Barack Obama will expose the Pacific Heights Mafia - bring hope to Bayview Hunters Point.

Barack "Barry" Obama is no friend of the working class or poor and is no peace and justice advocate. He supports capital punishment, has voted for Iraq War appropriations, and backs Israel. He has no plan to bail out of the recession and has proposed tax credits for health care. This guy is as phony as Hillary. Time to do your homework, Francisco.

Millionaire Democrat Barack Obama is being paid millions for his phony campaign for "change" to make sure the black workingclass does nto vote Red (Peace & Freedom Party in California) or Green, which are the only 2 peace and social justice partie son the ballot. The previous writer stated many of the basic issues on which Obama, like all of the other stinking Democrats and Republicans, fail the workingclass, from his support to Israel, the US military base to protect US oil profits in the Middle East, to his support for capital punishment to his calling for a first strike against Iran. Francisco, STOP VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS. Mayor Gavin Newsom is a DEMOCRAT. Nancy Pelosi is a DEMOCRAT. They and Barack Obama are all rotten to the core. As Martin Luther King said, we must judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Obama's character stinks, the same as the other millionaire promoters of US imperialism. The HOPE for the WORKINGCLASS is in the WORKINGCLASS and its PARTIES. Francisco Da Costa, SHAME ON YOU FOR SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA AND ALL OTHER DEMOCRATS. When will you learn who your friends are? No millionaire can represent us workers, and do not every forget that. I guarantee you Obama will teach you that lesson the hard way if you do not learn from listening to those of us who signed the petition for affordable housing.

I don't say this to every person inspired by Obama; many really don't know better; but Francisco should know better. Does he really believe that Obama will be able to raise enough money to beat the Republican deep pockets in the general without taking money from our enemies.

Obama will do NOTHING to rein in Lennar.

Let Barack Obama visit the Hunters Point Shipyard most of which is still under the U.S. NAVY control and let us see if a can of worms is not opened.

Obama can expose Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi - they now support Hillary Clinton. All of them are into Land Banking - but Barack Obama is not. But none of you would know that.

I am not a Democrat - I do not know where some of you got that from.

I know Barack is not a Democrat that agrees with Nancy and Diane on Hunters Point and that Superfund Site - and that is my point. Using him to expose the local thugs - the Blums, the Fishers, Pelosis, Gavin Newsom, Jesse Blout, Eric Jaye, Kofi Bonner, Willie L. Brown, Sophie Maxwell, Mark Leno, Roberta Achtenberg, - local Democrats and Republicans - that are adversely impacting poor folks.

The above scumbags prey on poor folks - and make thousands off them - but you folks do not have the guts to expose them.

This crap that Barack Obama is against the working class is just that - crap.

You do not expect Barack Obama to take on Hillary with a few dollars. Notice he does NOT take huge sums from folks that lobby or are consultants like the skunks that were paid over $813,000 on: The Bayview Jobs, Parks, and Housing Initiative which is vague and makes no sense.

Alex Trouk, Roberta Achtenberg, Eric Jaye, Sam Singer, Store Front Consultants, other scumbags - these are folks that need to be exposed and you guys should take them on.

The Green Party and the other Leftist Parties for the most part just talk the talk - here in San Francisco - we tried once with Matt and failed. But, then after that - the Green and others keep on talking - spewing hot air.

Why can we all NOT get behind Cindy and get rid off Nancy Pelosi? The last time around Matt lost by four percent and that was because of Absentee Votes that favor Newsom. If we all work - well in advance we can easily get rid of Nancy Pelosi. And then may be the other scumbags - but where is the leadership? Besides all the hot air!

The Fifty Percent Affordable Initiative was hard work and sound logistics. I was the proponent and the Initiative bears my name for those that do not believe it. We did get some little support from the Green Party and some leftist organizations - but not as much as we should have.

Let us not mix issues to make a stupid point that makes no sense. Let us first and foremost be educated on issues. I see vague remarks - jumping to conclusions - mostly as folks that gossip do - I am not into that crap.

So, Francisco, you think Barack will come out to HP and throw his support your way?
Just FYI, Obama's big money is coming from multinational corporations, like Lennar.

In just the 24 hour period following Super Tuesday, over $7 million poured into his
campaign's coiffures. These bucks didn't come from the poor and working class.
They came from his gang$ter capitali$t $upporter$ who have been grooming him for
this race the past 4 years. Not even Hillary, who also is mob-$upported, can keep
up with his war chest.

If I were you, better to pin your hopes on McCain coming out to HP. After all, he
is a Navy boy.

<i>Let us not mix issues to make a stupid point that makes no sense.</i>
<p>
So very true. And one should heed their own advice.

Barack Obama should visit the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard because he should see the large scale grading and other polluted facilities for himself.

McCain really is not interested unless the Republican Round Table that meets once so often - wants to take the challenge and invite him.

Barack Obama has never been briefed on the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. So, here is an opportunity.

There is a Obama office in the Bayview and so he has some support already. While others mostly White think Obama will NOT help the Bayview Hunters Point constituents - I am firmly convinced Obama will understand our plight.

I mentioned once before and some are not paying attention. Most of Obama's donations are small - so if some one thinks of the Mafia and the large Corporations filling his campaign coffers - my research does not point to Big Money - it points to small amounts but thousands backing Obama and mostly young people and independents.

The Republicans are a mess - have spent trillions overseas and taken our Nation down the drain. I have no confidence in the Navy and less in McCain.

I know some you talk about the Bayview Hunters Point - without any clue - we have been dealing with the issues for a long, long time - and know what we are talking about.

Again I see Obama's visit exposing a lot - and opening a can of worms created by Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein.

Here is the homework that Francisco Da Costa did not do:
1. ""US Political Establishment Lines Up Behind Barack Obama" by Patrick Martin, 2/4/08, World Socialist Website, (In addition to their newspaper support list, there is also the SF Chronicle endorsing Obama too, a sure sign that he is no good as the Chronicle is a proud supporter of the Lennar-Pelosi-Newsom Gang)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/obam-f04.shtml
"Among those backing the Obama campaign are such pillars of the US political establishment as Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter and an arch-Cold Warrior; retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak and a host of other retired military brass; billionaire Warren Buffett, the second-richest man in America; and an array of Wall Street and corporate executives, none of whom could be suspected of any sympathy for radical social change."

2. "The Obama Illusion" by Paul Street, February 2007, Z Magazine at:
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/streetpr0207.html (This has lots of references to comments by The Black Commentator)
Turn to the "Never Mind" section, to read:
"Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a “Hamiltonian” believer in “limited government” and “free trade” by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having “a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS.” Or that he had to be shamed off the “New Democrat Directory” of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator (Bruce Dixon, “Obama to Have Name Removed From DLC List,” Black Commentator, June 26, 2003). "

"Never mind that Obama (consistent with Brooks’s description of him) has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, “Mr. Obama Goes to Washington,” the Nation, June 26). Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, “Obama’s Game,” the Nation, April 24, 2006). Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito."

"Never mind that Obama “dismissively” referred—in a “tone laced with contempt”—to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as “something of a gadfly.” Or that he chose the neoconservative Lieberman to be his “assigned” mentor in the U.S. Senate. Or that “he posted a long article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.” Or that he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time magazine’s Joe Klein last year that he’d never given any thought to Al Gore’s widely discussed proposal to link a “carbon tax” on fossil fuels to targeted tax relief for the nation’s millions of working poor (Joe Klein, “The Fresh Face,” Time, October 17, 2006). "

"Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations (Cockburn; Sirota). Or that Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry—at places like Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield (Sirota)."

"Never mind that Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act. Or that he voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State. Or that he opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens. Or that he shamefully distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo. Or that he refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran."

"Never mind that Obama makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment (Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Off Center: the Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy). Or that he joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty (Obama, The Audacity of Hope)—not the multiple, well-documented, and interrelated structures, practices and consequences of externally imposed white supremacy and corporate-state capitalism. Or that he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar. Or that he had this to say on the night after the Congressional mid-term elections, when the criminal and reactionary Cheney-Bush administration’s unpopularity with the American people cost the Republicans their majority in Congress: “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08” (Jeff Zeleni, “Democrats Fight to Say, ‘You’re Welcome,’” New York Times, November 5, 2006). "

Continuing in the section entitled "Hitting the Right (Wing) Keynotes:"
"Never mind that Obama’s famous 2004 Democratic Convention Keynote Address—widely credited for catapulting him to national prominence—expressed numerous reactionary and incorrect notions that make the praise it received from the far right National Review (who called Obama’s oration “simple and powerful”) less than mysterious on close examination. This speech claimed that the U.S. is the ultimate “beacon for freedom and opportunity,” the “only country on earth” where his supposedly “rags to riches” is “even possible.” This despite the fact that the U.S. is actually the most rigidly hierarchical nation in the industrialized world, home to a stultifying corporate plutocracy, persistent and highly racialized poverty, astonishing incarceration rates (also quite racially disparate), and low mobility from lower to upper segments in its steep socioeconomic pyramid. "

"Never mind that Obama’s famous 2004 Democratic Convention Keynote Address—widely credited for catapulting him to national prominence—expressed numerous reactionary and incorrect notions that make the praise it received from the far right National Review (who called Obama’s oration “simple and powerful”) less than mysterious on close examination. This speech claimed that the U.S. is the ultimate “beacon for freedom and opportunity,” the “only country on earth” where his supposedly “rags to riches” is “even possible.” This despite the fact that the U.S. is actually the most rigidly hierarchical nation in the industrialized world, home to a stultifying corporate plutocracy, persistent and highly racialized poverty, astonishing incarceration rates (also quite racially disparate), and low mobility from lower to upper segments in its steep socioeconomic pyramid. "

"Never mind that Obama’s speech scaled new heights of cringing, pseudo-patriotic nausea-inducement by making disturbing “hope” parallels between: “the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs,” “the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta,” and the “hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him.” The lieutenant referred to in his speech was Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry whose government’s imperial right to “patrol” great rivers on the other side of the world during the 1960s Obama took as axiomatic. The “skinny kid” referred to a young Obama, grooming himself for a Harvard education while attending an elite private school and living with his white grandparents in sunny Hawaii. The connection with singing slaves? A shared belief in what Obama called “God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation—a belief that there are better days ahead.” Yes, the brutalized black slaves of racist antebellum America were looking forward to the glorious white-imperialist rape of Southeast Asia when their faith in “better days” would find glorious realization in the napalming of Vietnamese children, the images of which shocked Martin Luther King, Jr. into denouncing the Vietnam war in strident and forceful terms."

And then we come to a litmus test, the OIL fixation in the Middle East where Obama proudly supports US imperialism:
"Never mind Obama’s “mush-mouthed” (Glen Ford and Peter Gamble, “Obama Mouths Mush on War,” Black Commentator, December 1, 2005) pronouncements on the illegal, racist, and imperialist invasion and occupation of Iraq. Obama’s handlers and supporters place considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois has voiced a “consistent position against the war” and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama has publicly questioned the Bush administration’s case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his “antiwar position” shows that the supposedly “pragmatic” and “non-ideological” Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire. In Obama’s carefully crafted rhetoric, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) has been a “strategic blunder” on the part of an essentially benevolent nation state. Given his presidential ambitions, it is unthinkable for him to acknowledge the invasion’s status as a great international transgression that is consistent with the United States’ long record of imperial criminality. It is equally unimaginable for him to acknowledge that the war expressed Washington’s drive to deepen its control of strategic petroleum resources—an ambition in direct opposition to the alleged U.S. goals of encouraging Iraqi freedom and exporting democracy."

"In a recent address designed to display his foreign policy bona fides, Obama showed his continuing willingness to take seriously the claim that OIL was an effort to “impose democracy” on Iraq, even faulting the Bush administration for acting in Iraq on the basis of unrealistic “dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government” (Obama, “A Way Forward in Iraq,” speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs [CCGA], November 22, 2006). "

"Consistent with his denial and embrace of Washington’s imperial ambitions, Obama has refused to join genuinely antiwar forces in calling for a rapid and thorough withdrawal of troops and an end to the occupation of Iraq. In a critical November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama’s call for “a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq” included repeated references to the need to “defeat” the “insurgency”—a goal that means continuation of the war. As commentators Ford and Gamble noted in a critical analysis of Obama’s CFR address: “In essence all Obama wants from the Bush regime is that it fess up to having launched the war based on false information and to henceforth come clean with the Senate on how it plans to proceed in the future. Those Democrats who want to dwell on the past—the actual genesis and rationale for the war and the real reasons for its continuation—should be quiet. Obama and many of his colleagues are more interested in consulting the Bush men on the best way to ‘win’ the war than in effecting an American withdrawal at any foreseeable time.” "

"Obama’s November speech to the CCGA advocates a vaguely timed Iraq “scenario” in which “U.S. forces” might remain in the occupied state for an “extended period of time.” Obama advances a “reduced but active [U.S. military] presence” that “protect[s] logistical supply points” and “American enclaves like the Green Zone” (site of one of the largest and most heavily militarized imperial “embassies” in history) while “send[ing] a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in the region.” U.S. troops “remaining in Iraq” will “act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists.” This is part of what Obama meant when he told a fawning David Brooks that (in Brooks’s approving language) “the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq” (David Brooks, “Run, Barack, Run,” New York Times, October 19, 2006). Never mind that the recent mid-term elections and a mountain of polling data show that the majority of Americans support rapid U.S. withdrawal, as do the vast majority of the Iraqi people—the purported beneficiaries of Cheney’s “dreams of democracy.” "

"The only polling data that Obama referenced in his CCGA speech and in the foreign policy chapter of his recent book is meant to illustrate what he considers to be the real danger in the wake of the OIL fiasco: that Americans are leaning dangerously towards “isolationism” and thus turning their backs on the noble superpower’s global “responsibilities.” "

"At one point in his CCGA oration, Obama had the audacity to say the following in support of his claim that U.S. citizens support “victory” in Iraq: “The American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah.” "

"This was a spine-chilling selection of locales. Fallujah was the site for a colossal U.S. war atrocity. Crimes included the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the targeting of ambulances and hospitals, and the practical leveling of an entire city—in April and November 2004. The town was designated for destruction as an example of the awesome state terror promised to those who dared to resist U.S. power. Not surprisingly, Fallujah is a leading symbol of U.S. imperialism in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is a deeply provocative and insulting place for Obama to choose to highlight American sacrifice and “resolve” in the occupation of Iraq."

"Likewise, Obama also praised U.S. occupation soldiers for “performing their duty with bravery, with brilliance, and without question” (CCGA speech). It’s hard to determine which is more disturbing in this comment: Obama’s blindness (intentional or not) to the important and welcome fact that many troops do in fact strongly question the war or his upholding of the unquestioning execution of frankly criminal military orders as a good thing."

The article concludes:
"Consistent with his secret identity as a corporate “player,” Silverstein notes, Obama assiduously supported the ethanol-promoting objectives of the Illinois-based firm Archer-Daniels Midland, which has provided him with private jets on at least two occasions. He has also defended the interests of Illinois’ gigantic electrical firm Exelon, America’s leading nuclear plant operator and a company that has given more than $74,000 to his campaigns. The slim chance that Obama might ever choose “starry eyed idealism”—Silverstein’s lobbyist-informant’s way of describing the elevation of peace and justice over the imperatives of Empire & Inequality, Inc.—has probably become thinner now that Obama has recently joined (thanks largely to his latest book contract) the millionaires’ club. "

3. Barack Obama's Crown Dynasty Connection, 2/24/07 at
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/76429/index.php
The Crown Dynasty, which is among the financial supporters of Barack Obama, is described as follows (to be short, a war profiteer):
"In its 1980 edition, Everybody’s Business: An Almanac (by Milton Moskowitz, Michael Katz and Robert Levering) made the following reference to the Crown family of Chicago ’s history of making money from General Dynamics’ weapons manufacturing activity:"

“General Dynamics, more than any other aerospace company, is dependent on the Pentagon; government defense contracts account for two-thirds of their sales…The power behind the scenes is Henry Crown, a Chicago financier and one of the richest, but least known, men in the country. A group headed by Crown, who was 83 in 1980, owns about 20% of the company. His associates, who sit on the General Dynamics board with him, are his son, Lester Crown, and Chicago industrialist Nathan Cummings, founder of Consolidated Foods…”

"After Henry Crown's death, General Dynamics sold its F-16 fighter jet production unit and the Crown family reduced its ownership stake in General Dynamics from 20% to 8%. But, according to the General Dynamics web site at http://www.generaldynamics.com/, in 2005 "General Dynamics Combat Systems” was “becoming the world's preferred supplier of land and amphibious combat systems development, production and support;" and "its product line” included “a full spectrum of armored vehicles, light wheeled reconnaissance vehicles, suspensions, engine transmissions, guns and ammunition handling systems, turret drive systems, and reactive armor and ordnance."

"The General Dynamics web site also indicated in 2005 that members of the Crown family like Henry Crown & Company President James Crown and Henry Crown & Company Chairman Lester Crown still sat on the General Dynamics corporate board in 2005—between retired Pentagon officials (like former U.S. Under-Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology Paul Kaminski, former U.S. Naval Chief of Naval Operations Jay Johnson, former U.S. Army Chief of Staff John Keane, Retired U.S. General George Joulwan and former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Lester Lyles) and a former Royal Navy Vice-Admiral for the UK Ministry of Defense named Robert Walmsley."

"A 2003 press release of the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems business unit in St. Petersburg, Florida also noted that it had formed "a strategic alliance with Aeronautics Defense Systems, Ltd.," an Israeli firm based in Yavne. Aeronautics Defense Systems Ltd. is the firm that developed the Unmanned Multi-Application System (UMASa) aerial surveillance tool which the Israeli military uses to "provide a real-time 'bird's eye view' of the surveillance area to combatant commanders and airborne command posts." According to then-Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the agreement between General Dynamics and Aeronautics Defense Systems to bring together "both companies' state-of-the art technologies in defense and homeland security" was "additional proof of the technological and commercial benefits that alliances between industries from the U.S. and Israel can produce."

"From its investments in Pentagon war contractors like General Dynamics and U.S. real estate, the Crown family has accumulated a family fortune of $3.6 billion, according to a 2004 Forbes magazine estimate. The Jerusalem Post also noted in its February 27, 2005 issue that “the Crown family of Chicago ” is also “well-known for its support of sectarian Jewish causes.” In addition, long-time General Dynamics board member Lester Crown was also a member of the Advisory board of Medis Technologies, a joint venture business partner of Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. in recent years. "

And so, Mr. Da Costa, we, the supporters of the two peace parties on the California ballot, Peace & Freedom and the Green Party, and the very active supporters of your affordable housing petition, must ask the old labor question, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON? Playing the color card was Willie Brown's game, while he sang the company tune of the real estate gentrification gang, of which Lennar Corporation is a part. It is the class struggle that is primary, and that is why I am voting Peace & Freedom.

The Chronicle does not need the permission of Barack Obama to endorse him. I do not think for a moment Barack Obama put any value on the Chronicle endorsement. As you know - already in the Bay Area most people - especially the young across party lines voted for Barack Obama in large measure.

I want proof of large contributions in the thousands from sources close to Nancy Pelosi and scumbags like her. There is no proof anywhere that Lennar made contributions in the thousands to the Obama campaign.

Your other materials are shallow and points in the direction of a deep bias for Barack Obama through stupid inference.

My point was simple the man will not tolerate lobbyists - the man has said many times he will NOT take large contributions. The man believes in a Clean Slate and will not tolerate politics as usual in Washington DC.

Anyone can endorse Baraka Obama - that endorsement is on the face value.

I find it comical that you have such fanatics that do not know how to conduct their basic research. I find no substance but a lot of diatribe in quoting drab articles and make no sense - much less good political sense.