The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000 words
by hwc, Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 05:51:54 AM EST
The question is whether Rezko did a $925,000 favor for Obama by paying for part of his home? A picture is worth a thousand words, so take a look at this NBC news feature with extensive photos of the property:
1) As you can clearly see from the overhead photos in the video, this was clearly NOT an "adjacent" piece of property. This was quite obviously the yard for the Obama house. The only access to the Rezko property is from Obama's parcel. The intent here was clearly for Rezko to purchase the land and continue making it available for the exclusive use of the Obama family. A $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator.
2) Why did Obama buy a strip of "Rezko" land and build a fence? Simple. Obama knew that eventually somebody would photograph the property and the sham nature of the arrangement would be instantly obvious. Thus, he had to do something to give the appearance of Rezko's land actually being separate from the Obama house. Thus, building a fence (with a gate providing the only access). Obviously, the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land and a fence on the original lot line would have been absurd. Pause the video and note the SUV parked on Obama's driveway immediate to the rigth of the fence (the new lot line). This indicates that, initially, Obama's driveway was actually sited on "Rezko's" piece of the property...a strong indication that Rezko intended the use of the land as a gift to Obama. To even site a plausible fence required transfering part of "Rezko's" land to Obama, even though Obama already had full use of, and was maintaining "Rezko's land.
3) Rezko has since transfered title to his land to his attorney. Is this one of the land transactions that landed Rezko in jail yesterday?
Why is this important? Obama has long suggested that voters should ignore his lack of experience and consider only his superior "judgement". The entire rationale for his qualification to be President is his "judgement". Does this sham property purchase, regardless of its legality, seem like good "judgement" to you?