CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their contributions under fake names that look like they were written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida
Obama is really ARAB-AMERICAN October 7, 2008
Obama is really ARAB-AMERICAN
By Kenneth E. Lamb
Sen. Obama’s autobiography is filled with “composite” characters, rearranged timelines, and fantasy events that never occurred. I read that twice in the Washington Post – read Richard Cohen’s columns of Jan. 1, 2008, and March 27, 2007, for yourself.
There are more articles than that, by more authors than just Mr. Cohen, but I wanted to get started by saying that what follows isn’t just something I’m pulling out of thin air. What follows is serious, documented, and not at all what those who want to write history about the election of the first so-called “African-American” president, want in the least to admit is true – and why its truth matters more than their desire to ignore the truth for the sake of their desire to write history.
While his shrill wife objects, the truth is that Sen. Obama’s life, as he wrote about himself in his autobiography, is, in fact, nothing but a fairy tale. Again, don’t take my word for it – read Mr. Cohen’s, and others, articles about it.
If what Mr. Cohen writes are truths, then what Mr. Obama wrote are lies. It’s just as simple as that.
Yet there is not one word from the “Last Bastions of Accuracy” that comprise our first-tier information enterprises about the complete lack of integrity Sen. Obama shows with his fictional life history. He lies, but his lies are swept under the rug by a groupthink mentality that is so desperate to regain leadership positions – as opposed to actual leadership programs to earn those leadership positions – that it ignores the truth that Sen. Obama lies – about himself, about his life, about his actions – and even about his racial composition.
I researched what follows for a NY daily of international reputation. It wasn’t what I thought I’d find. I documented it, presented it to the Washington Bureau Chief, but was hardly surprised that it never saw ink. As you’ll see for yourself, this is the political equivalent of a nuclear bomb.
I must pause very briefly to note usage of the word Negro in what follows: In all academic studies of race, the proper scientific word for the ethnic composition I discuss is Negro. For any who scream racist at its mention, I say take it up with the scientific community. It’s not my word, it’s theirs. I am using it in its proper scientific context.
Why is the fact that Mr. Obama is only 6.25% African Negro not reported?
Because to acknowledge it is to report this devastating truth about him: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America’s first African-American president.
Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, you must be at least 1/8 of the descriptor, but for the sake of this article, I’ve converted it to a decimal fraction for easier comprehension. You must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is half the legal threshold.
Again, to let it sink in: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America’s first African-American president.
Yet claiming to be African-American is the soul and substance of his claim to fame. It is what he has used throughout his adult life to distinguish himself from other competitors. It is the ethnic identity he proclaims, and it is the ethnic identity he craves. Without it, he is just another mixed race Caucasian Arab with an African influence playing on his skin’s pigmentation.
But no matter what he craves, no matter what he has used to propel himself through life, no matter the racist presumption of seeing his skin and without question calling him black, the hard, cold, genetically inarguable reality remains: he is not an African-American.
Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming “America’s first African-American president” ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro – a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama’s great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator’s ethnic composition.).
That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side.
Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.
Sen. Obama could honestly say, “My father was African-American.” Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy “newspapers of record” factcheckers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also.
But it doesn’t work that way. Racist presumptions coupled with sloppy vetting don’t turn a lie into the truth.
Sen. Obama is one generation too far removed from the ethnic African Negro input to make the same claim as his father, Harvard’s Admission’s stamp of approval notwithstanding.
As you can see for yourself, Sen. Obama’s African-American ethnic claim, when properly researched and documented, is a lie.
The question no one wants to answer – particularly Mr. Obama and his supporters, is, “Why do you think he has an Arabic name? Why does his father have an Arabic name? Why does every ancestor on his father’s side have an Arabic name?”
The answer is obvious: They have Arabic names because his father’s side of the family tree is Arabic.
Need proof? Research the Kenyan records for yourself. You will find that his father was officially classified as “Arab African” by the Kenyan government.
But in America’s current political climate, that truth is heresy; that truth is “an inconvenient truth.” It is the political equivalent in our time to what Galileo’s scientific pronouncements were in his time: it is true, but nobody wants to know the truth because the lie is so much more comforting.
That is why detractors of this truth will do everything to denounce it, except submit to the discipline of actually researching it.
There’s a reason for that: it proves he is not sufficiently Negro to earn classification under American law as an African-American.
For Sen. Obama, telling the truth means he will give up all the accolades about being the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, an accolade that relies on a sleight-of-hand in job titling that changed the name of the top job from Editor to President.
If stated in its absolute truth, Mr. Obama was the second person of color to run the Review. He was beat to the Review’s top spot by a true African-American about 60 years before Mr. Obama showed up for classes.
Again, a very inconvenient truth.
That is devastating in itself. The further effect is that Mr. Obama would have to convince Americans still reeling from 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, that now is the time for America’s first Arab-American president.
We all know what chance that has of succeeding.
Of course, that would only happen if Mr. Obama told the truth about his racial composition. To tell the truth means Mr. Obama will have to admit that which he has never been forced to admit before, even in the face of the massive lies of his autobiography: Mr. Obama’s entire projection of who he is, and what he is, is a lie.
Mr. Obama would have to say to the world: “I am not what I’ve told you I am. I lied to you in my autobiography when I told you I am black. I lied to the Admission Committee at Harvard so I could get in. I lied to my constituents in Chicago so I could get elected to the State Senate. I lied to my constituents in Illinois so I could get elected to the US Senate. I lied to my supporters across America so I could be President.
“I have lied all during my life to play the race card, and use it, cynically, to advance myself by playing upon the racist presumption of Americans to accept, without question, that anyone of color is African-American. I lied to you, and you blindly accepted it, because of your own racist presumptions about color, and ethnic identity. I looked African-American, and your racist presumptions told you to believe it.”
Even as you read this, the overwhelming majority of you will continue to believe it. Even as you know the truth, you will block the truth out of your mind, because you are bred to accept the racist presumption of color, and ethnic identity.
And so many of you reading this will create incredible mental gymnastics, telling yourself why the truth doesn’t matter. You will lie to yourself because you want to believe the lie, and then curse the American body politic for being built on lies.
You will do this all while failing to tell yourself the truth that it is your lies, as much as any other lies, that are killing the body. You will commit the very action that you curse as the cause of America’s demise, because you are jaded beyond recognizing in yourself the very same disease you so freely condemn in others.
Here is the truth about Mr. Obama’s name, and his father’s ancestors:
True Negro tribal members of western Kenya where his father was born have Christian names, not Arabic. His father’s decision to name him with an Arabic name is a matter of his father establishing his ethnic identity in Africa – it is done deliberately to separate him from the African tribes. He may live among them, but he is not one of them. His father’s message is that he is Arabic, not Negro.
Many will find these truths unsettling. I’m often asked, “But I thought his father was Kenyan. How could Mr. Obama not be African-American, how could his ethnic composition be so Arabic?”
The definitive clue to that answer is to look at his name, his father’s name, and the names of all his ancestors on his father’s side. They are all Arabic.
Researching his roots reveal that on his father’s side, he is descended from Arab slave traders. They operated under an extended grant from Queen Victoria, who gave them the right to continue the slave trade in exchange for helping the British defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region. Funny how circular is history; now the British again face the Madhi Army, albeit this time Shiite, not Sunni, as in nineteenth century Sudan.
But telling America’s black community that while their ancestors were breaking the shackles of slavery, Mr. Obama’s ancestors were placing those shackles upon their wrists would hardly play as an Oprah Winfrey best-seller.
Being the son of a poor Kenyan goat-herder plays much better than being the son of a highly placed Arab-African who operated at the top of the Kenyan government following his education at Columbia. You see, even the way he portrays his father is a lie.
We need to linger for a moment on Ms. Winfrey, and her support for Mr. Obama. A very serious problem arises with Ms. Winfrey because of her double-standards: Does everyone remember how she went ballistic when a person whose book she endorsed turned out to be dishonest about what he said about his life in his book?
Of course you do. She pulled the plug on him and forced him into a highly publicized “Mea Culpa” of near groveling for her forgiveness. She publicly humiliated him, and would actually twist-up into contorted faces, visibly hot with anger.
Why then does Ms. Winfrey operate with a double standard for Mr. Obama? She knows his so-called autobiography is replete with “composites” – an Orwellian word for fictional characters that never existed but in Mr. Obama’s imagination, even though he addresses them in his autobiography as if they are real people. They aren’t; they are lies.
So are his timelines, chopped up and rearranged for Mr. Obama’s aggrandizement. And there are the complete lies about events he said specifically impacted his life – events that never occurred despite his writing that they did. They too are lies.
As I said, don’t take my word for it; read Mr. Cohen’s columns in the Washington Post for the details.
Why then does she not hold him to the same standards she held another author?
She doesn’t say, but the possibility that the reason is race-based is fair to ask. What Mr. Obama did is far beyond what the other author did. Why then, public humiliation for one, but campaign whistle-stops for the other?
Ms. Winfrey needs to tell us why. Her integrity is on the line.
Mr. Obama has struggled all his life trying to prove that he is black enough to be called black.
The truth is that if Mr. Obama is elected, his primary ethnic composition is Caucasian, but of course, that carries no cachet.
So if we look at his next predominant ethnic component, Mr. Obama would be America’s first Arab-American president. The truth is that his name says it all.
What amazes me more than anything else about Mr. Obama’s heritage is the unwillingness of anyone in the journalism profession to want to know the truth. While all this is easily documentable, it is so radioactive that no one wants to be on the receiving end of the racist charges that will bombard whoever broaches the truth.
It is another example of how America’s political system is further degenerating into fairy tales and lies. Torpedo boat attacks in Viet Nam, WMD’s in Iraq, Sen. Obama is African-American; we shamelessly lie to ourselves to rationalize whatever we want to believe.
But I wrote this tonight because I’m tired of reading about “integrity” written by those who have none themselves. They know Mr. Obama’s autobiography is filled with lies from start to finish, they know he lies about what his operatives do (the Apple advertisement knock-off against Hills immediately comes to mind), and for those who circulated my research, they know he is not legally black.
But for those longing for Camelot, for those who feel a good story trumps the truth, for those who are so jaded about others that they now live as those they profess to hate, for those who are terrorized by the racist attacks these truths bring, the integrity of Sen. Obama doesn’t matter.
Because their own integrity doesn’t matter to them either.
Why am I writing this? Maybe I just want a clear conscience, clear that the research I did didn’t get buried because the people who received it are afraid to tell the truth in the face of Sen. Obama’s frenzied celebrity status. I’ve been in the business since 1972 – 35 years – writing and researching for people like the NY Times, the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times, The Jewish Information Network, so I know what it’s like on the newsroom floor right now. Nobody can dare speak against Sen. Obama without generating at least a flickering flame of doubt about his or her own sanity – not to mention the knee-jerk reaction that questioning him is indicative of some deep, dark, racist agenda spurring those questions on.
And truth? I ask as Pilate asked, “What is truth?” Who cares about truth? This is history; this is the first time ever in America – why let truth get in the way of chronicling history? (. . . I wrote facetiously.)
Maybe I just want to know that if he gets the presidency, he will get it honestly – if this is general knowledge, and he overcomes it. Maybe I’m just tired of presidents who lie to us; and in this case, I already know Mr. Obama will lie to us, just as he lied in his autobiography, and on so many other occasions documented by Mr. Cohen, by Michael Dobbs, the Washington Post’s factchecker, and so many others.
And maybe I’m tired of us lying to ourselves. Mr. Obama is what we’ve lied ourselves into believing he is.
Maybe by saying that I know he lied, and saying that we lied to ourselves, I will say after he is elected that nobody has any right to complain about him lying after he takes the oath of office, when everybody knew he lied about so many other things – when we lied to ourselves about so many other things, so very long before that.
Technorati Tags: Obama
GAFFNEY: Obama’s sleazy friends October 7, 2008
GAFFNEY: Obama’s sleazy friends
Frank Gaffney
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Presidential candidate Barack Obama (left) has returned more than $150,000 in direct and indirect donations from Antoin “Tony” Rezko (above), a longtime Obama campaign fundraiser who now faces extortion and money-laundering charges in federal court. (Associated Press)
COMMENTARY:
Suddenly, the presidential campaigns are addressing an issue that should have been at the forefront of this year’s election long ago. Call it “characters count.” We know people – especially public figures – by the company they keep. And we need to know much more about, to put it charitably, the characters that have figured prominently for years in Barack Obama’s life.
Over the weekend, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin brought the issue to the fore by observing caustically that the Democrats’ would-be commander in chief has “palled around with terrorists.”
The Obama campaign immediately deployed talking points and a television ad conjuring up Charles Keating, a one-time friend and supporter of John McCain who was a driving force behind the 1980s-era savings and loan debacle.
The problem for Barack Obama is that convicted – and unrepentant – terrorist William Ayers is not the only person with a profound animosity toward this country with whom he has “palled around” since his youth. It is not, as the Democratic candidate maintains, a distraction or a sign of desperation on the part of his opponents that serious questions are finally being asked about the nature and the implications of the judgment he has exhibited in the past – and may exhibit in the future – as evidenced by his myriad and profoundly troubling personal ties. That is especially the case since so little is known about the junior senator from Illinois and what he really means by “change.”
Take for example, the formative influence in Barack Obama’s youth that he calls in his memoirs simply “Frank.” As it happens, the Frank in question was Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known Stalinist communist in Hawaii whose attachment to the Soviet Union and hatred for an America as racist and imperialistic caused the FBI to keep him under surveillance for at least 19 years. Evidently, young Mr. Obama and his father spent hours in the company of this mentor, presumably soaking in not only his alcohol but his virulent hostility toward America.
We now know a similar view was espoused routinely from the pulpit of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Obama maintains he somehow had not heard any of Mr. Wright’s loathing of this country – epitomized by the latter’s notorious plea cursing America in God’s name. When confronted with evidence of it, he could not bring himself to disassociate from his pastor of 20 years until that tie properly threatened to scupper his candidacy during the Democratic primaries.
Thanks to the intrepid Stanley Kurtz, we also have learned of Mr. Obama’s longstanding ties to another fixture of the radical left, one emblematic of its enmity toward an America seen as oppressive and racist: the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (better known as ACORN). Mr. Obama trained ACORN personnel, worked with its activists on the group’s (often problematic) voter-registration efforts and consulted with its most aggressive operatives. Pre-eminent among the latter has been one Madeline Talbott.
Mr. Obama also secured, through his position on the Woods Fund and Chicago Annenberg Challenge boards (he served on the former with Bill Ayers), funding for ACORN’s intimidation campaigns against banks that failed to make subprime style loans to otherwise ineligible would-be homeowners. As Mr. Kurtz put it in the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0), “It would be tough to find an ‘on the ground’ community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.”
To the extent that the economic effects of the subprime meltdown makes Charles Keating’s S&L raid on the Treasury look like a church social, Mr. Obama should be careful about casting stones in that direction.
Even more worrisome from a national security perspective are some of Mr. Obama’s ties to prominent figures in the world of radical Islam. These include another racist black nationalist, Don Warden, who converted to Islam and changed his name to Khalid al-Mansour. According to Kenneth Timmerman in Newsmax, Mr. al-Mansour has worked closely to advance the influence operations in America of one of Saudi Arabia’s most insidious royal billionaires, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
The latter has appreciated for some time the help America’s higher education institutions could give his Islamist “soft jihad” – the effort to legitimate and insinuate Islamic law (Shariah) into this country.
Toward that end, he has bought leading Middle East studies programs, notably at Georgetown and Harvard University, and reportedly helped advance Mr. Obama’s candidacy to the latter’s law school.
Then, there is the case of Rashid Khalidi, a former colleague of Mr. Obama’s at the University of Chicago and now a professor at Columbia. Mr. Khalidi is an enthusiastic supporter of the Palestinians, fervent critic of Israel (which he calls a destructive “racist” state), an admirer of suicide bombers and a driving force behind the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). This so-called pro-Palestinian “community organization” in Chicago is another beneficiary of the largess of the Obama-Ayers team at the Woods Fund and promotes an agenda that would horrify many of Mr. Obama’s Jewish supporters.
Tonight’s town-hall style debate between Barack Obama and John McCain offers the public an opportunity to explore a basic question: Have these and similar influences on Sen. Obama’s life in fact been influential – and, if so, will they translate into personnel, policies and practices that are inimical to our country, its people and security if he is elected?
We have a need to know. Characters count.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.
Technorati Tags: Obama
The forbidden skit: Full transcript and screenshots of SNL’s Soros/Sandler bailout satire October 7, 2008
The forbidden skit: Full transcript and screenshots of SNL’s
Soros/Sandler bailout satire

NBC is furiously erasing its tracks. Any attempts to upload the forbidden SNL bailout skit skewering George Soros and his left-wing subprime schemer friends Herbert and Marion Sandler will likely be squashed. So, I transcribed the whole comedy sketch for you and provided screenshots for the 7-minute video that has disappeared from NBC and Hulu. (You can see it as of 1:08am Eastern here on YouTube, though I doubt it will last long. Pat Dollard’s blog has posted the full clip on its server. Thanks to Ms. Underestimated for the .wmv file.)
The hits on the Sandlers ( “People who should be shot”) and Soros ( “Owner, Democratic Party”) occur near the end of the skit.
***
Announcer: Next on C-SPAN, President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Congressman Barney Frank appeared earlier today at a joint press conference to comment on the financial bailout measure just passed by Congress.

Bush: Good afternoon. On Friday, this Congress was able to put aside its differences and come together in the bipartisan spirit to pass legislation that was absolutely vital to ensure world confidence in our financial markets and prevent a collapse of credit which would have had a catastrophic effect on our economy. Approving this bill was the right thing to do and I commend our legislators for their actions. Speaker Pelosi.

Pelosi: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, applaud Congress for this vote and add that without your vote, this bill might well have failed. Even though this crisis was 100 percent the fault of your administration and it’s insane economic policies. And though I’m sure you’ll agree, you will go down in history as our worst president ever. This one time, you did manage to not screw things up and I wanna acknowledge that.
Bush: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I was glad to do it.

Frank: Let me add, Mr. President, I was also pleased to see that for the first time during your eight years in office and possibly your entire life, you were able to demonstrate leadership, not to mention simple human decency.
Bush: You bet, you bet.
Pelosi: Let’s not forget, Mr. President, that it was the Democrats that first sounded the alarm about the risky mortgage loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraging and that your party resisted all our efforts to rein them in.
Bush: W-w-w-w-ait. Wasn’t it my administration that warned about the problem six years ago? And it was the Democrats that refused to listen?!
Pelosi: What? Who told you that? That’s crazy. It was completely the other way around.
Frank: Actually. This time, he’s sort of right.

Pelosi: Shhh! Don’t say anything. He doesn’t know. Now, there was another point we wanted to make here and you are welcome to stay.
Bush: Thank you. I’d like that.
Pelosi: Back there would be better.
Bush: No problem.
Pelosi: In the past few weeks, this debate has focused on the wisdom of government intervention in the housing markets. What hasn’t been talked about is that behind every home foreclosure, there is a story of real suffering by real Americans. People who, but for the grace of God, could be you or your neighbors. And today, we’d like to introduce you to some of them.
Michael McCune and Jerome Gant, two ordinary Americans whose only crime was to play by the rules and who now find themselves facing eviction from their homes.
Please tell us your story.

Michael: Uh, well, to start. I still don’t understand how this happened to me. I mean, I fit all the requirements for a subprime mortgage. Uh, no credit history.
Jerome: Same here.
Michael: No job.
Jerome: Me neither.
Michael: Minor criminal record.
Jerome: Ditto.
Michael: Dishonorable discharge from the Army.
Jerome: Yeah, I got mine right here.
Michael: Uh, drug problems.
Jerome: Me, too.
Michael: Uh, alcohol problems.
Jerome: Guilty as charged.
Michael: Gambling addiction.
Jerome: Yeah.
Michael: Pregnant girlfriend — actually, two pregnant girlfriends.
Jerome: Just the one.
Well, I was talked into a balloon mortgage. Where you move into the house. And then you get to live in it. And you don’t have to, like, pay money or anything to the bank. But then later, you do.

Jerome: Yeah, what up with dat?
Michael: I mean, you could say I’m a double victim, since I never had a job and now I don’t have a home!
Jerome: Well, I’m a triple victim, because now I’ve been charged with arson for allegedly setting fire to the house they evicted me from.

Pelosi: You are both in our thoughts. (Hugs Michael. Won’t hug Jerome.)

This is Greg Phillips and his wife, Judy. How did the housing collapse affect you?
My wife and I bought two dozen time-share condos which we heavily mortgaged in order to flip them 6 months later for triple the purchase price and then the real estate market tanked.
Pelosi: And you were doing this through…
Judy: Misrepresentation.
Pelosi: No, I meant, did you do this out of your home…

Judy: Out of greed.
Greg: Yes, out of greed.
Pelosi: And now, with the real estate market down, you’re stuck with two dozen time-share condos that you can’t sell…
Judy: Unless we can sell them for, like, 10 percent more than we paid.
Pelosi: So, you can’t make your mortgage payments.
Greg: Not without selling the boat. Or putting off essential cosmetic surgery.

Pelosi: And who is this? This is Crystal, our surrogate mother.
Crystal: Waaaazup?
Judy: You see, I can’t have children…without getting bad stretch marks.
Pelosi: You are also in our thoughts and prayers.

This is Herbert and Marion Sandler. Tell us your story.

Herbert Sandler: My wife and I had a company which aggressively marketed subprime mortgages, and then bundled them into securities to sell to banks such as Wachovia. Today, our portfolio is worth almost nothing — though at one point, it was worth close to $19 billion.
Pelosi: My God. I am so sorry. Were you able to sell it for anything.
Herbert Sandler: Yes, for $24 billion.
Pelosi: I see. So in that sense, you’re not so to speak, actual victims.

Herbert Sandler (chuckling): Oh, no. That would be Wachovia Bank.
Marion Sandler: Actually, we’ve done quite well. We’re very happy.
Herbert Sandler: We were sort of wondering why you asked us to come today.
Marion Sandler: Anyway, it’s delightful to see you, Nancy. (Kisses Pelosi.)

Herbert Sandler: And thank you, Congressman Frank, as well as many Republicans for helping block
Congressional oversight of our corrupt activities.
Frank: Not at all. Let me say something else here. You know, many of you are probably wondering, “Where will that $700 billion missing from our economy go?” To help answer that, let me introduce our good friend, billionaire hedge fund manager, George Soros.
Soros: So what became of zat $700 beellion dollars? Well, basically it belongs to me, now. Actually, it’s not even dollars anymore, but Swiss franks, since I have taken a short position against the dollar.

Bush: Oh, really. That’s not good.
Soros: You’re not to speak. I don’t like you.
Yes, uh, zee U.S. dollar will have to be devalued sometime next week. Either Tuesday or Wednesday. I haven’t decided wheech yet. It will depend on how I feel.

Frank: Thank you very much, Mr. Soros. You’re a great man.
Soros: Could I just add that even though you know what’s coming, you won’t be able to do anything about it.
Pelosi: You’re a wise man, Mr. Soros. And a powerful one.
Frank: You are better than us.

Soros (pointing to Anne Hathaway character): Your wife is physically attractive. Sell her to me, please.
Greg and Judy: Sure. Ok.

Announcer: We’ll now leave this press conference and join a discussion of Sen. McCain’s foreign policy positions already in progress. Gov. Palin is about to say something embarrassing.
Technorati Tags: Soros, Pelosi, Sandler, SNL, Barney Frank


