US News
Obama earns 4.2 million dollars in 2007
Apr 17, 2008, 0:22 GMT
Washington - Barack Obama on Wednesday reported earnings of more than 4 million dollars in 2007 as sales of his two books jumped after he launched his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination last year.
Obama and his wife Michelle earned 4.24 million dollars over the year, according to the couple's tax return released by Obama's campaign.
The Illinois senator and his wife reported a little more than 260,000 dollars in salary, with the rest coming mostly from royalties of his books, Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope.
Since 2000, the Obamas have now reported earnings of about 8 million dollars, also largely the result of Obama's book sales.
The couple gave just over 240,000 dollars to charity in 2007, including 26,270 dollars to the Trinity United Church of Christ that has this year become the source of controversy over its former pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr's incendiary comments on race.
Obama's rival for the nomination, Hillary Clinton, and her husband and former president Bill Clinton, earlier this month reported earning 109 million dollars since 2000.
About two thirds of the income came from the former president's books and speeches given since leaving office in 2001. Hillary Clinton contributed 10 million dollars through her own earnings from two books, It Takes a Village and Living History.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
'Had his longtime pastor not stepped down recently, Barack Obama suggests, he might have found a new church.
'Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church,' the candidate says in an interview to be broadcast today on ABC-TV's The View...
But here, here is $26,270....
citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/
Another smoking gun concerning Barack Obama and his lies and hypocrisy. How did I miss this one. It is documented by ABC news by Jake Tapper April 11, 2007. We know that Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and mentor for 20 years is a racist, anti semite and fomentor of inflammatory hate filled messages. Obama chose to associate with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. Obama chose to attend the same church as Louis Farrakhan, an even more racist, and anti semite. Compare the “nappy headed ho” comment of Don Imus that got him fired last year. Now, Don Imus was certainly wrong to say what he said. But compare that to what Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan have consistently said over many years. Read the following quotes from Barack Obama as recorded by ABC news April 11, 2007:
“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus, but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”
“He didn’t just cross the line. He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”
“What we’ve been seeing around this country is this constant ratcheting up of a coarsening of the culture that all of have to think about,”
”Insults, humor that degrades women, humor that is based in racism and racial stereotypes isn’t fun,”
“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,”
The last paragraph says it all. Still think that Barack Obama is not a hypocrite? Still think that Barack Obama is not a liar? Still think that Jeremiah Wright is not a problem?
The high price of a holy sneer
April 15, 2008
By Wesley Pruden - Barack Obama's preacher troubles continue to stalk his campaign. Now it's his own preachin' that's causing him grief.
There he stood, lean, lanky and buff, as if modeling one of his $3,000 bespoke suits in a fashionable Pacific Heights salon in San Francisco, quoting party scripture and winning a full measure of nods, chuckles and cheers from what passed as the amen corner. These were his kind of folks. The rich, as F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said, are very different from you and me. Then the party's most beautiful person dropped an aside that the beautiful people of San Francisco could appreciate:
'You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania,' he said, 'and like a lot of small towns in the Middle West, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.' Approving nods all around, with clucks of admiration for the bravery of the man just in from safari to darkest Timbuktu, or at least Wilkes-Barre. 'And it's not surprising then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'
Mr. Obama speaks of religion (if not necessarily guns) with more respect and reverence at other times and in other places. When he talks of how the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of all people, led him to faith in Jesus Christ, we must give his affirmation full weight, for only God can look into a man's heart. (We must pray that one day soon someone will lead the blasphemer and teller of malicious tales to Christ.) But such condescending sneering at the heartfelt faith of others, those who unapologetically 'cling to the old rugged cross' as their Ebenezer in the storms that inevitably buffet us all, is strange, indeed, in a man who speaks of his own faith with practiced passion and eloquence.
The senator is a smart cookie, but he forgot that he's not campaigning in those easy days of yesteryear, when a pol could say one thing to flatter the grit of the God-fearing yeomen of Scranton, and say quite another in San Francisco, where a culture of sophistication and pretense rests on the twin pillars of sodomy and secularism. What happens in San Francisco definitely does not stay in San Francisco, and a careful pol knows better than to scandalize Scranton when taking the waters in San Francisco. To no one's surprise, a poll out yesterday shows Hillary Clinton regaining her 20-point lead over Barack Obama in the crucial Pennsylvania primary, now only a week away.
The Obama blooper was more about his disdain for religious faith than scorn for guns and the embittered small-town Americans who own them. Because the senator knows this well, he spent the weekend trying to divert attention from his sneer at religious faith by 'clarifying' and 'refining' his observation that hard times had made small-town America 'bitter.' The senator appears to have spent too much time in the pews at Trinity United Church, acquiring a jaundiced view of the world beyond his own. The senator concedes that his words were 'poorly chosen,' but a lot of voters, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, will conclude that the words he chose describe exactly what the senator actually thinks. It could be a bitter epitaph for a campaign.
Hillary continues to pound the man from Illinois, exploiting his fumble with the grim intensity of a linebacker. This fits perfectly her strategy of relentless pursuit of the theme that nice guy or not, powerful preacher or not, 'Obama can't win.' Shady associations on the South Side of Chicago, a far-left agenda still hidden in the shadows, a confusing life story riddled with troubling contradictions, his wide and inexplicable selection of bizarre mentors, all render him vulnerable, probably fatally, when the real hitting begins after the conventions.
The label 'can't win' terrifies the best of politicians. 'They can say you are a liar, a cheat, a crackpot and a licentious old man,' the late Mike Monroney, a wise old senator from Oklahoma, once said, 'and most politicians don't care. But if they say you can't win, you're through.
washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080415/NATION01/495515 534/0/FRONTPAGE
Obama’s America
Peter Wehner - 04.15.2008 - 3:04 PM
One of the things worth noting about Senator Obama’s comments about the “bitter” working class voters who “cling” to guns, religion, and nativist sentiments because of their “frustrations” is this: Obama’s view of America and Americans is almost unremittingly bleak. In his increasingly prickly and aggressive defense, Obama insists that his comments about ordinary Americans are accurate. He is, he insists, completely “in touch” with the struggles that define modern American life. At least that’s how he defines things: if you review Obama’s speeches, his portrait of Americans is of a people broken and dispirited, anxious and angry and without hope (and for whom Obama, as you might have guessed, is the balm).
Obama has spoken about crumbling schools, growing divisions, and shattered dreams. He speaks about the one father who goes to work before dawn and lies awake at night wondering how he’s going to pay the bills, and the father who’s worried he won’t be able to send his children to college . . . about the mother who can’t afford health care for her sick child and the other mother who saw her mortgage double in two weeks and didn’t know where her two-year old children would sleep at night . . . the woman who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sick sister . . . the senior who lost his pension when the company he gave his life to went bankrupt . . . the teacher who works at Dunkin’ Donuts after school just to make ends meet, and on and on. The American public, Obama believes, has justifiably become cynical, frustrated, and bitter.
It’s also worth considering the views of those to whom Obama is closest. His wife Michelle has said that America is “downright mean.” It’s a nation whose soul is “broken.” And it’s a nation in which she had never, until her husband ran for President, taken pride. Obama’s longtime friend, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr., describes America as fundamentally racist, the “U.S. of K.K.K,” a “Eurocentric wasteland of lily-white lies.”
Senator Obama, in casting himself as a change agent, wants to focus on the failings of our nation. That is typical fare for a presidential candidate. It’s perfectly legitimate, and even right, to call attention to problems that need to be solved and the struggles people are having.
The question for Obama, however, is whether his portrait of America is defining. Does he believe that his comments about working-class people are actually characteristic of them? When he looks out at Americans does he see people who are, on some deep level, broken, bitter, angry, and unable to cope with the vicissitudes of life?
It appears that he does. And if he does, it certainly explains his support for paternalistic government and for the nanny state. It has become unfashionable to point out that for all the problems we face, those of us now living in America are the most fortunate people in history. We live in a nation of extraordinary wealth and scientific and medical advancements. This country, while not without its flaws, has made great strides in alleviating poverty, discrimination, and injustice. We are free to speak, vote, worship, and associate with others. Americans now live longer and better than any previous generation. Our nation remains a force for good in the world. That doesn’t mean our citizen’s lives are without challenges or concerns. It only means that, relative to the rest of the world and relative to history, we’re in pretty good shape.
On some deep level, Obama doesn’t see this. He looks out at America and sees a nation needy, crippled, and desperate for succor from the federal government. A friend of mine wrote to me yesterday:
The supreme arrogance of this man [Obama] comes through with every new defense. I just saw his remarks to the steelworkers in Pittsburgh and, again, it’s everyone else who’s out of touch. Also, it really is a slander against millions of people. I’ve belonged to small town churches all my life (and still do) and I belong to [a gun club in his home state of Minnesota]. It’s hard to find more positive, affirming, communities than small town churches and the hunting/fishing/outdoor culture. What he really doesn’t “get” is the non-materialistic nature of these cultures.
That sounds about right to me. Barack Obama is running as the candidate of hope–but he views America as more or less a wreck and its people as beaten down. From this flawed assumption flows much else, from his rhetoric to his policy proposals. And it helps explain why Obama’s off-the-record comments to a group of wealthy liberals in San Francisco weren’t a “distraction,” as he now characterizes them, but rather a real insight into the mind and sensibilities of the junior senator from Illinois.
'Silence in the face of evil is always on the side of the aggressor.'
- Elie Wiesel
Barack Obama, the eloquent speaker who mesmerizes the media, the man whose orations make women swoon, the candidate who promises to embrace dictators and terrorists in conversation, falls strangely silent when his words are needed to stand up against evil, intolerance or injustice. In a dangerous world with evil regimes aspiring to destroy the United States and the values we represent, the silence of an American President would be an
unthinkable disaster.
We know that for over twenty years, Obama listened attentively to his pastor's diatribes against the United States and Israel and said nothing. Confronted with outright lies that the United States created the AIDS virus to destroy Africa and imports harmful drugs to destroy African Americans, Obama was silent. When the church website and newsletter carried the message of Hamas, labeled as a terrorist group by both the U.S. and the E.U., Obama maintained his silence.
Obama has not availed himself of other opportunities to speak out against injustice. When his words have taken take a stand on behalf of human decency and not be empty platitudes, Obama chose silence. Take the case of the anti-Islamist Muslim journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who was imprisoned and tortured by Bangladeshi authorities when he requested a visa to attend a conference in Tel Aviv. Securing his release became a bi-partisan issue. Richard L. Benkin, who is spearheading efforts to release Choudhury, notes 'Democratic, Republican, left, right, moderate; you name it. And every one of them reacted with support; every one of them, that is, except one. Who was the one lawmaker that took a pass on saving the life of an imprisoned US ally and opponent of Islamist extremism? That's right, my own Illinois Senator Barack Obama.'
Obama's record in the Illinois legislature established his reluctance to take a courageous stand. In 1999, he was faced with a difficult vote to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults. Voting 'yes' would help create the image of a man who is tough on crime, but many in the African-American community opposed the law. Faced with a moral dilemma, he did what was most comfortable: nothing. He sidestepped this issue and 130 others by voting present. 'If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,' said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. In the United States Senate, where there are no 'present' votes, Obama consistently sought the safety of voting 96.7% of the time with the majority of Democrats. That is, when he voted. He has missed 39.3% of the votes during the current Congress.
Obama has found a comfortable spot straddling the fence on any potentially controversial issue. At a town hall in Malvern, Pennsylvania, Obama, was asked about U.S. policy toward Tibet and Darfur (the site of ongoing genocide against the Christian population), especially in light of the forthcoming Olympics in Beijing this summer. He equivocated, 'It's very hard to tell your banker that he's wrong...And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we're borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage. It give us less leverage to talk about human rights, it also is giving us less leverage to talk about the uneven trading relationship that we have with China.' Obama never once mentioned Tibet or China's relationship with Sudan.
This week when history demanded his voice, Obama once again opted for silence instead of courage. Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders have strongly condemned Jimmy Carter's planned meeting with Khaled Mashal, head of the Hamas terrorist organization. Both Democrats and Republicans demonstrated their leadership in a bipartisan letter to the former president entreating him to refrain from using his stature to undermine U.S. policy and negotiate with Hamas. (Hamas is committed to the complete eradication of Israel and has forsworn any negotiations in favor of violence.) Among Democrats speaking out on the House floor was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), 'In light of Hamas' continuing violence and calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, I strongly urge President Carter to reconsider his decision.' Others warned that meeting with Hamas would not only undermine U.S. policy and the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, but lend legitimacy to the group that thwarts all efforts for peace.
Obama, stunningly, declined to take a moral stance and instead chose silence. He said it was not his place to criticize former President Jimmy Carter... 'I'm not going to comment on former President Carter. He's a private citizen. It's not my place to discuss who he shouldn't meet with,' Obama (Reuters April 11, 2008)
If Obama wants to be President of the United States, it is his place to speak out for what is true, what is in the interest of the nation, and what is morally right (even if it costs him a few votes). It is called leadership.
www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obama_silence_in_the_face_of_e.html
Obama church published Hamas terror manifesto Compares charter calling for murder of Jews to Declaration of Independence
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook
JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group's official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America's Declaration of Independence.
The Hamas piece was published on the 'Pastor's Page' of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.
Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.
[...'
In his July 22, 2007, church newsletter, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, identified in the publication as a 'deputy of the political bureau of Hamas.'
Marzook's original piece was titled, 'Hamas' stand' but was re-titled 'A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle' by Obama's church newsletter. The newsletter also referred to Hamas as the 'Islamic Resistance Movement,' and added in its introduction that Marzook was addressing Hamas' goals for 'all of Palestine.'
In the manifesto, Marzook refers to Hamas' 'resistance' – the group's perpetuation of anti-Israel terrorism targeting civilians – as 'legal resistance,' which, he argues, is 'explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention.'
The Convention, which refers to the rights of people living under occupation, does not support suicide bombings or rocket attacks against civilian population centers, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America noted.
Marzook refers to Hamas' official charter as 'an essentially revolutionary document' and compares the violent creed to the Declaration of Independence, which, Marzook states, 'simply did not countenance any such status for the 700,000 African slaves at that time.'
Hamas' charter calls for the murder of Jews. Among its platforms is a statement that the '[resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!''
In his piece, Marzook says Hamas only targets Israel and denies that Hamas' war is meant to be waged against the U.S., even though Hamas officials have threatened America, and Hamas' charter calls for Muslims to 'pursue the cause of the Movement (Hamas), all over the globe.'
Trinity Church did not respond to a phone message requesting comment.
Obama's campaign also did not reply to phone and e-mail requests today for comment.
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5945
Look, I was on the fence ( truly ) between Hillary and Obama. I thought it was terrific that we have two such incredible candidates, one of which might win this election and take our country away from the brink of extinction. But this is ridiculous! The media bias, which I have from a distance observed over the past year, towards Obama, is scarring me. Who truly elects our President? It is reported in this story that Obama earned 4 million(something)last year. Good for him. I am certain he deserves this. But this is compared, in this article, to Hillary Clinton's 109 million (but, oh do you notice?hopenot) since 2000 and including income from her husband, a former President!) It goes on to tell how much Obama gave to charity and makes no mention of the amount the Clintons gave. Give me a break. Is this simply stupid reporting? It is not(just) It is making a story from nothing while elevating one candidate over another. If I was a woman, I would be not only furious but an apapletic, manaical murderer by observing how the press has,is, electing a rock star male candidate of their own choosing rather than treating both candidates fairly. Hope? Bullshit. After observing this charade, I truly don't know if I will vote for Obama if he is candidate and truly don't know if I will ever vote again. America is screwed. Screw the press. Go watch American Idol; it is more real and it is what you deserve if you you listen and believe this crap.
The poster of the 7 posts before yours is the same guy. He posts all the negative Half-truths he can find. The truth is he is a liar and bigot, please ignore him and make your decision on actual facts not half-truths and lies. Good luck and it is great to be an American and have these choices.
kept their comments short and sweet, then somebody just might read them.
to that last statement!! Reprinting what we can all read in a paper or mag is a big waste of time, and I doubt anyone does read it here. One look at the long, drawn out comment, and I'm through!
That person isn't gone, you idiot. You missed the point.(how typical of the republican mindset) They just said they're through. That means that they aren't going to wade through a ton of crap to try and find a point to the mess. And I totally agree with that sentiment.
I assume that his post has been removed
Posts like the smearcampaign are not the act of single parsons.There is the dirty trick department of the republican party,which will never be directly connected to it,working through the internet ,trying to discourage people to vote for Obama.The recipe is old and has proven to work .Put a dedicated team in charge of throwing mud at a candidate ,repeating the same unfounded accusations over and over again,until in the subconsciousness of people the victim is found at least suspect.After all there is no smoke sithout fire,right ?
Another year of this to endure and then the dirty trick department is put on hold again,until the next campaign.
Previously the victim was John Kerry with the swiftboat campaign .It paid well,but now you guys are stuck with Bush .
If I were to criticize Obama it would be over his unconditional support of Israel,another recipe of misery in the Middle East for yet another four years .But then again no candidate ever won an election without the support of AIPAC.
Hillary:
White water
FBI records scandals
Greasy commodity trades
Vince Foster
Russian and Chinese campaign funds
Selling their influence via Mr. Penn
MFN for China
Mr. Hsu and the bundling op
Republicans don't need dirty tricks Tonny, these libnazis do it all themselves.
That's why there's a headline on this website titled 'Clinton, Obama Answer for Gaffes...'!
Tell us, did the Republicans hypnotize them into making those gaffes, too?
Does anyone really care about the side garbage, the he said she said stuff? Are we all still in high school?
It would have been a nice opportunity to find out what the candidates believe are the biggest obstacles to their plans for the country and how they plan to hurdle those obstacles.....oh, but that would be too much like being a responsible press cops.
...what to Hillary and Obama actually believe???
Hillary gets caught with Mr. Penn, her chief strategy person, pimping free trade to Columbia while she says she's against it.
Obama get's caught winking at Canada ove Nafta and then renounces his statements.
This being the case, why would we believe what they have to say about anyo other issues?
McCain, on the other hand, has been straight up on Nafta(supports frre trade) upfront on the Iraq war (supports the mission) ,upfront on campaign finance (sponsored McCain-Feingold) and upfront on taxes (supports lowering them).
Now, you may disagree with McCain, but at least you can beleive what he says.
Somtetimes when someone speaks what is from their perspective, the truth,
others looking at it from another perspective don't believe it, or plain out don't want to hear about it. If a black person, or a person of any race, mentions that our country's slave-owning past and years of segregation are not that distant, and that our country is still full of racism, some people do not want to hear this or dont't want to believe it to be true. They want to shoot the messenger instead. Especially if they are wearing rose-tinted glasses from which their view shows everything to be rosey. They don't want to see anything bad, past or present. The messenger becomes a bad person, an unpatriotic traitor, someone to be banished to another country. One citizen considers a patriot only as a person who can wave a flag, and express unquestioned support for a particlar issue, another citizen defines a patriot as one who is not afraid to ask challenging questions. This is their own perspective. I am a almost 60 white guy who thinks that it is important to go after osama bin laden and al qaeda in the country that harbors them-Pakistan. Why we did not go there in early 2002 by following bin laden is in my mind, a travesty to my sense of American justice. To waste our resources pretending that Iraq matters, but that Pakistan doesn't, is delusional, and I support any politian who opposes the war with Iraq.
SP4 of course is a fine example of the lone ranger campaigning for the neocons ,using the mudslinging for personal purpose.
But di Obama commit a gaffe ?Which one ?Telling that the workers in Pilly are victims of the economical crisis ?As if the demise of a state is without consequences on the victims of this crisi.Of course many victims are frustrated and turn to whatever can give them a new backbone,guns or religion.Is there a law against saying the truth on this subject?What he describes is reality .
“If I were to criticize Obama it would be over his unconditional support of Israel,another recipe of misery in the Middle East for yet another four years .But then again no candidate ever won an election without the support of AIPAC.”
Well you are in luck “tonny from belgium” Obama has the endorsement of the terrorist organization Hamas which is committed to the destruction of Israel!
“On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, 'We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election.' Why? 'He has a vision to change America.' Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to 'change.'
Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as 'this noble man' who 'did an excellent job as President.'”
If you do not believe it you can hear the interview here:
www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php
Can an endorsement from Bin Laden be far behind?
'SP4 of course is a fine example of the lone ranger campaigning for the neocons ,using the mudslinging for personal purpose.
But did Obama commit a gaffe ?Which one ?Telling that the workers in Pilly are victims of the economical crisis ?As if the demise of a state is without consequences on the victims of this crisis. Of course many victims are frustrated and turn to whatever can give them a new backbone,guns or religion. Is there a law against saying the truth on this subject? What he describes is reality .'
Certainly, Obama must know where E. St. Louis is. If folks in Philly are, supposedly, angry, just THINK what they must be like in E. St. Louis!
God, Tonny, there must just be a HUGE run on firearms in E. St. Louis! People rioting, mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together!
Stick to fact Tonny, truth has completely escaped you.
and a narcissist. Why do we want another president who is like that? All he does is accuse and abuse Hillary. He had the audacity to say she stuck a knife in him and is turning it slowly. What kind of sick mind does he have to say that? He is so sick I will NEVER VOTE FOR HIM. Why can't he stop being abusive and accusatory. Disguting.
He has a sick mind.
page: 1
It didn't stop him from taking Rezko's money.Apr 17th, 2008 - 00:36:53
Gee, I thought America was a 'mean spirited' country where people like Barack Obama couldn't get a fair shake? I thought the USA was a country that needed to be 'damned for the way it treated poor folks like Barack and Michelle.
' The couple gave... 26,270 dollars to the Trinity United Church of Christ that has this year become the source of controversy over its former pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr's incendiary comments on race.'
Wait a minute? I thought he was going to quit that church because Jeremiah Wright hates the USA. Why would you give 26,270 to a church that you disagreed with? That doesn't make any sense unless he was lying and actually believes the crazy venom coming out of his pastors mouth.
Report this comment