What Obama "Didn't Know" And Now His Appointees "Didn't Know" Either

Have you ever noticed how many things Barack Obama “didn’t know” about the people he associates with? There appears to be a very disturbing pattern emerging here.

Obama “didn’t know” that Jeremiah Wright preached racial hatred from the pulpit.

Obama “didn’t know” that Tony Rezko was a crooked real estate developer.

Obama “didn’t know” that Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist.

And now, Obama “didn’t know” that Rahm Emanuel had more contact with Rod Blagojevich than was previously reported. Further, Obama's pick for Attorney General also "didn't know" about his own connection with Blagojevich.

These two stories both come from the Chicago Sun-Times. First, about Rahm Emanuel's contact with Blagojevich despite Obama's early claims that no such contact took place:

President-elect Barack Obama's incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was pushing for Obama's successor just days after the Nov. 4 election, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times. Emanuel privately urged Gov. Blagojevich's administration to appoint Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, and the Sun-Times learned Tuesday that he also pressed that it be done by a certain deadline. Jarrett was initially interested in the U.S. Senate post before Obama tapped her to be a White House senior adviser, sources say. The disclosure comes days after Obama's camp downplayed Jarrett's interest in the post.

It seems as though the Obama camp's story changes every time the wind in the Inner Loop changes direction. But we can't be sure of what the truth is because Obama himself has obfuscated it so much, just like a typical politician. (So much for "change" or any kind of transparant investigation.)

And what about Attorney General designate Eric Holder and his relationship with Blagojevich? Turns out there was a big one, a relationship worth $300,000 to Holder.

Before Eric Holder was President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be attorney general, he was Gov. Blagojevich's pick to sort out a mess involving Illinois' long-dormant casino license. Blagojevich and Holder appeared together at a March 24, 2004, news conference to announce Holder's role as "special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board" -- a post that was to pay Holder and his Washington, D.C. law firm up to $300,000. Holder, however, omitted that event from his 47-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire made public this week -- an oversight he plans to correct after a Chicago Sun-Times inquiry, Obama's transition team indicated late Tuesday.

Maybe Holder "didn't know" that the relationship, especially the dollar amounts involved should have been reported? Or maybe, because of the Chicago-style politics being played, Holder arrogantly assumed that he was above the law and therefore had no need of disclosing anything?

These two stories may have nothing to do with Blagojevich trying to sell the vacated Illinois Senate seat, but it is very important that this infomation comes to light. Especially since the United States has approved of Obama's team transplanting its corrupt Chicago-style politics to Washington D.C.

Besides, remember the non-outing of Valerie Plame and how that led to a completely unrelated charge against Scooter Libby? Americans, especially Democrats, were okay with that. If they are fair and apply the same standard here, these same Americans, and especially the Democrats, will be okay with us learning everything we can about the corruption that will soon make its way from Illinois to D.C.

You can access both articles on-line here:

Rahm Emanuel Pressed For Jarrett Appointment To Senate
Natasha Korecki And Fran Spielman
Chicago Sun-Times
December 17, 2008

Holder Omitted Blagojevich Link From Questionnaire
Chris Fusco
Chicago Sun-Times
December 17, 2008

It might very well happen that the Obama Administration is going to be the most corrupt in history.

Washington Post Confesses To Biased Reporting During The 2008 Presidential Campaign

The one thing about making an accusation against anyone is that those who are doing the accusing are under the requirement to prove the accusation. However, a confession requires no such proof at all.

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has released just such a confession. From her November 9th column:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts. ... Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."

As Bill Hamilton's comments show, this was not an accident. It was a deliberate decision made by the editorial staff of the Post itself. The "larger purpose" he alludes to is getting Barack Obama elected.

More:

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain. Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic.

So, the Post was more interested in making "history" than they were in presenting a fair, objective and unbiased report of the news. That doesn't surprise me, but I think many people were done a huge disservice by it.

This little tidbit is very telling:

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

Note that last sentence. It is not an accusation coming from a right-of-center blogger. It is a confession coming from a left-of-center publication.

And this:

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

Those of us who engage in politcal research and analysis would do very well to remember this in 2010 and 2012 as well as keeping it in the backs of our minds over the next four years as the Post reports on President Obama's policies and actions. If they did such a deliberate hatchet job during the campaign, what are they going to deliberately mislead us on during an Obama Administration?

Be sure to send this post and the following link to all your friends. We need to get this information out and spread it as far as possible.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

An Obama Tilt In Campaign Coverage
Deborah Howell
The Washington Post
November 9, 2008

Obama Advisor Ignores History, Reality And What You Need To Know About Rezko

Every now and then I am amazed at how stupid certain people can be, especially people who as supposedly among the intelligentsia of our culture.

Enter retired General Merrill McPeak. Normally, I wouldn't write anything to disparage a member of our military, but sometimes, you have to look past the uniform and take note of other things.

In this case, General Merrill McPeak said that President Bush was the reason for Iran's anti-Americanism. Such a statement is simply ignorant of history and of reality. To believe General McPeak means you have to believe that the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and hostages taken because the Iranians looked into a crystal ball and saw George W. Bush being elected President in 2000 and 2004. That is how ignorant General McPeak is with this claim.

Ed Lasky at the American Thinker has more:

Does McPeak remain unaware of any of these aspects of history: 1) The American Embassy hostage crisis during the Carter years; some have linked the current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to this hostage-taking. 2) Years of state sponsorship of terrorism by Iran-that preceded the election of George Bush; Bill Clinton signed the Iran Libya Sanctions Act in 1996 because of the anti-Americanism and terror sponsored by Iran and Libya 3) Iran's role in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 American servicemen during the Reagan years; the hostage taking and killing of Americans in Lebanon by Hezbollah-a terror group sponsored and supported by Iran. This included the kidnapping, torture and killing of Colonel William Buckley in 1985; 4) Iran's role in the Khobar barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996 that killed 19 American servicemen during the Clinton years; 5) All the broadcasts over the years that have shown state-sponsored crowds of Iranians burning American flags as they chanted anti-American propaganda and slogans? 6) The sermons, radio broadcasts, and textbooks that teach anti-Americanism to Iranians?

And this is why we should be very concerned about statements like this coming out of the Barack Obama Campaign:

Senator Obama's senior military advisor seems to display a shocking ignorance of history -- a history that includes the deaths of many American servicemen. One would think a retired General would at least honor those of our servicemen killed by Iran. This is one more senior adviser that calls into question Senator Obama's judgment and his ability to assume the duties and responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Senior Advisor Blames Bush For Iran's Anti-Americanism
Ed Lasky
The American Thinker
March 5, 2008

---

Tim Novak, in a blog over at the Chicago Sun-Times, notes that the connection between Barack Obama and indicted real estate developer Tony Rezko had become a very hot issue in late January. It is likely to grow hotter over the next few weeks.

Here is what we need to know about this case:

1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down. 2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds. 3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm. 4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects. 5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district. 6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion. 7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor. 8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

Stay tuned. I'm sure more details will come out later. But as for Obama's claim to be "fresh" and "different" than other Washington pols, that stinks more than Rezko.

You can access the complete blog-entry on-line here:

8 Things You Need To Know About Obama And Rezko
Tim Novak
Chicago Sun-Times
January 24, 2008