Testimony reveals that Barack Obama may have been involved in Rod Blagojevich’s “pay to play” scheme
As Rod Blagojevich’s trial moves forward it is becoming more apparent that Barack Obama was involved in the “pay to play” scheme that Rod Blagojevich was engaged in.
In testimony delivered last week by Rod Blagojevich’s chief of staff– John Harris– we learned that Barack Obama did indeed know that his former senate seat was up for grabs if the price was right. The price in this case would have been a cabinet appointment. When Barack Obama was interviewed by federal prosecutors he denied knowing that Rod Blagojevich was involved in a “pay to play” scheme for his senate seat, as well as denying any involvement in the scandal.
With last week’s revelation, we learned that Barack Obama DID know about the “pay to play scheme” and with today’s testimony it was revealed that Barack Obama WAS involved in the scandal– albeit indirectly. The then president-elect was not stupid enough to become directly involved, but it appears as if he was involved at some level nonetheless.
According to union leader Thomas Balanoff, Barack Obama contacted him the day before the 2008 election and made his preference known as to who should replace him on the senate floor.
Tom, i want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat,” Obama told him.
Balanoff said Obama said he had two criteria: someone who was good for the citizens of Illinois and could be elected in 2010.
Obama said he wasn’t publicly coming out in support of anyone but he believed Valerie Jarrett would fit the bill.
“I would much prefer she (remain in the White House) but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those two criteria,” Balanoff said Obama told him. “I said: ‘thank you, I’m going to reach out to Gov. Blagojevich
Balanoff then reached out to Blagojevich, and Blagojevich promptly let it be known that if he did appoint Jarrett to the senate seat he wanted to be named to Health and Human Services.
He said, ‘You know, I love being governor, but my real passion is health care
Balanoff told Blagojevich that that was out of the question, but that does not end the controversy here because Barack Obama contacted Thomas Balanoff and let his preference be known, Balanoff then contacted Blagojevich about the senate seat. Now we know that Barack Obama did have indirect contact with Rod Blagojevich about the open senate seat, and this is something that he denied to federal investigators.
It is quite apparent that Barack Obama was not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth when he spoke to federal investigators. And while the possibility exists that Barack Obama was innocently making his replacement preference known to Rod Blagojevich, and truly was unaware of the “pay to play” scheme, the fact that he decided to be less than truthful to the investigators makes it seem as though he knew that something less than honest was going on.
There is only one way to clear this matter up– Barack Obama must take the stand. We now have two people testifying under oath who have contradicted what Barack Obama told federal investigators. Someone is lying, and if it is Barack Obama, he committed a crime by lying to federal investigators.
According to this article, the United States is about to enter into secret negotiations with Hamas. Hamas was asked by the Obama regime not to comment on these secret meetings because it might hurt even further the strained relationship between the United States and Israel.
Seizing on the opportunity to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel, a senior Hamas leader promptly leaked the story, proving once and for all exactly how trustworthy they are. These negotiations are no longer secret.
These are the people that Barack Obama has decided to go to bed with, while at the same time shitting all over the one true ally we have had in that region. I have nothing further to say except, if you lie down with dogs…..
Supreme Court rules on the Chicago handgun ban
After the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, second amendment advocates quickly moved to challenge the Chicago handgun ban in an effort to extend those rights to the various states– the Heller case did not apply to states because Washington DC is a federal enclave.
Today the Supreme Court handed down their long awaited verdict on the Chicago handgun ban, and I must admit that it was not the complete victory that I had hoped for because the Supreme Court did not overturn the Chicago handgun ban outright, but rather sent the case back to the lower courts for a ruling. While it seems likely that the lower court will now have to rule in favor of overturning the ban– and while that will be a major victory– the fact is that we missed an opportunity for the Supreme Court to set a precedent in this case. We missed the opportunity for stare decisis– a term that was of great import to the left during the confirmation hearings of both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito on the issue of abortion and Roe vs Wade.
The left expended quite a bit of capital on stare decisis during the aforementioned hearings and if the Supreme Court had overturned the Chicago handgun ban themselves– rather than sending it back to the lower court– certainly these same liberals would not be interested in overturning settled law, right? If stare decisis was so important during the confirmation of both Roberts and Alito on the issue of abortion, the same priority on stare decisis with regards to gun ownership should be applied by the left on this issue. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
But while the case failed to provide stare decisis on this issue, it was still a major victory for second amendment advocates as the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the conservatives on the court.
The court’s decision means that the enigmatically worded Second Amendment — “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” — identifies an individual right to gun ownership, like the freedom of speech, that cannot be unduly restricted by Congress, state laws or city ordinances (emphasis mine)
Wayne LaPierre– Vice President of the NRA had the following to say about this decision:
Today marks a great moment in American history, this is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending.
Justice Alito cited the 14th amendment in his statement for the majority, saying:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
We finally have a court ruling on the second amendment that affirms that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” actually does mean that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. This is contrary to the argument which has been used by the left for years that the second amendment only applies to the military.
The Supreme Court also reaffirmed its decision in the Heller case that states have the right to common sense restrictions on gun ownership, although they declined to go into detail about what they considered common sense restrictions to be. That will most likely be left up to the Supreme Court on a one by one basis as more and more gun laws are challenged in the future based on this ruling.
This is just the beginning, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, we can expect more challenges to be made in different locales about current gun laws. Some of these restrictions may be overturned, and some may not. But now we have momentum on our side; it took far too long for the Supreme Court to hear a case on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms– all other rights guaranteed under the constitution had been affirmed as individual rights long ago, but the Supreme Court has finally made the ruling that the second amendment is just as much of an individual right as all of the others.
As more cases move forward in the future, we would do well to remember that this decision was only by a 5-4 margin. We were thisclose to having this ruling go in the opposite direction. While Elena Kagan’s almost assured appointment to the Supreme Court would not have changed this decision, it was still too close for comfort. If Barack Obama is allowed one more Supreme Court nominee, we might not be so lucky the next time– especially with there being no official stare decisis on this issue.
Tomorrow is the last day of the Supreme Court’s 2010 term and there are a couple of decisions that are expected to be handed down. I would like to focus on one of them.
The Supreme Court is going to rule on Chicago’s handgun ban. It is expected that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the ban, thereby extending the Heller decision– which did not apply to states because Washington D.C. is a national enclave– to the citizens who happen to live in Chicago. But it is also expected that the Supreme Court will extend this ruling to all citizens of the United States granting them second amendment rights regardless of where they live.
If– as expected– the Supreme Court renders the decision that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, and extend that decision to all states and cities in the United States we will have earned a long awaited victory for the second amendment.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The wording seems simple enough, and after tomorrow the Supreme Court may have finally decided that the word “people” really does mean “people.” It is hard to believe it has taken this long, but tomorrow may be the day that advocates of the second amendment have been waiting for.
It looks as if Barack Obama is going to fail on one of his highest priority campaign promises to the far left– GITMO is most likely going to remain open because Barack Obama no longer considers the closing of GITMO to be a high priority. Funny how priorities change once a person actually has to govern, isn’t it?
During the campaign Barack Obama claimed that it was imperative for the United States to close GITMO because it was being used as a tool by al Qaeda for recruiting purposes, because of this– Barack Obama claimed– leaving GITMO open was a national security risk.
One of Barack Obama’s first actions as president was signing an executive order that would close GITMO by January of this year. Needless to say, this symbolic action was never followed up on and GITMO remains open to this day and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Closing GITMO is no longer a high priority for this president and it seems very likely that GITMO will not close during Barack Obama’s first term.
If Barack Obama’s claim was true about GITMO, and it was truly the recruiting tool for al Qaeda, and national security risk that he claimed it was when he was on the campaign trail, he would be performing a dereliction of duty by allowing it to stay open. But the truth is that GITMO is not the recruiting tool Barack Obama claimed it was, and it is not the national security risk that he claimed it was, he overstated the “GITMO problem” for political reasons to gain favor with the far left.
But he wasn’t the only one to do so; the issue of closing GITMO was a mission that the left was on during the Bush administration; at one point Dick Durbin took the floor of the senate and compared our heroes serving at GITMO to the soviet Gulags, Nazis, and Pol Pot. He did this– as did many on the left– for the despicable reason of turning the American people against a president who was trying to execute a war.
Many of us realized Barack Obama’s executive order closing GITMO was nothing more than a public relations move designed to placate the left because there was no PLAN involved in the executive order. There was no implementation plan in the order– just the order itself.
Considering the high profile this issue was given during the election, the media should be up in arms about this news, yet they remain silent; ignoring this campaign promise reversal in much the same manner they ignore the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. There is no longer a daily body count on national television; there is nary any coverage on the war now that Barack Obama is president. Contrast that with the coverage the wars received when George Bush was president and the difference is striking.
There are also no politicians comparing the United States military to Pol Pot and soviet Gulags, there is not the same level of outcry from leftist politicians now that Barack Obama is president. Contrast the differing levels of outrage from leftist politicians then and now and the difference is striking.
Much the same can be said for the far left war protesters– or lack thereof– since Barack Obama became president. The question is; will the far left bother to protest the news that GITMO will remain open, or will they accept it as necessary now that Barack Obama is president, just as their inaction in protesting the wars as of late makes it appears as though they suddenly support the war efforts?
Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, Jack Murtha, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and many more Democrats were playing political games with the United States military in general, and with GITMO in particular, and the fact that Barack Obama has put closing GITMO on the back burner is all the proof we need that GITMO was only being used for poltical gain by the left.
Today we have learned that GITMO will remain open and that Barack Obama does not think that the issue of closing GITMO is a top priority, so today I pose a question to all of you who honestly believed that GITMO needed to be shut down and those of you who thought that Barack Obama was just the man to do it; where it the outcry?
MoveOn.org removes “General Betray Us” ad from website
Something is missing from MoveOn.org’s website— the General “Betray Us” ad. It has been removed.
Last week General McChrystal resigned as head of the war in Afghanistan after making some controversial remarks and the president replaced him with General Petraeus.
We all remember General Petraeus. To many of us he is a hero and the man that won the war in Iraq with his plan for “the surge,” but to the left he was nothing but a toadie for President Bush– a man with no integrity that would sit in front of congress and tell them whatever President Bush told him to say.
When he testified in front of congress on the progress of his surge policy he was basically called a liar by Hillary Clinton, and MoveOn.org ran the now infamous “General Betray Us” ad.
That ad remained on MoveOn’s website right up until last Wednesday– the very day that the great general was named as General McChrystal’s replacement– when it suddenly and quietly vanished from the site.
Hmmm!? Interesting, isn’t it?
When the senate held a vote to show support for General Petraeus after the “General Betray Us” ad appeared in the New York Times, then senator Barack Obama didn’t even vote on the issue, (which was typical of him in those days), but in a time of crisis during the war– this time in Afghanistan– Barack Obama turned to the same man that President Bush once successfully turned to in Iraq. He may not have been willing to publicly support him then, but now that he is in charge of the war in Afghanistan he certainly supports him because he needs him. Barack Obama is learning the hard way that governing is much more harder than just sitting back and watching.
And suddenly– now that General Petraeus is Barack Obama’s choice– it appears as if General Petraeus is worthy of more respect by those on the left that tried so hard to discredit him and call him a liar. MoveOn had such strong anti-Petraeus and anti-Bush sentiment that they never removed the despicable ad from their website; but suddenly the website decides that while they probably will not come out and support the general outright or vociferously, they will at least stop running the defaming advertisement and stop condemning him publicly. This is so transparent, their hypocrisy is in full view here.
In all reality, it probably wasn’t General Petraeus that MoveOn.org opposed, but President Bush. Now that Barack Obama has turned to the general, MoveOn.org can support him, or at least ignore him, much the same way the media has been ignoring the war since Barack Obama became president.
Harry Reid takes jobs bill off the table
After it became obvious that the stimulus bill failed, Democrats decided to double down by introducing a second stimulus bill, rebranded as a jobs bill. This rebrand was designed to fool the people into thinking that it was not more of the same failed Democrat policies. After all, who would oppose a jobs bill?
What was the stimulus in the first place if it was not a jobs bill? They are one in the same, but Democrats didn’t learn from their failure and decided to push ahead with more of the same. Sensing the growing concern among the American people about out of control spending, Republicans held strong and did not succumb to the pressure of the Democrats to pass another spending bill while only about one quarter of the allocated stimulus money has been spent. Today Harry Reid was forced to pull the jobs bill from the floor.
If the Democrats wanted to stimulate job growth, and if they felt that the way to do this is through government spending, and if we have already allotted almost $1 trillion for this purpose, why institute another spending bill before the money from the first stimulus is spent?
This was a victory for all of the Tea Party activists out there. We made our voices heard; we will not tolerate any more irresponsible spending. We will not tolerate more debt being thrust upon our children. Democrats might not be willing to admit if but the effects of the Tea Party have already been felt.
We are being heard loud and clear and you can bet your ass that in the end Republicans were afraid to vote for this jobs bill solely because they were afraid of us.
And they should be!
Republicans denied documents on the Joe Sestak scandal
Republicans made the effort to obtain White House documents relating to the Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff job offers reportedly offered by Barack Obama for these two candidates to drop out of their respective races so that candidates the president approved of would have a clear path to the Democrat nomination. If true, this is a clear violation of the Hatch Act.
Yesterday– on party lines– they were denied access to these documents by a margin of 15-12. The Democrats’ laughable defense was, the regime investigated itself and found that they committed no wrong-doing so the matter is closed. I am sorry but this just isn’t good enough. Does anyone really believe that the regime could have fairly and in an unbaised manner conduct the investigation into itself?
The regime is hiding something here, why else would Democrats refuse to release the documents? Republicans still have a small chance at recovering these documents; they need to hope that the Office of Special Counsel– the office that was specifically created to investigate charges that the Hatch Act was violated– decide to take up this case.
With all of the confusion around this issue, and with the knowledge that the Obama regime did send out feelers to both Sestak and Romanoff about taking jobs that would require them to give up their election bids, it seems as if there is justification for the Office of Special Counsel to hear this case.
Testimony reveals that Barack Obama was involved in Rod Blagojevich’s “pay to play” scandal
In a stunning revelation during the Rod Blagojevich trial it has been revealed that Barack Obama did in fact know about Blagojevich’s “pay to play” scheme; this is something that the president denied when interviewed by federal agents.
The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he’s asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he’s asked for
This claim was made by Rod Blagojevich’s chief of staff– John Harris–lawyers went on to say:
Testimony elicited by the government from John Harris and wiretaps played in court raise the issue of President Obama’s direct knowledge and communication with emissaries and others regarding the appointment to his Senate seat
These charges claim that Barack Obama not only knew about what Rod Blagojevich was doing, but also that he was directly involved in the scheme. This brings to the forefront two questions; what did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?
Technically Barack Obama was not under oath when he denied any knowledge of Rod Blagojevich’s dealings, but it is a crime to lie to federal prosecutors. If you do not think this is true, look no further than the case of Scooter Libby.
Barack Obama denied having any knowledge of the “pay to play” scheme that was being run by Rod Blagojevich, but under oath John Harris testified otherwise. At one point it looked as if Barack Obama might have to take the stand, but recently it was reported that he would not be called upon to testify; at the very least it looks like Barack Obama’s chief of staff– Rahm Emanuel– will be taking the stand. But these new revelations now require Barack Obama to take the stand.
With this new testimony it seems evident to me that Barack Obama must take the stand. We need to know the truth because it seems now that Barack Obama was involved in some capacity in this scandal.
John Harris has stated under oath that Barack Obama knew about the ploy, yet Barack Obama swore to federal investigators just the opposite. Someone is lying, the American people deserve to know who it is.
If Barack Obama is as innocent as he claims he is, he should have no problem taking the stand to clear his name. If however, he refuses to take the stand the questions about his involvement will only multiply. If Barack Obama does not take the stand we will be left to wonder, what is he hiding?
Barack Obama owes it to himself and to the American people to testify under oath that he knew nothing about what was going on. If the trial indicates that Barack Obama was lying to federal investigators than the impeachment proceedings should begin, for he has committed a crime.
This trial is getting more interesting by the day. It seems all but certain that Rod Blagojevich has committed a crime and will be found guilty, and it seems likely that Barack Obama was involved in this crime– to what extent we do not know– but if he was involved in any way he needs to be removed from office for it will have been proven that he is a liar, and that he lied to federal investigators.
Chicago is known to have some of the most corrupt politicians in the nation; Barack Obama chose to move to Illinois to begin his political career, that alone should tell us all that we need to know about Barack Obama. But then there is the admitted fact in his book that Barack Obama sought to meet and associate with known radicals living in the Chicago area, one can not help but think that he did so because he himself is a radical, why else would he have gone out of his way to associate with them?
With these revelations in court today Barack Obama has been implicated in the plot. We need to hear from the man himself.
Barack Obama has accepted General McChrystal’s resignation and has replaced him with the great General Petraeus– the man who engineered and brought us victory in the Iraq war. A better choice could not have been.
With the revelations of General McChrystal’s comments in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine Barack Obama had no choice but to let him go. As much as I respect General McChrystal’s 30 year military career– and agree with the comments that he made– he just could not make the comments that he made as an active general in a war when we have our brave men and women fighting and dying under his command. I truly believe that the general is a good man and that he just had a lapse of judgement, but that does not excuse him from his comments.
So today Barack Obama announced that General Petraeus would take over the war in Afghanistan saying:
He has my full confidence and I am urging the Senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible
But that was not always the case now was it? Barack Obama vehemently opposed the surge in Iraq that General Petraeus engineered and even after the surge brought us victory Barack Obama refused to admit that he was wrong and the surge was a success. He even went so far as to stubbornly state that he still wouldn’t have approved the surge even after it was shown to have succeeded.
And on top of that, when congress held a vote to condemn moveon.org’s disgusting “General Betray-us” ad, Barack Obama couldn’t be bothered to vote one way or the other on the resolution– upholding his long standing tradition of not voting on issues. He was afraid of alienating both moveon.org and his liberal, anti-war base and because of this he refused to do what was right and instead decided to do what was easy– nothing.
So now the liberal messiah has turned to the man that he refused to defend; he has turned to the man whose surge policy he did not support; he has turned to General Petraeus to save the Afghanistan war. And while there is probably no better person to be in charge of the Afghanistan war, it will be interesting to see how politicians like Hillary Clinton– who called General Petraeus a liar on the floor of congress– react to the news that he has been reassigned to a field command once again.
Will they give this man the full support that he deserves now that it is Barack Obama that has turned to him– the same support that he deserved in the Iraq war, or will they continue to ridicule and demean him? Will we see such deplorable ads as the “General Betray-us” ad or will moveon.org suddenly support Barack Obama’s decision, or will they just ignore this story in the same manner that the media has been ignoring the war since Barack Obama’s election?
This whole episode should provide Barack Obama with the type of teachable moment that he loves so much. It was easy for Barack Obama to ridicule General Petraeus’ plan for a surge in Iraq when he had no responsibility in fighting a war. It was easy for Barack Obama to blow off voting on a resolution to condemn the “General Betray-us” ad when he was void of responsibility. But now he finds himself in a position where he must make decisions, and he is in a position of responsibility, so it is no longer so easy to be flippant on issues of the gravest import any more. He could afford to wait for President Bush to take a position and then naturally take the opposite position when he had no stake in the outcome, but as president he can no longer do so. He now has responsibility and he is finding out the hard way that it is much harder to make decisions and lead than it is to just sit back and oppose. His decisions now go well beyond the political realm– his decisions literally are between life and death and this has to be somewhat of an awakening for him.
In this case Barack Obama– in my opinion– has made two correct choices. First; he accepted General McChrystal’s resignation, and second; he put General Petraeus in charge of the war in Afghanistan. Now all he needs to do is untie the general’s hands, let him go to work, and the outcome will be the same as it was in Iraq.
America's Watchtower 