remaining after counts 1,2 and 4 were removed by the Justice Department. You know, the Justice Department headed by liar and Obama buddy Eric Holder. As reported here yesterday, denying the motion from the Blagojevich defense team to unseal recorded conversations that were wiretapped, appears to be a huge argument to support the appeal and possibly part of the setup. The question is, was Blagojevich picked as the fall guy or will he end up with a slap on the wrist?”
“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”
“You have read it here at Citizen Wells for some time. The delays in prosecuting Rod Blagojevich were designed to protect Obama. You also read here that the appeal process for Blagojevich would drag on past the election. We now have more proof.”
It’s been almost eight months since Blagojevich was sentenced on Dec. 7, 2011. His attorneys discussed how they’d appeal six days after that.
“Well there’s a tremendous amount of work to do now, we need to read through all the transcripts,” defense attorney Lauren Kaeseberg said. “There’s two trials, there’s a significant amount of work.”
“But FOX Chicago News learned that since then, that first key step toward an appeal – getting the 16,000 pages of transcripts – has not yet been accomplished.
“They have to file briefs. The briefs have to be based on alleged errors that occurred in the course of the trial,” Kent College of Law professor Richard Kling said. “Those errors, if they occurred, are reflected in the transcript.”
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently warned Kaeseberg that she could face monetary or disciplinary sanctions if she didn’t explain why the transcripts weren’t done yet.
Kaeseberg responded by producing these emails she had sent to Judge James Zagel’s court reporter, asking for the transcripts.
Finally, about two weeks ago, the court reporter filed her own motion asking for more time, saying she had taken a leave of absence for five and half months and has been swamped with work since her return.
She has now promised to have the transcripts done by late September, with any appellate review not likely for months after then.”
However, Larry Yellen, the FOX Chicago News Legal Analyst states the following:
“Defense lawyers actually faced possible sanctions because they’ve been unable to get the trial transcripts up to the appeals court to start the appeal.
The delays have gone on for months in part because Judge James Zagel’s court reporter took a 5 and 1/2 month leave.”
“The court reporter now has promised to have the transcripts done in about 7 weeks, around September 28.”
“In the George Ryan case he was sentenced on … September and 5 months later they had the transcripts done and they were already doing oral arguments.”
What the Fox News reporter did not tell you is that there are extensive references to procedures in handling appeal case transcripts. The rules are clear.
I can tell you that, based on court rules and procedures, Judge James Zagel carries some of the blame for the delay in the transcripts.
The question is, what was Judge Zagel’s motivation?
Ҥ 130.20.20 District Court
Each district court must develop a Court Reporting Management Plan.”
“(g) Providing for avoidance of backlogs of transcripts and assuring prompt
delivery of high quality transcripts, particularly for cases on appeal to the
court of appeals; ”
Ҥ 440.60 Judge Appointed (Involuntary) Use of Substitute Reporter
§ 440.60.10 Introduction
A district judge or the chief judge of a circuit may appoint a substitute reporter in the event a court reporter is unable to complete transcripts in a timely fashion.
§ 440.60.20 Judicial Conference Policy
“Because of the inordinate delays that have taken place throughout the system in the preparation of transcripts by court reporters in cases that are being appealed, the Conference agreed that substitute reporters should be employed to service the requirements of the district judge where the official court reporter is unable to complete his [or her] transcripts in a timely fashion and that the salary of the official reporter be subject to withholdings not to exceed the sum necessary to compensate the substitute reporter until the transcripts are current. The need for substitute reporter service is to be determined by the district judge affected or by the chief judge of the circuit, at his [or her] option, acting through the circuit executive.” JCUS-MAR 75, p. 8.”
“(1) Appeals to a Circuit from a District Court
Transcripts for appealed cases should be delivered within 30 days from the date ordered or from the date satisfactory arrangements for payment have been made. If the customary practice of the court reporter is not to require prepayment, the 30-day period
begins upon acceptance of the transcript order by the court reporter.”
“Late delivery of transcripts impedes the work of the courts. Each circuit council decides the due dates for the delivery of transcripts and the amount of penalties to be applied when such dates are not met. Therefore, reporters and transcribers may not charge the full fee if they do not produce an appellate transcript within the time limits required by the circuit councils. Additionally, the district courts or circuit councils may impose other penalties. One such penalty would be to require the reporter to compensate a courtroom substitute while the reporter prepares the overdue transcripts.”
Ҥ 540 Transcripts for Cases on Appeal
§ 540.10 Introduction
Cases appealed to the United States courts of appeals require the timely transmission of the record from the lower court. A transcript of the proceedings normally is a required part of the record to be transmitted to the court of appeals.”
Ҥ 540.20.20 Rule 11, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (Forwarding the Record)
The statute states:”
“(B)
If the transcript cannot be completed within 30 days of the reporters receipt of the order, the reporter may request the circuit clerk to grant additional time to complete it. The clerk must note on the docket the action taken and notify the parties.”
“(D)
If the reporter fails to file the transcript on time, the circuit clerk must notify the district judge and do whatever else the court of appeals directs.”
Ҥ 540.60 Use of Substitute Reporters
In the event that an official staff, additional, temporary, or combined-position court reporter is not able to provide transcripts in a timely fashion, i.e., within 30 days, the judge may appoint a substitute reporter at the expense of the reporter. See: Guide, Vol 6, § 440 (Substitute Court Reporters).”
Ҥ 540.60.10 Judicial Conference Policy
“Because of the inordinate delays that have taken place throughout the system in the preparation of transcripts by court reporters in cases that are being appealed, the Conference agreed that substitute reporters should be employed to service the requirements of the district judge where the official court reporter is unable to complete his transcripts in a timely fashion and that the salary of the official reporter be subject to withholdings not to exceed the sum necessary to compensate the substitute reporter until the transcripts are current. The need for substitute reporter service is to be determined by the district judge affected or by the chief judge of the circuit, at his [or her] option, acting through the circuit executive.” JCUS-MAR 75, p. 8.
§ 540.70 Withholding Salary / Placing Reporter on Leave Without Pay
If it is necessary for the judge to appoint a substitute reporter while the court reporter is preparing backlogged transcripts, either the court reporter bears the cost of a substitute appointed by a judge or the court reporter is placed on leave without pay.”
As you can see, appeals cases transcripts are expected to be produced in a timely fashion. There are numerous clearly defined rules for processing them. The responsibilities and contingencies are well covered.
So why is this possibly a perfect Chicago crime?
First of all, without a doubt, this protects Obama again during an election cycle. News from a Blagojevich appeal stays out of the media as does Blagojevich himself.
Secondly, this is another nail in the coffin of judicial misconduct during the Blagojevich prosecutions and another reason for an appeals court judge to throw out the convictions.
Who engineered these delays and who is responsible?
What were Obama and Blagojevich discussing in 2008?
“Just because it’s a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean it is not true.”
Obama Justice Department delays Blagojevich appeal, Blagojevich arrest delayed years and past 2008 election, Judge Zagel and or USDOJ personnel in cahoots?
“Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich, Governor of IL, prosecuted before Tony Rezko, a businessman?”…Citizen Wells
“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells
“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich
Am I another Edgar Cayce. The answer is no. So how did I accurately predict what would happen with the Blagojevich appeal process?
The answer is simple.
I have been paying attention and the conclusion I arrived at was highly predictable.
The Obama Justice Department continues to protect Obama.
The arrest of Blagojevich was delayed years and took place after the 2008 election.
The Blagojevich appeal will drag on past the 2012 election process.
From Citizen Wells December 21, 2011.
“Blagojevich attorneys begin appeals process”
“Attorneys for Rod Blagojevich have formally begun the process of appealing the former Illinois governor’s conviction and prison sentence.
They did so in a court filing late Tuesday, notifying the U.S. District Court in Chicago that they intended to appeal to a higher court.
Blagojevich has been ordered to report to prison on March 15. The 55-year-old was convicted earlier this year of corruption charges that included allegations that he tried to sell or trade an appointment to President Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat for campaign cash or a top job.
Attorneys had said they planned to appeal.
However, the process of filing a full appeal is likely to drag on for several weeks or even months. After notification, transcripts and other documents are typically transferred to the higher court.”
“We await the appeal of Rod Blagojevich. He was convicted of most counts remaining after counts 1,2 and 4 were removed by the Justice Department. You know, the Justice Department headed by liar and Obama buddy Eric Holder. As reported here yesterday, denying the motion from the Blagojevich defense team to unseal recorded conversations that were wiretapped, appears to be a huge argument to support the appeal and possibly part of the setup. The question is, was Blagojevich picked as the fall guy or will he end up with a slap on the wrist?”
“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”
“You have read it here at Citizen Wells for some time. The delays in prosecuting Rod Blagojevich were designed to protect Obama. You also read here that the appeal process for Blagojevich would drag on past the election. We now have more proof.”
It’s been almost eight months since Blagojevich was sentenced on Dec. 7, 2011. His attorneys discussed how they’d appeal six days after that.
“Well there’s a tremendous amount of work to do now, we need to read through all the transcripts,” defense attorney Lauren Kaeseberg said. “There’s two trials, there’s a significant amount of work.”
“But FOX Chicago News learned that since then, that first key step toward an appeal – getting the 16,000 pages of transcripts – has not yet been accomplished.
“They have to file briefs. The briefs have to be based on alleged errors that occurred in the course of the trial,” Kent College of Law professor Richard Kling said. “Those errors, if they occurred, are reflected in the transcript.”
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently warned Kaeseberg that she could face monetary or disciplinary sanctions if she didn’t explain why the transcripts weren’t done yet.
Kaeseberg responded by producing these emails she had sent to Judge James Zagel’s court reporter, asking for the transcripts.
Finally, about two weeks ago, the court reporter filed her own motion asking for more time, saying she had taken a leave of absence for five and half months and has been swamped with work since her return.
She has now promised to have the transcripts done by late September, with any appellate review not likely for months after then.”
“Patti Blagojevich not happy about Rod’s delayed appeal process: EXCLUSIVE”
“Former Illinois first lady Patti Blagojevich is not happy about delays in the appeals process for her husband, convicted ex-governor Rod Blagojevich.
In an exclusive interview, she told FOX Chicago News that the situation is “incredibly frustrating.”
“I mean, my girls miss their dad, he’s missing their birthday, my daughter had her sixteenth birthday just the other day,” Patti said.
Mrs. Blagojevich said it’s been bugging her for months.
As FOX Chicago revealed Tuesday, even though Rod Blagojevich was convicted last summer and sentenced in December, the transcripts from his two trials have not yet been completed for the appellate court.
“There sure was a rush to get my husband in jail,” Blagojevich wrote to friends on Facebook, “where he now sits waiting for the long overdue transcripts.”
The former Illinois governor reported to prison in March. He’s serving time at the Englewood federal corrections facility outside Denver.
“We’ve been waiting for the transcripts to start the appeal,” Mrs. Blagojevich said. “You can’t start the appeal until your appellate lawyer can review the transcripts.”
Judge James Zagel’s court reporter filed a request for an extension of time three weeks ago. The request informed the appeals court that she had been on a five and half month personal leave of absence, and returned to a mountain of work.
Defense attorney Lauren Kaeseberg told the court that she has made numerous requests for the transcripts over the last year, without success. She even produced emails to prove it.
“For five and half months we’ve been waiting for these transcripts to appear,” Patti said. “Meanwhile, the trials have been over. the first trial’s been over for two years, the second trial’s been over a year.””
However, Larry Yellen, the FOX Chicago News Legal Analyst states the following:
“Defense lawyers actually faced possible sanctions because they’ve been unable to get the trial transcripts up to the appeals court to start the appeal.
The delays have gone on for months in part because Judge James Zagel’s court reporter took a 5 and 1/2 month leave.”
“The court reporter now has promised to have the transcripts done in about 7 weeks, around September 28.”
“In the George Ryan case he was sentenced on … September and 5 months later they had the transcripts done and they were already doing oral arguments.”
What the Fox News reporter did not tell you is that there are extensive references to procedures in handling appeal case transcripts. The rules are clear.
I can tell you that, based on court rules and procedures, Judge James Zagel carries some of the blame for the delay in the transcripts.
The question is, what was Judge Zagel’s motivation?
Huffington Post lies on Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy comments, anti-gay stance is a lie, Cathy pro marriage and family, Huffington Post awarded 5 Orwells
“We’re not anti-anybody. Our mission is to create raving fans.”…Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman
“‘You haven’t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,’ he said almost sadly. ‘Even when you write it you’re still thinking in Oldspeak. I’ve read some of those pieces that you write in The Times occasionally. They’re good enough, but they’re translations. In your heart you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?’
Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:
‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,’ he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'”…George Orwell, “1984”
I am not anti gay or anti anyone else. I am anti thuggery, anti lies and anti destruction of the English Language and Law.
From the Cornell University Legal Information Institute.
“In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.”
“In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” (1 U.S.C. § 7).”
“Report: Chick-fil-A controversy ‘manufactured’ by gay activism”
“A report from a Christian activist group in North Carolina says the alleged “anti-gay statements” by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy last month not only were taken out of context, but also were used by homosexual activists to “manufacture” the ensuing controversy.
The journalist who initially interviewed the Chick-fil-A executive in early July was K. Allan Blume, editor of the Biblical Recorder — the journal of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. That interview was subsequently picked up by Baptist Press, which gave the story greater exposure and provided the spark for the controversy in the mainstream media.
Blume now says that during his interview with Cathy, the restaurateur “said nothing offensive, nothing putting down anyone” and that “the whole thing was distorted … an invented, manufactured story.” Never once during the interview, notes the editor, were the words “gay marriage,” “lesbian,” or “homosexual” spoken.
In its “story about the story,” the Christian Action League of North Carolina quotes Blume on the reaction of the homosexual activist community:
“It is obvious the gay community was looking to twist this because they don’t like the fact that Chick-fil-A invests some of their money in groups like Focus on the Family and Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They stirred this up, literally invented it.”
Also according to Blume, the businessman’s “guilty as charged” comment was in response to a question about Chick-fil-A’s commitment to and support of family values — not a confirmation of an “anti-gay stance,” as conveyed in the headline of a Huffington Post story.”
You will notice that the Huffington Post, in Orwellian fashion, has proliferated the phrase “anti-gay.”
Here is one example.
From the Huffington Post July 17, 2012.
“Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President, On Anti-Gay Stance: ‘Guilty As Charged'”
“In a new interview with the Baptist Press, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy — the son of company founder S. Truett Cathy — addresses what the publication describes as his franchise’s “support of the traditional family.”
Cathy’s somewhat glib response: “Well, guilty as charged.”
He went on to note, “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that…we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
Cathy then reiterated his stance during an appearance on “The Ken Coleman Show,” Good as You blogger Jeremy Hooper reported.
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,” Cathy said in that interview, which can be heard here.
Needless to say, Cathy’s remarks quickly sparked the ire of a number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocates and bloggers. “Regardless of where you stand, the placement of LGBT people within our societal picture and within our body of laws is the conversation at hand,” wrote Hooper. “That is not the same thing as ‘support for the traditional family,’ no matter how aggressively the self-appointed values movement attempts to (mis)name reality!””
“Cathy also noted, “We’re not anti-anybody. Our mission is to create raving fans.””
Why does the Huffington Post, now owned by AOL, continue to do the bidding of the Obama Camp?
The past is usually a good predictor.
From Citizen Wells May 25, 2010.
“In 2008, the Obama Campaign used a great deal of money from undocumented donors, a legion of paid bloggers, internet thugs and a complicit press to spin their Orwellian lies. The Obama Campaign paid The Huffington Post $ 55,354 in 2008. That of course is what was reported to the FEC and is the tip of the iceberg. I have heard Obama refer to The Huffington Post on several occasions. The last time was the last straw. The Citizen Wells blog has written about The Huffington Post acting as an arm of the Obama camp to smear opposition to Obama. You can expect more.
Listen to the following Obama speech, if you can stomach it. He mentions The Huffington Post at around 1 minute 57 seconds. The speech is cleverly (in the wicked sense) written. It mixes truths, half truths and lies.”
Blagojevich appeal delayed waiting on transcripts, Court clerk 5 1/2 month leave of absence, Delays help Obama, Transcripts of Blagojevich wiretaps hurt Obama
“this guy is more Tony’d up than I am. …. they got the Chicago media to f…ing make me wear Rezko more. To f…ing dilute it from him.…Rod Blagojevich wiretap November 12, 2008
“BLAGOJEVICH: You know, Axelrod and Obama’s people, you know, clearly turned, you know, got the Chicago media to make Rezko all about me. And hardly about…
HARRIS: Yeah, in other words, they focus their,they focus their attention on you. They couldn’t make it go away so the bes-, next best strategy is deflect it.
BLAGOJEVICH: Right.
HARRIS: This is somewhere where it, it’ll satisfy the, the hunger of the beast, being the media.
BLAGOJEVICH: Right, right.
HARRIS: Yeah, it makes sense. It’s not a stretch. If I’m, if I’m his message advisor, media advisor or whatever, operative, yeah I’m gonna try to feed the beast by giving ‘em something else to eat on.”…Rod Blagojevich wiretap November 12, 2008
“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich wiretap November 7, 2008
You have read it here at Citizen Wells for some time. The delays in prosecuting Rod Blagojevich were designed to protect Obama. You also read here that the appeal process for Blagojevich would drag on past the election. We now have more proof.
From Fox News August 6, 2012.
“Blagojevich appeal delayed due to undone transcripts: EXCLUSIVE”
“Before he went to prison, Rod Blagojevich expressed confidence that his conviction would be overturned on appeal.
But so far, no appellate briefs have been filed and no arguments have been heard.
Several sources told FOX Chicago News that Rod Blagojevich is upset and disappointed at the lack of progress on his appeal.
When former Illinois governor George Ryan was sentenced, his lawyers were in court just five months later, arguing his case.
It’s been almost eight months since Blagojevich was sentenced on Dec. 7, 2011. His attorneys discussed how they’d appeal six days after that.
“Well there’s a tremendous amount of work to do now, we need to read through all the transcripts,” defense attorney Lauren Kaeseberg said. “There’s two trials, there’s a significant amount of work.”
But FOX Chicago News learned that since then, that first key step toward an appeal – getting the 16,000 pages of transcripts – has not yet been accomplished.
“They have to file briefs. The briefs have to be based on alleged errors that occurred in the course of the trial,” Kent College of Law professor Richard Kling said. “Those errors, if they occurred, are reflected in the transcript.”
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently warned Kaeseberg that she could face monetary or disciplinary sanctions if she didn’t explain why the transcripts weren’t done yet.
Kaeseberg responded by producing these emails she had sent to Judge James Zagel’s court reporter, asking for the transcripts.
Finally, about two weeks ago, the court reporter filed her own motion asking for more time, saying she had taken a leave of absence for five and half months and has been swamped with work since her return.
She has now promised to have the transcripts done by late September, with any appellate review not likely for months after then.
“They wont’ decide what errors occurred based on what lawyers said,” Kling said. “They want the real McCoy’s, the transcripts, in front of them.”
The two attorneys handling the Blagojevich appeal, Lauren Kaeseberg and Leonard Goodman, both declined to comment on the delay.
There is a reason that I keep presenting this video containing the audio of Rod Blagojevich wiretaps from November 2008. Blagojevich repeatedly speaks of Obama’s Rezko problem and that Obama has more connections to Rezko than he. Blagojevich also accurately states that the Chicago media has focused their attention on him instead of Obama.
Here are exerpts from the actual transcripts. The full transcripts can be read at the links below.
DATE: 11/05/2008 TIME: 8:58 A.M.
ACTIVITY: Rod Blagojevich home line incoming call.
SESSION: 262
SPEAKERS:
BLAGOJEVICH: Rod Blagojevich
HARRIS: John Harris
HARRIS You know, if I were him, um, you know, a top cabinet post, I don’t, I wouldn’t consider it. I wouldn’t do it if I were him.
BLAGOJEVICH I agree with you.
HARRIS To be honest with you.
BLAGOJEVICH Because of Rezko.
HARRIS Because of Rezko and just because that’s not how I’m gonna build my team. It’s like the mayor, when we, whenever we filled, you know, top positions in city government?
DATE: 11/06/2008 TIME: 12:13 P.M.
ACTIVITY: Rod Blagojevich home line outgoing call.
SESSION: 345 and 347
SPEAKERS:
BLAGOJEVICH: Rod Blagojevich
P. BLAGOJEVICH: Patti Blagojevich
BLAGOJEVICH If you were the president of the United States and you can get your choice for senator who you really want. She really wants it. She’s on his ass, okay.
P. BLAGOJEVICH Yeah.
BLAGOJEVICH And you got a governor who makes the choice and he wants to be DHS. Okay,the Cabinet, he’d do it, but you don’t want all that ’cause of corru-, Rezko and all that shit.
(gap)
BLAGOJEVICH Yeah, that’s good. In other words, we’re predicating this on, Michelle Obama, he’s more hen pecked than me.
BLAGOJEVICH He wants to get out of Chicago politics. Okay. That’s their way of saying Rezko. HARRIS (Laughs)
BLAGOJEVICH Know what I’m sayin’?
DATE: 11/7/08 TIME: 11:06 A.M.
ACTIVITY: Rod Blagojevich home line incoming call.
SESSION: 375
SPEAKERS:
BLAGOJEVICH: Rod Blagojevich
SCOFIELD: Doug Scofield
P. BLAGOJEVICH Patti Blagojevich
BLAGOJEVICH: Hey. Hey. So, they want to get out of Chicago politics is a euphemism for, they want to get away from Rezko.
SCOFIELD: Oh yeah, I, yeah, I agree with that.
BLAGOJEVICH: Huh?
SCOFIELD: Yeah, I agree with that.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah, I’m gonna tell you something…
SCOFIELD: I mean I think it’s true, generally they don’t want to make any deals at all of any kind. But, yeah, no that’s, yeah, it’s Rezko. Yeah, I think that’s right.
(gap)
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah, wants out of Chicago politics? Rezko, yeah.
SCOFIELD: Yeah, I agree.
DATE: 11/07/2008TIME: 4:11 P.M. ACTIVITY: Rod Blagojevich home line incoming call.SESSION: 403, 405, 406 and 408 Speakers:BLAGOJEVICH: Rod BlagojevichYANG: Fred YangHARRIS: John Harris STEWART: Mary Stewart
BLAGOJEVICH So he thought it through, you know, and he’s a little con-, concerned with, you know, well, maybe not right away and I say, “well, look, because, because of the Rezko stuff, Tom? Is that what you think?” And, well, he didn’t want directly say it so I talked about the Rezko stuff.
(gap)
BLAGOJEVICH That Barack would quote unquote, he wants to get away from Illinois politics. To me that’s a euphemism for Rezko.
YANG Right.
BLAGOJEVICH Okay?
YANG Well, and, and also, governor, he went with Rahm as chief of staff.
BLAGOJEVICH Correct.
YANG That’s another Illinois guy.
BLAGOJEVICH Correct. So Illinois politics to me is, and Axelrod, is more Rezko.
(gap)
BLAGOJEVICH … Now, you know I’m under, you know, what I believe is disgusting federal investigations, with them out to get me and I, I’ve been nothin’ but fuckin’ tryin’ to be very honest in my administration. You know made some misjudgements, but compared to even Obama, you know, I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.
DATE: 11/12/2008 TIME: 10:44 A.M.
ACTIVITY: Rod Blagojevich home line incoming call.
SESSION: 545
SPEAKERS:
BLAGOJEVICH: Rod Blagojevich
HARRIS: John Harris
BLAGOJEVICH I just talked to Balanoff.
HARRIS Yeah. You called him?
BLAGOJEVICH Yeah.
HARRIS Okay.
BLAGOJEVICH It’s clear he got the message back from them they want no part of me. You know the Rezko thing and…
HARRIS Right, right.
BLAGOJEVICH I thin-, you know, it’s really, I get that I’m a big boy and I can handle that, but it’s really fucking galling, this guy is more Tony’d up than I am. And it’s almost like they fucking conspi-, made a concerted effort and they got the Chicago media to fucking make me wear Rezko more. To fucking dilute it from him.
DATE: 11/12/2008 TIME: 12:36 P.M.
ACTIVITY: Rod Blagojevich home line incoming call.
SESSION: 558
SPEAKERS:
BLAGOJEVICH: Rod Blagojevich
HARRIS: John Harris
BLAGOJEVICH I mean think about that. I mean they, they want me here in Illinois. That’s a faraway Illinois problem from my old life.
HARRIS Mm-hmm.
BLAGOJEVICH The governor’s got that problem with Rezko, boom. But if I’m in the Senate it’s not just mine anymore, it’s his too. Isn’t it? If the Rezko thing got worse?
HARRIS Mm-hmm, Mm-hmm. Well we’ve always thought that.
BLAGOJEVICH And, and from a legal stand point on the substance of, you know, did, did you do something wrong or didn’t do something wrong it doesn’t change that. But in terms of the, the people who are trying to chase all that down and does it change any dynamic if you’re there verses being left back here.
(gap)
BLAGOJEVICH But don’t forget uh, Obama’s gonna have uh, you know, do something about that. And is Obama more or less likely to wanna contain that if I’m out there with him. I mean I’ve got this theory that even Knapp says could be possible and Balanoff. You know, Axelrod and Obama’s people, you know, clearly turned, you know, got the Chicago media to make Rezko all about me. And hardly about…
HARRIS Yeah, in other words, they focus their,they focus their attention on you. They couldn’t make it go away so the bes-, next best strategy is deflect it.
BLAGOJEVICH Right.
HARRIS This is somewhere where it, it’ll satisfy the, the hunger of the beast, being the media.
BLAGOJEVICH Right, right.
HARRIS Yeah, it makes sense. It’s not a stretch. If I’m, if I’m his message advisor, media advisor or whatever, operative, yeah I’m gonna try to feed the beast by giving ‘em something else to eat on.
BLAGOJEVICH So, if I wanna be safe from Rezko, am I a little bit safer over there with him.
DATE: 11/13/2008 TIME: 12:35 P.M.
ACTIVITY: Rod Blagojevich home line incoming call.
SESSION: 627
SPEAKERS:
BLAGOJEVICH: Rod Blagojevich
SCOFIELD: Doug Scofield
BLAGOJEVICH He wants to keep Rezko a million miles away, you know what I’m saying?
No justice in Obama Justice Dept, New Black Panther Party dismissal, Judicial Watch, Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”…2001 Barack Obama interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ
From The Washington Examiner July 30, 2012.
“Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution”
“A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
…
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.
The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.””
“J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.”
“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter -intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
Stuart Levine death threat, Who benefits most from Levine death?, Who benefited most from death of Jones Young Lt. Harris Kelly Gwatney Breitbart?, Obama knowledge lethal
“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells
“Thomas said Rezko floated the names of several people to sit on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, which the government claims Rezko corrupted with the help of board member Stuart Levine. And Thomas said Rezko at one point made it clear that he wanted to see Levine reappointed to the panel, which was being overhauled by the governor in 2003.”…Rezko trial March 11, 2008
“At Rod Blagojevich’s December sentencing Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid Schar called Levine one of the most significant cooperators the Dirksen Federal Courthouse had ever seen.”…Natasha Korecki, Chicago SunTimes
Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Orlando Jones?
Who benefited most from the murder of Donald Young?
Who benefited most from the murder of Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.?
Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Christopher Kelly?
Who benefited most from the murder of Bill Gwatney?
Who benefited most from the death/murder of Andrew Breitbart?
Tony Rezko is in prison.
Rod Blagojevich is in prison.
Who would benefit most from Stuart Levine’s death?
Not sure?
Stuart Levine worked closely with Tony Rezko and they both had close associations with Barack Obama.
If you have not shared this video or wiretaps with your friends & associates, shame on you.
Citizen WElls 
Huffington Post lies on Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy comments, anti-gay stance is a lie, Cathy pro marriage and family, Huffington Post awarded 5 Orwells
Huffington Post lies on Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy comments, anti-gay stance is a lie, Cathy pro marriage and family, Huffington Post awarded 5 Orwells
“We’re not anti-anybody. Our mission is to create raving fans.”…Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman
“‘You haven’t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,’ he said almost sadly. ‘Even when you write it you’re still thinking in Oldspeak. I’ve read some of those pieces that you write in The Times occasionally. They’re good enough, but they’re translations. In your heart you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?’
Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:
‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,’ he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'”…George Orwell, “1984”
I am not anti gay or anti anyone else. I am anti thuggery, anti lies and anti destruction of the English Language and Law.
From the Cornell University Legal Information Institute.
“In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.”
“In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” (1 U.S.C. § 7).”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage/
From One News Now August 16, 2012.
“Report: Chick-fil-A controversy ‘manufactured’ by gay activism”
“A report from a Christian activist group in North Carolina says the alleged “anti-gay statements” by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy last month not only were taken out of context, but also were used by homosexual activists to “manufacture” the ensuing controversy.
The journalist who initially interviewed the Chick-fil-A executive in early July was K. Allan Blume, editor of the Biblical Recorder — the journal of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. That interview was subsequently picked up by Baptist Press, which gave the story greater exposure and provided the spark for the controversy in the mainstream media.
Blume now says that during his interview with Cathy, the restaurateur “said nothing offensive, nothing putting down anyone” and that “the whole thing was distorted … an invented, manufactured story.” Never once during the interview, notes the editor, were the words “gay marriage,” “lesbian,” or “homosexual” spoken.
In its “story about the story,” the Christian Action League of North Carolina quotes Blume on the reaction of the homosexual activist community:
“It is obvious the gay community was looking to twist this because they don’t like the fact that Chick-fil-A invests some of their money in groups like Focus on the Family and Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They stirred this up, literally invented it.”
Also according to Blume, the businessman’s “guilty as charged” comment was in response to a question about Chick-fil-A’s commitment to and support of family values — not a confirmation of an “anti-gay stance,” as conveyed in the headline of a Huffington Post story.”
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1655748
Do a search on:
“Huffington Post Chick-fil-A anti-gay stance”
You will notice that the Huffington Post, in Orwellian fashion, has proliferated the phrase “anti-gay.”
Here is one example.
From the Huffington Post July 17, 2012.
“Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President, On Anti-Gay Stance: ‘Guilty As Charged'”
“In a new interview with the Baptist Press, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy — the son of company founder S. Truett Cathy — addresses what the publication describes as his franchise’s “support of the traditional family.”
Cathy’s somewhat glib response: “Well, guilty as charged.”
He went on to note, “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that…we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
Cathy then reiterated his stance during an appearance on “The Ken Coleman Show,” Good as You blogger Jeremy Hooper reported.
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,” Cathy said in that interview, which can be heard here.
Needless to say, Cathy’s remarks quickly sparked the ire of a number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocates and bloggers. “Regardless of where you stand, the placement of LGBT people within our societal picture and within our body of laws is the conversation at hand,” wrote Hooper. “That is not the same thing as ‘support for the traditional family,’ no matter how aggressively the self-appointed values movement attempts to (mis)name reality!””
“Cathy also noted, “We’re not anti-anybody. Our mission is to create raving fans.””
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html
Why does the Huffington Post, now owned by AOL, continue to do the bidding of the Obama Camp?
The past is usually a good predictor.
From Citizen Wells May 25, 2010.
“In 2008, the Obama Campaign used a great deal of money from undocumented donors, a legion of paid bloggers, internet thugs and a complicit press to spin their Orwellian lies. The Obama Campaign paid The Huffington Post $ 55,354 in 2008. That of course is what was reported to the FEC and is the tip of the iceberg. I have heard Obama refer to The Huffington Post on several occasions. The last time was the last straw. The Citizen Wells blog has written about The Huffington Post acting as an arm of the Obama camp to smear opposition to Obama. You can expect more.
Listen to the following Obama speech, if you can stomach it. He mentions The Huffington Post at around 1 minute 57 seconds. The speech is cleverly (in the wicked sense) written. It mixes truths, half truths and lies.”
https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/tag/obama-campaign-paid-huffington-post-55354-in-2008/
For their continued efforts to represent Big Brother and spin Orwellian Lies, I award the Huffington Post 5 Orwells.
74 Comments
Posted in 1984, Americans, AOL poll, Barack Obama, Big Brother, Christianity, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Faith, Family, Journalism, Lies, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, Orwell, Orwellian, The Case Against Barack Obama
Tagged anti-gay stance is a lie, Cathy pro marriage and family, Huffington Post awarded 5 Orwells, Huffington Post lies on Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy comments