Obama: The Cover Up Will Nail Him

People who have ANY kind of association ALWAYS share something in common.

Always. Always. Always.

Something. In. Common.

Obama and Ayers both admit they share something in common.

And if Obama and his campaign had been able to successfully erase evidence of their association you can be sure that Obama would deny it.

Obama is a sneaky guy.

An aside:

And though they admit they share something in common, the smoking gun of Obama sharing the same mindset as Ayers is hard to see because Obama is able to conceal, obscure or erase any evidence of that.

Almost.

What we have to use as evidence of Obama's guilt is as damning as the smoking gun of their sharing the same ideology.

The Cover Up.

Obama has tried to cover up all the incriminating evidence that he and Ayers share similar ideals and that they might have been working together toward (and may still be ideologically married to) the same kind of radical neo-Communist revolution.

But the evidence has started to show that Obama has misrepresented the nature of his association with Ayers.

And that is enough to damn him for concealing evidence from the American people.

As we know from Ayers' own admission, he is a "small "c" Communist."

And we know from Obama's policies that he, too, is a small "c" Communist and he comes by this point of view from the several Communist, Socialist, radical revolutionary leftist mentors and associates in his life.

We aren't judging him guilty by association, because if we did there would be no doubt at all of his guilt.

We are judging him guilty by cover up.

A cat does not cover up where he doesn't crap.

And by looking at the fact of his cover up we can deduce he has crapped there.

It will all boil down to the cover up.

That is what nailed Nixon.

That is what will nail Obama.

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

What do you consider a "cover up" in the first place?

Quite frankly, I think "cover up" is more apt for people who get subpoenas to testify to congress AND THEN REFUSE TO SHOW UP.
I think "cover up" is more apt for people who get subpoenas in an ongoing "trooper-gate" investigation, and then blanket statements that ENTIRE GROUPS will not answer questions are released.
An FBI that refuses to answer questions about its wiretapping of Americans program, and courts that refuse to address the issue cause the people don't have "proof" of what their own government is doing ...
E-mails being kept on non-governmental servers...
DELETED e-mails...

THOSE are "cover ups".

When people don't listen to you regarding your opinions on Obama, that isn't a "cover up".

Continued at link.

Founding Brothers by Stanley Kurtz on National Review Online

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

I don't know what alien world you come from but here on Earth and in the United States we assume that the men and women vying for the highest offices in the land will be truthful and candid in revealing information about their past.

This is like a job interview where if you are caught lying or trying to hide a material fact you are automatically disqualified.

Maybe this will help you to better grasp the concept.

Imagine you meet a guy and you and he fall in love and decide to get married and then on your wedding night he discovers you aren't really a woman at all, but a Shemale.

Doesn't he have a right to annul the marriage? (And maybe kick your ass and maybe sue you for damages?)

You married him under false pretenses.

But maybe that's all good where you come from.

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

I thought that you didn't want anyone talking about your first marriage???

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

Actually I was talking about your father's greatest heartbreak.

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

Over and over again, your tactic can be summed up in one word.
ALLEGATIONS...

Take the article you just threw out there...
One line shines loud and clear, showing the lack of substance if somebody needed any help to see it...

Although it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions from this evidence, it does raise serious questions ...

You aren't proving anything.
Just throwing mud against Obama and hoping some of it will stick.
Even your article admits that it is JUST QUESTIONS!!!


Name the lie...



In so many ways, this SCREAMS OUT the problem I have with Bush's Iraq invasion, but you and several others refuse to address that...
You should take some of your own advice...

Obama is as much an Establishment choice for the unwashed masses as McCAin or Bush is.

Z Magazine - Hidden Primaries

And more. These are the people who get privileged access and ultimately select your candidates for you. The DNC has made sure rabble like McGovern never accidentally get in any more, changing their Party rules in 1984 to guarantee no populist ever embarrasses them again, and of course the RNC has always been a top down organization from it's inception in the 1850's. Your 'choices' are predetermined for you, no different the old Soviet elections under Stalin. They own all the candidates in both parties.

The problem you have with the US invasion of Iraq stems from your inability to recognize there was no other nation or leader in the world at the time who was a greater threat to global peace and security than Iraq/Saddam.

He had started war with Iran in 1980.

He started war with Kuwait in 1990.

He required a global coalition to make him return his army to Iraq.

He had embarked on nuclear weapons development programs.

He continually violated the STIPULATIONS he signed in 1991 in order to avoid further military action upon his country and/or his regime.

He was mounting a global terrorism program designed to enlist the assistance of devout Muslims even though he was a secular (Sunni Muslim) leader.

He attempted the assassination of the Bush family when they visited Kuwait.

He was cash rich from embezzling money from the UN Oil For Food program.

And he was boasting of having WMD's.

The US response to this was the signing into law (by Bill Clinton) of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1988.

This could be seen as a necessary prelude to the coming action unless Saddam shaped up.

Democrats clamored for military action against Saddam. Democrats campaigned on the basis of taking military action against Saddam. And before the invasion Democrats approved taking military action against Saddam.

For you or anyone to say that there was no justification or that the Democrats didn't agree with the invasion BEFORE Bush was even sworn into office, is a God damned lie.

The problem you have with the US invasion of Iraq is that it is going to prevent the Iran from spreading it's fundamentalism throughout the entire region.

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

Guilt by association / donation...

Obama's plans are definitely NOT part of the current "establishment" status quo...

If they were, why are the Republicans freaking out so much over them???
Again, the arguments against Obama are just so ridiculously contradictory...