illinois Jobs Finder

BH Obama’s first two years of college were spent with middle easterners doing drugs instead of studying. Where did the *poor* boy get the money? He took a round the world tour at the end of that time, paid for by whom? He came back and enrolled in Columbia using whose money and whose influence? He then enrolled in Harvard, a poor boy still with no visible means of support. He went to work for a law firm in Chicago and was give a $1.75 Million *discount* on his first house. His campain to become Senator of Illinois was sparked by a donor of Middle Eastern descent. Doin’ Pretty good for a poor boy, but really, when you *know* where the money came from you have to know Obama should not be given a security clearance in America, maybe in the Middle East, but not in America. The money comes from the middle east, the very countries that support Jihad against America. Barack slipped and said there’s 57 states, and there are 57 Arab States. His college *friends*, his political *friends*, and his own personal allegiances have compromised Barack and are why his security clearance should, and will be denied if the agencies that protect us from the threat of foreign intrusion do their jobs.

Voted to end $300 million worth of tax breaks for businesses. (2004)
Brilliant idea DON’T give tax breaks to businesses that CREATE JOBS
Voted for having Illinois endorse embryonic stem cell research. (2004)
Wow that sure is an accomplishment that qualifies him to run our country.
Voted against restrictions on public funding of abortion. (2000)
Yet Obama SUPPORTS third term abortion.
Successfully co-sponsored a prescription drug discount buying club program for seniors and the disabled. (2003)
Co-sponsered – coat tailed someone elses BILL NOT his idea
Unsuccessfully co-sponsored ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure became law after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. (2003)
WOW another ‘policitically correct’ bill, NOT an accomplishment of any value
Successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform called the Gift Ban Act. (1998)
Co-sponsered again another coat tailing “accomplishment”
a few more “accomplishments” of the ‘great” Obama
1) I co sponsered a bill with Sen. Kerry to lift the ban on immigrants with AIDS.
2) I sponsored a bill to replace the military salute with the “bump” – The Obumpa Bill
3) I voted against the ban on partial birth abortion and advocated abortion on demand at any time so that women do not have to carry their curses full term.
4) I sponsored a bill to give one trillion $ aid to Africa
5) I sponsored a bill to vilify all members of our Armed Forces in combat.

Obama will NOT get my vote, what say you?

Some of the President’s Men

(All of the below is in the sited article, but not in the order I’ve presented.)

Van Jones – “The mainstream white polluters and the mainstream white environmentalists wound up collaborating to put all the poisons in the black community, in the Latino community, in the poor communities. The toxic dumps started moving in one direction — not in my backyard.”

Jeff Jones – Weather Underground founder and chairs the Apollo Alliance in New York — the same Apollo Alliance (The Apollo Alliance — a progressive, George Soros-funded, extreme left-wing organization. Harry Reid admitted to the nation — no, actually, he thanked the Apollo Alliance for their help.) that wrote the stimulus package. Harry Reid’s own words: “This legislation is the first step in building a clean energy economy that creates jobs…. The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.” Starting with the anti-Vietnam War movement in the 1960s, and my opposition to segregation and racism, I have also been attacked. Because of my work with the New York State Apollo Alliance and my history of political activism,.” “I grew up in a Quaker, pacifist family. I was opposed to war, and registered with my draft board as a conscientious objector. But the promise of America for me was marred by segregation, and by a criminal war waged by my government against the people of Vietnam. So, as a teenager and young adult, I dedicated myself to supporting civil rights and opposing racism, and to ending the illegal and genocidal Vietnam War. I was personally enriched by participating in those movements and by the people I met, worked with, and loved in those years. This is what I mean when I say that I do not regret my militant opposition to racism and the Vietnam War. That said, like most people my age, I made my share of mistakes.” “Today, I am using the organizing skills and insights I learned from those movements in my work as a consultant for environmental and labor groups. One is the New York State Apollo Alliance, an affiliate of National Apollo. Apollo is working toward a goal that is simple and straight-forward: create good jobs for working people in the new clean-energy economy. That is a goal I support, and work I continue to do.” actually writing our policies and who is advising the governor of New York.

William Ayers Underground founder. And in education — infecting young minds with his radicalism as a professor at the University of Illinois. said in an interview that ran on September 11, 2001 in The New York Times that he wished he would’ve done more.

Remember the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon and police stations among other things, not to stop the war in Vietnam, but to collapse the American system. These were people who came right from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Whenever you see that word “democratic” and it’s coming from a group of ’60s radicals: run for your life! Literally. That’s code for Marxism and communism.
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven – The pair said the best way to bring about the change they sought was to get everyone on welfare, so that the system would eventually collapse under its own weight

Wade Rathke with ACORN; his brother Dale is at SEIU embezzled almost $1 million.

— Watch “Glenn Beck” weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552400,00.html

Obama has said that we are going to have a catastrophe if we do not pass this pork laden stimulus bill. Why is he using scare tactics?

Obama was one to complain about Bush’s spending, but look at the pork in this bill. The items include:

List of all the projects we need or else we will never recover!

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$198 million for Filipino World War 2 vets and their families
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons
$90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
$15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
$145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits
$83 billion for the earned income credit
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
$500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities
$44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
$350 million for Agriculture Department computers
$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
$89 billion for Medicaid
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
$850 million for Amtrak
$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
$1.7 billion for the National Park System
$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”
$2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming research)
$2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
$3.4 billion for the State Energy Program
$200 million for state and local electric-transport projects
$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
$1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$4.5 billion for electricity grid
$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund

Do we really need a $87 Million polar ice breaker? How is that going to stimulate the economy? I thought we were having global warming and the polar ice caps are melting. Is this just scare tactics or what?
FU – How is this a false list? This was posted on a web site by one of our press reporters. I cut and pasted.

Giving the following, I am curious, why are people voting for Barack Obama? I know some are voting for him just because it is about time we had a black President, and many are voting for him just because he is more charismatic and youthful… and many more because he is promising to “spread the wealth” and provide free health care for everyone and steal from the rich and give to the poor and cure cancer… but it seems like among the huge numbers of voters, there must be some with intelligent reasons as well?
So I am curious, why would otherwise intelligent people vote for this man, with so much at stake?

I can tell you why I am voting for his opponent. Not that McCain has done a fantastic job of convincing me he would make a great President, but at least with him I don’t have to worry about:

Passage of the Matthew Shepherd Act, which could make it illegal to say anything bad about homosexuality, and create an environment where preachers could go to jail for teaching certain parts of the Bible, which Obama has said he will use the all the force of his administration to pass. Thanks Obama, thanks for thought crimes legislation, where you can be punished for your thoughts. (see: “hate crimes”)

While in the Illinois Senate, Senator Obama voted for a bill authorizing “comprehensive” sex education beginning in kindergarten. Most Americans, particularly parents, would consider this unacceptable, but this is the extreme leftist that is on the verge of taking the most powerful political office on the planet Earth.

Passage of the “Freedom of Choice” act, which would remove the ban on partial birth abortion, which is where a baby after the third trimester.. in other words, a fully developed baby, can be partially delivered, except for the head, when the abortionist kills the baby in a violent way. I won’t go into details here, as it is too horrible and may cause more sensitive readers to have nightmares. It was banned in 2003, but Obama would bring it back. (see: partial birth abortion) Obama voted AGAINST the ban on partial birth abortion, and also voted against providing medical help for babies who survive abortion – THREE TIMES. He was the the only legislator who rose to argue against the Illinois Born Alive Act. This is a researchable fact, not someone’s opinion. Barack Obama is more extreme on the abortion issue than even NARAL. He has said that as President, his first act would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

The Fairness Doctrine, which the extreme Left, such as Barack Obama, would like to pass in order to be able to punish radio and television stations for not giving “equal time” to the liberal viewpoint… the enactment of which would basically shut down conservative broadcasts, which is the actual, albeit unstated, goal.

Obama’s intentions to decimate America’s armed forces, even as China INCREASES their military spending every year… why? Is anyone threatening China? Who knows why, but this is no time to leave our country defenseless.
Want to hear it in his own words? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0du8wMLzEY

Obama’s “spread the wealth” socialist philosophy, and his intentions to raise the Capital Gains tax, which is part of what is frightening the investors and causing such havoc in the stock market.

Now McCain served in our armed forces and was a prisoner of war, while Obama has written about his hatred and distrust of “white people.” By the time you are old enough to write and publish a book, you should be wise enough to know that you should judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. I don’t want a racist as President, be he white, black, green, or purple. Frankly, I think it is time we had a black president, and there are certainly many outstanding black people who would make a fantastic President, but Barack Obama’s twisted ideas about morals, values, and human life make him more than unsuitable for the role.

So I am asking why?

>vonetta_ – I live in Illinois produce >some proof on the kindergarten one, >please I would love to see it.

Even the Washington Post, a VERY liberal paper, confirms it in their “Fact checker”:

“The McCain ad is wrong when it claims–in a voice dripping with sarcasm–that Obama’s “one accomplishment” in the education field was the sex education bill for kindergartners. While it is true that Obama supported the bill, he was not one of the sponsors.”
Grey, you did not answer the question “why are people voting for Obama,” you merely attempted to dismiss my facts as unresearched blog fodder, which they most assuredly are not.

Obama will undoubtedly lose on November 4th, but will the people of Illinois take him back? He spent his whole first term in the U.S. Senate campaigning for President, and that is slipping away. He abandoned his job in the Senate, during the financial crisis. Will the people of Illinois fire him?
Note: Obama is currently the junior Senator from Illinois. I can see that kiddies don’t know that is the job he was hired to do, not run for President and lose.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23643866-5013948,00.html

The illusion that is Barack Obama

* Font Size: Decrease Increase
* Print Page: Print

Fred Siegel | May 05, 2008

POLITICAL campaigning necessarily produces a wide gap between words and deeds. This is the price of bringing together a broad coalition with disparate interests. All effective politicians are at times authentically insincere or sincerely inauthentic. Exaggeration, embellishment, overstatement, doubletalk, deception and lies presented as metaphorical truths are the order of the day.

So, of course, Barack Obama is no different. He exaggerates the credit he deserves for a limited piece of ethics-reform legislation. He embellishes when he presents himself as having had a consistent record on the Iraq war when in fact he’s done a fair amount of zigzagging.

He engages in doubletalk when, on free trade and Iraq, he tells the yokels one thing and the policy people another. He overstates when he presents his minimal accomplishments in the Illinois Senate as proof of his stature. He engages in systematic deception when he says he doesn’t take money from lobbyists.

He presents a lie as metaphorical truth when he says it was the 1965 bloody Sunday attacks on peaceful civil rights protesters in Selma, Alabama, that inspired his parents to marry. (They had been married for years already.)

All of this is unappealing, but also unexceptional. What makes it different is that there’s not just a gap but a chasm between his actions and his professed principles, which would normally kill a candidacy. And because his deeds are so few, the disparity is all the more salient.

Obama, far more than the others, is the “judge me by what I say and not what I do” candidate. He wants to be the conscience of the country without necessarily having one himself.

The disparity between Obama’s rhetoric of transcendence and his conventional Chicago racial and patronage politics is a leitmotiv of his political career. In New York, politicians (Al Sharpton excepted) are usually forced to pay at least passing tribute to universal principles and the ideal of clean government.

But Chicago, until recently a city of Lithuanians, blacks and Poles governed by Irishmen on the patronage model of the Italian Christian Democrats, is the city of political and cultural tribalism.

Blacks adapted to the tribalism and the corrupt patronage politics that accompanied it. Historically, one of the ironies of Chicago politics is that the clean-government candidates have been the most racist, while those most open to black aspirations have been the most corrupt. When the young Jesse Jackson received his first audience with then mayor Richard Daley Sr – impervious to the universalism of the civil rights movement in its glory – offered him a job as a toll-taker. Jackson thought the offer demeaning but in time adapted.

In Chicago, racial reform has meant that the incumbent mayor, Richard M. Daley, has been cutting blacks in on the loot. Louis Farrakhan, Jackson, Jeremiah Wright and Obama are all, in part, the expression of that politics. It hasn’t always worked for Chicago, which, under the pressure of increasing taxes to pay for bloated government, is losing its middle class. But it has served the city’s political class admirably.

For all his Camelot-like rhetoric, Obama is a product, in significant measure, of the political culture that Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass described: “We’ve had our chief of detectives sent to prison for running the Outfit’s (the mob’s) jewellery-heist ring. And we’ve had white guys with Outfit connections get $100 million in affirmative action contracts from their drinking buddy, Mayor Richard Daley … That’s the Chicago way.”

At no point did Obama, the would-be saviour of US politics, challenge this corruption, except for face-saving gestures as a legislator. He was, in his own Harvard law way, a product of it.

Why, you may ask, did the operators of Chicago’s political machine support Obama? Part of the answer was given long ago by the then boss of Chicago, Jake Arvey.

When asked why he made Adlai Stevenson – a man, as with Obama, more famous for speeches than for accomplishments – his party’s gubernatorial candidate in 1948, Arvey is said to have replied that he needed to “perfume the ticket”.

Obama first played a perfuming role as a state senator. His mentor, Emil Jones, the machine-made president of the Senate, allowed him to sponsor a minor ethics bill. In return, Obama made sure to send plenty of pork to Jones’s district. When asked about pork-barrel spending, Jones famously replied: “Some call it pork; I call it steak.”

Obama repaid the generosity. When he had a chance to back clean Democratic candidates for president of the Cook County board of supervisors and Illinois governor, he stayed with the allies of the Outfit. The gubernatorial candidate he backed, Rod Blagojevich, is under federal investigation, in part because of his relationship with Tony Rezko, the man who helped Obama buy his house.

The Chicago way has delivered politically for Obama even this year. Ninety per cent of his popular-vote lead over Hillary Clinton comes from Illinois, and two-thirds of that 90 per cent comes just from Cook County.

Some of this advantage came from the efforts of Obama’s political ally, the flame-throwing reverend James Meeks, a political force in his own right. Meeks, who mocks black moderates as “niggers”, is an Illinois state senator, the pastor of a mega-church and a strong supporter of Jackson’s powerful political operation, which has put its vote-pulling muscle squarely behind the Obama campaign. It was only with Obama’s remark about bitter, white, working-class, small-town voters that we saw his difficulties appealing beyond the machine’s reach. He won his US Senate race in 2004 not only because his opponents self-destructed but also because of the machine’s ability to deliver votes.

In Pennsylvania, he has lacked such assistance and the campaigning has not gone nearly so well. First, Obama pretended to be a tenpin bowler and scored a 37. Then, appearing before a supposedly closed San Francisco audience, he complained that small-town Pennsylvanians “cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations”. This is the man who belongs to a church built on bitterness, rancour and conspiratorial fear. During the Wright affair, Obama not only repeatedly lied about what he knew and when but violated the spirit of the civil rights movement in its mid-1960s glory.

When, as a young man, I was on the periphery of the movement, there was an unwritten rule that if people told racist jokes or speakers engaged in defamatory rhetoric, you needed to register your immediate disapproval by confronting the speaker or ostentatiously walking out.

Wright’s “black theology” is essentially a Christianised version of Malcolm X’s ideology of hate.

But for 20 years, Obama, who had planned to run for mayor of Chicago, kept silent about the close, if at times competitive, relationship between Wright, whose 8000-member mega-church gave him his political base, and Farrakhan. His ambition overrode his moral integrity.

As part of his “black value system”, Wright attacked whites for their “middle classism”, materialism, and “greed in a world of need”. Obama sounded similar notes in his recent address at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York, in which he laid the blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis on those who had “embraced an ethic of greed, corner cutting and inside dealing”.

But that’s exactly what Obama did in buying his luxurious house. Given the choice of purchasing a less expensive home or getting into bed with his fundraiser-cum-slumlord-cum-fixer Rezko, Obama chose the latter. Then again, the oppressed of Trinity United Church of Christ are building Wright a $US1.6 million ($1.7million), 960sqm home complete with four-car garage, whirlpool and butler’s pantry. This house, which backs on to a golf course, is to sit in Tinley Park, a gated community in southwest Chicago that is 93 per cent white.

The Obamas’ charitable giving is consistent with Wright’s talking Left while living Right. Obama and his wife are quite well off. They had an estimated income of $US1.2 million from 2000 to 2004. But the man who preaches compassion and mutuality gave all of 1 per cent of that income to charity during those years. Most of that went to Wright’s church.

There is a similar chasm when it comes to Obama’s claim to post-partisanship. His achievements in reaching out to moderate voters are largely proleptic. But words are not deeds and, although Obama has few concrete achievements to his name, his voting record hardly suggests an ability to rise above Left v Right.

In the Illinois Senate, he made a specialty of voting present, but after his first two years in the US Senate, National Journal’s analysis of rollcall votes found that he was more liberal than 86 per cent of his colleagues. His voting record has only moved further Left since then. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action gives him a 97.5 per cent rating, while National Journal ranks him the most liberal member of the Senate. By comparison, Clinton, who occasionally votes with the Republicans, ranks 16th.

Obama is such a down-the-line partisan that, according to Congressional Quarterly, in the past two years he has voted with the Democrats more often than did the party’s majority leader, Harry Reid.

Likewise, for all his talk of post-racialism, Obama has played, with the contrivance of the press, traditional South Side Chicago racial politics. The day after his surprise loss in New Hampshire, and in anticipation of the South Carolina primary, with its heavily black electorate, South Side congressman Jesse Jackson Jr – Obama’s national co-chairman – appeared on MSNBC to argue, in a prepared statement, that Clinton’s teary moment on the campaign trail reflected her deep-seated racism.

“Those tears,” said Jackson, “have to be analysed … They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina, where 45 per cent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest … We saw tears in response to her appearance, so that her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina, not other issues.”

In other words, whites who are at odds with, or who haven’t delivered for, Chicago politicians can be obliquely accused of racism on the flimsiest basis, but pillars of local black politics such as Wright, with his exclusivist racial theology, are beyond criticism.

Liberals love Obama’s talk of taking on powerful financial interests. But here , too, he is rather slippery. In his Cooper Union speech, he denounced in no uncertain terms the “special interests” of people on Wall Street (who are well represented among his campaign donors).

He, of course, had an opportunity to push for repealing the privileged tax treatment of private equity firms when that question was before Charles Grassley’s Senate subcommittee – but he simply made a pro-forma statement in favour of doing so and disappeared.

Nationally, as in Chicago, Obama the self-styled reformer never crosses swords with any of his putative foes. To pick another example, he has attacked “predatory” sub-prime lenders while taking roughly $US1.3 million in contributions from companies in that line of business.

Obama is the internationalist opposed to free trade. He is the friend of race-baiters who thinks Don Imus deserved to be fired. He is the proponent of courage in the face of powerful interests who lacked the courage to break with Wright (until Wednesday). He is the man who would lead our efforts against terrorism yet was friendly with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist. He is the post-racialist supporter of affirmative action. He is the enemy of Big Oil who takes money from executives at Exxon-Mobil, Shell and British Petroleum.

Obama has, in a sense, represented a new version of the invisible man, a candidate whose colour obscures his failings.

But so far, the wild discrepancy between Obama’s words and his deeds, and between his enormous ambitions and his minimal accomplishments, doesn’t seem to have fazed his core supporters, who apparently suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Like cultists who rededicate themselves when the cult’s prophecies have been falsified, his fans redouble their delusions in the face of his obvious hypocrisy.

That is because Obama, in the imagination of many of his fans in the public and the press, is both a deduction from what was – the failures of the Bush administration and the scandals of the Clintons – and an expression of what should be.

The ideal, the aspiration, is so rhetorically appealing that it has been assumed to be true. They remind one of Woodrow Wilson’s answer when asked if his plan for a League of Nations was practicable: “If it won’t work, it must be made to work.”

Fred Siegel is a contributing editor of City Journal. He teaches at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art.

One day after Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, his former fundraiser and political supporter Tony Rezco was convicted of multiple federal corruption charges.

Rezko backed Obama’s election to the Illinois Senate in 1996, his successful re-election bids and his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate.

Two years ago, the two men were involved in a real estate deal that Obama later apologized for, calling it “boneheaded” and a “mistake” because the transaction occurred while Rezko was widely known to be under federal investigation. Rezko’s wife paid full price for a vacant lot in Chicago’s historic Kenwood district on the same day Obama bought the mansion next door from the same property owner for $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko’s wife subsequently sold a sliver of the land to Obama.

Obama’s relationship with Rezko dates to the senator’s days as a student at Harvard Law School, when Rezko offered him a job, which Obama turned down.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article

What do you think of this?
I think it was very brave. Good for them.

Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.

Nina Williams, a stay-at-home mom in Lake County, Indiana, tells us that her daughter recently called her from her job at the center, upset that she had been asked to read a script attacking Obama for being “dangerously weak on crime,” “coddling criminals,” and for voting against “protecting children from danger.”

Williams’ daughter told her that up to 40 of her co-workers had refused to read the script, and had left the call center after supervisors told them that they would have to either read the call or leave, Williams says. The call center is called Americall, and it’s located in Hobart, IN.

“They walked out,” Williams says of her daughter and her co-workers, adding that they weren’t fired but willingly sacrificed pay rather than read the lines. “They were told [by supervisors], `If you all leave, you’re not gonna get paid for the rest of the day.”

The daughter, who wanted her name withheld fearing retribution from her employer, confirmed the story to us. “It was like at least 40 people,” the daughter said. “People thought the script was nasty and they didn’t wanna read it.”

A second worker at the call center confirmed the episode, saying that “at least 30″ workers had walked out after refusing to read the script.

“We were asked to read something saying [Obama and Democrats] were against protecting children from danger,” this worker said. “I wouldn’t do it. A lot of people left. They thought it was disgusting.”

This worker, too, confirmed sacrificing pay to walk out, saying her supervisor told her: “If you don’t wanna phone it you can just go home for the day.”

The script coincided with this robo-slime call running in other states, but because robocalling is illegal in Indiana it was being read by call center workers.

Representatives at Americall in Indiana, and at the company’s corporate headquarters in Naperville, Illinois, didn’t return calls for comment.

He’s a lousy Senator…has done nothing for Illinois.
He’d be a horrible President…but we all know that.
So, is there anything out there he’s be any good at doing?
Yes…in Illinois.
and more specifically….Chicago.

So..yes, I know the real facts!
More than you know!

The venerable Source of the Associated Press summarizes the Blago arrest:

“the episode amounts to a distraction for Obama at an inopportune time just six weeks before he’s sworn into office.

“It also raises the specter of notorious Chicago politics, an image Obama has tried to distance himself from during his career.”

http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2008/09/23/news/local/1035761.txt

SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois Senate on Monday pushed aside a veto and unanimously approved a landmark ban on “pay-to-play” political donations, after former legislative colleague Barack Obama interceded to jump-start the stalled ethics initiative.

The measure prohibits entities that do more than $50,000 in state business from giving political donations to the elected officials who control their contracts. Gov. Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill last month, and the House this month voted to override his veto.

Monday’s 55-0 Senate veto override means the ban will take effect Jan. 1.

“Hallelujah!” said state Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, during brief floor debate over the long-sought legislation. “This is indeed a great day.” The chamber later broke into applause after the override vote.

The vote is a stinging rebuke to Blagojevich, who had vetoed the ethics bill while offering what he said was a superior alternative. Critics said that move was actually designed to kill the reform and keep in place an unrestricted political system that Blagojevich has used to raise millions of campaign dollars.

For Obama, a former Illinois state senator and now the Democratic presidential nominee, the vote likely averts what had been shaping up as a possible public relations headache for his presidential campaign.

The ethics bill was being stalled primarily by Blagojevich and Senate President Emil Jones, both Obama supporters and fellow Chicago Democrats. The two Illinois pols already have been featured in one recent national Republican commercial that tries to tie Obama to Chicago’s famously shady political culture.

After the House overrode Blagojevich’s veto, Jones, a Blagojevich ally, prompted howls from reformers by hinting he might not call the bill in his chamber until mid-November, if at all.

On Wednesday, as the controversy grew, Obama phoned Jones and pressed him to call the bill. Jones later issued a statement saying he would call the Senate in to deal with the issue, “only at the request of my friend Barack Obama.”

Blagojevich’s alternative ethics package had contained additional restrictions, including bans on legislators taking side-jobs in their local governments, and more straightforward requirements for approval of legislative pay raises. Reformers had feared those additions would make the package too controversial to pass and endanger the whole reform initiative, and some alleged that was the whole point.

In a compromise Monday in connection with the veto override, Blagojevich’s provisions passed the Senate Executive Committee as a bill that could now advance through the legislature separately.

In a written statement, Blagojevich lauded the committee passage of those provisions as “real reform.” He played down the override of his veto, saying, “The General Assembly didn’t really move the ball forward.”

The issue of political contributions from state contractors has long been a controversial one in Illinois, but there are no rules against it, as long as the donations aren’t made specifically as payback for the contracts. Former Gov. George Ryan is serving a federal prison term for crossing that line. His crimes included steering state contracts to major campaign contributors.

This year’s federal trial of political fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who raised money for Blagojevich and Obama, included allegations of similar things going on around Blagojevich’s administration. Testimony alleged that Blagojevich associates sought a political donation from a contractor in exchange for a promise of state business. Blagojevich himself hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing.

A recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch analysis of 50 of the top service contractors in the state found that fully half of them are major Blagojevich donors.

The ethics bill is HB824.

That’s nice Smitty! He was in the US Senate when he helped this one go through. Read the article. He did it for selfish reasons!

“For Obama, a former Illinois state senator and now the Democratic presidential nominee, the vote likely averts what had been shaping up as a possible public relations headache for his presidential campaign.”

On Wednesday, as the controversy grew, Obama phoned Jones and pressed him to call the bill. Jones later issued a statement saying he would call the Senate in to deal with the issue, “only at the request of my friend Barack Obama.”

That must be a real slap in the face for Sarah Palin!

In addition, all of these newspapers just over this past weekend alone??

The Birmingham (Ala.) News endorsed McCain on Oct. 26:

But there is something that separates the two men, and that is their records and core beliefs. As thrilling as the idea of an Obama presidency may be, we believe McCain is the better choice for America in these trying times.

___

The Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser endorsed Obama on Oct. 26:

Obama is a transformational figure, a generation younger than his opponent, a man with both a lively mind and a caring heart, and the first major party candidate for president whose understanding of the world is not molded by the Cold War or the Vietnam experience.

___

The Portsmouth (N.H.) Herald endorsed Obama on Oct. 26

We have seen the young senator from Illinois grow dramatically as a candidate and prove his leadership in the most closely contested primary process in American history. Through one of the most creative and stable political organizations ever built, he has set the bar high and insisted that Americans rise above their partisan squabbles and fears to create a government and society that will work better for the common, long-term good of the country.

___

The Billings (Mont.) Gazette endorsed Obama on Oct. 26:

At this extremely challenging time, America needs a uniter, not a divider. In this economic turmoil, America needs a thoughtful, cool-headed optimist who envisions a bright future for all citizens. After several years in which worldwide respect for America has been diminished, our great nation needs a new leader who can inspire confidence at home and abroad. Obama is that leader.

___

The Elko (Nev.) Daily Free Press endorsed McCain on Oct. 24:

Neither candidate is recognizable today compared to who they were two years ago, before they started campaigning. The moderate, reform-minded man of integrity, Sen. John McCain, has turned himself into a right-wing Frankenstein in order to scare up voters from the Republican base. … We have chosen to ignore the theatrics and endorse the man behind the mask, the John McCain who stands up to wasteful spending and isn’t afraid to break through party lines to get the job done.

___

The Albany (N.Y.) Times Union endorsed Obama on Oct. 26:

We’re always skeptical when a candidate for any office promises change or, as we hear around Albany so much, reform. Often, all we get are big campaign-season generalities and a postelection letdown. But as this presidential race has progressed, Senator Obama has laid out a detailed, credible, persuasive and encouraging vision of change. It is one we endorse at a time when change is so clearly needed.

___

The (Rochester, N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle endorsed Obama on Oct. 26:

Obama … has demonstrated focused leadership, intellectual heft, coolness under fire and an innate ability to stir optimism. It’s telling that he surrounded himself with top-notch thinkers to run his campaign. That’s a healthy sign that Obama will choose the best talent available as he charts a new course for the nation.

___

The Maine Sunday Telegram endorsed Obama on Oct. 26:

The person best suited to lead under these circumstances is the one most capable of inspiring Americans to have confidence in the future while also embracing change that will sometimes be difficult to accept. That person has to be intelligent, resolute and, above all, cool under pressure.

On paper, one would not expect a first-term U.S. senator from Illinois to be a person likely to bring those qualities to the nation’s highest office. But over the course of an arduous campaign, that senator proved that he has the mettle _the demeanor, energy and policy positions — to lead this nation during a difficult time.

___

The (Lewiston, Maine) Sun Journal endorsed McCain on Oct. 26:

America needs change. We’re torn, however, over scope. Wholesale replacement of ideology in the White House, with a likely Democratic supermajority in Congress, is a great concern.

The country needs a shift, not a swing, from its current course.

This will require cooperation between parties. President John McCain could be the cross-aisle consensus builder who could turn the country back toward prosperity.

___

The (Muncie, Ind.) Star Press endorsed Obama on Oct. 26:

Obama also has set an example by remaining calm during the financial collapse and in the face of an onslaught of negative and derogatory ads and inflammatory stump speeches, a good indication of his demeanor in office. It’s also a leadership style that instills confidence during a time when Americans need and want that quality in a president.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_endorsements;_ylt=AiQ1ILKTywm4F8Hxre_SKFNsnwcF

This endorsements for Barack Obama have been astronomical! Sure, McCain gets endorsed, but NOT

I know that I am just a kool aid drinking, Bush loving, goose stepping, backward thinking, mindless, greedy, war mongering, chicken hawk, walk all over the little guy neocon…….but can ANYBODY from the left explain to me what SPECIFICALLY in the Obama stimulus package is going to create jobs? So far this is all I am seeing……

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD’s.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.