Saturday, 01 November 2008


Ken Berwitz

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  The bold print is mine:

An "idiot wind" or a useful idiot?

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.


Ken Berwitz

Being both weaselly and cowardly is a pretty toxic combination.  So when you find a "newspaper" that manages both, you take notice. 

With that in mind, here is Warner Todd Huston's piece at, about a Seattle "alternative newspaper" which displayed a hefty dose of each, er, attribute:

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, isn't it?

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 homepage.

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.

Nice folks.

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 Republicans.

Just keep thinking to yourself  "what if it had been Obama-Biden signs", and you'll understand perfectly.


Ken Berwitz

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:

The Los Angeles Timess Strange Notion of Journalistic Ethics
Give us the tape or at least a transcript of Obamas radical shindig.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Journalistic ethics?

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 journalistic ethics.

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 you.

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 world.

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 story.

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.

While 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.

Why would 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 purported source.

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.


Bill 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 Ayers?


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.

Besides Obama 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 us.

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 denies it)?

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 conclusions.

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 truth is.

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 details.

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 you?

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 inform voters.

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?


Ken Berwitz

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

By Michelle Malkin    November 1, 2008 01:13 AM

Well now.

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.

Auntis story:

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.

The law:

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 one?


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 intent.

Reminder from 2004:

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 Center bombing.

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 seven others.

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 RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST.

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.

Good questions:

Did someone from the campaign tell her to keep quiet?

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.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!