Who is Barack Obama?

Certainly not the poor son of a poverty stricken single mother:

"Both Joe Biden and Barack Obama appeal to the public with outrageously phony stories about their working class, blue collar backgrounds.
For Biden, the masquerade is particularly reprehensible since his pose as a “lunch bucket” Democrat from gritty Scranton, Pennsylvania played a prominent role in his selection as Senator Obama’s running mate.
For instance, Kerry Kennedy (daughter of Bobby Kennedy) recently told the New York Times Magazine: “In this election, the fact that Joe Biden is a Catholic with a working-class background is going to play an important role in bringing Catholics who might otherwise vote Republican back to the fold.” The Economist called Biden “a perfect example of a lunch bucket Democrat made good” and the Boston Globe hailed him as “an Irish-Catholic lunch bucket Democrat” - even though his father’s family ancestry was entirely English. At the Democratic convention the Washington Post reported that Biden “accepted the vice presidential nomination of the Democratic Party with a speech that harkened back to his working-class roots in Scranton.”
These descriptions suggest that Biden himself – or at least his parents-- toiled in factories or coal mines, but his actual background counts as considerably more genteel, comfortable and white collar. His grandfather won election to the state Senate in Pennsylvania and his own father never supported the family with manual labor. Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman bothered to look up the obituaries for the candidate’s father (Joseph Robinette Biden, Sr.) who died in 2002. The News-Journal of Wilmington reported that at the time of his marriage in 1941, the older Biden “was working as a sales representative for Amoco Oil Co. in Harrisburg.”
The summary of his career went on: “Biden also was an executive in a Boston-based company that supplied waterproof sealant for U.S. merchant marine ships during World War II. After the war, he co-owned an airport and crop dusting service on Long Island.” After relocating his family to Delaware, Biden, Sr. “worked in the state first as a sales manager for auto dealerships and after in real-estate condominium sales.”
In none of these jobs would the older Biden have carried a “lunch bucket” or brandished a union card. The job descriptions - “executive,” “co-owner,” “sales-manager,” “real-estate condominium sales” identify him as solidly white collar and managerial, and in no sense working class.
The future Senator, in fact, attended Archmere Academy, a posh Catholic prep school and helped his parents to pay the steep tuition (which today stands at more than $18,000) by taking a summer (but not a school year) job. Though his academic record remained decidedly spotty (graduating 506th of 688 in his class at the University of Delaware) he still won prompt admission to law school and proceeded to win election at age 27 to the county council of the suburb where he was raised, and then to the U.S. Senate at age 29 (where he has served ever since). The talk of his “hardscrabble upbringing” or overcoming “daunting obstacles to rise to local leadership” is purest myth. Yes, his home town of Scranton is a famous example of rust belt decline, but even such struggling cities feature local gentry and families (like the Bidens) living in the upper middle class. The failure of major media to expose the deceptive image of “lunch bucket Joe” is one of innumerable examples of journalistic malfeasance in this electoral season.
While Biden makes false claims of working class roots, Obama tells similarly misleading tales of his own background of purported hardship and poverty. He describes his father as “a goat-herder from Kenya” and his mother as “a struggling single mom who had to take food stamps to feed the family.” He talks of being raised by his simple, Midwestern grandparents, and identifies them as “a grandmother who worked in a defense plant during the war while her husband marched with Patton’s army in Europe.”
This description has been repeated so often and so lovingly by Obama’s acolytes that no one seems willing to point its blatant distortions. Obama’s father was hardly a simple goat herder, but rather the holder of a Masters degree from Harvard who became a prominent, politically-connected economist when he returned to Kenya. His struggling single mom also held advanced degrees - including a Masteers and a PhD in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. Her periods of financial hardship related to her pursuit of graduate studies and her many years of field work in “rural development” in remote sections of Indonesia.
Moreover, even Obama’s endlessly repeated description of his parents as “a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas” is less than accurate. While indeed born in Wichita, his mother and her parents left Kansas at the end of World War II (before her sixth birthday) and she grew up in Texas, California and, most significantly, on Mercer Island, Washington-a stylish and woodsy suburb of Seattle. Obama’s mother was an academic star and ardent student leftist (who used to hang-out in a hallway designated as “Anarchist’s Alley) at Mercer Island High School, then - as now - admired as the top public high school in the state of Washington.
Meanwhile, Obama talks of his grandparents’ activities during four years of World War II, but seldom mentions in speeches their professional achievements during and after the time of his birth in 1961. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, worked as manager of a furniture store while his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, enjoyed conspicuous success as a banker. After studying at two of the finest state universities in the nation (University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Washington) his grandmother became vice president of a bank on Mercer Island, and then held a similar position with the Bank of Hawaii (where she worked for 26 years) after the family’s move to Honolulu. In writing about Obama’s grandmother, USA Today said “she blazed a feminist trail in Hawaii banking circles in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s and rose to become one of the Bank of Hawaii’s first female vice presidents…‘Was she ambitious? She had to be to become a vice president,’ said Clifford Y.J. Kong, 82, who was a senior credit officer at the bank at the time. ‘She was a top notch executive to get appointed.’”
Oddly, Senator Obama loves to cite his grandmother’s brief experience as “Rosie the Riveter” in a defense plant during the war but never publicly discusses her three decades as a banking executive in Washington state and Hawaii. Her prominence and success certainly help to explain his admission to the exclusive Punahou School - by far the most prestigious (and expensive) private academy in the islands.
Like Biden, Obama has no basis whatever for describing his family background as impoverished or even “working class” - his parents were both high-achieving intellectuals, and the grandparents who raised him were successful business people. Not all bankers count as fabulously wealthy but no one could describe a prominent banking executive like his grandmother as downtrodden or disadvantaged.
Since the New Deal, Democrats have developed the annoying habit of demonizing business people and glamorizing the working class: a stupid prejudice that’s produced glaring misrepresentations about the origins of both their national candidates and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge who these senators really are.” - Michael Medved

Don’t be fooled. Check things out for yourself and don’t rely on pundits and the Down Stream Media.

Too late. Absentee ballot on the way.

Too bad you didn’t wait until after the debates.

Your choice, though.

Now Will, you should be ashamed, you are as bad as those nuts on the left, trying to tear down the honerable Senators reputation, don’t believe everything you read, base your arguments on the issues, instead of the mans credibility! Hope this helps!

**Obama and ACORN

Congress Tries To Fix What It Broke**

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 17, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Regulation: As the financial crisis spreads, denials on Capitol Hill grow more shrill. Blame an aloof President Bush, greedy Wall Street, risky capitalism — anybody but those in Congress who wrote the banking rules.
Read More: Election 2008 | Iraq

Such denials won’t hold against the angry facts banging on their doors. The only question is whether the guilty party can keep up the barricade until Election Day.

A visibly annoyed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected suggestions that Democrats share blame for the meltdown. “No,” she snapped at reporters who dared ask.

Stick to our narrative, she scolded: The bursting of the housing bubble was another story of market failure and deregulation.
“The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” she said, while calling for investigations of the industry.

**Only, the risk-taking was her idea — and the idea of all the other Democrats, along with a handful **of Republicans, who over the past 30 years have demonized lenders as racist and passed regulation after regulation pressuring them to make more loans to unqualified borrowers in the name of diversity.

They were the ones who screamed — “REDLINING!” — and sent banks scurrying for cover in low-income neighborhoods, where they have been forced to lower long-held industry standards for judging creditworthiness to make the subprime loans.

If they don’t comply, they are threatened with stiff penalties under the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, a law that forces banks to make home loans to people with poor credit risks.

No fewer than four federal banking regulatory agencies are responsible for enforcing the law. They subject lenders to racial litmus tests and issue regular report cards, the industry’s dreaded “CRA rating.”
The more branches that lenders put in poor neighborhoods, and the more loans they make there, the better their rating. Those lenders with low ratings can not only be fined, but also blocked from mergers and other business transactions needed to expand.

The regulation grew to monstrous proportions during the Clinton administration, obsessed as it was with multiculturalism. Amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s dramatically raised the amount of home loans to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers.

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical “housing rights” groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama.

HUD, in turn, pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more subprime mortgages, and Fannie and Freddie, in turn, donated to the campaigns of leading Democrats like Barney Frank and Pelosi who throttled investigations into fraud at the agencies.

Soon, investment banks such as Bear Stearns were aggressively hawking the securities as “guaranteed.” Wall Street’s pitch was that MBSs were as safe as Treasuries, but with a higher yield.

But they weren’t safe. Everyone in the subprime business — from brokers to lenders to banks to investment houses — absolved themselves of responsibility for ensuring the high-risk loans were good.

The mortgage lenders didn’t care, because they were going to sell the loans to other banks. The banks didn’t care, because they were going to repackage the loans as MBSs. The investors and traders didn’t care, because the MBSs were backed by Fannie and Freddie and their implicit government guarantees.

In other words, nobody up and down the line — from the branch office on main street to the high-rise on Wall Street — analyzed the risk of such ill-advised loans. But why should they? Everybody was just doing what the regulators in Washington wanted them to do.

So everybody won until everybody lost, including the minorities the government originally mandated the banks to serve.
The original culprits in all this were the social engineers who compelled banks to make the bad loans. The private sector has no business conducting social experiments on behalf of government. Its business is making profit. Period. So it did what it naturally does and turned the subprime social mandate into a lucrative industry.

Of course, it was a Ponzi scheme, because they weren’t allowed to play by their rules. The government changed the rules for risk.
In order to put low-income minorities into home loans, they were ordered to suspend lending standards that had served the banking industry well for centuries. No one wants to talk about it, so they just scapegoat Wall Street. Even John McCain has joined the Democrat chorus on this.

The FBI is now investigating 24 large mortgage lenders for alleged abuses. But who will investigate the pols and the lobbyists and the community agitators who made the bad decisions that ultimately forced businesses to make their bad decisions?

This is about his character. He (and Joe Biden) have lied about theri backgrounds. This informantion was verified.

LOL…are you not going to follow your own advice and wait until after the debates to form an opinion…or, at least pretend to?:D:D

It’s O.K. if he does it, just not anyone else.

Looking at information, now, and checking and evaluating it is not exclusive of watching the debates.

And I never said that I have formed an opinion or not.

I was just pointing out that people who send in absentee ballots (when they will be around to vote on election day) are not wise. What will you do if some big, bad news comes out about the candidate that you voted for. Also, absentee ballots are the most prone to voter fraud.

Hope this helps;

So, who is McCain? Have a look at this website and tell me who you think the lesser of the two evils is. Assuming we’re going to believe everything we read that is.


I have weighed the subject and have concluded, based upon fact, who I should vote for. Last minute attempts at manipulation will not affect me.

I never get my facts from the NACHI message board. This is strictly for fun.

If you don’t mind, Jim, would you be so kind as to list the 5 most important issues, for you, and your position on them.

If you want to tell ups who you voted for, fine, and why you voted for him (her). If not, I understand.

I am serious here and will not ridicule or slam you for it. Just asking what was important, to you, and how you stood on those issues that were important to you.



I am sure that you are intellegent and meant this as a joke.

No rational person would base their opinion on such an obvious sham web site as this. Seems there is a lot of NAZI and otherwise crazy stuff there.

The al-quida web site supports Obama, but I do not take them seriously either.

And remember, just because people call themselves Christian does not mean that they are. Contrary to popular belief, NAZIs were not Christians and were not conservatives. As Jesus said, “they will know you’re believers by the love you spread” (paraphrased, of course).

My point in posting that website is that both sides are equally as guilty when it comes to falsifying information or trying to “cover up” the past. Obama said this, McCain did that. And vice versa. And our media has no problem exploiting it as well all know. It’s almost a political soap opera when it comes down to it as sad as that sounds.

You’re right.

As a Republican, I am sickened by how we have had to scoop from the bottom of the barrel.

In '52, we had Ike…the amazing general who commanded the entire European theater…and led the Normandy invasion that won the war. He commanded such men as Bradley and Patton. He commanded, led and succeeded.

Today…we have a Navy pilot who crashed his plane and was taken prisoner. Already disciplined by his fellow Senators for his poor judgment involving his role in a credit union scandal, he chooses a former weather girl to replace him in office should he require a sixth cancer operation that has complications.

…and this is the best the party had to offer.:roll:

And how will my fellow Republicans who are trying to appear to be enthusiastic for their ticket respond to this?

By attempting to make the weak candidate appear stronger by highlighting the shortcomings of his opponent.

Some people buy it. I don’t.

I bet it takes you a long time at the Supermarket checkout, to go through the tabloids, hunh!

There certainly are better candidates IMHO but that cuts both ways.

We are left with a terrible choice to make.

Some will chose to “spank” the the party to make a point.

Others will understand the real dangers of granting more power to those that will change this country to something that we will no longer recognize.

May we choose well.


I don’t understand. Certainly you do not believe that the linked site had even a shred of truth or research in it.

It was obviously a “neo NAZI” web site and you really don’t expect those people to be in any way rational, do you?

Whether or not a candidate actually said something, and (VERY IMPORTANT) the context in which it was said is easily available to check.

And, sure, the DSM (Down Stream Media) is a) In the tank for Obama and b) likes to have juicy stuff to serve up in order to keep up their ratings. But most of these things are easily checkable on Google. You just have to do due dilligence.

How would you feel if you did a great inspection for a client, they didn’t bother themselves with reading the report, some major (in the client’s belief) issues which you called out) cropped up and they sued you for millions of dollars? You would just assume that they didn’t do due dilligence.

It’s the same with this election. If people don’t check things out, for themselves and from reliable sources, they are not being serious about THE most important duty a U.S. citizen has.

And those that don’t vote, of vote for the so-called “third parties” that everyone knows won’t win, you have absolutely given up your “right” to complain.

Funny how some people can recite the entire line up of their local baseball team, complete with stats, but can’t even name their own state and federal legislative reps.

Just my opinion.

Just pointing out facts. When you have lemonaid, best to make lemon Marange Pie :mrgreen:

BTW: I would be pointing out these facts about Obama regardless of who the Republicans chose.

I wanted Rommney or Thompson. Who did you want, Jim?

Having already made his choice, Jim is forced to make the candidates of his party look as bad as possible to justify his defection.