PDA

View Full Version : Who Vetted Obama?



patriot45
02-22-2010, 11:31 PM
I figurered I'd throw this out there cause I'm a prick! I heart 0 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=8&ved=0CBoQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aim.org%2Faim-column%2Fwho-vetted-obama%2F&rct=j&q=obama+vetting+process&ei=3ViDS4LlGNKWtgf5hvTPAg&usg=AFQjCNF6PGKI-8Twa-GTLpSllzGtAhHjIw)




The Washington Post reported that John McCain’s vetting process for picking Governor Sarah Palin included an FBI background check. Other reports dispute this. But when did the FBI investigate Obama? Who vetted him?

We are living witnesses to an incredible media double standard, whereby a Republican vice-presidential candidate’s personal life is being torn apart, while the Democratic presidential candidate continues to get a free ride. Obama has a 30-year history of associating with unsavory characters, beginning with communist Frank Marshall Davis and continuing with Jeremiah Wright and communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, which should disqualify him from getting a security clearance in the government that he wants to run.

But the media would rather talk about Republicans and sex.

The leftist DailyKos website started digging into Palin’s past and claimed that her fifth child wasn’t really hers. The charge fell apart when pictures surfaced of the governor pregnant with the child.

Nevertheless, the media, which have been so quick to ignore questions about Obama’s background, joined in the inquiry into Palin’s private family matters and forced the governor to disclose that one of their daughters is pregnant out of wedlock. This is what passes for investigative reporting these days.

A daughter’s pregnancy, of course, has nothing to do with whether Palin is fit for the job of vice-president or even president and is entitled to a security clearance. But one’s associations with communists who hate the United States might emerge as a cause for concern.

It is worth noting that the DailyKos site is the same site that a liberal blogger named Lee Stranahan says banned his comments about Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards needing to answer reports that he had had an extramarital affair. Those reports, which came from the “tabloid” National Enquirer and not from any “respectable” major media outlet, turned out to be true.

It also turns out that the DailyKos got the leak from the Obama campaign of the candidate’s alleged birth certificate, an announcement intended to put to rest all of the questions about whether Obama is a natural-born citizen and passes the basic constitutional requirement to be president. Is the document real? I have not seen any investigative reporters from the major media assigned to this story. Instead, they’re sniffing around Palin’s family, which is something they had no desire to do while John Edwards was cheating on his cancer-stricken wife.

In contrast to the Palin story, which will probably continue for weeks, the Obama birth certificate controversy has been left alone by the major media. They have simply assumed―because they favor his candidacy―that Obama, with a history of being moved from country to country under different names, is a legitimate U.S. citizen. A lawsuit has been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications to be president and some bloggers say the birth certificate is a fraud. But it’s not an issue for the major media. They would rather examine photos of Bristol Palin’s tummy.

An FBI investigation of Obama might get at the truth about the Democratic candidate. But an FBI background check is something that the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party has not been forced to undergo. How many people even know that?

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 11:33 PM
A veterinarian?:confused:

Articulate_Ape
02-23-2010, 12:03 AM
A veterinarian?:confused:

That's ridiculous. He wasn't even in the military, you idiot.

chrisssteeven
02-23-2010, 12:19 AM
Nice post and good information.This is clearly a sign of unbelievably poor judgment and of course desperation to try to change the dynamic of the race.Oddly enough, it give voters much more reassurance about the Obama-Biden ticket and makes the McCain-Palin ticket seem shaky and out of control.It give Obama a double edged sword: he gets to look more Presidential than McCain with their first major decision, and he leads major change.

Rockntractor
02-23-2010, 12:23 AM
Nice post and good information.This is clearly a sign of unbelievably poor judgment and of course desperation to try to change the dynamic of the race.Oddly enough, it give voters much more reassurance about the Obama-Biden ticket and makes the McCain-Palin ticket seem shaky and out of control.It give Obama a double edged sword: he gets to look more Presidential than McCain with their first major decision, and he leads major change.
Me think he buffoon with big ears on head!

marv
02-23-2010, 09:03 AM
...but...but...but...he's the first black president............

ralph wiggum
02-23-2010, 10:39 AM
Those reports, which came from the “tabloid” National Enquirer and not from any “respectable” major media outlet, turned out to be true.

Sadly, the National Enquirer has had a better track record of late than the so-called "mainstream media." They nailed the Edwards story and the Tiger Woods story.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 10:51 AM
Sadly, the National Enquirer has had a better track record of late than the so-called "mainstream media." They nailed the Edwards story and the Tiger Woods story.

Everybody knows that the National Enquirer is in the government's pocket. How else do you think the get those bigfoot and UFO stores? Government leaks. Tit for tat for the help that Enquirer gives the goverment in getting rid of radicals like John Edwards and Tiger Woods. This does make me wonder that if John Edwards really does talk to the dead how come the spirits didn't tell him that the Enquirer was on his trail?

BadCat
02-23-2010, 11:08 AM
Nice post and good information.This is clearly a sign of unbelievably poor judgment and of course desperation to try to change the dynamic of the race.Oddly enough, it give voters much more reassurance about the Obama-Biden ticket and makes the McCain-Palin ticket seem shaky and out of control.It give Obama a double edged sword: he gets to look more Presidential than McCain with their first major decision, and he leads major change.

WTF are you trying to say?

God, I hate these fucking liberals.

AmPat
02-23-2010, 12:04 PM
WTF are you trying to say?

God, I hate these fucking liberals.

Brain damage, he doesn't even realize he's drooling on his keyboard. :cool:

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 03:27 PM
A daughter’s pregnancy, of course, has nothing to do with whether Palin is fit for the job of vice-president or even president and is entitled to a security clearance. But one’s associations with communists who hate the United States might emerge as a cause for concern.

The way I see it, if Sarah Palin's marriage to a secessionist who hates the United States wasn't a problem for the McCain-Palin ticket then I don't see why Barack Obama's alleged association with communists should have been a problem for Obama-Biden ticket.

patriot45
02-23-2010, 03:31 PM
The way I see it, if Sarah Palin's marriage to a secessionist who hates the United States wasn't a problem for the McCain-Palin ticket then I don't see why Barack Obama's alleged association with communists should have been a problem for Obama-Biden ticket.

Why do you say alleged!??? He has a known association with communists. Liberals are very dense.

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 03:38 PM
Why do you say alleged!??? He has a known association with communists. Liberals are very dense.

I haven't really looked into allegations that Barack Obama has associations with communists because I don't have any problem with people associating with communists.

patriot45
02-23-2010, 03:41 PM
I haven't really looked into allegations that Barack Obama has associations with communists because I don't have any problem with people associating with communists.

We are not a communist nation....yet. So any red blooded American who loves freedom should have a problem with elected officials schmoozing with commies. By the way, the liberal left are all commies.

AmPat
02-23-2010, 04:03 PM
I haven't really looked into allegations that Barack Obama has associations with communists because I don't have any problem with people associating with communists.

We're not just talking people, we're talking about the POTUS with ties and sympathies toward communists. If that doesn't concern you, you have no understanding of the danger this usurper has to the future of the USA.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-24-2010, 01:37 AM
We are not a communist nation....yet. So any red blooded American who loves freedom should have a problem with elected officials schmoozing with commies. By the way, the liberal left are all commies.

Being friends with a communist doesn't make one a communist. We're ''friends'' with China officially, big time communist nation. We're also friends with Britain, who have a national, ''communist'' healthcare system, in fact they are our one of our biggest friends and we ''schmooze'' with them often....So technically we are a communist nation by your rationale. If a Republican was friends with a Democrat, does that mean the Republican is a Democrat or vice versa or that they agree on everything? Not everything in life is about politics.

I'm friends with both hard core liberals and hard core conservatives not because of their politics but for other reasons--Things we have in common which have naught to do with politics. With Frank Marshall Davis, maybe Obama enjoyed talking with him about certain things, and yes maybe in certain ways he was a father figure...That doesn't mean Obama believed in or supported his politics. A father figure of mine has had problems with alcohol and believes drugs should be legal, I disagree with the latter and don't even drink socially.

And as far as him ''seeking out Marxist professors'' in college, well...People can at times seek out those who opinions they disagree with or seek to understand. Some people don't like living in echo chamber, surrounded by views or beliefs that mirror completely their own. That's why I came here, as I'm not in any sense really conservative except on the issue of gays in the military as well as immigration. I came here to talk, debate with and learn more about conservatism from conservatives. Maybe Obama did the same with the Marxist professors he admitted to seeking out in college. I know, as a college student I've sought professors who I've disagreed with out to debate with them or even openly and publically in class disagreed with their interpretation of facts (I'm referring strictly to History Professors here).
I'm generally a center-leftist and I don't support communism at all, pure communism, or that ''everyone is equal'' utopian idea is a nice pipe dream and sounds lovely on paper but is completely unrealistic because of human nature and because of human nature only leads to dictatorship as we've seen throughout history, but thanks for the stereotype.

patriot45
02-24-2010, 01:45 AM
Being friends with a communist doesn't make one a communist. We're ''friends'' with China officially..So technically we are a communist nation by your rationale. If a Republican was friends with a Democrat, does that mean the Republican is a Democrat or vice versa and that they agree on everything?
I'm generally a center-leftist and I don't support communism, but thanks for the stereotype.

Are you an elected official making policy for us? I don't want a commie or a commie symphathizer running the country. I don't think we are friends with china, more like they own us.
But thanks for your lib view on it. :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-24-2010, 01:57 AM
We are not a communist nation....yet. So any red blooded American who loves freedom should have a problem with elected officials schmoozing with commies. By the way, the liberal left are all commies.


Are you an elected official making policy for us? I don't want a commie or a commie symphathizer running the country. I don't think we are friends with china, more like they own us.
But thanks for your lib view on it. :rolleyes:

Again being friends with someone who has views different from your own doesn't mean you sympathize with their views. I'm friends with a guy who literally considers himself a modern Crusader and feels all Muslims should die, something I totally disagree with him, but am friends with him because of other things we agree on and because we share a love of politics and enjoy debating.
And we're friends with Britain, who have a ''commie socialized healthcare system'', as well as Canada. And whether or not China ''owns'' us, we still schmooze with them.
And if I was an elected official making policy the politics of my Crusader friend wouldn't be my own, so I don't see why the same argument can't be made for the current elected official making policy? That the views of a friend or friends aren't his?

AlmostThere
02-24-2010, 02:00 AM
I'm generally a center-leftist and I don't support communism at all, in fact pure communism is abhorrent in much the same way that pure capitalism is for both lead to tyranny (one by absolute government control, the other by pure mob rule), but thanks for the stereotype.

Pure capitalism leads to tyranny through mob rule?!?

Your Kool-Aid must really be spiked this evening. I will probably regret this but would you be so kind as to expound on that thought? In other words, what the fuck???

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-24-2010, 02:09 AM
Pure capitalism leads to tyranny through mob rule?!?

Your Kool-Aid must really be spiked this evening. I will probably regret this but would you be so kind as to expound on that thought? In other words, what the fuck???

Pure, completely unregulated capitalism or would be a nightmare. No laws protecting the rights of workers, for example, nor child labor laws, nor work safety laws (Triangle Shirtwaist anyone?), no worker's comp, no limit on work days, which while for some hard workers is a nice thing, for others such as minors would be like virtual slavery. Discrimination in hiring, and I don't mean ''no shirt, no hire'' kind of discrimination. You'd have all sorts of corruption that would make the Cendant and Enron scandals look like Disney World. Sweat shops.

I do think current regulation goes a bit too far in many areas, but...no regulation to me is just as crazy as overegulation.

We saw this sort of thing in the Laissez Faire era. If you let every industry just completely do what the fuck they want, you're going to have a mob rule in that sense, it's 2 am here so maybe mob rule is a bad choice of words.

AmPat
02-24-2010, 09:50 AM
You are missing the point just like most liberals and TNO. O Blah Blah has a LIFELONG history and a philosophy based upon his many associations with Commies. He isn't merely "friends" with Commies, he embraces them. He employs them. He empowers them. He incluses them in decision making. Get it yet?
I wouldn't be surprised if he was found "sword fighting" with them in the West Wing latrine during their anti-American meetings.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-24-2010, 01:26 PM
You are missing the point just like most liberals and TNO. O Blah Blah has a LIFELONG history and a philosophy based upon his many associations with Commies. He isn't merely "friends" with Commies, he embraces them. He employs them. He empowers them. He incluses them in decision making. Get it yet?
I wouldn't be surprised if he was found "sword fighting" with them in the West Wing latrine during their anti-American meetings.

Truman had quite a few people who turned out to be communists in his administration, yet he instigated the Cold War against the USSR/Communism and spoke privately and publicly on the evils of communism. In fact Truman was at the time believed by some (such as Joe McCarthy) to have been a communist himself or at least a communist sympathizer; Joe in 1953 referred to the years of Democrats in the White House as "Twenty Years of Treason" by Presidents FDR and Truman, and later included Ike as a traitor because he felt Ike was soft on communism too.

BadCat
02-24-2010, 01:32 PM
Truman had quite a few people who turned out to be communists in his administration, yet he instigated the Cold War against the USSR/Communism and spoke privately and publically on the evils of commusism. In fact Truman was at the time believed by some (such as Joe McCarthy) to have been a communist himself or at least a communist sympathizer; Joe in 1953 referred to the years of Democrats in the White House as "Twenty Years of Treason" by Presidents FDR and Truman, and later included Ike as a traitor because he felt Ike was soft on communism too.

Hey, when and if you graduate, send me a resume.

I haven't had a good laugh in a while.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-24-2010, 01:42 PM
You are missing the point just like most liberals and TNO. O Blah Blah has a LIFELONG history and a philosophy based upon his many associations with Commies. He isn't merely "friends" with Commies, he embraces them. He employs them. He empowers them. He incluses them in decision making. Get it yet?
I wouldn't be surprised if he was found "sword fighting" with them in the West Wing latrine during their anti-American meetings.


Hey, when and if you graduate, send me a resume.

I haven't had a good laugh in a while.

Just one example--Truman's inaugural address, 1949:

''Mr. Vice President, Mr. Chief Justice, fellow citizens:
I accept with humility the honor which the American people have conferred upon me. I accept it with a resolve to do all that I can for the welfare of this Nation and for the peace of the world.

In performing the duties of my office, I need the help and the prayers of every one of you. I ask for your encouragement and for your support. The tasks we face are difficult. We can accomplish them only if we work together.

Each period of our national history has had its special challenges. Those that confront us now are as momentous as any in the past. Today marks the beginning not only of a new administration, but of a period that will be eventful, perhaps decisive, for us and for the world.

It may be our lot to experience, and in a large measure bring about, a major turning point in the long history of the human race. The first half of this century has been marked by unprecedented and brutal attacks on the rights of man, and by the two most frightful wars in history. The supreme need of our time is for men to learn to live together in peace and harmony.

The peoples of the earth face the future with grave uncertainty, composed almost equally of great hopes and great fears. In this time of doubt, they look to the United States as never before for good will, strength, and wise leadership.

It is fitting, therefore, that we take this occasion to Proclaim to the world the essential principles of the faith by which we live, and to declare our aims to all peoples.

The American people stand firm in the faith which has inspired this Nation from the beginning. We believe that all men have a right to equal justice under law and equal opportunity to share in the common good. We believe that all men have a right to freedom of thought and expression. We believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of God.

From this faith we will not be moved.

The American people desire, and are determined to work for, a world in which all nations and all peoples are free to govern themselves as they see fit, and to achieve a decent and satisfying life. Above all else, our people desire, and are determined to work for, peace on earth-a just and lasting peace-based on genuine agreement freely arrived at by equals.

In the pursuit of these aims, the United States and other like-minded nations find themselves directly opposed by a regime with contrary aims and a totally different concept of life.

That regime adheres to a false philosophy which purports to offer freedom, security, and greater opportunity to mankind. Misled by that philosophy, many peoples have sacrificed their liberties only to learn to their sorrow that deceit and mockery, poverty and tyranny, are their reward.

That false philosophy is communism.

Communism is based on the belief that man is so weak and inadequate that he is unable to govern himself, and therefore requires the rule of strong masters.

Democracy is based on the conviction that man has the moral and intellectual capacity, as well as the inalienable right, to govern himself with reason and justice.

Communism subjects the individual to arrest without lawful cause, punishment without trial, and forced labor as the chattel of the state. It decrees what information he shall receive, what art he shall produce, what leaders he shall follow, and what thoughts he shall think.

Democracy maintains that government is established for the benefit of the individual, and is charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights of the individual and his freedom in the exercise of those abilities of his.

Communism maintains that social wrongs can be corrected only by violence.

Democracy has proved that social justice can be achieved through peaceful change.

Communism holds that the world is so widely divided into opposing classes that war is inevitable.

Democracy holds that free nations can settle differences justly and maintain a lasting peace.

These differences between communism and democracy do not concern the United States alone. People everywhere are coming to realize that what is involved is material well-being, human dignity, and the right to believe in and worship God.

I state these differences, not to draw issues of belief as such, but because the actions resulting from the Communist philosophy are a threat to the efforts of free nations to bring about world recovery and lasting peace.''

I can rest post the rest of the address if you want.

AmPat
02-24-2010, 01:46 PM
Truman had quite a few people who turned out to be communists in his administration, yet he instigated the Cold War against the USSR/Communism and spoke privately and publically on the evils of commusism. In fact Truman was at the time believed by some (such as Joe McCarthy) to have been a communist himself or at least a communist sympathizer; Joe in 1953 referred to the years of Democrats in the White House as "Twenty Years of Treason" by Presidents FDR and Truman, and later included Ike as a traitor because he felt Ike was soft on communism too.

STRIKE THREE!
Still missing by a wide margin. O Blah Blah is ideologically aligned with these imbeciles. Have you listened to Van Jones? O Blah Blah appointed this idiot. What does that suggest about O Blah Blah? He was mentored "spiritually" by a hateful, bigoted, white-hating communist "preacher." That's why this Pretender-in Chief is dangerous.

Joe McCarthy accused many of being a communist or sympathizer. That didn't mean he was correct. For the record, other than AL Bore's father, who was Truman's known communists in his administration?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-24-2010, 01:53 PM
STRIKE THREE!
Still missing by a wide margin. O Blah Blah is ideologically aligned with these imbeciles. Have you listened to Van Jones? O Blah Blah appointed this idiot. What does that suggest about O Blah Blah? He was mentored "spiritually" by a hateful, bigoted, white-hating communist "preacher." That's why this Pretender-in Chief is dangerous.

Joe McCarthy accused many of being a communist or sympathizer. That didn't mean he was correct. For the record, other than AL Bore's father, who was Truman's known communists in his administration?

For record, I do not support Obama. He's weak, kowtows too much (literally) to other nations, he apologizes for our past, he is a weak ineffective arrogant dope like Carter was, and I don't find him charismatic as so many do but rather cold and robotic in his speech.

And what about the Venona Papers? They demonstrate the State Department was full of communists during the Truman years.

AmPat
02-24-2010, 02:06 PM
For record, I do not support Obama. He's weak, kowtows too much (literally) to other nations, he apologizes for our past, he is a weak ineffective arrogant dope like Carter was, and I don't find him charismatic as so many do but rather cold and robotic in his speech.

And what about the Venona Papers? They demonstrate the State Department was full of communists during the Truman years.

At least we agree on O Blah Blah. As for the Verona papers I'm not familiar. The era was full of communist infiltrators, alleged communists, and communist sympathizers. If we eliminate the sympathizers as the fools they were- much like the morons who ignorantly and stupidly display their Che shirts, we have the infiltrators and alleged communists. If we eliminate the "alleged" and falsely accused, that leaves real communists and alien infiltrators. What then was their plight? I highly doubt that continued service was the outcome. O Blah Blah ACTIVELY promotes this type person. That is the difference to me. Past is past. O Blah Blah is a clear and PRESENT danger!

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-24-2010, 02:10 PM
At least we agree on O Blah Blah. As for the Verona papers I'm not familiar. The era was full of communist infiltrators, alleged communists, and communist sympathizers. If we eliminate the sympathizers as the fools they were- much like the morons who ignorantly and stupidly display their Che shirts, we have the infiltrators and alleged communists. If we eliminate the "alleged" and falsely accused, that leaves real communists and alien infiltrators. What then was their plight? I highly doubt that continued service was the outcome. O Blah Blah ACTIVELY promotes this type person. That is the difference to me. Past is past. O Blah Blah is a clear and PRESENT danger!

We agree on those issues...I just think the word communist is used too freely these days, and I worry that it'll bring us back to the '50s mindset of fear. paranoia and suspicion. We have enough to fear outside our borders, with millions of crazed dogmatic enemies waiting for us to momentarily let our guard down or be distracted, and as such we can't also be fighting enemies within. Our enemies are such that I think we need to focus the greatest portion of our attention on them. At least in the '50s, while we were in a "Cold War" with the Russians, we weren't already expending our resources on a ground war and thus were able to focus on the Fifth Column within. And I think we had greater resources, both physical and spiritual, then as a nation. We had just come out of WWII victorious only a decade before, we were rebuildiing Europe, we were for a time the only nation with nukes. We were in a stronger position then, and our people I think as a whole while nervous about the USSR had greater pride in America.
My point being is that if we begin to fight a two front war, one on Communism at home and on Terrrorism abroad, eventually something will have to give, and I just worry that what would give would be the security and union that holds our country together.

By the way, Clear and Present Danger is a great movie.

AmPat
02-24-2010, 02:15 PM
We agree on those issues...

By the way, Clear and Present Danger is a great movie.

Check out the Foreword, it rings personally for me.;)

AlmostThere
02-24-2010, 06:56 PM
Just one example--Truman's inaugural address, 1949:

''Mr. Vice President, Mr. Chief Justice, fellow citizens:
I accept with humility the honor which the American people have conferred upon me.............

I forget, what was your point again? Was this to prove Truman instigated the Cold War with the Soviet Union? Instigate was your word, I believe.

Webster's defines instigate as "to goad or urge forward:PROVOKE. A synonym is INCITE.

Truman instigated the Cold War?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-24-2010, 08:50 PM
At least we agree on O Blah Blah. As for the Verona papers I'm not familiar. The era was full of communist infiltrators, alleged communists, and communist sympathizers. If we eliminate the sympathizers as the fools they were- much like the morons who ignorantly and stupidly display their Che shirts, we have the infiltrators and alleged communists. If we eliminate the "alleged" and falsely accused, that leaves real communists and alien infiltrators. What then was their plight? I highly doubt that continued service was the outcome. O Blah Blah ACTIVELY promotes this type person. That is the difference to me. Past is past. O Blah Blah is a clear and PRESENT danger!


I forget, what was your point again? Was this to prove Truman instigated the Cold War with the Soviet Union? Instigate was your word, I believe.

Webster's defines instigate as "to goad or urge forward:PROVOKE. A synonym is INCITE.

Truman instigated the Cold War?

How about ''started'', or ''began'' or ''initiated''? Stalin breaking the promises he made at Yalta didn't help either.

AlmostThere
02-25-2010, 01:19 AM
How about ''started'', or ''began'' or ''initiated''? Stalin breaking the promises he made at Yalta didn't help either.
Do you think Truman might have looked at the threat the Soviet Union posed and took what actions were needed to protect this country and other free countries around the world? Because if that is the case, we should congratulate him, not criticize him.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-25-2010, 03:06 AM
Do you think Truman might have looked at the threat the Soviet Union posed and took what actions were needed to protect this country and other free countries around the world? Because if that is the case, we should congratulate him, not criticize him.

Who is criticizing him? I'm simply saying he started the Cold War which was essentially a war against communism yet he was called a communist in his day, even after starting the Cold War.