We need to know the truth about Barack Obama. We need to know where Obama was on November 4, 1999. We need to know where Obama was and what he was doing during his term in the Illinois Senate. When I first read the allegations of Larry Sinclair, I was very skeptical. I am still somewhat skeptical. However, I went to the records of the Illinois Senate for November 4, 1999 and Barack Obama was not present. Sinclair alleges that he had 2 encounters with Obama from November 3 to November 8 1999. The first encounter was allegedly in a rented limo and involved drugs and gay sex. This alone was not a red flag for me but when you couple this information with Obama’s known association with criminals, with racists and hate mongers and his failure to provide his records while in the Illinois Senate, there is a legitimate need to get straight answers from Obama.
Here is what we know about Obama:
Obama received campaign contributions from Tony Rezko and was involved in a real estate transaction involving Rezko and his wife.
Obama had a long time association with racist, anti semitic pastor Jeremiah Wright.
Obama has consistently evaded requests for information, lied about not knowing of pastor Wright’s comments and acted in a hypocritical manner such as when he condemned Don Imus in 2007.
Obama has made hypocritical comments about open access to records:
From the democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia on Oct. 30, Obama said to Clinton: “We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, as you’re making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem.”
November 3 2007. The Obama campaign sent out a letter pressing Clinton to release her White House schedules before the Iowa caucuses.
“Fully releasing these records is in keeping with the spirit of the process that makes the Iowa caucus so special,”
Lynn Sweet, a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times states:
“Instead, since I have some reporting history here, I am noting a pattern that has emerged: This is Obama’s third ethical conversion of convenience — taking on a higher standard, but only when it appears to be politically expedient. Obama is making government transparency and ethics a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.”
From a Chicago Tribune interview of November 12, 2007:
“The status of any government records Sen. Barack Obama might still have from his time as a state lawmaker in Springfield has come up as he has repeatedly criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for how slowly records from her husband’s administration have been released.
In a Tribune interview Thursday, the Illinois Democrat said he had no intention of sharing any of the documents he might still have in his possession.”
Next are the questions asked and responses from Obama. I know that many people have read this, but it is worth repeating:
“Q: It is kind of unknown where some of the records from your time in Springfield are located. Where is that stuff, what do you have?
“We had one district director. I had one staff person, so, you know, we didn’t have some elaborate sort of system. I didn’t at my disposal millions of dollars and potentially multiple staff people to conduct an archive. Now keep in mind, it is apples and oranges. First of all, I’m not the one who has made this an issue. We saw during the debate, Senator Clinton was asked about it and the suggestion was somehow they’ve done all they could. And my simple point was, I don’t think there is some smoking gun in these archives or something, or some damning evidence. The only point that I’ve made is that, you know, Senator Clinton continues to base her claim on experience, in part, in substantial part, on her role as first lady, because if her, you know, experience was just based on her tenure as an elected official, it’s thinner than mine. So, I think it’s fair for people to ask, you know, what exactly was she doing, if that’s a substantial claim that she is making. So, I’m not interested in playing a game of gotcha, where I think there is evidence of something. I’m assuming most of this stuff is pretty mundane, you know, stuff. But what we do know is that she was involved in health care. Based on the questions you just asked me, or [New York Times reporter Jeff] Zeleny just asked me today, there’s this sense of, well, yeah, I was in charge of health care, but the fact that it didn’t work out, wasn’t my fault. That, we’ve at least got a public record that she was involved. From that point forward, we really have no idea what she was involved in. And so, you know, what I think, what I think, is not, doesn’t make sense is to say, to able to take credit for whatever Clinton Administration successes that she wants, and then selectively distance herself from any Clinton Administration failures, and not have some sort of public record that allows people to get a sense of that. Now, my sense is that this is information that, if they wanted to accelerate the process, so that it was available before this election, they could get it out there.”
Q: What about your stuff, though? What do you have?
“I have no idea. I mean [muffled on recording]. I really don’t. Again, I did not have at my disposal. I wasn’t preparing for the Obama state senatorial library.”
Q: You must have kept some stuff. Correspondence, calendars?
“The problem is whatever remaining documents I have are inevitably incomplete. And then the questions going to be, where’s this or where’s that. Once I start heading down that road, then it puts me in a position that could end up being misleading. I don’t want to mislead people. I don’t know the extent of the records that I have as a state senator.””
Read more from the Chicago Tribune:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/obama_did_not_want_his_poems_s.html
The following is from Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times on November 11, 2007:
“On Friday, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that she had asked Obama at a news conference: “Do your state senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?”
Sweet wrote that he replied: “Nobody has requested specific documents.”
But the Chicago Tribune has reported that it “requested documents from his time in Springfield and never received a response.”
And Sweet wrote of her own paper, “The Chicago Sun-Times has also been asking about Obama’s papers.””
“RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said of Obama’s reticence on records: “Barack Obama is a rookie senator with few accomplishments. Perhaps he’s reluctant to inform the public about his activities in Springfield because they demonstrate a lack of leadership at a state level as well.””
“An Obama spokesman, Ben LaBolt, last week declined to say where Obama’s records from his years in the Illinois State Senate are located. There is no law mandating the state to archive the records. The records from Obama’s office — if he kept them — would potentially show appointments with lobbyists, policy memos, meetings, etc.”
“Obama’s campaign has refused to identify the biggest bundlers, people who are raising at least $200,000 for him and are given membership in his National Finance Council. Obama, as all major candidates, declines most of the time to disclose details about most fund-raising events.”
“Sometimes Obama has come late to the game. He did not stop taking rides on subsidized corporate jets until the week he was tapped to be the Democrats’ chief spokesman on ethics in January 2006. In 2005, Obama took 23 such private aircraft flights, some to attend fund-raisers he headlined. In 2006, Obama led the fight to ban lawmakers from taking cut-rate private air travel.”
“Obama has supported more earmark disclosure to bolster government transparency. Last June, Obama disclosed the earmarks he requested for Illinois and national interests. However, his office, after repeated requests since June, has yet to disclose earmarks Obama sought in 2006, before he was running for president.”
Read more from Lynn Sweet here:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_column_obama_record_on_t.html
Tim Russert interviewed Barack Obama on November 11, 2007. During part of the interview Russert asked Obama about supplying records. Here is that segment:
“MR. RUSSERT: You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, “What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois,” you said, “I don’t know.” Where, where are the—where are your records?
SEN. OBAMA: Tim, we did not keep those records. I…
MR. RUSSERT: Are they gone?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, let’s be clear. In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois. The, the stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule. I didn’t have a schedule. I was a state senator. I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library. I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues. So…
MR. RUSSERT: But your meetings with lobbyists and so forth, there’s no record of that?
SEN. OBAMA: I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now. And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.
MR. RUSSERT: Is your schedule available anywhere? Are—the records exist?
SEN. OBAMA: I—Tim, I kept my own schedule. I didn’t have a scheduler.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Durbin, your colleague, publishes his schedule each day. Would you do that?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, these days I have a public presidential schedule that I think everybody has access to.”
To read more of the Tim Russert interview click here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/
Obama said, “I didn’t have a schedule.” What kind of evasive answer is that? Everyone has a schedule.
Larry Sinclair’s allegation means almost nothing in a vacuum. However, when you look at the big picture, the picture that appears from all of the puzzle pieces, a scary picture emerges. Barack Obama is running for President of the United States. He has to be held to a high standard. It is time for some answers and information.
Obama must provide records.
Where was Obama on November 4, 1999?
Citizen WElls 
Jeremiah Wright, Sons of Italy, letter, Wright’s comments about Italians,Jesus crucifixion, public lynching Italian style
Jeremiah Wright made derogatory statements about Italians before his hate filled, racist sermons became widely known. The Italian insults were made in 2007. Obviously, Italian Americans were outraged by Wright’s comments. Apparently the Sons of Italy responded with a letter. Below is allegedly the letter from the Sons of Italy. I have no confirmation of the contents. If you have any confirming or denial information, please provide it.
“We write on behalf of the 103 year old Order Sons of Italy in America (OSIA) and our 550,000 family members throughout the nation, and our anti-defamation arm, the Commission for Social Justice (CSJ), to strongly and unequivocally reject and condemn recently reported remarks made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. According to MSNBC and other published and internet sources, Rev. Wright in 2007 stated: “[Jesus’] enemies had their opinion about Him . . . . The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.” He then called Jesus’ crucifixion “a public lynching Italian style” executed in “Apartheid Rome”.
OSIA and the CSJ have sterling records of championing social justice and fair treatment for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality or religion, and of combating, wherever and whenever necessary discrimination, defamation and stereotyping. We have worked closely, collaboratively and effectively for such causes with numerous and various social , religious and cultural groups throughout our long history. The civically responsible, philanthropic and patriotic works of the Sons of Italy have been publicly attested to by every US president since Woodrow Wilson.
Indeed, it is this unchallenged record of advocacy of social justice for all people that has delayed our response to Rev. Wright’s unfortunate remarks, as we seek to lend reason and clarity to a deeply troubling historical reality. Rev. Wright’s remarks cannot merely be attributed to “anger”, but must be viewed against the backdrop of many years of what historian Richard Gambino called a “monstrous tradition in America” and an “injustice which remains hidden” directed at Italians.
While America of the late 19th century witnessed widespread racist, ethnic and anti-Catholic hatred, few immigrant groups suffered more than Italians: in 1891, in New Orleans, ten Italian prisoners found not guilty by a jury were executed by a mob in the largest lynching in American history. That same year, several Italians were lynched in West Virginia. In March 1894, several hundred Italians were driven out of Altoona, Pennsylvania, by an armed mob. In 1895, six Italian labor organizers were lynched in Colorado, six more in Hahnville, Louisiana, as were five Italian shopkeepers four years later in Tallulah, La. Fatal mob attacks against Italians were recorded in 1901, in Mississippi, 1906 in West Virginia, and 1910 in Tampa, Fl. In addition to the highly prejudicial and legally tainted Sacco and Vanzetti case of the 1920s, historian John Higham wrote that “No pogrom has ever stained American soil, nor did any single anti-Jewish incident in the 1920’s match the violence of the [vigilante mob-led] anti-Italian riot ” in West Frankfort, Illinois.
Words are important and have meaning, clear and subliminal. Shock jock Don Imus, whose very staple and basis for earning many millions of dollars, is the use of provocative, abrasive, demeaning and edge language, was fired and universally excoriated for the use of three extremely offensive and inappropriate words. A skilled communicator, Rev. Wright’s deliberate choice of words having explicitly 20th century meaning (”lynching Italian style”, “Apartheid”, even “Italians”; there were Romans at the time, Italy didn’t exist) to describe first century AD events speak to an intention far beyond the expression of mere “anger”, or the citing of putative historical truths. We decry those intentions and sentiments as, we are confident, do all decent and fair-minded individuals. Rev. Wright, while perhaps retired, nevertheless owes all Italian Americans a sincere apology. We live in a profoundly complex, multifaceted, diverse society, which defies simplistic questions, answers and reasons. We must transcend personal injustices and seek a deeper understanding and appreciation that each of us, separately and as a group, often are and feel offended. No one has a monopoly on being discriminated against, defamed or stereotyped.
OSIA’s and the CSJ’s purpose here is not political. We desire no involvement in the current presidential campaign, nor do we wish to become embroiled in a political maelstrom. Still, one of the three candidates will, in all probability, become the next leader of the free world and the next president, thus representing all of the US’s 300 million-plus citizens, 26 million of whom are of Italian heritage. We believe that Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama must unequivocally condemn the words and sentiments voiced by Rev. Wright, and clearly disavow his actions.”
Submitted by
Philip R. Piccigallo, Ph.D
National Executive Director
Order Sons of Italy in America
The Supreme Council
Order Sons of Italy in America
The Commission for Social Justice Board of Directors
5 Comments
Posted in Announcements, Anti Semitism, Barack Obama, Democrats, doublespeak, Election, History, Jeremiah Wright, Journalism, Justice, News, Politics, Quotes, racism, Religion, Society
Tagged Jeremiah Wright, Jesus crucifixion, letter, public lynching Italian style, Sons of Italy, Wright's comments about Italians