Saturday, 01 November 2008
CLOSING RANKS TO PROTECT OBAMA FROM RASHID KHALIDI
It's a pity about the Washington Post.
Sometimes this once-great paper really does present both sides. Not
often, but sometimes (which, it should be noted, puts it head and shoulders
above the New York Times).
But not on election weekend.
The LA Times has spent days fiercely defending the withholding of a video
tape showing Barack Obama and terrorist-supporting scumbag rashid khalidi
lavishing praise on one another, along with Mr. Obama gushing about what great
insights he gets from khalida during the dinners they spend together.
Well which other paper do you suppose has come to the defense of the LA Times
while it desperately tries to keep we, the voters, as ignorant of this
association as possible? Why the Washington Post, or course.
Here are the particulars, courtesy of Paul Mirengoff, writing for www.powerlineblog.com. The bold
print is mine:
The Washington Post editorial
board attacks John McCain
for making an issue of Barack Obama's association with Rashid Khalidi. The Post
is disturbed that the McCain campaign characterizes Khalidi as "a PLO
spokesman." But the Los Angeles Times has reported that "when Khalidi taught at a
university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Arafat's
Palestine Liberation Organization." And Khalidi's association with the PLO was
evident in an interview in 1981 (at a time when Arafat's organization was
launching terrorist attacks in Israel and creating havoc in Lebanon).
In the interview Khalidi referred to the exiled PLO's growing standing among
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, saying "we have built
up tremendous links with the Palestinians 'on the inside' in different ways.
We can render them services ... we've never
been stronger there, and the trend is continuing."
The Post acknowledges that Khalidi's views are at
odds with the ones that Obama presents in the presidential campaign. But it
calls Khalidi's views "complex" and notes that even though he doesn't appear to
favor a two-state solution, he thinks that the alternatives are suspect too.
In reality, Khalidi's views are not so much
"complex" as hard to discern due to his poor writing. As far as I can tell from
the article in the Nation magazine on which
the Post relies, Khalidi doesn't like either a two-state solution or a one-state
nation solution in which Jews and Arabs co-exist. Since he plainly hates the
status quo, Israeli Jews can reasonably wonder what Khalidi has in mind for
them. The Mediterranean Sea comes to mind.
The Post's main point is that Obama doesn't agree
with Khalidi's views (whatever their precise nature) but, as "a man of
considerable intellectual curiosity," he probably just wanted "to hear out a
smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians."
The Post is correct that there would be
nothing wrong with hearing Khalidi out. But Obama did more. Their relationship
was longstanding. And when Khalidi moved from Chicago, not only did Obama toast
the "militant advocate," but in doing so praised him for "offer[ing] constant
reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases." In other words,
Khalidi affected Obama's thinking, causing him to believe that his disagreements
with Khalidi were the result of "blind spots" and "biases." This suggests that,
in Obama's view, Khalidi was right and he was wrong on at least some matters.
Until Obama explains how this process played out,
McCain has every right to raise the issue and to press for the tape that
might well shed additional light on the matter (though if the Los
Angeles really promised not to make the tape public, I think it is within its
rights to keep that promise).
The Post informs us that when it contacted Khalidi
about the matter, he said he was waiting for the "idiot wind [to] blow over."
The Post adopts Khalidi's phrase as the title for its editorial and notes that
the idiot wind "is likely to keep blowing for four more days." One might say the
same about the Post's election coverage.
UPDATE: According to Fox News, in 1991
Khalidi wrote an obituary for Salah Khalaf, a founding member of the terrorist
Black September organization which, among other things, carried out the massacre
of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. Khalaf was known as
Israel's most-wanted terrorist. Fox News reports that in the obituary Khalidi
praised Khalaf and said he would be "sorely missed by the Palestinian people to
whom he devoted his life."
But the Post isn't worried. After all, Khalidi
went to Yale.
JOHN adds: This strikes me as a major story. Salah
Khalaf, better known as Abu Iyad, masterminded the murder of Israeli athletes at
the Munich Olympics. By his own account in his memoirs, he personally selected
the terrorists who carried out the attack and delivered weapons to them. So the
fact that he was a leading terrorist was anything but a secret. Nevertheless,
when Khalaf was murdered in 1991, Obama's close friend Rashid Khalidi praised
him and said that he would be "sorely missed." He was, no doubt, missed by those
who approve of terrorist mass murders. It is fair to say that Khalidi, a
representative of the PLO, was among that number.
It was shortly after this that Obama and Khalidi
became friends and, as Obama has said, Khalidi "offered constant reminders to me
of my own blind spots and my own biases." Isn't this a bit odd, to say
the least? A person of normal sensibility would say that someone who praises the
founder of Black September and the perpetrator of the Munich horror suffers from
"blind spots and biases." (I, actually, wouldn't put it that politely.) So what
was it, exactly, that Obama learned from Khalidi? Why did he, by his own
account, find Khalidi to be not only a congenial friend but a mentor of sorts?
In short, what sort of a person would
consider a professor who speaks for Yaser Arafat's PLO and mourns the death of a
proud terrorist, the perpetrator of one of the 20th century's vilest acts, to be
not just a profound thinker but a moral compass? That is to say: what sort of a
person is Barack Obama?
I am convinced that, despite his associations with Jew-haters like
khalidi and jeremiah wright, the love and kisses thrown to him by louis farrakhan
and the statements of support by Jewish and Israel hating Muslim leaders all
over the world, a large majority of Jews will still vote for Barack Obama.
I consider that tragic. Being Jewish and
hearing the reasons given by many family and friends, I also consider
it at least in part a function of willful ignorance.
If you avoid reading, or listening to radio reports, or
viewing TV reports that detail what is wrong with Mr. Obama, you can pretend they don't exist, and therefore you have no reason to think about why
you should reject him as a candidate. And if your primary frame of reference is the New
York Times and the network news shows, that is precisely what
you are doing.
This makes life very easy. You're in the majority. You're part of the
crowd. You can nod agreement at each other and play can-you-top-this
with sarcasms about Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin. Laughs for everyone.
It is far, far easier than hearing both sides and
then voicing criticism of Mr. Obama. Do that and you will be
gang-tackled by the rest of the crowd who all "know" they're right and you are
not only wrong, but probably a deranged right wing aberration to boot.
Does this sound exaggerated? Believe me, it isn't. I live it, and
know it to be true.
If Mr. Obama wins with massive Jewish support - which, it seems clear,
he will get - I'm sure that he (along with khalidi, wright, farrakhan etc)
will laugh about it all the way to the oval office.
WEASELS AND COWARDS
Being both weaselly and cowardly is a pretty toxic
combination. So when you find a "newspaper" that manages both, you
With that in mind, here is Warner Todd Huston's piece at www.newsbusters.org, about a Seattle
"alternative newspaper" which displayed a hefty dose of each, er,
Seattle Paper Publishers
Pictures and Addresses of Homes With McCain Signs
**Update** 4PM 11/01/08
Like Obama, the folks that run The Stranger "newspaper" in
Seattle are all about tolerance... as long as you believe the same things
they believe. If you don't, well, then you deserve intimidation and a
good "outing." just as Obama has tried to intimidate radio talk show hosts, just
like he has tried to use the office of the Attorney General to quash political
free speech, The Stanger publication has decided that the best way to force
citizens of Seattle to toe the far left political line is to have their
homes photographed and their addresses made
public for the outrageous crime of having
a McCain/Palin sign on their property.
Editorial Director Dan
Savage, another boring Seattle gay
activist, has helmed this intimidation disguised as "humor" in order to attack
his political opposition. Good thing ol' Danny is all "tolerant" and stuff,
The feature was supposed to be a
"funny" take on the Halloween "horrors" of homes that have political signs
prominently displayed. But, what the end result actually relays is a different
kind of horror. This article indulges in exactly the sort of behavior it
pretends to despise. What is more intolerant than publicly ridiculing someone,
ginning up hatred for them, and then publishing a photo and the address of their
home? What is the purpose of this? Is it so that the more unhinged of your
putative political compatriots can know just where to go to... what? Take
revenge? Perhaps damage private property? Maybe worse?
The article starts off with this phrase: "Cobwebs
and witches are for children and morons." I would counter to Dan Savage that
political intimidation and endangering people because of their views is for
Stalinists and Nazis.
Apparently Savage is not only this editor's last
name, it is his creed.
**Update** 4PM 11/01/08
Looks like the wimps over at the gay centered
"newspaper" The Stranger don't have the courage of their convictions, amusingly
enough. They've pulled their story and re-directed the link to The Drudge
Apparently, the Stranger folks just can't take the
scorn any more. They know what they did was indefensible and now they are
pretending it never existed.
One thing is sure. If I had a dollar for every
time the curse word f_ _k appeared in this "newspaper" I could comfortably
retire after but a month of issues. Apparently literacy is a four letter word to
these high-minded inteleckshuals.
If you'd like to read the text Hell Houses, the
story from The Stranger, G'Willie over at GEOBENT took the time
to reproduce it before the "newspaper" took it down.
But don't expect to read much about this in the mainstream media. KGB
tactics are not frowned upon nearly as much when they're performed against
Just keep thinking to yourself "what if it had been Obama-Biden signs",
and you'll understand perfectly.
THE LA TIMES: PROTECTORS OF BARACK OBAMA
The LA Times' refusal to let us see a video tape of Barack Obama cozying up
to the most vile anti-Semitic scum - one of whom (rashid khalidi) he happily
acknowledges to be a close personal friend - becomes riper by the second.
Here is an article by National Review's Andrew McCarthy which lays it out
very wel. The bold print is minel:
Angeles Timess Strange Notion of Journalistic
Give us the tape or at
least a transcript of Obamas radical shindig.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
When it comes to insulting our collective intelligence, the
Obamedia soundtrack of the ongoing campaign breaks new ground on a daily, indeed
an hourly, basis. Still, the Los Angeles Times takes the cake.
Change you can
believe in is a short hop from fairy tales you can be sold. In that spirit, the
Times tells us, wed really, really love to release the videotape were
holding of that 2003 Khalidi shindig the one where Barack Obama joined a
motley collection of Israel-bashers, including the former terrorists Bill Ayers
and Bernadine Dohrn, to sing the praises of Rashid Khalidi former mouthpiece
for PLO master-terrorist Yasser Arafat. But alas, our hands are tied by
Of course the ever ethical Times would never try to skew
election coverage in favor of a candidate it has recently endorsed (after
blowing kisses at him for two years). Nor would the newspaper give its readers
anything but a complete, accurate, and truthful account of an event like the
Khalidi Bash that it deemed worthy enough to cover. You can take that to the
bank. But, gosh-darn, it turns out that a source the Times wont name
supposedly provided reporter Peter Wallsten with the videotape on the solemn
promise that the paper would never let it see the light of day except to
report on it as the Times saw fit.
If you believe that one, Ive got a tax cut for
Lets suspend disbelief
for a moment. Lets pretend that there is really some sentient being out there
who actually leaks a videotape to a reporter wanting and expecting the event
depicted to be given news coverage but somehow not wanting or expecting the tape
itself to be published. And lets further pretend that this phantom source who
doesnt want to tape disclosed nevertheless gives the tape to the newspaper
rather than keeping control over it himself.
Lets say we buy that
this highly unlikely scenario actually happened. That would still not prevent
the Los Angeles Times from putting out a transcript of the Khalidi
testimonials and other speechifying.
We know, for example, that Barack Obama spoke for
several minutes. Yet the Times has provided us with only the most cursory
summary to be more precise, not a summary but an account.
A summary is a synopsis that fairly reflects what was said. Reporter Wallsten,
to the contrary, fleetingly tells us only that Obama adopted a
different tone [from rabid anti-Israel speakers] in his comments and called for
finding common ground.
How so? Were not told. Heres the
entirety of the Times description of Obamas remarks:
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had
been consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . .
. Its for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we
continue that conversation a conversation that is necessary not just around
Mona and Rashid's dinner table, but around this entire
How very enlightening.
What were the topics of the dinner-table talk? What blind spots and biases was
Obama referring to? Did anything in his speech provide clues? We have no idea:
the Times doesnt tell us.
Moreover, we also
know that several speakers that night sang paeans to Khalidi who regards the
establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine as the Nakba (i.e., The
Catastrophe) and justifies terrorist attacks against Israeli military and
government targets. The Times concedes the party was a forum where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely
expressed. Yet, again, we are given only two blurbs:
[A] young Palestinian American recited a poem
accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians
and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure
their own land, she said, then you will never see a day of peace. One
speaker likened Zionist settlers on the West Bank to Osama bin Laden, saying
both had been blinded by ideology.
You know there was a
lot more where that came from, spouted by several other speakers whom
the Times story fails to name. Why not put out a transcript of what was
said and by whom? And if the Times has information about what was in
the commemorative book that was prepared for the occasion of Khalidis
triumphant departure to assume the Edward Said chair at Columbia University, why
not put that out too?
Even if you accept for arguments sake the
bunk about honoring the sources supposed wishes, the newspaper wouldnt need
to release the tape in order to give us a more comprehensive account of what
happened that evening. So its not that the Times is simply withholding
the tape. The Times is trying to suppress the story.
Not the story as Wallsten spun it back in April. The full
The full story couldnt be more relevant. Barack
Obama says he is a staunch supporter of Israel. The importance of the
Khalidi festivities isnt simply that Obama lavished praise on a man who was an
Arafat apologist although that is troubling in itself. What also matters is
that many speakers (no doubt including Obamas good friend Khalidi himself) said
extremely provocative things about Israel and American policy.
that went on, Obama apparently sat there in tacit acceptance, if not
approval. He didnt get up to leave. He wasnt roused to a defense of his
country. He didnt deliver a spirited condemnation of Islamic terror. He just
sat there. And when it came his turn to speak, he spoke glowingly about
Khalidi. He was clearly comfortable around the agitators and, equally crucial,
they were clearly comfortable spewing their bile in front of him confident
that they were certainly not giving offense.
the Times think its not newsworthy to tell us in detail what Obama sat
through and chose not to refute? He says he supports Israel,
but shouldnt we get a peek at what he actually does when Israel is
under attack. After all, he wants to be in charge and soon the attacks may be
more than just verbal.
All of that could be made known by the
publication of a transcript, without breaching any purported promise to the
But, the Times sputters, weve
already done that news story back in April. The material facts have already been
publicized thanks to our crack reporting.
Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were at the party. Given the controversy over their
extensive relationship with Obama sitting on boards together, doling out
millions of dollars together, lauding each others writings, joint appearances
at conferences, Obamas introduction to Chicago politics in the Ayers/Dohrn
home, etc. didnt the Times think their attendance together at a
party for Khalidi was worth reporting?
Given that Obama now
preposterously claims he and Ayers barely know each other, didnt the
Times think it was worth mentioning that guest-of-honor Khalidi, a very
close friend of Obama, just happens also to be a very close friend of
The party was sponsored by the Arab American
Action Network (AAAN) an organization founded by Khalidi and his wife (who
also worked for the PLOs press agency) and lavishly funded by Obama and Ayers
when they sat together on the board of the Woods Fund. Did the Times
think that was newsworthy?
Again, apparently not.
Wallstens article does not mention the AAANs role in the party. He describes
the AAAN a social service group which is headed by Khalidis
wife and was given a $40,000 grant by the Woods Fund when Obama sat on the
board. In fact, AAAN is an activist Palestinian organization that regards Israel
as illegitimate and supports drivers licenses and welfare benefits for illegal
aliens. Further, it was founded by both Khalidi and his wife, it actually
received almost twice as much Woods Fund support as the Times said
(i.e., $75,000, not $40,000), and, at the time of those grants, one of Obamas
partners on the board was Bill Ayers.
and Khalidi (about whose speeches the Times tells us precious little),
who else spoke at the party? What was said? What was written in the
commemorative book prepared for the occasion? The Times doesnt tell
In fact, though the Timess story runs
2000 words, very little of it is about the party the Times now contends
it covered adequately. Most of it is dedicated to probing what Wallsten frames
as the alluring mystery of Barack Obamas position on the Israeli/Palestinian
dispute. Is he really a strong Israel supporter? Do anti-Israeli Palestinians
really have good reason to regard him as a friend? Would he shift away from the
strong U.S. alliance with Israel to a more even-handed approachas one Chicago
Palestinian-rights activist claims to have heard Obama say he favored (Obama
We dont know. The Times raises
these and other questions, acknowledges that they are vexing, but then withholds
from us critical information by which we might draw our own informed
The mainstream press, of course, is
urging Congress to enact a shield law, protecting reporters from government
subpoenas. To a former prosecutor, thats worth noting. You see, in matters of
great public importance, prosecutors have ethical obligations, too. One of them
says that if you provide an incomplete or misleading version of an event to the
publics courts, and you have information in your file that would clarify the
situation, you are duty-bound to disclose that information. That way, the
factfinder is equipped to make an intelligent, informed decision about what the
By contrast, the mainstream media want the
right to mislead you, to provide you with a woefully incomplete record, but to
deprive you of clarifying information even when it is readily at their disposal.
You just have to take their word for what happened, and never you mind the
Are you comfortable taking the
Obamedias word for it? Or do you think you ought to have a look at what Los
Angeles Times has unilaterally decided not to show
The time for a newspaper to start
worrying about journalistic ethics is when it publishes the story, not six
months later when, in the stretch run of a crucial election, it gets called on
an obviously incomplete report. Ethics, furthermore, are about fair and honest
treatment. If the videotape at issue involved John McCain rubbing elbows with
radicals or the CIA trying to protect national defense secrets, the
Times would publish it and revel in the inevitable Pulitzer for its
courage in doing so.
Lets see the tape or at
least a transcript.
What frauds. What Obama suck-ups. They shred
their own credibility - what is left of it at
the LA Times - to openly act on behalf of a candidate by suppressing information about him that would
Bias doesn't even begin to describe this.
What an irony it would be if McCain wins the election and does so, in part,
on a backlash against this kind of journalistic malfeasance.
Wouldn't that be great?
AUNTI ZEITUNI & NEPHEW BARAK
I read about Barack Obama's aunt, who lives in a downtrodden project in
Boston, two days ago. I chose not to put it up on the blog because, out of
fairness, there was at least some likelihood Mr. Obama did not know she existed
or lived in these circumstances.
But now, after reading Michelle Malkin's article on "Aunti Zeituni, her
status as an illegal (that's right, an illegal) and the amount of money she has
contributed to nephew Barack's campaign, I feel it should be here:
Obamas illegal alien aunt (and campaign donor!)
is a deportation fugitive; Bush administration moves to protect her
Turns out Aunti Zeituni Onyango, one of Democrat
presidential candidate Barack Obamas many relatives made famous in his memoir,
is an illegal alien. And not just a run-of-the-mill illegal alien on welfare.
Shes one of the hundreds of thousands of
deportation fugitives absconders
whom Ive been reporting on
for the past six years. After 9/11, the government vowed to crack down on
absconders. Theyve failed abysmally.
Barack Obamas aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been
quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally
after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The
Associated Press has learned.
Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as Aunti
Zeituni in Obamas memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a
U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with
the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of
anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyangos case.
Information about the deportation case was
disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law
enforcment official. The information they made available is known to officials
in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a
political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been
involved in its release.
Just you watch: After sitting silent as Joe The
Plumbers records were rummaged by
Ohio government employees, the fairweather privacy rights crowd will wake up and
start making noise over this.
QUESTION: Will the Obama campaign return the
many donations from this illegal alien?
ANSWER: Not bloody likely.
Federal Election Commission records show that
Onyango donated at least five times to her nephews campaign in July and
September. Three of the donations were for $5 each, and two of the donations
were for $25. Records compiled by The Huffington Post show she gave a total of
$260 to the campaign.
It shall be unlawful for a foreign national
directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or
other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such
contribution, in connection with an election to any political office; or in
connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or
receive any such contribution from a foreign national.
2 U.S.C. 441e.
QUESTION II, from commenter tony4951: So let me
get this straight. Millionaire Obama doesnt use his wealth to help his poor
illegal alien Aunt get out of public housing, but if I complain about Obama
wanting to raise my taxes to spread the wealth around Im the selfish
Meanwhile, the AP tries to downplay Auntis
deportation evasion and defiance of a judicial ruling:
Onyangos refusal to leave the country would
represent an administrative, non-criminal violation of U.S. immigration law,
meaning such cases are handled outside the criminal court system.
As Ive pointed out countless times since 9/11,
systemic immigration loopholes and deportation failures that have benefited
peaceful illegal aliens have also benefited illegal aliens with nefarious
the system for screening out the well-meaning
from the menaces is completely overwhelmed. Claims of credible fear of
persecution are almost impossible to document, but are rarely rejected.
Federal homeland security officials are unable to detain asylum seekers for
background checks without the civil liberties brigade screaming racial
profiling. And there is still a woeful shortage of detention space just
2,000 beds nationwide to hold those with suspect claims.
As a result, thousands of refugees and asylum
seekers who have made flimsy claims of persecution are let loose. As the
Department of Justices Inspector General reported, 97 percent of all
asylum-seekers from any country who were released from immigration custody
were never found again and deported.
Ramzi Yousef landed at New York Citys JFK
airport from Pakistan and flashed an Iraqi passport without a visa to
inspectors. He was briefly detained for illegal entry and fingerprinted, but
was allowed to remain in the country after invoking the magic words political
asylum. The then-INS released him because it didnt have enough space in its
detention facility. Yousef headed to Jersey City to plot the 1993 World Trade
Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian
bomb-builder, entered the U.S. illegally through Canada in 1996 and 1997. He
claimed political asylum based on alleged persecution by Israelis, was
released on a reduced $5,000 bond posted by a man who was himself an illegal
alien, and then skipped his asylum hearing after calling his attorney and
lying about his whereabouts. In June 1997, after his lawyer withdrew Mezers
asylum claim, a federal immigration judge ordered Mezer to leave the country
on a voluntary departure order. Mezer ignored the useless piece of paper. He
joined a New York City bombing plot before being arrested in July 1997 after a
roommate tipped off local police.
Mir Aimal Kansi, convicted in 1997 of capital
murder and nine other charges stemming from his January 1993 shooting spree
outside the CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia, also exploited our insane
asylum laxity. Despite his history as a known Pakistani militant who had
participated in anti-American demonstrations abroad, Kansi received a business
visa in 1991. After arrival, he claimed political asylum based on his ethnic
minority status in Pakistan. While his asylum application was pending, he
obtained a drivers license and an AK-47, murdered two CIA agents, and wounded
And were still not serious about tightening up
the system and enforcing the law.
Lucky for Aunti, the open-borders Bush
administration has just issued a special pre-election directive to slow down any
deportation efforts that might get her kicked out of the country:
Onyangos case coming to light just days
before the presidential election led to an unusual nationwide directive
within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations prior
to Tuesdays election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional
directors, the U.S. law enforcement official told the AP.
The unusual directive suggests that the Bush
administration is sensitive to the political implications of Onyangos case
coming to light so close to the election.
Lucky for Aunti, both presidential candidates support shamnesty in one form or another.
Lucky for Aunti, the deportation abyss has not been repaired.
Lucky for Aunti, the congressional practice of
creating special relief bills to help individual deportation fugitives escape
punishment and get rewarded with citizenship is alive and well.
And lucky for Aunti, anyone who thinks she should
face the music and get the boot is considered a hater and a xenophobe and a
Lucky for Aunti, she can always take up shelter in
a sanctuary-offering, rule-of-law defying church.
And guess where a left-wing church has openly
broken the law and taken in illegal aliens?
Yeah. Thats right: Chicago.
Via cjburch, this Ace of Spades commenter sums it all up: Obamas aunt is here ILLEGALLY living in
poverty, and is a deportation FUGITIVE. Shes collecting WELFARE and has DONATED
to Obamas campaign, ILLEGALLY! Obama. Family in poverty as he makes millions.
Complete lawlessness. Giveaway your hard earned tax payer money to illegal
fugitives. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.
Did someone from the campaign tell her to keep
Why was BHO letting her illegally redistribute
her wealth to him, when he could have been helping her by getting her an
immigration lawyer? If BHO had gotten her a lawyer, could they have appealed?
Why then didnt BHO help her out? When is he going to introduce an emergency
private relief bill to give her a green card?
Here's a great idea: since Mr. Obama's
poverty-stricken illegal alien aunt had $260 to contribute (illegally) to his
presidential campaign, maybe she can invite his far more poverty-stricken
brother to come from Kenya and live illegally with her. Given what he says
he lives on per year, she could have contributed $248 instead of $260 to nephew
Barack's campaign and doubled his yearly income.
Of course that might have caused a problem with Barack Obama, since there is
no indication that he's ever given a penny to either of them.
"Spreading the wealth" seems to be an abstract to the Obamas......but, if he's elected,
a stark reality to you and me.