so......any opinions on the current scandal?

im surprised noone has commented yet on this, me personally.....im just gonna watch it unfold and reserve judgement. im sure more people will be involved and it will all come out in the wash. *sigh*

?

Cj7

Don't tempt me

oh c'mon Q ........im dying to hear your opinion......🙂

"I didn't know anything about it"


I wonder how long that's going to fly before people realize that they elected a man of utter corruption.

im dying to hear your opinion......

Lmao... you do..?? you already know that!!

I have trusted this obama thing at very first..

But right now he is not better than mofo bush.

Check this out..

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 176
8th November 2008
Comments| Trackback
Barack Obama and America's 1997:
Welcome to the Club!
by Sean Gabb

I have been asked by several of my American readers to comment on their presidential election. I did think to ignore these requests. Having spent very little time there, I cannot be regarded as an expert on America. Nor am I particularly fond of the place. I think its war of independence was brought on less by the Stamp Act than by Lord Mansfield's judgement on the illegality of slavery at common law. I also think its war between the states was won by the wrong side. It would have been better for humanity had the Union been broken up and its member states made into British satellites. Sadly, the United States survived, and was able to grow into the mercantilist oligarchy that took the most significant - because ultimately the most successful - place in the triumvirate of Soviet communism and European national socialism that ended the hegemony of English liberalism.

Having considered the request, though, I do have something to say. The range of opinion about Mr Obama's election seems to be marked at its limits by the BBC and by organisations like Vdare and American Renaissance. The former believes he is a fusion of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, and has turned its news broadcasts into a hymn of secular joy. The latter believes that he is indeed Messrs Mandela and Luther King - the real ones, that is, not the constructs of the politically correct classes - and that he will surround himself with Black Panther bodyguards and declare Ebonics the official language of America.

I think both opinions are wrong. The first is not worth commenting on. The second is wrong because so many American conservatives are still in shock at the thought of having a black man to rule over them. Mr Obama got his campaign funds in the usual way - from business interests that will now want their reward. He will need to operate within a system that remains dominated by whites. Within a year or so, the non-whites who are still celebrating his victory will have noticed that nothing much has changed as it affects their lives, and will be denouncing him as a white man with a black face.

This is not to say, however, that nothing important has happened. Something has happened, and it is both important and dreadful for the American people. America has just had

its equivalent of our 1997 revolution. Looking at the eighty four years until then, power in England had become both more oppressive and less accountable. But the main features of our Constitution remained in place, and conservatives had been able to retain sufficient institutional power to slow down the drift into tyranny. The election of New Labour allowed the wholesale remodelling of the Constitution, so that little now remains around which conservatives can unite. I now live in a country where power is less restrained than at any time since the sixteenth century - where formal sovereignty has been passed to various foreign agencies, where the media is controlled, where civil liberties have been casually squashed, where the armed forces have been made into instruments of an imperial aggression that brings neither glory to their nation nor better government to their victims.

So it is now in America. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights have always been a fraud. From slavery to civil asset forfeiture, they have never restrained any abuse of power on which the American ruling class has been determined. But the country is very large, and there has usually been strong local suspicion of Washington. Given a ruling class interested mainly in dividing up the profits of commercial privilege, and prepared to indulge any right that did not get seriously in the way of this, the American people were left with the appearance, and often the reality, of much freedom.

The new presidency is no more about having a black man in charge than New Labour was about having all those Scotch voices in government. It is about a change in the ruling class. This is the election in which those whose minds were captured in the 1960s and 1970s by the neo-Marxists have taken over from their parents. The Clinton presidency was largely a failure because the new ruling class was still too young, and because the old ruling class had not grown too old to cling to power - and because the Clintons were too easy to hate and despise. All is different now. The new ruling class has no political opposition but a group of neo-conservatives who disgraced themselves during the Bush presidency, and who are probably less interested in opposition than in a few compromises on foreign policy. And it has a figurehead that cannot be mocked or even criticised without risk of the most horrid accusations.

Mr Obama cannot be more stupid in his actions or more embarrassing in his utterances than

Mr Bush has been. But his essential function as President will be to shield the new ruling class of America while it carries through a total transformation of American life. I do not know exactly how America will change. But I can predict that, come 2016, most Americans will no longer recognise their country. It will be less free. It will be less prosperous. It will be less American. What has happened in England, and what is happening in Australia, will now happen in America.

All this is to be regretted. I think increasingly, however, that if those who are transforming the English world are to be blamed, those who are being transformed are no less to be despised. In 1917, power was seized in Russia by men who were prepared to murder anyone who so much as raised an eyebrow at them. Whether they murdered thirty million or sixty million people is important in the obvious sense. Where ensuring absolute docility of the ruled is concerned, it is the first million who matter. No one can blame the Russian people for grovelling before Stalin. But none of the almost equally radical governments that have taken over in the English world has killed any of its own citizens, or is proposing to kill any. We have been enslaved by a small minority of intellectuals whose most potent weapon is words. Any people who can be so enslaved deserves to be enslaved.

But I am about to digress. I will only say for now that the American people deserve Barack Obama. To some extent, he is their punishment for tolerating, if not welcoming, eight years of George W. Bush. More generally, they are about to lose nothing more than they have long since abdicated their right to possess.

So, welcome, America - welcome to the New Labour Club.

NB—Sean Gabb's book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3 Any American who wants to understand the nature of the Obama Revolution should buy a ocpy.

My own comment..

I think its war of independence was brought on less by the Stamp Act than by Lord Mansfield's judgement on the illegality of slavery at common law. I also think its war between the states was won by the wrong side.

he range of opinion about Mr Obama's election seems to be marked at its limits by the BBC and by organisations like Vdare and American Renaissance. The former believes he is a fusion of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, and has turned its news broadcasts into a hymn of secular joy. The latter believes that he is indeed Messrs Mandela and Luther King - the real ones, that is, not the constructs of the politically correct classes - and that he will surround himself with Black Panther bodyguards and declare Ebonics the official language of America.

It is about a change in the ruling class. This is the election in which those whose minds were captured in the 1960s and 1970s by the neo-Marxists have taken over from their parents.




now you have it...

This mofo going to force the America in to the new war??_.fuck it??_.!

I don't trust this guy....

""My own comment..""



AAAAAAAahahahahahhaha!


That ^ is the best YET! lmaoooo

hahaha, I love how something that has nothing to do with Obama gets connected to him 🙂

Its priceless, I knew Obama would be involved even though he had absoluately nothing to do with it LOL!!!! 😆!!!!!!


So cappysweetie is not surprised 😉

no just all his supporters in chicago are dirty.😉

December 14, 2008, 7:06 pm

The Real Story Behind the Rushed Blagojevich Bust: How the Feds Are Frustrated by Losing (Maybe) Half of Their Case

Cam Simpson reports on the Rod Blagojevich case in Chicago.

Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald ordered the FBI to arrest Rod Blagojevich before sunrise Tuesday in order to stop a crime from being committed. That would have been the sale of the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

But the opposite is true: Members of Fitzgerald's team are livid the scheme didn't advance, at least for a little longer, according to some people close to Fitzgerald's office. Why? Because had the plot unfolded, they might have had an opportunity most feds can only dream of: A chance to catch the sale of a Senate seat on tape, including the sellers and the buyers.

The precise timing of Tuesday's dramatic, pre-dawn arrest was not dictated by Fitzgerald, nor was it dictated by the pace of Blagojevich's alleged ?crime spree.? It was dictated by the Chicago Tribune, according to people close to the investigation and a careful reading of the FBI's affidavit in the case.

At Fitzgerald's request, the paper had been holding back a story since October detailing how a confidante of Blagojevich was cooperating with his office.

Gerould Kern, the Tribune's editor, said in a statement last week that these requests are granted in what he called isolated instances. ?In each case, we strive to make the right decision as reporters and as citizens,? he said.

But editors decided to publish the story on Friday, Dec. 5, ending the Tribune's own cooperation deal with the prosecutor.

Consider what had been dangling in front of FBI agents and federal prosecutors one day earlier.

Since at least late October, agents had been listening through their headphones to Blagojevich allegedly dream and scheme about a host of potential prizes he could win for the Senate seat, including everything from an ambassadorship to a corporate board slot for his wife. But on Thursday, Dec. 4, he was talking about cash. And a politician talking about trading an official act for cash is a very welcome sound to the ears of an eavesdropping fed. In addition, the Dec. 4 conversation appears to have been the first substantive chat about allegedly selling the seat since Nov. 13.

But on Dec. 4, according to the feds, here?fs what they heard: Blagojevich told an adviser he was giving ?ggreater consideration?h to one pick for the Senate seat, named ?gSenate Candidate 5?? by the feds, because of that politician?fs willingness to raise money. That man has since been identified as U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., the Chicago Democrat affectionately known in his hometown as Triple J.

Jackson has denied any involvement in such schemes and says he never authorized anyone to deal in such a manner on his behalf. He also said Fitzgerald?fs office informed him that he?fs not a target in the investigation.

Perhaps even more encouraging to the feds listening in on Dec. 4 was what they knew about the first time such a deal was discussed. About a month earlier, Blagojevich was caught on tape describing an approach by an alleged associate of Jackson. Blagojevich's now-infamous quote about that meeting had been tantalizing. ?We were approached ?pay to play.' That, you know, he'd raise me 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a Senator.?

On Dec. 4, with the feds listening in, Blagojevich was allegedly putting this deal back into play.

The conversation resumed later that same day, as Blagojevich allegedly told his brother, a man identified in the affidavit as ?Fundraiser A,? that he was ?elevating? Mr. Jackson on the list of candidates, because the governor might be able to get something ?tangible up front? for the pick.

He told his brother to meet with someone (unidentified by the feds) whom the pair believed to be close to Jackson. He urged his brother to tell this alleged supporter of Jackson that ?some of this stuffs gotta start happening now? right now?and we gotta see it. You understand?? He was talking about campaign cash, the feds allege.

Then he allegedly offered his brother one final proviso: ?I would do it in person. I would not do it on the phone.?

The next morning, on Friday, Dec. 5, it all came crashing down for the FBI agents underneath the headphones.

The Tribune's front page screamed: ?Feds taped Blagojevich; TRIBUNE EXCLUSIVE: Adviser cooperated with corruption probe, sources say.?

Blagojevich read the same headline. ?Undo? that ?thing,? the governor allegedly told his brother, according to the FBI. And just like that, the meeting was off, only one day after it had been put back into play.

There appear to have been fears in Fitzgerald's office that those caught on tape might now seek to ?undo? other ?things.? Hours were logged over the weekend. Paperwork was pounded out. And before sunrise Tuesday, Blagojevich and his chief of staff were arrested simultaneously. At that same moment, FBI agents also knocked on the doors of witnesses. These were just a few of the people agents wanted to interview before cellphones started ringing across the city and others who had been caught on tape had a chance to get their stories straight.

Had it not been for the Tribune's Dec. 5 story, the meeting Blagojevich's brother was arranging might have proceeded. Mr. Blagojevich is quoted as citing the story, in the affidavit, then calling off the meeting. At a minimum, the FBI's recorders would have been rolling when he reported back. The feds also probably would have tried to bug the session live, or at least to tail the participants and secretly film or photograph them. That's what feds do. Jurors love video.

so who is parading around behind a mask now?? f-in pussy

typical........ to just post to throw an insult at somebody, lots of class round here.

America and Americans are for sale from senators right to the ordinary people, just name the right price and you'll have it..!