Matters of Religion Should Never be Matters of Controversy for Tea Party Protesters – The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

Matters of Religion Should Never be Matters of Controversy for Tea Party Protesters

Today I’ve been mostly reflecting on recklessness that we’ve been witnessing in Washington D.C. and what some are calling the one year anniversary of the Tea Party Movement.  I want to say is that I am truly thankful that millions of ordinary Americans have been so moved by what they’ve seen in American politics that they made time to care for the country that has been so important in their lives.  Thank you, thank you, and thank you!  I can only imagine how little hope there would be today had you not stood up and shouted ENOUGH loud enough for the politicians to hear. Oh, and thanks CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli for getting it all started.

At first the Tea Parties were ignored and when they kept growing, the vilification process began in earnest in the Halls of Congress & in the mainstream media.  The disparagement began as commentators’ smirks, belittlement and mischaracterizations as to who was involved and what the they were about.  As the protests grew and politicians began being forced to address hard questions in town hall meetings, the discomfort level of the media and politicians increased exponentially.  So did the insults.

Finally, one term of disparagement/diminution stuck. A few pompous media personalities set out to attach these mostly novice protesters to the derogatory terms Tea-Bagger and Tea-Bagging (some sort of sex act thing). It became a juvenile favorite among Democrat politicians such as Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Schumer.  Why? I have no idea.  If you see images of the hundreds of thousands (millions) of these Americans engaged in peaceful protests, ‘tea-bagger’ is the last thing that would come to mind.  Most of the protesters shrug it off realizing that actually saying the term reflects most badly on those using it.  However, each has their own way of dealing with double standards and ridicule.

I’ve never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a ‘fat cat’ and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a ‘public-spirited philanthropist’.
Ronald Reagan

If an analogy must be made to a Tea Bag, then let’s do with a bit more accuracy to reflect the broad range of ordinary Americans picking up protest signs for the first time.  From what I can tell, Tea Party folks more often than not come with lots of experience because most have a few years under their belts. 

Let’s say we imagine the piece of paper attached to the tea bag string as the label tea party members might use to identify themselves to everyone else – Conservative, Moderate, Independent, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Native American, African-American, White, Asian, Catholic, Baptist, Jew, Christian, Agnostic, Professor, Professional, Tradesman, etc., etc., etc. (I wanted to include Muslim but I haven’t actually seen anyone self identify.) It’s a big tent based on principle.

The string is the part that connects everyone together, the collective consciousness of experience that reminds each of us that some things are time tested, work well and might just pull America out of the hot water before it’s too late.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

As far as I can tell, this is the essence of the movement.  It reflects common sense understandings of economics and how to get our economy moving.  Experience shows that private sector does much better than a federal bureaucracy when it comes to jump starting the economy and making the system sustainable because the private sector is concerned facts and success – not their own political ideologies, beauty contests and careers. (Congress tinkering with ‘risk’ in the mortgage market caused the current economic crisis – everyone must own a home even if they can’t afford it. Right now, uncertainty regarding the possibility of tax hikes coming from Obama are what’s shackling the economy.)

Tea party people know the U.S. government’s massive debt is not sustainable.  They want politicians to stop raising taxes (actually most want to cut taxes) and to cut spending. They want America to live within its means and not pass unbearable debt to their children.

They want politicians to face the truth of our economy!  Yes, there will be pain but most Americans surely recognize we can get through it together.  However, if government does not face the truth about our economy soon, the pain will be catastrophic and our liberties could be put at risk because of civil unrest.

The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have loved it.

George Santayana, Little Essays (1920) “Ideal Immortality”

The tea party movement is not anti-government.  They want the federal government to do the things they are authorized to do under the Constitution with as small a ‘footprint’ as possible (including reasonable regulation of business).  I believe a majority wants their own states to do the heavy lifting on tax utilization and governing.  However, they want politicians to not be in bed with union leaders (special interests) because experience shows that union leaders’ greed is a big factor in the fiscal calamities facing many states today. (A 49-year-old NJ public employee (union member) who pays in a $124,000 and receives 3.3 million in benefits from state coffers.)

I suspect a vast majority of the ordinary Americans who make up the tea party movement do not want the government to take over the healthcare system. And yes, they do want reform.  They want incremental steps to be taken to reform healthcare.  They do not want a massive bill when politicians’ motives are suspect and the consequences cannot possibly be fully understood. Start over with everyone at the table.

No one tests the depth of a river with both feet.

African Proverb

Most in the movement want politicians to respect the Constitutional limitations placed on government, respect state rights, and the rights of the individual.

People know instinctually and by experience that child rearing with too much parental control will either be met with some type of resistance (outright rebellion, passive aggression behavior) or cowering (timid, afraid, distrust).  Neither is what America needs of her citizenry.

It is the individual’s task to differentiate himself from all the others and stand on his own feet. All collective identities… interfere with the fulfillment of this task. Such collective identities are crutches for the lame, shields for the timid, beds for the lazy, nurseries for the irresponsible….

C. G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections

People realize that the Constitution is the first line of defense protecting their freedoms and limiting a federal government that appears ready to dictate without the consent of the people.  Most understand that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution established the requirement that the power of the federal government comes from the people and states – not the other way around.  I think most tea party protesters want the federal government to back off and lift the boot off their necks. 

In fact, several states have recognized the danger this Administration poses to our 2^nd and 10^th Amendment rights and are beginning to take action.  Three states have passed the Firearms Freedom Act and 22 others have introduced it for consideration. The FFA basically says that firearms manufactured and sold within a state’s borders are out of reach of the federal government’s interstate commerce powers. Numerous states have introduced legislation asserting their Tenth Amendment rights under the Constitution.  Several others are introducing legislation that will require candidates to submit proof that they are in fact eligible for the office they are seeking (i.e. being a ‘natural born citizen’). We will see soon if our Federal Courts have become so corrupted and/or influenced by the ’progressives’ ideology that they will not exercise their duties and act as a check to the powers of the Congress and the President.

Tea Party protesters do not want to be treated like sheep by their government and elected representatives.  This is partly why it is important that the ‘tea party’ not be taken over by any major Party.  The tea party idea is about holding all politicians accountable, not just the ones in a particular party. 

People choose politicians who should understand local values and concerns to represent their interests in Washington regardless of which Party they belong.

I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948)

The people of California are not the same as the people from Georgia and both should have their interests represented in strong state governments and by elected Congressional Representatives – and neither should be blown off their feet.

I’ve been using a few quotes from the philosopher George Santayana to illustrate the need to keep our state governments strong, retaining their rights and responsibilities under the Constitution. Mr. Santayana ”…was committed to a naturalist metaphysics, in which human cognition, cultural practices, and social institutions have evolved so as to harmonize with the conditions present in their environment. Their value may then be adjudged by the extent to which they facilitate human happiness.“

To me, understanding local environmental and ethnic influences reveals the richness of America’s cultural diversity. It’s why we want our representatives to be local becuase they are (should be) more aware of who ‘they’ are and what conditions have shaped the ‘we’ of the locality.  This way change & governance evolve locally in response to the ‘happiness’ or unhappiness of its residents. It also validates the wisdom of our Founders who created a Constitution meant to insure equality of opportunity (not results) and equal protection for every person in every state.  The Constitution is a safety net preventing tyranny or abuse at the muncipal or state level while containing safeguards that protect the individual character of states and their people ( First, Second, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth Amendments).

If states like California and New York raise taxes too much or restricts rights and liberties too much, people and business remain free to vote with their feet.  That’s a good thing because it applies market forces to states that might encourage their politicians to act responsibility. States and regions have different flavors that appeal to varied tastes and that’s wonderful.  Just like most people do not want the flavor of another forcibly imposed upon their lives – neither do states.

Even though it’s understandable that some residents of states currently crumbling under the weight of unfair public employee labor and pension contracts and out of control politicians may be susceptible to Obama’s proclivity for a socialist system that might subsidize their state’s excesses with taxes from the innocent states, it must be resisted and responsibility demanded of their own politicians.  The good people of Texas should not be forced to bail out irresponsible politicians in California or any other state.  Today responsible people can always move and let California collapse under the weight of its own gluttony. However, if we allow the federal government to continue grow in power and influence that may not always be the case. Many times taking what appears to be the easiest path is the one that leads to the greatest loss.

The same arguments can be made in support of America’s sovereignty. Most Americans do not want to give up that which has been paid for with the blood and treasure of the millions who came before to France, Germany, Spain, any other country or the UN.  Our freedoms and Constitutional protections are not barter items.  We can fulfill our global responsibilities as good neighbors without sacrificing our sovereignty.

A man’s feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world.

George Santayana (1863 – 1952)

The tea bag string is the determined call for fiscal responsibility, accountability, equality of opportunity, and limited representative government.

The tea bag is our United States Constitution that has guided this nation for centuries.  It’s the fabric that holds us together and protects our liberties. Without which, we would blow away like dry leaves of tea facing the winds of tyranny.

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
Vladimir Lenin

One person cannot stand against tyranny alone. It will take many armed with all of the rights and liberties that they can preserve (including the right to bear arms).

America is the greatest of opportunities and the worst of influences.

George Santayana (1863 – 1952)

It’s these influences that are putting our liberties at risk today. 

An educational system that does not adequately teach the Constitution, our founding, or America’s goodness is making it likely our children will not recognize threats to their freedom and liberty.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
Vladimir Lenin

It’s the patience of ‘progressivism’ that has been working insidiously for decades to undermine our system of governance. It’s politicians who work diligently to create voter dependency through the sense of ‘entitlement’.  It’s politicians who will not face the truth of our economy and who print trillions of dollars to ensure their positions.

The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.
Vladimir Lenin

It’s the influence of special interests that corrupt and seduce politicians to do their bidding instead watching out for the interests of the people.  It’s politicians who lack conviction to principles.

To rely upon conviction, devotion, and other excellent spiritual qualities; that is not to be taken seriously in politics.
Vladimir Lenin

It’s the influence of those in the inner circle of the Administration.

There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
Vladimir Lenin

Is Lenin talking about Rahm Emanuel?

The tea is who we are.  It’s the experiences of each individual that has shaped his or her life and views.  It’s the diversity of the tea party movement.  In the tea party movement all ethic groups are represented, many are Veterans, many have family members in the military, and there are Christians, Jews, agnostics, and probably atheists.  There are those who represent rural and urban ways of life. There are pro-life, pro-choice, gay, straight, environmentalists, pro-gun, pro-10^th Amendment, and those calling for the ‘natural born citizen’ provision of the Constitution to be honored.  There are Conservatives, Liberals, and Moderates. There are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. 

From what I can see, people in the tea party movement are striving to be tolerant of the views of others as long as they don’t jeopardize the nation’s future.

Intolerance itself is a form of egoism, and to condemn egoism intolerantly is to share it.

George Santayana, Winds of Doctrine (1913) ch. 4

If the movement is to survive and flourish, egotism and intolerance must be kept in check.  If it’s not, we become them.  At the next local event, maybe I will tie the string from a tea bag around my finger to help me remember to keep my own intolerance in check and to focus on the issues the Tea Party movement has grown around.

It’s my strong opinion that the tea party movement must not be folded into any major party and that it not form its own official party. If it forms its own party, it may then feel compelled to have a platform that addresses the social issues and that could alienate many.  This is such a special movement and it would be sad to see it diminish.

This year it is critical to vote for those who have the best chance of removing absolute control from Obama, Pelosi and Reid’s Democratic Party.  The vote must not be split in 2010.  However, every Republican or Independent candidate who wins needs to be made aware that they will be held accountable for their lack of transparency, lack of fiscal discipline, and lack of adherence to the Constitution.

We will surely disagree in the future about the social issues and that will be okay.  However, today millions are united around a core set of issues that are crucial for the survival of the nation. We must not blow it. Fiscal responsibility, accountability, transparency, and limited government are the issues of the coming election.

I think I will close with one last quote of George Santayana (who was an agnostic) that seems applicable to the idea of focusing on the big picture this year.

Matters of religion should never be matters of controversy. We neither argue with a lover about his taste, not condemn him, if we are just, for knowing so human a passion.

George Santayana (1863 – 1952)

Well – unless they want to kill you if they can’t convert you.

In such case, I offer this quote:

It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Emiliano Zapata (1877 – 1919)

Obama Would Evidently Throw The Baby Out With The Bathwater

I am reposting this article today because unfortunately a teenager’s pregnancy is in the news. It is shocking that Obama’s campaign would attack a teenager with vicious unfounded rumors that claim Gov. Palin faked her pregnancy with her 5th child to cover for Bristol Palin. So it looks like Abortion is in the news; and therefore, I am revisiting Sen. Obama’s position.

The media covers for Sen. Obama and quickly pounces against a teenage girl. The media sends out its “reporters” to Wasilla but will not send a reporter or investigator to investigate Larry Sinclair’s allegations that he and Obama used cocaine and engaged in gay sex in 1999. The media will downplay and not report the past of Obama and his mentors such as Wright, Rezko and Ayers. By the way, Larry Sinclair is in Minnesota if the media would like to find him.

Obama Would Evidently

Throw The Baby Out

With The Bathwater

(Birth water?)

The Abortion Issue

It seems that Senator Obama is described as having one of the most extreme positions that one can find when it comes to the issue of abortion. In this article, I want to briefly investigate the issue of abortion and determine where Senator Obama is regarding this issue within the context of the protecting rights of the mother and the developing baby.

Abortion -

The Courts have generally looked at the issue as a balancing of the rights of the mother and her body against the rights of the State and its interest in protecting her rights and the rights of the unborn. If my memory serves, Roe v. Wade laid out a continuum of increasing and decreasing interests regarding the decision about having an abortion. Basically, the mother’ interests were strongest the earlier in the pregnancy, especially in the first trimester; and the State’s interest in protecting the unborn increases as we get further along in the pregnancy, especially in the last trimester. The Court I believe also clearly recognized the State’s duty to protect the mother’s health and privacy interests regarding the decision to terminate a pregnancy, which were stronger earlier in the timeline until the issue of viability comes into question.

However, because this issue raises the question of when a human life begins, a baby, a person – some will always be severely distressed if the line of “a person worthy of protection” is drawn past what a person’s personal believe is. If the line is drawn one second past an individual’s personal line, abortions could be considered murder and could morally demand the person’s constant struggle to change the law. With that understood I still want to explore this issue and the balancing of interests in terms of the places where the decisions are harder and places where the decisions appear easier to most, in order to examine where the Senator comes down. Therefore, I’m going to basically agree with the Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade regarding how the interests of the parties are balanced as a starting point for this discussion. (I’m not going to address the right to privacy implied by the Court here.)

However, I do want to consider shifting some of the meaning of terminology that is always used with this issue – fetus and viability. It seems to me that given how far today’s science and medicine have advanced since 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided, I would hope that we can consider taking a deeper look regarding what science might be able to tell us in terms of the development of the fetus. Instead of primarily addressing the question in terms of viability of the fetus, why not first try to answer the question of when the emergence of a human consciousness or behavior begins? Then perhaps that could that be the starting point where the State’s opposing interests begin to collide?

This determination might entail utilizing some sort of test for a particular type of brain activity or reflex response. (I’m not a medically trained person.) Today’s science may be able to find a definitive point, a level of brain activity, or test of development that would assure or reassure a substantial majority of the population (70-80%) that we understand a clear point of development that is equivalent to “the beginnings of a person under the law”? At any point prior to this point, the mother’s interests would be exclusive for purposes of this discussion. (As I understand it, the brain is actively beginning to grow at week 6 and then at week 10 the medical terminology of fetus begins.)

Week 6 & Week 10

I realize this method will not give any relief to people who believe life begins at conception and I’m sorry; however, I suspect it might also raise concern for those who are perfectly content with the viability analysis which I believe occurs somewhere at the end of the 4^th month or beginning of the 5^th month of fetal development.

However, on the other end of the development issue, given the medical advances, is the term fetus now too broad? Could a similar test of brain wave activity or reflexes indicate appropriate brain activity and/or consciousness in terms of a normal baby at birth? (Pain, recognition, awareness) Maybe that occurs at the 6^th, 7^th or 8^th month? Might we call this fetus an “Infant” instead of merely a viable fetus? Could this type of analysis redefine how we weight the interests being balanced under the Court’s decision?

I think there is and has been such strong resistance to changing this particular term because it would just be too hard to get around the morality involved in terminating the life of an infant as opposed to that of a fetus. To me, this dancing on a pinhead regarding the semantics of terminology borders on absurdity, it is what it is. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck – I prefer to be honest with myself and call it duck. In this case, in the last trimester it sure looks like an infant to me.

So what are the interests to be considered in this context of this discussion?

The Mother’s

The Fetus’s

The State’s

The Father’s

Morality

Let’s quickly look at the first 3 separately, starting within the core areas of agreement and continuing out towards the situations where the many would disagree. Considering all the circumstances (point in pregnancy, adoption an option, etc.), this might be the place where the State says, I sort of see your position but not quite.

The Mother:

Jeopardy to the mother’s life, rape or incest, health of the mother, likelihood of baby contracting a horrible condition, mental instability of the mother, drug addicted mother, severe depression, mother’s in jail, moderate depression, age of the mother, does not want a baby, financial situation of the mother, father is not available, father doesn’t want it, parents won’t allow it, career would be negatively impacted, inconvenient at this time, apartment doesn’t allow children, etc.

I think most people could agree that the first 6, 7 or 8 of these weigh heavy in the mother’s favor regarding the mother’s right to chose to terminate a pregnancy.

The Fetus:

Week 40 (9.3months) –

The Baby is delivered.

Week 34 (8 months) –

Your baby acts completely like a newborn, with her eyes opened when awake and closed when sleeping. You may also find her settling into more of a routine for sleeping & awake times.

Week 30 (7 months)-

His head is getting larger to accommodate a period of rapid brain growth.

Your baby has the capability now to produce tears — yes, within the womb.

Week 26 (6 months) -

Brain wave activity for hearing and sight begins to be detectable.

Fetal brain scans show response to touch. If you shine a light on your abdomen, your baby will turn his head, which according to researchers, means his optic nerve is working.

Week 23 (Viability 15% at 5.3 months)

Your baby is able to hear.

Week 22 (5.1 Months)

“Your baby can now hear your conversations more clearly than before!. When you talk, read, or sing, expect her to hear you. …Your baby’s brain has entered a stage of rapid growth, especially in what’s called the germinal matrix. This structure deep in the middle of the brain serves as a kind of factory for brain cells and disappears shortly before birth. But the brain’s amazing expansion program continues until around the five birthday.

Week 21 (4.9 Months)

Abortions from here forward are considered late term abortions.

Week 17 (4 Months)

He or she has a much more normal “human” appearance now. She holds her head more erect and her body and limbs are longer in proportion to her head.

Week 13 (3 Months)

Fetus begins to practice inhaling and exhaling movements

Week 9 (Just over 2 Months)

Baby has begun movement –

Week 4 (1 Month)

Heart and primitive circulatory system rapidly form – While still in its beginning stages, this is the very life support system that will carry your child throughout his or her life.

Week 1

I believe that most people would agree if they considered the situation, the first 5 or 6 situations weigh heavy in the fetus’s favor to not have the pregnancy terminated.

The many stages of development of the fetus clearly indicate the need to make a decision as early as possible in a pregnancy and it seems to me most people would agree that waiting to make the decision to terminate should not be held against the fetus except for very good reason.

The State:

As indicated earlier, the State has two basic interests to protect. The first duty is to protect the rights and health of the mother which are strongest in the earlier stages of a pregnancy. The second duty is to protect the rights of the unborn. Naturally, at some point the rights of the fetus will collide with the mother’s rights. I believe it was Justice O’Conner that pointed out that this point of collision will come earlier and earlier as science and medicine advance. It seems that States are all over the place regarding how these opposing interests are weighted and interpreted. That’s an issue for another day.

So where does Senator Barack Obama fit into this discussion. His position is being defined by a series of votes and committee actions that occurred when he was in the Illinois Senate. The issue involved the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. Senator Obama voted against it in 2002 and killed it in committee. A very similar Bill was making its way through Congress at about the same time, which passed unanimously in the Senate on a voice vote. Senator Obama has since said that he too would have voted for the federal bill because the language included could not be used to undermine Roe v. Wade.

According to factcheckbarackobama.com:

The Illinois legislation read, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.…

…NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, “We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There’s a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that’s born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them.”…

I just wonder how one explains the clear legal difference to a fetus in utero who is exactly the same age as the baby that is born?

Normally, I can understand a lawyer’s dancing on the head of a pin for the sake of not wanting to undermine a future legal argument or position. However, regarding Senator Obama, some other details give me pause and raise questions about whether his stated motivation(s) can be trusted.

Ms. Carpenter, former congressional correspondent & assistant editor for Human Events, reported:

…Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”…

When I weigh his spontaneous use of the words “one more burden on a woman” against a “new born baby” or the possibility of a “viable fetus” of exactly the same age that has also survived an abortion attempt, I fail to see that he is consciously making or considering any kind of legal distinction or analysis that the Illinois bill might undermine Roe v. Wade. He appears to be Pro-Choice, period, with no limitations. The Senator’s statement certainly does not entertain the idea that the same bill with a few more words of legal disclaimer would garner his eager support.

Considering the Senator’s statement earlier this year when he said, “I don’t want my daughters to be punished with a baby.” I genuinely question if there is any point in a pregnancy where the Senator would come down on the side of the right of a “fetus” to live if it went against the wishes of the mother. (I thought about describing the partial birth abortion procedure in this article, but it is too gruesome. If you care to read about it go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion )

I suspect that Senator Obama’s after the fact defense of his votes against the Illinois bill were nothing more than political pandering for votes of the worst kind. Women can vote and a fetus can’t. It’s kind of like his statement that if he had been in the Senate when the Iraq war resolution was taken up he would have definitely voted against it. His words appear only to be, “Just Words”, words for political advantage.

Therefore, I urge anyone who is Pro-Life or somewhere in the middle on this issue to think very carefully how you cast your vote. You may wind up with some very troubling consequences.

Again, the main stream media lets Senator Obama have a pass. Just the way they have regarding serious allegations surrounding his associations with Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan and the many other questionable characters in his life. The media is just now starting to cover the John Edwards scandal, only because they can’t avoid it. However, they continue to avoid like the plague, the allegations of Larry Sinclair that he and Senator Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex in 1999.

The following sites provided most of the information for this article.

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php (First Trimester of Fetal Development)

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment2.php (Second Trimester of Fetal Development)

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment3.php (Third Trimester of Fetal Development)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/30/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

Obama, Money Laundering, Acorn, FEC, Article at NOQUARTER

This important article is from NOQUARTER:

______________________________________________________________

Note. This article makes serious assertions. Therefore each statement of fact is supported by external sources or references, listed at the end of the article.
______________________________________________________________

Is This a Money Laundering Scandal?

Is the Obama Campaign falsifying its FEC disclosure reports by using a front company to disguise its relationship with ACORN, a controversial group?

By Eastan McNeal on August 20, 2008

Less than one month after admitting that it had received over $30,000 in illegal contributions from Gaza it seems the Obama for America campaign is facing yet another damaging issue related to campaign finance. This time the infraction emerges from potentially shady expenditures or expenditure reporting. It is, however, highly unlikely that the campaign can write this disclosure pattern off as a “technical glitch” or a “clerical error” as the firms involved are much more than just casually linked, and the misrepresentations occur on eleven separate documents.

Why is Barack Obama spending nearly $1,000,000 on a business housed here?According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) financial disclosure reports filed by the campaign earlier this year, between February 25th and May 17th Obama paid $832,598 to Citizens Services, Inc. (CSI), one of the nearly seventy Not-for-Profit companies registered at the ACORN New Orleans headquarters on 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue [SEE IMAGE OF THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS of CSI as well as 20 other businesses.]. CSI now also shares an office with ACORN in Chicago at 209 W. Jackson St., home of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union).

On the surface, the 11 separate payments to CSI appear to be for services typically useful to a campaign. However, as confirmed by one of its directors, CSI does not offer the services listed on the Obama campaign expense reports. According to the director, and as found in various disclosure reports from other candidates, CSI specializes in field operations, specifically grass roots organizing for get out the vote efforts. The Obama expense reports list the following payments to CSI: $564,342 for Stage, Sound, Lighting, $138,000 for Advance Work, $18,417 for Polling and $98,451 for Travel/Lodging. There is no “get out the vote” expenditure to CSI in the reports.

After retrieving a copy of CSI’s business registration form from the Louisiana Secretary of State’s office, on July 24th one of our researchers contacted Sunday Alabi, the first Director listed on the corporate filing. Our caller asked Mr. Alabi if CSI could provide Stage, Sound and Lighting for a campaign. Mr. Alabi’s response was that those services are not the nature of CSI’s business and that our caller would need to contact ACORN. The same response was given when questioned about polling and campaign advance work. But those are the services listed by Obama on the FEC reports. Services supposedly performed by CSI.

CSI is supposedly totally independent of ACORN. However, Jeff Robinson, who reportedly heads the company, is listed in his LinkedIn public profile as the National Deputy Political Director-Campaigns and Elections at ACORN and the Political Director at Communities Voting Together which, by the way, contributed $60,000 to CSI. In May of this year he publicly endorsed the Bob Blumenfield campaign by way of his position as a Director of ACORN. Furthermore, all of CSI’s directors are in ACORN leadership. One should ask why there appears to be so much deception and misdirection surrounding a tiny storefront not-for-profit organization from New Orleans.

Do you pay a fast food restaurant to set a broken bone? That is, incredibly, how absurd these election reports are. A brief conversation with an enforcement officer at the FEC, using hypothetical names, yielded the following response.

According to the FEC, in a situation where a campaign committee reports that they paid a company for services that the company says they do not provide, there is reason to be suspicious. It was irregular. And, it was inappropriate. To wit in 1997 Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar (OH) was prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department for conspiracy to deceive the FEC as to the true nature of the campaign contributions and expenditures that she was required to report. Falsifying federal disclosure reports is a serious matter and it is a crime. If the FEC chooses to exercise equal enforcement then Senator Obama could very well be subject to prosecution….Read the rest of this article at NOQUARTER