Category Archives: Senator Obama

John Kass on Sarah Palin, The Sarah experiment, Palin emails vs Obama emails, Obama records, Tony Rezko

John Kass on Sarah Palin, The Sarah experiment, Palin emails vs Obama emails, Obama records, Tony Rezko

“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

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“Why did Obama make Robert F. Bauer, an attorney with Perkins Coie, who helped Obama keep his records hidden before taking control of the White House, part of his administration as White House Counsel?”…Citizen Wells

You gotta like John Kass of the Chicago Tribune. He has been telling it like it is about Obama for years. And not just Obama, but all of Obama’s corruption buddies like Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich, William cellini, et al.

From John Kass and the Chicago Tribune June 17, 2011.
“Excited reporters rummaged desperately through more than 24,000 emails of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the hopes of finding her saying something stupid.

So frantic were the New York Times and Washington Post that they went so far as to solicit readers to help them dig up the dirt on the conservative Palin.

It was what it was — a liberal media witch hunt. About the only thing they forgot to do was shriek, “Burn her! Burn her!”

Though I’m a conservative, the charismatic and optimistic Palin isn’t exactly my cup of tea. I preferred the charismatically challenged and much more pessimistic Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who’s no longer running for president because his wife said so.

Isn’t it time we just abandon the pretense of objectivity in news-gathering when Palin is involved? The public surely picks up on the snarky tone in the coverage, that coiled seething media rage against Palin. But for what, exactly? Her fertility? Her femininity? Her pro-life views? Her ability to shoot and pray?

And I’ve also seen seasoned journalists get as wiggly as puppies when President Barack Obama comes around. Their faces glow. Some even leave wet spots on the carpet.

So I can’t imagine major news organizations asking readers to help their reporters dig up political dirt on Obama from his days as a Chicago politician. Yes, I know it’s not fashionable to say so, but Obama is a Chicago politician. All you’ve got to do is see his chief of staff, Billy Daley, crouching in the Oval Office like some gargoyle. But you wouldn’t know it from the national media.

So I ask you to imagine reading the following online:

“With all the records being released from Obama’s time as a state senator from Chicago — and all of his connections to the convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko — we need help.

“So we’re looking for some help from readers to analyze, contextualize and research it all right alongside our reporters over the next several days. … We’re limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the emails. … If you need inspiration before getting started …”

Except for the stuff about Rezko and Obama, the language above is similar to last week’s Washington Post call for readers to join in the Palin Hunt. And the New York Times issued a similar invitation.

It’s almost impossible to imagine the media calling for an Obama hunt because the journalists are too much in love.

And, though Obama chided Hillary Clinton for not releasing her records during the last presidential campaign, he said he didn’t keep records of his own.

“I don’t have — I don’t maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn’t have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records,” he said during a 2007 presidential campaign stop in Iowa.

Obama wasn’t sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, “It could have been thrown out. I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”

So there. And the Obama White House also won’t release other public information, like the minutes of the meetings in which Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel — Obama’s first chief of staff — sat on the board of Freddie Mac.”

“Let’s call it the Sarah Experiment.”

“She wrote, “we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Naturally, they’ll say, “God, is she stupid or what? Palin doesn’t even know her own country. She’s too stupid to be president.”

And then you tell them that the stupid, racist thing Palin said about Indians was not said by Palin.

It was said in 2006 by the man who’s now vice president, Joe Biden.

And the idiot who, during the last presidential campaign, talked about visiting all 57 states with one to go? That wasn’t Palin saying something stupid.

That was Obama.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0617-20110617,0,281609.column?page=1

Yes John, I have been taking part in the experiment to expose Obama since early 2008. Here is one of my latest attempts.

From Citizen Wells June 13, 2011.

“Once again, the left has tried to smear Sarah Palin and failed. Her goodness and love of country appears to threaten them. Too bad they didn’t scrutinize Obama.

Sarah Palin Emails

Pristine

Barack Obama Emails

Uh, oh”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/sarah-palin-emails-pristine-obama-emails-involve-rezko-and-communist-cousin-raila-odinga/

Thanks to commenter Pat1789

Sarah Palin emails pristine, Obama emails involve Rezko and communist cousin Raila Odinga

Sarah Palin emails pristine, Obama emails involve Rezko and communist cousin Raila Odinga

Once again, the left has tried to smear Sarah Palin and failed. Her goodness and love of country appears to threaten them. Too bad they didn’t scrutinize Obama.

Sarah Palin Emails

Pristine

Barack Obama Emails

Uh, oh

From the Tony Rezko trial March 10, 2008.

“Ziegelmueller asked Hayden about a 2003 e-mail exchange with Lichtenstein, then the governor’s top lawyer, in which Wilhelm made recommendations for the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.
The name of Barack Obama, the Democratic front-runner for the presidential nomination, also appears in the e-mail as a member of a strategic team reviewing hospital board matters with the governor’s staff when he was a state senator. The hospital board was scheduled to be revamped in the summer of 2003.
Obama was then chairman of the Senate Committee on Health & Human Services.”

Obama supported and campaigned for his ruthless, communist cousin Raila Odinga from Kenya. Here are some email exchanges between Obama and Odinga.

Obama records still hidden, Original birth certificate, College records, Senate records, Obama used tax payer dollars to hide records

 Obama records still hidden, Original birth certificate, College records, Senate records, Obama used tax payer dollars to hide records

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“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

The questions above are still valid and require answers.

Some things are worth repeating. From Citizen Wells April 2, 2008.

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?

Speaker Boehner and congress, Legal experts speak out, Obama eligibility, Obama issues

Speaker Boehner and congress, Legal experts speak out, Obama eligibility, Obama issues

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Quite a few attorneys have been involved in lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility. Some of them are Democrats. Other attorneys and legal experts have commented on Obama, eligibility issues and court proceedings. Some of those expert opinions are presented below.

John Boehner, members of Congress, judges and other officials holding offices designed to serve and protect the American public, pay attention.

Long time Democrat and civil rights attorney, Bartle Bull.

From Citizen Wells November 12, 2008.

Responses to Judge Surrick’s ruling in Berg v Obama.

“Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.””

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:

“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty. 
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”

“Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :”

“Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/obama-not-eligible-us-constitution-tenth-amendment-bill-of-rights-us-supreme-court-federal-judges-state-judges-state-election-officials-electoral-college-electors-philip-j-berg-lawsuit-leo-c/

From the Michigan Law Review.

John McCain, with two US Citizen parents, has questionable status.

“A. Citizenship and Natural Born Citizenship by Statute

According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only become a citizen by being naturalized . . . by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens . . . .” A person granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen. This last point is discussed thoroughly in Jill A. Pryor’s 1988 note in the Yale Law Journal, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.

The Supreme Court holds that the citizenship statutes are exclusive; there is no residual common-law or natural-law citizenship. Citizens have no constitutional right to transmit their citizenship to children. In Rogers, the Supreme Court upheld a statute requiring children born overseas to citizen parents to reside in the United States to retain their citizenship. Since “Congress may withhold citizenship from persons” born overseas to citizen parents or “deny [them] citizenship outright,” it could impose the lesser burden of requiring U.S. residence to retain citizenship.

Congressional power to withhold citizenship from children of U.S. citizens is not hypothetical; for decades, it was law, and to some extent still is. The Tribe-Olson Opinion proposes that “[i]t goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States . . . .” However, the Seventh Congress, which included Framers Gouverneur Morris and Abraham Baldwin among others, did precisely that. In 1961 in Montana v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court construed an 1802 statute to mean that “[f]oreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens . . . .” Thus, children of members of the armed forces serving overseas, and diplomats and civil servants in foreign posts, were not only not natural born citizens eligible to be president, they were not citizens at all.

Denial of automatic citizenship had very different implications than it would now because until the late nineteenth century, there was little federal immigration law. There were no general federal restrictions on who could enter the country, no provisions for deportation of residents who became undesirable, and immigration officials to deport them. Of course, these children could become citizens by individual naturalization. But even if the child suffered based on lack of citizenship, according to the 1907 Supreme Court decision in Zartarian v. Billings, “[a]s this subject is entirely within congressional control, the matter must rest there; it is only for the courts to apply the law as they find it.””

Read more:

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-senator-john-mccain-cannot-be-president-eleven-months-and-a-hundred-yards-short-of-citizenship

William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School, believes Obama was born in Hawaii but states the obvious.

“There is a bizarre intellectual dance taking place around the topic of Barack Obama’s birthplace. 

The world has been artificially divided into “Birthers” and “anti-Birthers” when in fact I suspect a large percentage or even majority of the population is neither and simply wants all the evidence released so that we can move beyond the issue.  For most people, who have had to show their own birth certificates at various points in their lives, the notion that a presidential candidate should release his or her birth certificate to prove qualification for office reflects neither pro- nor anti-Obama sentiment, but a “what’s the big deal?” attitude.”

“We can deal with accusations of John McCain’s alleged misconduct during imprisonment even though such suggestions were beyond the pale, and also questions as to whether McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone disqualified him from the highest office in the land:”

“We have reached the point that merely expressing normal political and legal inquisitiveness will result in a charge of Birtherism or racism because it now involves Barack Obama, even though similar questions as to John McCain’s eligibility for office were raised in the 2008 election cycle.

I repeat, whiter-than-white John McCain had his eligibility questioned because of his birthplace, so how is it necessarily racist that the same thing takes place as to Barack Obama?  The racist charge is just a way of shutting down the conversation, a convenient excuse for epistemic closure.

As I’ve posted before, I think the circumstantial evidence supports the view that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there is no credible evidence otherwise.  But to reach this conclusion, the one thing neither I nor anyone else can honestly say is that all the evidence has been reviewed.”

Read more:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/12/bizarre-birther-intellectual-dance.html#comment-form

“But to reach this conclusion, the one thing neither I nor anyone else can honestly say is that all the evidence has been reviewed.”

Did you get that Speaker Boehner?

William Cellini trial date set, Cellini Blagojevich Rezko Levine Obama, All searches lead back to Obama, Citizen Wells open thread, December 10, 2010

William Cellini trial date set, Cellini Blagojevich Rezko Levine Obama, All searches lead back to Obama

(Highlighting done by Citizen Wells)

From the Chicago Tribune December 2, 2010.

“A date has finally been set for the long-delayed trial of a Springfield businessman charged with illegally plotting to raise campaign funds for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

At a status hearing Thursday, a federal judge in Chicago scheduled William Cellini‘s trial for Aug. 22.

Cellini is a longtime fundraiser and behind-the-scenes power broker in Illinois politics.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/sns-ap-il–cellinitrial,0,6721744.story

All searches lead back to Obama and Rezko

From Citizen Wells November 1, 2010.

“I was following up on news on Obama corruption cronies in Chicago and Illinois and the Blagojevich trial saga and came across an article that was probably much unnoticed.”

“From the Chicago Tribune November 16, 2008 reported on Citizen Wells April 29, 2010.

“Connections could touch every somebody”

“To fully appreciate our politics you’ve got to look at the connections. Sadly, this task is beyond the national press and some locals besotted with our renowned vintage, Combine Kool Aid.”

Cellini is accused of helping shake down a Hollywood producer and politically connected Chicago investor Thomas Rosenberg for $1.5 million in campaign cash for Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Cellini also is accused as a point man in a plot to remove U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald as federal prosecutor.”

Cellini really began to pile up the cash when then-Gov. Thompson gave him a state gaming license. Webb and Zagel were young prosecutors under then-U.S. Atty. Thompson. Later, Zagel was director of the state’s Department of Revenue under Thompson. Webb ran the State Police.
Everybody knows somebody. So, no, Illinois politics isn’t a Robert Ludlum novel.
Illinois is Six Degrees of Bill Cellini.”

“The Combine wants Fitzgerald promoted out of town. But President-elect Barack Obama has promised newspaper editorial boards he would keep Fitzgerald in Chicago to fight political corruption.

That’s the same President-elect Obama with Mayor Daley’s guy Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, and another Daley guy, David Axelrod, as Obama’s chief strategist. The mayor’s brother Billy is one of Obama’s chief economic advisers. Whew!

Some political analysts become quite upset when “Daley machine” and “Obama” are mentioned in my column. They feel compelled to give me a vigorous corrective. But this same Flat Earth society denied the existence of a Combine for years, then shut up for a while when Obama’s real estate fairy Tony Rezko was convicted in the federal government’s Operation Board Games probe.”

Obama was chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee in January 2003. A few articles in the media have mentioned that Obama sat on a committee that reviewed matters related to the Planning Board in conjunction with the Governor’s staff but none have discussed his integral part in getting the bill passed.

A review of senate records from January 2003 to August 2003, shows Obama played a major role as chairman of that committee, in pushing through Senate Bill 1332, that led to the “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, making the votes much easier to rig.”

“The bill was filed with the senate secretary on February 20, 2003, and assigned to Human Services Committee for review on February 27. Less than a month later, as chairman, Obama sent word that the bill should be passed on March 13, 2003.

On May 31, 2003, the House and Senate passed the bill and the only senator listed in the “yes” votes mentioned in the Board Games indictments is Obama.

Blagojevich made the effective date June 27, 2003, and the co-schemers already had the people lined up to stack the Board and rig the votes with full approval from Obama.”

“During the trial, Stuart Levine testified that when he sought reappointment to the Planning Board, he told Republican co-schemer, Bill Cellini, to tell the Blagojevich administration he would vote however they wanted when approving projects.”

“A June 2003 email exchange produced in the trial shows Obama was one of eight officials who received the names of the nominees for the new Board ahead of time, from the office of David Wilhelm, who headed Blagojevich’s 2002 campaign for governor.”

“Corrupt appointees fund Obama and Blagojevich campaigns”

“A few weeks later, Beck said, Rezko called to say he would be reappointed along with a Republican holdover Levine. Beck also testified that Rezko told him Blagojevich was set to appoint Rezko’s three doctor friends to complete the rigged voting bloc. He said he met the doctors in August 2003, at the first meeting of the new Board.

Dr Michel Malek gave Obama $10,000 a little over a month before the first meeting on June 30, 2003. He also donated $25,000 to Blagojevich three weeks later on July 25, 2003, and gave Obama another $500 in September 2003. Malek was an investor in Riverside Park.

Dr Fortunee Massuda donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25, 2003, and gave a total of $2,000 to Obama on different dates. Massuda’s husband, Charles Hannon, is a co-schemer in the pension fund case and testified against Rezko in the trial.

Dr Imad Almanaseer contributed a total of $3,000 to Obama after he landed the appointment. On March 13, 2008, Almanaseer testified against Rezko and told the jury he was an investor in Rezko’s fast-food businesses.”
https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/william-cellini-obama-rezko-levine-et-al-all-searches-lead-back-to-obama-and-rezko-citizen-wells-open-thread-november-1-2010/

Obama birth certificate rally, Eligibility rally, ObamaCare rally, Washington DC, October 23, 2010, Berg at Beck rally

Obama birth certificate rally, Eligibility rally, ObamaCare rally

From Philip J Berg August 28, 2010.

For Immediate Release:  – 08/28/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire         
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                         
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Berg will be with Volunteers
At Glen Beck Rally – Aug. 28th
Handing out Flyers
Regarding October 23rd Rally

The Obama Birth Certificate / Eligibility / ObamaCare
Rally in Washington
will be Saturday, October 23, 2010
U.S. Capitol – West Front
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/28/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States stated that “WE THE PEOPLE” by and through Philip J. Berg and Obamacrimes.com is sponsoring the OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE / ELIGIBILITY/ OBAMACARE Rally in Washington on Saturday, October 23, 2010 – 12 Noon to 4:00 p.m. at U.S. Capitol – West Front.
 
The OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE / ELIGIBILITY/ OBAMACARE Rally in Washington, D.C. is for the purpose of exposing Soetoro/Obama and demanding that he proves that he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President, or for the benefit of the 308 million citizens of the United States, to resign from office.

All individuals participating are requested to bring a copy of their Birth Certificate.

The crucial issues regarding Obama, the “IMPOSTER”, continue to grow.  However, the most important issue is Obama not being Constitutionally eligible to be President: 1) not being “natural born” being born in Mombasa, Kenya; and 2) even more important the fact that Obama was “adopted” or legally “acknowledged” by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, and his school record in Indonesia indicates the “Imposter’s” name is “Barry Soetoro”, his nationality being “Indonesia” and his religion being “Islam”.  Obama, the Imposter’s legal name is “Barry Soetoro”.  Obama must be stopped !  WE THE PEOPLE can, by way of the largest rally ever in Washington, DC, have a “Peaceful Revolution” and force Obama to prove he is “Constitutionally eligible” or resign from office.  YES WE CAN !  

The cost of the Rally in Washington is expensive.  We must raise Fifty Thousand [$50,000.00] Dollars to cover the cost of the Rally including advertising this important event.

Donate today to help cover the expenses of this Rally and defend our Constitution.

An updated flyer regarding our Rally is attached.  Please spread the word to as many people as you can and stay tuned to obamacrimes.com.

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
http://obamacrimes.com

JoAnn Chiakulas Blagojevich juror speaks out, Prosecution case weak, Emphasis on selling Obama senate seat

JoAnn Chiakulas Blagojevich juror speaks out, Prosecution case weak

Although I do not totally agree with Blagojevich juror JoAnn Chiakulas, she does make a point about the case that the prosecution didn’t make against ex governor Rod Blagojevich. JoAnn Chiakulas has finally spoken out about her decisions. From the Chicago Tribune August 27, 2010.

“Battling stomach pains and fatigue, JoAnn Chiakulas would take the train into the city each morning knowing that her resolve was disappointing some people and infuriating others.

But the 67-year-old grandmother said she also knew that as a juror in Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trial, she had a responsibility to follow her conscience and the law. She said she did not believe he or his brother committed a crime with their actions to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat, so she would not find them guilty despite what other jurors, prosecutors and, perhaps, the general public wanted.

If it was going to be 11-1, so be it.
“I could never live with myself if I went along with the rest of the jury,” Chiakulas told the Tribune in her first media interview since the trial ended. “I didn’t believe it was the correct vote for me.”

The jury deliberated on the sweeping corruption charges for 14 days and, in the end, convicted Rod Blagojevich of one count of lying to the FBI. The panel was split on the 23 other counts, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial and the government to promise a retrial.”

“Chiakulas and two other jurors broke their silence in an interview Wednesday night and offered their account of the deliberations and the trial’s aftermath. Also attending was longtime Chicago Tribune contributor Ruth Fuller, a family friend who helped arrange the meeting.

Chiakulas said she found Blagojevich’s recorded statements on the Senate vacancy to be so scattered and disorganized that his actions did not reach the level of a criminal conspiracy.

One day he chattered about being the Indian ambassador, for example, then in the next conversation he discussed another plan. In the space of a few weeks, he talked about appointing, among others, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Oprah Winfrey or himself.

She said she never saw him formulate a clear plan to sell the seat. But in voting him not guilty, she stressed she did not find him innocent.

“I thought he was narcissistic,” she said. “I thought he was all over the place. I thought he was just rambling.”

It also concerned Chiakulas that some key witnesses who testified against Blagojevich had cut deals with prosecutors before testifying, she said.

“Some people in (the jury room) only saw black and white,” Chiakulas said. “I think I saw, in the transcripts and in the testimony, shades of gray. To me, that means reasonable doubt.””

“Still, the holdout label upsets Chiakulas and some other jurors because, they say, it wrongly suggests she was a Blagojevich apologist. To the contrary, she readily acknowledged the governor’s faults during deliberations and made it clear that she didn’t condone his behavior or leadership, Moore said.

“She admitted he talks too much, he sounds like an idiot sometimes,” Moore said. “She said, ‘But we’re not here to determine whether he talks like an idiot sometimes. That’s not what he’s on trial for.'””

“While Chiakulas shunned the media spotlight in the days after the verdict, the loquacious Blagojevich appeared on national television to thank her for her resolve and proclaim that she has reaffirmed his faith in God.

When asked about his comments, Chiakulas frowned and slightly shook her head.

“I didn’t do it for him,” she said.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-blagojevich-jury-20100827,0,7458628,full.story

Shirley Sherrod story, Rest of story, Media coverage, Pigford v Glickman, Obama, Citizen Wells open thread, August 27, 2010

Shirley Sherrod story, Rest of story, Media coverage, Pigford v Glickman, Obama

Has anyone out there heard Fox or any other major media player cover the complete Shirley Sherrod story and her connection to the controversy in the Pigford v Glickman payouts to black farmers? This story has been hovering in my mind for several weeks.

On February 23, 2010 Drill Down reported the following.

“Last Thursday, February 18th, 2010; the United States Department of Agriculture agreed to pay “Black Farmers” an additional 1.25 billion dollars to settle a previously “settled” class action discrimination suit.”

“Accordingly, in the 2008 “Farms Bill” House version known as “H.R.2419 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008” section “4012. DETERMINATION ON MERITS OF PIGFORD CLAIMS,” inserted 100 million dollars for money to be paid for those claimants denied due to untimely filing. A corresponding provision was inserted into the Senate version of the Bill by then Senator Barack Obama. In a public statement, NBFA President John Boyd Jr. explained that it would take “billions” to settle the claims, but that “he had to accept” the 100 million to keep the suit alive.

Last Thursday, Obama, Holder, and the USDA, proved Boyd correct by agreeing to pay an additional 1.15 billion dollars to honor the “late” filers under the original settlement. There are now more than 70,000 claims of discrimination pending adjudication. Yes, that’s 70,000 IN ADDITION TO the original 22,000 claims; making the total number of claims almost 100,000. Or, roughly 4 times more than the total number of black farms in existence at the time of the alleged discrimination. The allocated funds which now exceed 2 billion dollars, will clearly be insufficient to honor all of the pending claims.”

Read more:

http://drilldown.blogtownhall.com/2010/02/23/back_door_reparations___pigford_ii_-_usda_settlement.thtml

American Thinker reported the following on July 21, 2010.

“Shirley Sherrod’s quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named Pigford case, a class action against the US government on behalf of black farmers alleging that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against black farmers during the period from 1983 through 1997.”

“So where does Sherrod come into this picture?  In a special to the Washington Examiner, Tom Blumer explains  that Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under Pigford.
 … New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).
What makes this even more interesting to me is that Charles appears to be Charles Sherrod, who was a big player in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the early 1960s.  The SNCC was the political womb that nurtured the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers before it faded away.
Blumer has some questions about this settlement and about Sherrod’s rapid departure from the USDA
•Was Ms. Sherrod’s USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization’s settlement?
•How much “debt forgiveness” is involved in USDA’s settlement with New Communities?
•Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in “pain and suffering” payments — amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?
•Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?
Here are a few bigger-picture questions:
•Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?
•Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?
•Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/forty_acres_a_mule_sherrod_sty.html

From BigGovernment.com August 26, 2010.

““After all the friendly gestures between Secretary Vilsack and Mrs. Sherrod, there are still several questions unanswered. Why is Secretary Vilsack taking responsibility for the decision when Mrs. Sherrod has maintained she was contacted by the White House? Did the White House demand Secretary Vilsack fire Mrs. Sherrod? Is she still being paid by the federal government? Has Mrs. Sherrod agreed not to file another lawsuit against Secretary Vilsack or the federal government? Was Shirley Sherrod granted an additional settlement in exchange for her silence and an agreement not to sue Vilsack again? Why is Mrs. Sherrod filing suit against Andrew Breitbart, but hugging the man who fired her?””

Read more:

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/08/26/pigford-vilsack-sherrod-press-conference-raises-serious-questions/

Is this story being covered?

Blagojevich jurors speak out, No smoking gun presented, Rezko for example, Citizen Wells open thread, August 18, 2010

Blagojevich jurors speak out, No smoking gun presented, Rezko for example

From the Chicago Tribune August 18, 2010.

“”They were very strong personalities,” foreman James Matsumoto said of the jurors. “They were all independent thinkers.”

He said he would have convicted Blagojevich on all counts, saying that the case slowly built, “layer upon layer.”

“You just say, ‘God, what was he doing?’ You find out here they were selling seats on boards and commissions. That to me was shocking,” Matsumoto said.

But in the end, he said, the “lack of a smoking gun” was too much of a hurdle for jurors to reach more than the one unanimous decision.

“We deliberated logically and with respect for each other’s opinions,” Matsumoto said. Still, he added, “it was very frustrating.”

Erik Sarnello, 21, of Itasca, said a female juror who was the lone holdout on convicting Blagojevich of attempting to sell the Senate seat “wanted clear-cut evidence, and not everything was clear-cut.”

Sarnello, a sophomore at College of DuPage studying criminal justice, said the main problem with the prosecution’s case was that it was all over the place.

“It confused people,” he said. “They didn’t follow a timeline. They jumped around.”

The foreman said jurors came close to convictions on a number of the 24 counts — as close as 11-1 — but remained far apart on others.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/blagojevich/ct-met-blagojevich-verdict-jury-20100818,0,1234825.story

Obviously, Tony Rezko is the biggest smoking gun.

Philip J Berg Obama lawsuit, Update, August 4, 2010, Obama should resign, Same advice as Rangel

Philip J Berg Obama lawsuit, Update, August 4, 2010, Obama should resign

From Philip J Berg August 4, 2010.

For Immediate Release:  – 08/04/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire         
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                         
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg Says That Obama
Should Do As He Said Regarding
Congressman Rangel
and End Your Career with Dignity
and
Wishes Obama or rather Soetoro a Happy Birthday

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/04/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States says that “Obama Should Do As He Said Regarding Congressman Charlie Rangel, D–N.Y. and End Your Career With Dignity.”

Obama’s comments were directed to Congressman Rangel who is under investigation for violating Congressional Ethics Rules with 13 violations and Obama said he hopes the 80-year-old lawmaker can end his career with dignity now.

Obama, speaking on the issue for the first time, praised Rangel for serving his New York constituents over the years, but said he found the ethics charges “very troubling.”
Obama continued, “He’s somebody who’s at the end of his career. I’m sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens,” Obama said in an interview that aired last Friday on “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.”

Berg said, “The charges against Obama are much more serious than Rangel’s as Obama’s actions rise to the level of treason as Obama is an Imposter; Obama is a Phony and has committed Fraud as this is the largest ‘Hoax’ against the United States in the history of our country, over 230 years !”

Berg also wishes Barry Soetoro [Barack Hussein Obama] a Happy and Hopefully Truthful 49th Birthday.

Berg has been demanding that Obama resign because he has failed to produce his long form [vault] Birth Certificate to show he is “Constitutionally eligible” being “natural born” to be President and citizenship documentation that he is even “naturalized” after being adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia with his name being changed to “Barry Soetoro” and his return to the United States at age ten [10] and evidence that he has legally changed his name back to Barack Hussein Obama. 

    I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ Forefathers and for the 3.2 million men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution with our ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to prove that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.” 

Berg continued, “I still have a case pending in the Federal Courts.  Go to obamacrimes.com to see the status of the case.”
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
http://obamacrimes.com