Here’s a non-17-year-old, vice-president offspring that the liberal media isn’t willing to drag through the mud. In fact, this is probably the first time many of you have heard this story:1) In 2005, Barack Obama request $1.4 million in earmarks for a nursing home in Chicago. The lobbyist that approached him? Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. The nursing home eventually received $192,000 from the Obama/Biden Jr. partnership. $320,000 was paid to Hunter Biden’s lobbyist organization for his services, so the nursing home ended up losing on the deal, but not Hunter.
2) In 2006, Hunter and Obama were at it again. Obama requested $2 million dollars for a cancer hospital that Hunter Biden served as a prime lobbyist for. To date the hospital has received no money. Biden Jr.’s firm was paid $120,000 for representing the hospital, again making it a losing deal for everyone but Hunter.
3) Hunter Biden had a $100,000 consulting deal with Delaware’s biggest company MBNA. Strange that this company is in the same state where his father is a Senator. At the same time, Big Papa Joe Biden was working on a bill that would make it harder for people with credit cards problems to file for bankruptcy, benefiting companies like MBNA. This could be seen as a Quid Pro Quo?
4) The conflict of interests didn’t finish there. Hunter Biden was a lobbyist for Napster, the Internet music download company. Guess who was a senior member of the Senate committee that oversees intellectual property rights, which was a hot topic with Napster? That’s right, Big Papa Biden.
So the media will continue to attack a 17-year-old girl who is in a very traumatic moment in her life on an issue that is non-related to politics, other than her mom is a politician. She will continue to see her face and stomach plastered all over the news with a litany of other false scandals.
And the media will continue to ignore little Joe Biden whose dealings are 100% related and existing in the political realm.
Please understand what is happening here. The liberal media has an agenda. They are determined that Sarah Palin will not be elected.
So over the weekend when Barack Obama was being a very decent person saying children should be "off limits", as everything with Obama, this takes on new meaning when you know the true facts and his true motives.
3 comments:
You're stooping to their level.
Obama was right when he said families of politicians should not be dragged through the mud and that anyone found making comments on Palin's daughter would be fired. I am surprised at reading this here. Not at the content, but at the fact that you'd go there.
You have no idea what the "true motives" are behind Obama's statement. You have absolutely no idea if he was sincere, but I am betting he was. The fact that people are bringing up Palin's daughter is wrong. And so is this.
I guess my questions to you would be two-fold, Alycin.
First, do you think their is any distinction between a 17-year-old girl who is not involved in politics in any way being "off limits" in regard to her pregnancy - or even Obama's young daughters with their lives- and a son of a candidate who is a political lobbyist with some questionable deals that involves Obama being "off limits"?
I think the first group is off limits, the second group because they are in the political realm is not.
The media thinks the first group is fair game, where the second group isn't.
You seem to think both are "off-limits", and that's your opinion. You are entitled to it.
Secondly, please remember Obama was the sole vote in the Illinois legislator against giving a baby born outside the womb that made it through an abortion any life-saving help what-so-ever, and sentencing he/she to die in a soil utility room. He did this for political expedient reasons.
This is an extreme view that results in a death of a human being. If he did this for a politically expedient benefit, is it a crazy thought to think any statement he makes might be suspect and done for the benefit of a political benefit?
I maybe wrong, but I maybe right.
It is my opinion, and I am entitle to it as well.
Thanks for the post.
My reply to this didn't go through either? Errrmmm... I'm beginning to wonder what the problem is now.
Anyway, I thought you'd be interested (maybe) in what my theology Prof. said in class today.
"It is important that you do not let your emotions get in the way of listening to what he has to say. There is no doubt in my mind that he is sincere in what he is writing and that he is not trying to be vindictive, malicious, or make anyone mad. He is not evil for his thoughts. We cannot ever presume to know someone’s motives. So don’t let your love or passion for your faith lead you to be angry with the author if he says something that you disagree with. You can’t think clearly that way. Sometimes we get angry or even the opposite, we get excited, and the emotional response to what someone says clouds our judgement. We have to act with Christian charity at all times. Assuming someone is evil or has malicious intent because they disagree with us or don’t understand something is not charitable."
Post a Comment