Friday, 30 November 2007

MEDIA FOR TRUTH - Brigitte Gabriel

Are You Interested in the Truth About Islamofascists?

What is SO amazing is the number of people in North America who have gone through our educational system who believe SOUND BYTES based ONLY on FEELINGS which they probably got from other sound bytes!

I thought our system was supposed to teach how to differentiate truth from fiction? Or does it any more? I hope that you are a truth-seeker.

However if you are an Western-Ostrich [anyone who lives in the West and normally buries your head in the sand] thinking life will work out. It will just keep on going like it always has!

PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE without checking some of the EVIDENCE shown here. IT IS REPORTED that there were those, JEWISH and OTHERWISE, IN NAZI GERMANY, WHO HAD THE SAME FEELINGS AS YOU.


You may think that NOTHING HAS BEEN BOMBED in the West for a long time now. The World Trade Centre was a fluke. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN, THEN LOOK AT THESE VIDEOS FROM PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW THAT NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-8fa9yKQeTY

http://americancongressfortruth.com/

http://youtube.com/watch?v=X0gBTEwATwU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-sL54rHPwqA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PHYyu4vsZ6Y

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dgqXYUs3h7Q

Radical Islam's War Against The West

Videos about Radical Islam's War Against the West.
Will we Believe This Before It is Too Late?

Info about Radical Islam's War Against The West

There ONLY is ONE side when it comes to Israel. This does not mean Israel is perfect or that you or I are perfect. For some reason that comes with being human. However Israel is trying to protect its very existent from thousands if not millions of Islamofascists who will only be satisfied when they are driven into the sea or the ground or into whatever happens to be drivable! Most newspapers in Canada are EXTREMELY BIASSED against Jews and Israel. Check out www.honestreporting.ca. The very fact that people who attack Israel with suicide bombs and other modes of death to innocent peoples, are called ‘militants’ rather than terrorists is the worst kind of political correctness. Terrorists are terrorists! Terrorists are people who attack innocent civilians to achieve their own ends.

Perhaps you have never heard of Pallywood? Or Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the west . You can find that last one at www.obsessionthemovie.com or you can go to Youtube and see it in various places such as http://youtube.com/watch?v=olcmuyQr78I.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1niVxJqFShU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wsr1919AlXE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gypMmfH_yyI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lioOCOalPao
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Bev054pNzI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1bJE6bIiXps

Info about Radical Islam’s War Against The West
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J61r-NRHPtQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3jwL_GefwUE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l17LmCEp1QI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IYR5F3mbQ-4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TLXZpOG4VCI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QDPzPgkr4vk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lioOCOalPao

Will YOU believe the truth?

Monday, 12 November 2007

Imam Declares Muslim Plan to Take Over America

D.C. Imam Declares Muslim Plan to Take Over America

The WorldNetDaily story below reveals that Jihad has many tentacles in addition to physical violence, with "Cultural Jihad" being a prominent one, and that these tentacles are increasingly spreading throughout America.

When I am asked "Can the rising tide of Islamofascism be stopped?", here's how I respond:

When Muslims who advocate or support Jihad, in all its forms, are convinced America has the moral courage to rise and stand against them...

When those Muslims are convinced America has the will to fight back and will do what is necessary to stop them in their tracks...

When those Muslims are convinced Americans will renounce the political correctness that aids and abets Islamofascism and provides cover to those who advocate the overthrow of our government...

And when those Muslims witness what the "sleeping giant" called America can and will do when roused to defend itself...

THEN we will begin to turn the tide of Islamofascism.

This is why I founded ACT for America. This is why we need each and every one of you to do what you can to help us build the citizen action network that will demonstrate, both to the Islamic world and to our own government, that we are steadfast in our conviction to rise in defense of our security, our liberty and our values.

Brigitte Gabriel



GLOBAL JIHAD
D.C. imam declares Muslim takeover-plan
Washington-based cleric working toward 'Islamic State of North America' by 2050



Posted: November 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Logo of D.C. imam's movement

A Washington, D.C., imam states explicitly on the website for his organization that he is part of a movement working toward replacement of the U.S. government with "the Islamic State of North America" by 2050.

With branches in Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and Philadelphia, the group As-Sabiqun – or the Vanguard – is under the leadership of Abdul Alim Musa in the nation's capital.

Musa's declaration of his intention to help lead a takeover of America was highlighted by noted Islam observer Robert Spencer on his website Jihad Watch.

Spencer told WND that figures such as Musa should not be ignored, "Not because they have the power to succeed, but because they may commit acts of violence to achieve their purpose."

Musa's website declares: "Those who engage in this great effort require a high level of commitment and determination. We are sending out a call to the believers: Join with us in this great struggle to change the world!"

Musa launched the group in the early 1990s at the Al-Islam mosque in Philadelphia. His group says it is influenced by the writings and life work of Muslim thinkers and leaders such as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Iranian revolutionary Ayatollah Khomenei.

The writings of Al-Banna and Qutb figured prominently in al-Qaida's formation.

Musa's organization says its leadership "has delivered numerous speeches in the United States and abroad, contributing their analyses and efforts to solve contemporary problems in the Muslim world and in urban America."

Abdul Alim Musa

"The paramount goal of the movement is the establishment of Islam as a complete way of life in America," the group declares. "This ultimate goal is predicated on the belief – shared by many Muslims worldwide – that Islam is fully capable of producing a working and just social, political, economic order."

The groups says it does not "advocate participation in the American political process as an ideal method for advancing Islamic issues in the U.S.; instead, it believes in a strong and active outreach to the people of the U.S."

Spencer told WND he does not know of any direct influence Musa has on prominent Muslim leaders or on U.S. policymakers, but he says it's "unclear how much 'mainstream' Muslim leaders harbor similar hopes – because no one dares question them about it."

As WND reported, the founder of the leading Islamic lobby group CAIR, the Council on Islamic-American Relations, reportedly told a group of Muslims in California they are in America not to assimilate but to help assert Islam's rule over the country. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper also has said, in a newspaper interview, he hopes to see an Islamic government over the U.S. some day, brought about not by violence but through "education."

In London last summer, as WND reported, Muslims gathered in front of the London Central Mosque to applaud fiery preachers prophesying the overthrow of the British government – a future vision that encompasses an Islamic takeover of the White House and the rule of the Quran over America.

Musa says he wants to avoid what he calls an "absolutist" outlook on "the advancement of Muslims."

His group's philosophy is to stress unity between the various streams of Islam "in the attainment of common goals."

Although As-Sabiqun is a Sunni movement, it has publicly voiced support for Shia movements and organizations such as the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran and the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah, which waged war on Israel in the summer of 2006.

Musa, the group says, repeatedly has "stressed that the tendency by some Muslims to focus on the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam at this juncture in history is counterproductive to the goals of the Islamic movement as a whole."

The group says it encourages social-political advancement concurrent with a program of spiritual and moral development according to the Quran and Sunnah, compilations of stories from the life of Islam's prophet Muhammad.

The group says it has a six-point plan of action which is implemented at each location where a branch of the movement is established.

  • Establishing a mosque "as a place to worship Allah in congregation and as a center of spiritual and moral training."
  • "Calling the general society" to embrace Islam.
  • Establishing a full-time school "that raises children with a strong Islamic identity so they can, as future Islamic leaders, effectively meet and deal with the challenges of growing up in the West."
  • Establishing businesses to "make the movement financially stable and independent."
  • Establishing "geographical integrity by encouraging Muslims of the community to live in close proximity" to the mosque.
  • Establishing "social welfare institutions to respond to the need for spiritual and material assistance within the community as well as the general society."

In addition to daily classes, each mosque in the movement "also provides youth mentorship, marriage counseling, a prison outreach program, and employment assistance for ex-convicts."

As-Sabiqun says its branch in Los Angeles "was instrumental in creating a free health clinic in cooperation with other Islamic groups. The headquarters branch in D.C. has developed scout programs for young members of the community."

The group says the inspiration for its name comes from Quran, 9:100:

"The vanguard (as-Sabiqun) of Islam – the first of those who forsook their homes, and of those who gave them aid, and also those who follow them in all good deeds – well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him: For them hath He prepared Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever: that is the supreme Felicity."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.

HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.


HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.

Tuesday, 23 October 2007

EVOLUTION IS not a Theory. It's IMPOSSIBLE! Or is it?

[Notice the 'evolutionary' bird? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okay, so someone morphed a dogbird! Well there IS a cat bird you know!]

EVOLUTION IS not a Theory. It's IMPOSSIBLE! Or is it?

The topic of evolution is interesting. The fundamental idea breaks Newton's second law of thermodynamics which basically states that all things deteriorate over time. Look in the mirror after 50 and you may notice. And yet radical evolutionists believe that life got better over time until 'us' evolved.

Of course there are some extreme animal-worshippers who seem to think that we are actually a step down in the chain and over time we will become extinct by natural selection. They believe this because 'animals are perfect and wonderful' and are 'never vicious nor wage wars'! Hah! They better look up the facts. Animals ARE CRUEL. They must eat to live and some must eat the ones that just ate to live! And what do you call of pack of wild dogs or wolves attacking their prey in order to eat? Tell the deer that there is no war. They really mean peace!

[More later about the illogical belief of evolution.] Oh it makes good sense. But it does not stand up to science fact and logic.

For now I will just list some thought-provokers.

This is an interesting website:
EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE

http://www.evolutionisimpossible.com/

I quote from the site and offer these links from that site.

"Evolution has been proven impossible in the areas of biology, chemistry, mathematics
and physics. Please review the many questions that science can't answer."

Interesting thoughts.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society:
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."


"The first question that must be answered is how the first cell came about[2]. Under a microscope the cell becomes a maze of magnificent complexity with amazing reproductive possibilities. Upon questioning, an evolutionary scientist will explain that the cell must have evolved from a simpler specimen to what it is today. There is no evidence supporting this “mini-cell” theory – no such thing has been found and there’s no proof that such a specimen could have survived. In Darwin’s Black Box[3], written by Michael Behe, the question of the existence of a prototype cell was explored and debunked. Without the first cell the Darwinian evolutionary theory collapses." (Behe, 1998)

Richard Dawkins disagrees with Monod and says “This belief that Darwinian evolution is 'random,' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth.” If evolution is not random, it must be calculated or ordered somehow. What or who is in charge of the evolutionary process? The bigger question is: what caused the evolutionary process to stop in birds and lizards? Apparently all the fish got The Memo that the evolutionary process has been completed and evolution is no longer necessary. (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker[5], 1996)

Darwin assumes the transformation of species from one to the other – fish to lizard, lizard to bird, eventually culminating with modern man. On its face, the argument looks and sounds like it would work. However, there are gaps in the graveyard. These gaps are unexplained and present major problems for the evolutionist community. Then there is the question of how the species evolved – was it random? Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod said “Chance alone is at the source…of all creation in the biosphere.” If there is no order then what caused different species to evolve? Why did the fish become a lizard since fish, evidently, survive just fine in the water? If evolution is random then why are fish not turning into lizards or lizards turning to birds – why have they stopped evolving? If evolution is for survival, then would not fish want to continue to evolve into lizards and lizards into birds? (Monod, Chance and Necessity: Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology[4], 1974)

"Questions That Science Can't Answer

Why are the Earth and its species beautiful?


The process of evolution begins with a single cell and works its way up to fish, lizards, etc. We have been told that the species decides which changes it wants to keep and which mutations to discard, so why would the first coral fish decide to stand out among the other fish?

Common sense says that the first multi-colored fish would be the easiest snack to spot among the predatory seaborne creatures, how would one bright fish survive among the other, dull-colored fish? The same hypothetical questions can be raised when discussing reptilian and mammalian species.

Deepak Chopra gracefully sums up the thought: "Beauty is everywhere in Nature, yet it serves no obvious purpose. Once a bird of paradise has evolved its incredibly gorgeous plumage, we can say that it is useful to attract mates. But doesn't it also attract predators, for we simultaneously say that camouflaged creatures like the chameleon survive by not being conspicuous. In other words, exact opposites are rationalized by the same logic. This is no logic at all. Non-beautiful creatures have survived for millions of years, so have gorgeous ones. The notion that this is random seems weak on the face of it."
You can read more of Deepak's "Gaps in Evolution" by going here.

How did the Earth come about?


Science has a theory known as the "Big Bang" theory and goes like this: there was matter compacted into a very condensed space and the "bang" was actually a rapid expansion of the matter over the span of the universe. Science tells us that the universe is still expanding; and the present expansion is proof that the Big Bang Theory is the cause of the earth.

Why is this theory invalid? First, one has to ask where the matter came from that expanded: was it created? How did the first bits of matter come into existence? Science can't answer this question - and never will because science demands a beginning and an end.

When did intelligence originate?


As one studies the evolution of species, a glaring gap screams out: when did intelligence originate? As the evolutionary process moved from amino acids to protein to cells to fish when did intelligence come into play? Are we to assume that intelligence came because of natural selection? It's hard to believe that the brain, the most advanced organism on earth, came about without a predecessor. Before the brain, what was there? What was the first specimen with intelligence?

If evolution is random, why is the fossil record lacking negative mutations? Shouldn’t mutations, if they are random, produce mutations that aren’t beneficial?


The fossil record, the only real "evidence" of evolution lays out the groundwork for the process of evolving from one species to the other. When studying the fossil record one question stands out: why do we not see any negative mutations in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be examples of negative mutations in the fossil record that show the "natural selection" process climbing the ladder towards the more evolved species; or are we to assume there were NO negative mutations throughout the entire process?

The word "mutation" in today's vocabulary carries a negative connotation because of the mutations we observe today: frogs with five legs, fruit flies with four sets of wings, etc. Biology tells us that mutants rarely live very long, and if they do survive long enough to reproduce their offspring rarely have the ability to procreate. Why are evolutionists overlooking the facts that biology has unearthed for us in regards to mutations?

Why are we no longer witnessing evolution?


Why do we not see half-lizard, half-bird creature walking around? Shouldn't we still be witnessing the process of evolution, if it is random? If evolution occurred wouldn't we see fish with legs?

Some species need multiple, spontaneous evolutions to survive - why have we never witnessed multiple mutations, much less a beneficial, spontaneous multi-mutation in any species?


There are many examples of species that would require multiple, simultaneous mutations to survive. The mutations that we have witnessed or reproduced are rarely translated as being beneficial to the specimen; the numbers of mutants that survive are much lower. We have never witnessed or reproduced multiple, simultaneous mutations – yet a gradual evolution from one specimen to another would require simultaneous mutations for the following specimens to survive.

The first animal that is a thorn in the evolutionists' side is the giraffe. We have provided a link so you can learn more about this creature and the problems it poses to the idea of gradual evolution: click here .

The second animal that leaves evolutionists scratching their head is the woodpecker – a common bird in the American Midwest. The skull of the woodpecker is the thickest skull in the animal kingdom relative to body weight. The tongue of the woodpecker “is in a class by itself. …Its tongue is long and slender… The tip is like a spearhead with a number of barbs or hairs pointing rearward. This facilitates securing the insect while transporting it to the beak. A sticky glue-like substance coats the tongue to aid in this process…" Another secretion is used to dissolve the glue so the woodpecker will not suffocate on its own tongue. The tongue of the woodpecker is like nothing else in the wild - its complexity astounds biologists and its length is unprecedented in the bird kingdom. The woodpecker begs the question: which tool came first: the thick skull, the long tongue, glue on the tongue or the secretion to line the throat to avoid suffocation?

Why did species (i.e.: fish) evolve if they can survive in their current state?


Why would fish evolve if they were comfortable in their surroundings? What made the first fish want to walk on land? Could that fish decide to grow a leg, or even a set of legs?

How did whole “branches” of the tree of life come into existence at once (i.e.: lizards to birds)?


Evolutionists like to wave the magic wand of time over the many gaps and scientific impossibilities in their theory. However, the fossil record is proving to be a huge thorn in their side. There is a period of time in the fossil record known as the Cambrian explosion. The following paragraph is quoting Wikipedia - you can read the entire article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

"The Cambrian Explosion generally refers to the geologically sudden appearance of a number of new complex organisms between 543 and 530 million years ago (mya). Prior to the discovery of the Burgess Shale, fossil finds showed life on Earth consisting only of single-celled organisms or simple diploblastic fauna (two-layers of cells, allowing every cell to be in contact with its watery mineral-rich environment). Abruptly, many kinds of fossils appearing in the Burgess Shale show skeletal body features, where none had yet been found in the earlier fossil record."

So now we know that most of the animals we see today suddenly appeared – no links, no explanation. We often hear the excuse “with enough time, anything can happen” from evolutionists. The Cambrian Explosion tosses that excuse into the trash and sheds light on the gaps in the evolutionary theory.

We witness cooperation and dependency between different species and between some species and flora – how does random mutation explain this?


Charles Darwin stated "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." (Origin of Species, pg 164)

Symbiosis is defined as “a relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.” There are many examples of symbiosis in nature; any one of them could be used to disprove natural selection and random mutation. The first example of symbiosis in nature is the relationship of algae and the fungi of lichens. The fungi provide the algae their necessary protection and moisture while the algae provide the fungi with the photosynthesizing nourishment it requires to stay alive. Neither species would survive without the other, throwing a wrench into the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation.

A spectacular display of mutualism is the bond formed by the yucca moth and the yucca plant – neither can survive without the other. The yucca plant cannot pollinate itself to grow seeds; it depends on the yucca moth for the plants' survival. The yucca moth goes through a lengthy process to pollinate the plant and ensure both species' survival. First, the moth begins by landing on the stamens of a yucca plant and producing a sticky ball of pollen that it will carry under it's neck (in an appendage unique to this moth species) and transport the pollen to another plants' pistil. The moth lays its eggs inside the base of the pistil of the plant. To ensure the plants survival and cement the symbiotic relationship the moth carefully inserts the pollen inside the stigma's tube at the top, completing the pollination process. Once the moth larvae are hatched, they feed on the seeds of the plant – and in an amazingly display of intelligence among insects, the moth only lays enough eggs so the larvae eats some of the seeds, not all of them. If the moth didn't pollinate the plant, both species would die.

The last symbiotic relationship is found in the animal kingdom, more specifically in the ocean's depths. After a meal, sharks will have bacteria and parasites embedded in their teeth. If left alone, these parasites would produce disease and/or a build-up that would hinder eating and could result in an early death. The aptly named “cleaning fish” fearlessly swims into the mouths of the most feared underwater predators and makes a snack of the particles in the monster's teeth. How would a shark know that these fish aren't a tasty snack? Are the sharks aware that without these swimming toothbrushes their lives would be cut short by disease or starvation? Can this natural phenomenon dubbed “cleaning symbiosis” be described by random mutation?

What evolved first: the digestive system (intestines, esophagus, stomach, liver, etc), the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice?


If mutations are randomly brought about by a need for survival, what would come first: our digestive system needed to take in our food, our digestive juices to break down and process that food or the body's resistance to its own digestive juices? Did they all come at once? This question can't be answered because we don't have the ability to go back in time and watch the evolutionary process, but this question highlights the lunacy of the idea of random evolutionary processes. The only way for any digestive system would be for all three to come at once: a complete digestive system, the juices to break down that food and the body's resistance to the digestive juices.

If evolution is calculated or ordered, who or what controls it? Wouldn't order require a deity or higher power?

Richard Dawkins says "This belief that Darwinian evolution is 'random,' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth."[1] If evolution is not random, it must be calculated or ordered somehow. What or who is in charge of the evolutionary process? Is it scientific to have a higher power or deity? Dr. Arthur Koestler states "The educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology."

Charles Darwin confesses "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."

There are many organisms, specimens and mechanisms that are simply too complex to have come about by chance, there must be an order or method behind the process – but that begs the question of what is behind it? Does science allow for a deity or unseen order to explain the gradual evolution of species - is it scientific?


How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

All the universes’ specimens are highly complex systems – specimens and flora, breathing or photosynthesizing – what we describe as “life” requires structures that are so complex that our best scientists cannot replicate them. Evolutionists will tell you that these organisms and their methods came about by chance; but leading mathematicians have determined that the construction of these life forms by accident or by chance is impossible.

If you were to thoroughly shuffle ten flash cards numbered one-to-ten and laid them out, the odds of them lining up in order is one in 3,628,800. The probability rapidly decreases the more variables you add – if you were to have one hundred cards numbered in order and performed the same experiment the odds would be one in 10158!

Astronomers tell us there are no more than 1087 particles in the universe. Assuming the universe is no more than thirty billion years old (1018 seconds) and each particle can participate in a thousand billion (1012) different reactions every second, the maximum number of reactions occurring would be 10117. Using this equation we understand the probability of an event that requires more than 10117 events is zero – or impossible.

The cells that life builds upon are infinitely more complex[1] than a specimen with one hundred parts – thus we can logically conclude that life originating from chance is impossible. Marcel Golay[2] estimated that the chance of replicating the simplest protein molecule is one in 10450. Frank Salisbury[3] put the probability of a standard DNA strand to be one in 10600.

Like you cannot build a car from random parts, you cannot build a living organism from random particles. All living systems are bound by order and require intelligence to exist[4]. Order is defined by patterns and rules – thus the example of numbered flash cards.

Hubert Yockey, a PhD in Physics, says the following in his essay "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Bio-genesis by Information Theory[5]:"

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”

Supporting Articles:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity.html


http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=155

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp

http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm

Supporting Books:

'Mathematics of Evolution' by Fred Hoyle

References:
[1] http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_02.html

[2] Marcel Golay, "Reflections of a Communications Engineer,"
Analytical Chemistry, V. 33, June 1961, p. 23.

[3] Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic
Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher ,
September 1971, p. 336.

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_systems_theory

[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=198618&dopt=Citation

Wednesday, 19 September 2007

REAL OR COUNTERFEIT?

If someone offered you a $35 bill for a product you sold would you take it?

Well the answer is, "Of course, not!"

Why not?

Could it be that there is no such thing as a REAL $35 bill?

Is it possible that you might sometime take a counterfeit $20 bill by mistake?

Of course it is. Why?

Either something is real or it is counterfeit. If it is counterfeit, it WILL COPY SOMETHING REAL.

So how do you know what is real and what is counterfeit?

There are tests in the Bible for that.

First - Is the occurrence like something mentioned in the Bible?
Second - Is something good resulting from it to draw people toward God or are they drawing AWAY from him because of it.
Third - Does anyone, including me or you have a monopoly on God's truth?

Then you apply the tests in scripture mentioned by Paul.

"1Jn 4:15 Whoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God." [MKJV] is one such scripture although there are others.

The fact that we don't understand it or have not seen it before IS NOT a test mentioned in scripture.

In fact, the things that Jesus did, were OFTEN criticized by the Pharisees and teachers of the law because he was trying to get them to see that they were so religious that they WERE NOT followers of God's principles.

In fact they were so steeped in their indoctrination, that they DID NOT even recognize that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

Make sure your beliefs are inspired by God and backed up by the principles of scripture. But be aware of the teachings of ANY particular group. Are they supported by the principles of scripture or are they convenient doctrines that the group has come to believe?

Only the principles of scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit, not our own discomfort, are reasons for or against any doctrine.

Blessings in Truth
Charles

Thursday, 30 August 2007

Thinking About Religion and Generosity

Thinking About religion and generosity tends to make one more generous says a University of British Columbia study. Thinking about religion makes people treat neighbours as themselves. See more

Friday, 24 August 2007

MIDDLE EAST IMPERATIVE by Jim Cash, Retired General

Whether you are Liberal, Conservative, Republican or Democrat, this piece deserves reading and pondering by all concerned.

MIDDLE EAST IMPERATIVE
BY JIM CASH

I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.

Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger that just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and
grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond.

Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century.

They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated.
Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.

There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support. That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.

The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look more closely.

Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat. North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.

In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years.
My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada. If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond. I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousand of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.

At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them.

They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, the United States. They are convinced they will win, because the United States is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil will not be made available to this country at any price. I personally would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.

Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the "good-old-days".

The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.
One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age. I urge you to read the book "END GAME" by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country
during the war on terror. You can find that book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at www.ospreyradio.us
or www.rightalk.com .

On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.

You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences.
Nuff-said!!!

Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics.

I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life.
However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right. I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the South American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution.

This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together. We are past that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government.

I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clintons and now the Democrats hate Bush. So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed. JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?

In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for President's Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were best under the Republicans. Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Reagan was truly a salvation.
You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda , Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totally wrong.

The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. I cannot abide that. Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria, which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine. Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam way than any other human being (as acknowledge by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences.


This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall. All Democrats, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic. However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided.

I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction. If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat controlled congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA.

Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American---of course not. They just do not understand the importance of total victory in that region. Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win.

By the way, it is not a war. The war was won four years ago. It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.

So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group. George Bush has done the best he can with the disabilities that he possesses. A President must communicate with the people. And, I would tell you that Desert Storm spoiled the people. Bush Senior's 100-hour war convinced the people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be fought with no casualties and won in very short periods of time. I remember feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military. To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option. However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.

Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.
Lakeside, Montana 59922

Wednesday, 1 August 2007

Myths & Magic about Guns


Myths & Magic about Guns and
The Coming Ban on Cars
which Cause More Deaths than Guns!!!

Isn't it logical that the fewer guns, the fewer gun-related deaths? Apparently NOT!

Barbara Kay of the National Post Wednesday, August 1 pointed out several discrepancies with that statement in her article, "Turning Legal Gun Owners into Social Lepers".

We LOVE our myths, don't we? It is sooo much fun believing in pet theories disregarding all evidence to the contrary.

This piece was prompted by the leftist elites running the University of Toronto, who closed down the 88-year old shooting range. As she points out, there is no word yet on the fate of the university's chemistry lab.

So what did Barbara discover in her research?
  • Unlike the U.S., Canada has little in the way of criminal gun culture
  • 35, 000 Canadians have purchased $5-million liability insurance policies from the NFA [National Firearms Association, which cover their gun-related activities all over North America
  • Annual premium for the above is ONLY $7.95
  • Why so low???
  • NFA president Dave Tomlinson virtually NEVER receives claims!!!
  • If only my car insurance was so low for $5 million!
  • I am going to start an organization to BAN ALL CARS since they cause 1000's of needless deaths every year. What a waste of human life! After all, my car insurance is about as close to $7.95 as the Earth is to Pluto!!!
  • In spousal or partner killings, guns are culprits in only about 25 cases per year in a country of over 30 million people!!!
  • The famous Liberal Firearms Act HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN CRIME since general gun-related crime was at a low ebb when it was introduced. Sounds like a grand politically-correct gesture!
  • After all, have you ever seen a gun pick itself up and get another gun to shoot at someone? No? So perhaps it is humans that need banning, since they are virtually responsible for over 99% of all gun crimes! [Less than 1% are caused by gun-toting poodles, felines and parakeets.
  • Apparently what Canada's gun laws do is to make gun collectors into criminals by inuendo
  • For example, Jeremy Swanson, a knowledgeable South African-born amateur war historian and ballistics expert, who worked as a civil servant for the war museum passed all the rigorous background checks and was named the museum's top employee in 1997
  • He never broke a law in his life
  • Passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Test in 1999 with a 98% score
  • His wife never alleged domestic or child abuse through their bitter divorce.
  • His collection was safety trigger-locked in a firearm safe with ammunition stored separately.
  • His wife now separated called the police to take the collection, mainly four antique rifles, two non-firing BB guns [falsely recorded as rifles], a toy luger replica [falsely recorded as real], and some joke paperweight dummy grenades.
  • This collection was ominously labelled by police as a "mini-arsenal" and taken for "safekeeping"
  • Swanson was NEVER informed of the seizure finding out 6 months later by chance
  • He has NEVER been interviewed by police, or arrested for any crime, nor has the past or present Ottawa police chief EVER RESPONDED to his pleas for a meeting
  • He has endured several summons to criminal court which came to nothing
  • He has been treated like a criminal for 6 years, a social leper, on the basis of NOTHING!
  • The recently published book, "MISTAKES WERE MADE: WHY WE JUSTIFY FOOLISH BELIEFS, BAD DECISIONS, and HURTFUL ACTS by social pyschologists, Carol Tavris, and Elliot Aronson argue that many social and cultural problems spring from the humans' inability to admit when they're wrong.
  • Jeremy is STILL WAITING for his chance to defend himself with NO COOPERATION FROM THE POLICE.
  • I am certainly NOT a right-wing militiaman but one wonders less why some fringe individuals have a problem with trusting any government at all!
  • Meanwhile I am awaiting the announcement banning all vehicles until further notice, hopefully not 6 INNOCENT YEARS!
Charles Pedley
Press4truth

Tuesday, 17 July 2007

Return of the Idiot

Alvaro Vargas Llosa, a director of the Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent Institute writes in the National Post, July 17, 2007, a piece called "The Return of the Idiot"

His main thought is that Latin America HAS NOT progressed during the last century but in some cases, has regressed, due to the popular emergence of a "strongman" or caudillos like Fidel Castro and now Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. In fact he has cited many evidences of this. He also likens the Western "intellectuals" who think the rise of these dictators is good for Latin America, to idiots as well. Idiots because they too, DENY THE FACTS.

He writes, "Ten years ago, the Colombian writer Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, the Cuban writer Carlos Alberto Montaner and I wrote Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot, a book criticizing opinion and political leaders who clung to ill-conceived political myths despite evidence to the contrary. The "Idiot" species, we suggested, bore responsibility for Latin America's underdevelopment. Its beliefs -- revolution, economic nationalism, hatred of the United States, faith in the government as an agent of social justice, a passion for strongman rule over the rule of law --derived, in our opinion, from an inferiority complex. In the late 1990s, it seemed as if the Idiot were finally retreating. But the retreat was short-lived. Today, the species is back in force, in the form of populist heads of state who are re-enacting the failed policies of the past, opinion leaders from around the world who are lending new credence to them, and supporters who are giving new life to ideas that seemed extinct.

Today's young Latin American Idiots prefer Shakira's pop ballads to Perez Prado's mambos and no longer sing leftist anthems like The Internationale or Until Always, Comandante. But they are still descendants of rural migrants, middle-class and deeply resentful of the frivolous lives of the wealthy displayed in the glossy magazines they discreetly leaf through on street corners. State-run universities provide them with a class-based view of society that argues that wealth is something that needs to be retaken from those who have stolen it. For these young Idiots, Latin America's condition is the result of Spanish and Portuguese colonialism, followed by U.S. imperialism. These basic beliefs provide a safety valve for their grievances against a society that offers scant opportunity for social mobility.


Latin American Idiots have traditionally identified themselves with caudillos, those larger-than-life authoritarian figures who have dominated the region's politics, ranting against foreign influence and republican institutions. Two leaders in particular inspire today's Idiot: President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Evo Morales of Bolivia. Chavez is seen as the perfect successor to Cuba's Fidel Castro: He came to power through the ballot box, which exonerates him from the need to justify armed struggle, and he has abundant oil, which means he can put his money where his mouth is when it comes to championing social causes. The Idiot also credits Chavez with the most progressive policy of all: putting the military, that paradigm of oligarchic rule, to work on social programs.


For his part, Bolivia's Evo Morales has indigenista appeal. In the eyes of the Idiot, the former coca farmer is the reincarnation of Tupac Katari, an 18th-century Aymara rebel, who, before his execution by Spanish colonial authorities, vowed, "I shall return and I shall be millions." They believe Morales when he professes to speak for the indigenous masses, from southern Mexico to the Andes, who seek redress of the exploitation inflicted on them by 300 years of colonial rule and 200 more of oligarchic republican rule.


The current revival of the Latin American Idiot has precipitated the return of his counterparts: the patronizing American and European Idiots. Once again, important academics and writers are projecting their idealism, guilty consciences or grievances against their own societies onto the Latin American scene, lending their names to nefarious populist causes. Nobel Prizewinners, including the British playwright Harold Pinter, the Portuguese novelist Jose Saramago and the American economist Joseph Stiglitz; American linguists such as Noam Chomsky and sociologists like James Petras; European journalists like Ignacio Ramonet and some foreign correspondents for publications such as Le Nouvel Observateur in France, Die Zeit in Germany and The Washington Post in the United States, are once again propagating absurdities that shape the opinions of millions of readers and sanctify the Latin American Idiot. This intellectual lapse would be quite innocuous if it didn't have consequences. But, to the extent that it legitimizes the type of government that is at the heart of Latin America's political and economic underdevelopment, it constitutes a form of intellectual treason.


The most notable example today of the symbiosis between certain Western intellectuals and Latin American caudillos is the love affair between American and European Idiots and Hugo Chavez. The Venezuelan leader, despite his nationalist tendencies, has no qualms about citing foreigners in his speeches in order to strengthen his positions. Just witness Chavez's speech at the United Nations last September in which he praised Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: America?s Quest for Global Dominance.


Likewise, in presentations at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chomsky has pointed to Venezuela as an example for the developing world, touting social policies that have achieved success in education and medical assistance and rescued the dignity of Venezuelans. He has also expressed admiration for the fact that "Venezuela successfully challenged the United States, and this country doesn't like challenges, much less so if they are successful."


But in actuality, Venezuela's social programs have, with help from the Cuban intelligence services, become vehicles for political regimentation and social dependence on the government. Furthermore, their effectiveness is suspect. The Centro de Documentacion y Analisis Social de la Federacion Venezolana de Maestros, a teachers' union think-tank, reported in 2006 that 80% of Venezuela's households have difficulty covering the cost of food-- the same proportion as when Chavez came to power in 1999, and when the price of oil was one-third what it is today. As for the dignity of the people, the real story is that there have been 10,000 homicides per year in Venezuela since Chavez became president, giving the country the highest per-capita murder rate in the world.


Another nation that certain American opinion leaders have a soft spot for is Cuba. In 2003, Fidel Castro's regime executed three young refugees for hijacking a boat and trying to escape from the island. Castro also sent 75 democratic activists to prison for lending banned books. In response, James Petras, a longtime sociology professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton, wrote an article titled "The Responsibility of the Intellectuals: Cuba, the U.S. and Human Rights." In his essay, which was reprinted by various left-wing publications around the world, he defended Havana by arguing that the victims had been in the service of the United States government.


Two decades out of date, Harold Pinter delivered a flabbergasting account of the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in his 2005 Nobel lecture. Perhaps thinking that a vindication of the populists of the past might help the populists of today, he said that the Sandinistas had "set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society," and that there was "no record of torture" or of "systematic or official military brutality" under Daniel Ortega's government in the 1980s. One wonders, then, why the Sandinistas were thrown out of power by the people of Nicaragua in the 1990 elections. Or why the voters kept them out of power for nearly two decades-- until Ortega became a political transvestite, declaring himself a supporter of the market economy. As for the denial of Sandinista atrocities, Pinter would do well to remember the 1981 massacre of Miskito Indians on Nicaragua's Atlantic coast.


Under the guise of a literacy campaign, the Sandinistas, with the help of their Cuban cadres, tried to indoctrinate the Miskitos with Marxist ideology. But the independent-minded Indians refused to accept Sandinista control. Accusing them of supporting opposition groups based in Honduras, Ortega's men killed as many as 50 Miskitos, imprisoned hundreds and forcibly relocated many more. The Nobel laureate should also remember that his hero Ortega became a capitalist millionaire thanks to the distribution of government assets and confiscated property that the Sandinista leaders split among themselves after losing the 1990 elections.


Foreign observers are missing an essential point: Latin American populism has nothing to do with social justice. It began as a reaction against the oligarchic state of the 19th century, in the form of mass movements led by caudillos who blamed rich nations for Latin America's plight. These movements based their legitimacy on voluntarism, protectionism and massive wealth redistribution. The result, throughout the 20th century, was bloated government, stifling bureaucracy, the subservience of judicial institutions to political authority and parasitic economies.


Populists share basic characteristics: the voluntarism of the caudillo as a substitute for the law; the impugning of the oligarchy and its replacement with another type of oligarchy; the denunciation of imperialism (with the enemy always being the United States); the projection of the class struggle between the rich and the poor onto the stage of international relations; the idolatry of the state as a redeeming force for the poor; authoritarianism under the guise of state security; and "clientelismo," a form of patronage by which government jobs --as opposed to wealth creation -- are the conduit of social mobility and the way to maintain a "captive vote" in elections.


The legacy of these policies is clear: Nearly half the population of Latin America is poor, with more than one in five living on US$2 or less per day. And one to two million migrants flock to the United States and Europe every year in search of a better life.


Even in Latin America, part of the left is making its transition away from Idiocy -- similar to the kind of mental transition that the European left, from Spain to Scandinavia, went through a few decades ago when it grudgingly embraced liberal democracy and a market economy. In Latin America, one can speak of a "vegetarian left" and a "carnivorous left." The vegetarian left is represented by leaders such as Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva, Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez and Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. Despite the occasional meaty rhetoric, these leaders have avoided the mistakes of the old left, such as raucous confrontations with the developed world and monetary and fiscal profligacy. They have settled into social-democratic conformity and are proving unwilling to engage in major reform -- which is why Brazil's gross domestic product (GDP) growth is not expected to top 3.6% this year -- but they signify a positive development in the struggle for modernizing the left.


Does it really matter that the American and European intelligentsia quench their thirst for the exotic by promoting Latin American Idiots? The unequivocal answer is yes. A cultural struggle is underway in Latin America -- between those who want to place the region in the global firmament and see it emerge as a major contributor to the Western culture to which its destiny has been attached for five centuries, and those who cannot reconcile themselves to the idea and resist it. Despite some progress in recent years, this tension is holding back Latin America's development in comparison to other regions of the world-- such as East Asia, the Iberian Peninsula and Central Europe -- that were backward not long ago. Latin America's annual GDP growth has averaged 2.8% in the past three decades -- against Southeast Asia's 5.5%, or the world average of 3.6%.


This sluggish performance explains why about 45% of the population is still poor and why, after a quarter-century of democratic rule, regional surveys betray a profound dissatisfaction with democratic institutions and traditional parties. Until the Latin American Idiot is confined to the archives -- something that will be difficult to achieve while so many condescending spirits in the developed world continue to lend him support -- that will not change."

- Alvaro Vargas Llosa is director of the Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent Institute.

Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

If Mr. Carter had stuck to Habitat for Humanity instead of Inaccurate Boloney, we could admire him and I did. He has lost all credibility due to his ignorance of the truth in the Middle East. What a sad legacy to leave! Some have said that he has consumed too many bad peanuts and it has affected his brain making him nuttier in his old age.

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams

THE NEW GAME: POWER CLING !!!

Obama learned his lesson well


"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky


Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties....

"One Alinsky benefactor was Wall Street investment banker Eugene Meyer, who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933. Meyer and his wife Agnes co-owned The Washington Post. They used their newspaper to promote Alinsky....Her series, called 'The Orderly Revolution', made Alinsky famous....

"Alinsky’s crowning achievement was his recruitment of a young high school student named Hillary Rodham. She met Alinsky through a radical church group. Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. ...

"Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

"Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." [by Richard Poe, 11-27-07] See also Community Oriented Policing


Quote from Saul Alinsky's Book "Rules for Radicals"

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution." p.3

"Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing." p.6

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10

The one thing he did not learn is the passion of FREE people to be free! - Press4TRuth

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama

WorldNetDaily

War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us


The Financial Post today carried the following article by Alex Epstein that pretty well sums up the problem with a president with NO economic or business experience.

Obama doesn’t get roots of crisis
Posted: April 07, 2009, 7:04 PM by NP Editor
By Alex Epstein

Barack Obama rightly stresses that we first must understand how today’s problems emerged. It is “only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.”
Unfortunately, Obama (along with most of the Washington establishment) has created only misunderstanding. In calling for a massive increase in government control over the economy, he has evaded the mountain of evidence implicating the government. For example, Obama’s core explanation of all the destructive behaviour leading up to today’s crisis is that the market was too free. But the market that led to today’s crisis was systematically manipulated by government.
Fact This decade saw drastic attempts by the government to control the housing and financial markets — via a Federal Reserve that cut interest rates to all-time lows and via a gigantic increase in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s size and influence.
Fact Through these entities, the government sought to “stimulate the economy” and promote home ownership (sound familiar?) by artificially extending cheap credit to home-buyers.
Fact Most of the (very few) economists who actually predicted the financial crisis blame Fed policy or housing policy for inflating a bubble that was bound to collapse.
How does all this evidence factor into Obama’s understanding of “how we arrived at this moment”? It doesn’t. Not once, during the solemn 52 minutes and 5,902 words of his speech to Congress did he mention the Fed, Fannie or Freddie. Not once did he suggest that government manipulation of markets could have any possible role in the present crisis. He just went full steam ahead and called for more spending, more intervention and more government housing programs as the solution.
A genuine explanation of the financial crisis must take into account all the facts. What role did the Fed play? What about Fannie and Freddie? To be sure, some companies and CEOs seem to have made irrational business decisions. Was the primary cause “greed,” as so many claim — and what does this even mean? Or was the primary cause government intervention — like artificially low interest rates, which distorted economic decision-making and encouraged less competent and more reckless companies and CEOs while marginalizing and paralyzing the more competent ones?
Entertaining such questions would also mean considering the idea that the fundamental solution to our problems is to disentangle the government from the markets to prevent future manipulation. It would mean considering pro-free-market remedies such as letting banks foreclose, letting prices reach market levels, letting bad banks fail, dismantling Fannie and Freddie, ending bailout promises and getting rid of the Fed’s power to manipulate interest rates.
But it is not genuine understanding the administration seeks. For it, the wisdom and necessity of previous government intervention is self-evident; no matter the contrary evidence, the crisis can only have been caused by insufficient government intervention. Besides, the administration is too busy following Obama’s chief of staff’s dictum, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” by proposing a virtual takeover of not only financial markets but also the problem-riddled energy and health-care markets — which, they conveniently ignore, are also already among the most government-controlled in the economy.
While Obama has not sought a real explanation of today’s economic problems, the public should. Otherwise, we will simply swallow “solutions” that dogmatically assume the free market got us here — namely, Obama’s plans to swamp this country in an ocean of government debt, government controls and government make-work projects.
Alternative, free-market explanations for the crisis do exist — ones that consider the inconvenient facts Washington ignores — and everyone should seek to understand them. Those who do will likely end up telling our leaders to stop saying “Yes, we can” to each new proposal for expanding government power, and start saying “Yes, you can” to those who seek to exercise their right to produce and trade on a free market.
Financial Post
Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Deciphering Obama in Cairo


Deciphering Obama in Cairo

Center for Security Policy | Jun 05, 2009
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

By and large, President Obama's address yesterday in Cairo has been well received in both the so-called "Muslim world" and by other audiences. Nobody may be happier with it, though, than the Muslim Brotherhood - the global organization that seeks to impose authoritative Islam's theo-political-legal program known as "Shariah" through stealthy means where violence ones are not practicable. Egyptian Muslim Brothers were prominent among the guests in the audience at Cairo University and Brotherhood-associated organizations in America, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have rapturously endorsed the speech.

The Brotherhood has ample reason for its delight. Accordingly, Americans who love freedom - whether or not they recognize the threat Shariah represents to it - have abundant cause for concern about "The Speech," and what it portends for U.S. policy and interests.

Right out of the box, Mr. Obama mischaracterized what is causing a "time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world." He attributed the problem first and foremost to "violent extremists [who] have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims." The President never mentioned - not even once - a central reality: The minority in question, including the Muslim Brotherhood, subscribes to the authoritative writings, teachings, traditions and institutions of their faith, namely Shariah. It is the fact that their practice is thus grounded that makes them, whatever their numbers (the exact percentage is a matter of considerable debate), to use Mr. Obama euphemistic term, "potent."

Instead, the President's address characterized the problem as a "cycle of suspicion and discord," a turn of phrase redolent of the moral equivalence so evident in the Mideast peace process with it "cycle of violence." There was not one reference to terrorism, let alone Islamic terrorism. Indeed, any connection between the two is treated as evidence of some popular delusion. "The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust."

Then there was this uplifting, but ultimately meaningless, blather: "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity."

More often than not, the President portrayed Muslims as the Brotherhood always does: as victims of crimes perpetrated by the West against them - from colonialism to manipulation by Cold War superpowers to the menace of "modernity and globalization that led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam." Again, no mention of the hostility towards the infidel West ingrained in "the traditions of Islam." This fits with the meme of the Shariah-adherent, but not the facts.

Here's the irony: Even as President Obama professed his determination to "speak the truth," he perpetrated a fraud. He falsely portrayed what amounts to authoritative Islam, namely Shariah Islam, as something that is "not exclusive," that "overlaps" and "need not be in competition" with "America. Actually, Shariah is, by its very nature, a program that obliges its adherents to demand submission of all others, Muslims (especially secular and apostate ones) and non-Muslims, alike.

This exclusiveness (read, Islamic supremacism) applies most especially with respect to democratic nations like America, nations founded in the alternative and highly competitive belief that men, not God, should make laws. Ditto nations that stand in the way of the establishment of the Caliphate, the global theocracy that Shariah dictates must impose its medieval agenda worldwide. In practice, Shariah is the very antithesis of Mr. Obama's stated goal of "progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Its "justice" can only be considered by civilized societies to be a kind of codified barbarism.

At least as troubling are what amount to instances of presidential dawa, the Arabic term for Islamic proselytization. For example, Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to "the Holy Koran." It seems unimaginable that he ever would ever use the adjective to describe the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Then, the man now happy to call himself Barack Hussein Obama (in contrast to his attitude during the campaign) boasts of having "known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." An interesting choice of words that, "first revealed." Not "established," "founded" or "invented." The President is, after all, a careful writer, so he must have deliberately eschewed verbs that reflect man's role, in favor of the theological version of events promoted by Islam. Thus, Mr. Obama has gone beyond the kind of "respectful language" he has pledged to use towards Islam. He is employing what amounts to code - bespeaking the kind of submissive attitude Islam demands of all, believers and non-believers alike.

Elsewhere in the speech, Mr. Obama actually declared that "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Note that, although he referred in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict to "vile stereotypes" of Jews, he did not describe it as "part of his responsibility as President" to counter anti-Semitic representations.

Unremarked was the fact that such incitement is daily fare served up by the state media controlled by his host in Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak, by the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas and by every other despot in the region with whom Mr. Obama seeks to "engage." Worse yet, no mention was made of the fact that some of those "vile stereotypes" - notably, that Jews are "descendants of apes and pigs" - are to be found in "the Holy Koran," itself.

Perhaps the most stunning bit of dawa of all was a phrase the President employed that, on its face, denies the divinity of Jesus - something surprising from a self-described committed Christian. In connection with his discussion of the "situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs," Mr. Obama said, "...When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."

Muslims use the term "peace be upon them" to ask for blessings on deceased holy men. In other words, its use construes all three in the way Islam does - as dead prophets - a treatment wholly at odds with the teachings of Christianity which, of course, holds Jesus as the immortal Son of God.

If Mr. Obama were genuinely ignorant about Islam, such a statement might be ascribed to nothing more than a sop to "interfaith dialogue." For a man who now pridefully boasts of his intimate familiarity with Muslims and their faith, it raises troubling questions about his own religious beliefs. At the very least, it conveys a strongly discordant message to "the Muslim world" about a fundamental tenet of the faith he professes.

Finally, what are we to make of Mr. Obama statements about America and Islam? Since he took office, the President has engaged repeatedly in the sort of hyping of Muslims and their role in the United States that is standard Muslim Brotherhood fare. In his inaugural address, he described our nation as one of "Christians, Muslims and Jews." Shortly thereafter, he further reversed the demographic ordering of these populations by size in his first broadcast interview (with the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya network), calling America a country of "Muslims, Christians and Jews."

Yesterday in Cairo, the President declared that "Islam has always been a part of America's story." Now, to be sure, Muslims, like peoples of other faiths, have made contributions to U.S. history. But they have generally done so in the same way others have, namely as Americans - not as some separate community, but as part of the "E pluribus unum" (out of many, one) that Mr. Obama properly extolled in The Speech.

Unfortunately, a pattern is being established whereby President Obama routinely exaggerates the Muslim character of America. For example, at Cairo University, he claimed there are nearly seven million Muslims in this country - a falsehood promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends - when the actual number is well-less than half that. Shortly before The Speech, in an interview with a French network, Mr. Obama said, "If you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

Incredible as these statements may seem, even more astounding is their implication for those who adhere to Shariah. The President's remarks about America as a Muslim nation would give rise to its treatment by them as part of dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, as opposed to dar al-harb (i.e., the non-Muslim world).

Were the former to be the case, Shariah requires faithful Muslims to rid the United States of infidel control or occupation. And we know from last year's successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation - a so-called "charity" engaged in money-laundering for one of the Muslim Brotherhood's terrorist operations, Hamas - that such an agenda tracks precisely with the Brothers' mission here: "To destroy Western civilization from within America, by its own miserable hand."

This reality makes one of Mr. Obama's promises in Cairo especially chilling. Near the end of his address, the President expressed concern that religious freedom in the United States was being impinged by "rules on charitable giving [that] have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation." He went on to pledge: "That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."

Let us be clear: Muslim charities have run into difficulty with "the rules" because they have been convicted in federal court of using the Muslim obligation to perform zakat (tithing to charity) to funnel money to terrorists. At this writing, it is unclear precisely what Mr. Obama has in mind with respect to this commitment to "ensure [Muslims] can fulfill zakat." But you can bet that the Brotherhood will try to translate it into the release of their imprisoned operatives and new latitude to raise money for their Shariah-promoting, and therefore seditious, activities in America.

I could go on, but you get the point. The Speech contained a number of statements about the laudable qualities of America, the need for freedom in the Muslim world, about women's rights and the desirability of peace. But its preponderant and much more important message was one that could have been crafted by the Muslim Brotherhood: America has a president who is, wittingly or not, advancing the Brotherhood's agenda of masking the true nature of Shariah and encouraging the West's submission to it.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Newsmax, June 5, 2009.

OBAMA for CHANGE ??? A Stimulating Thought !!!

[As you will see below, even Jackie Mason doesn't think this is funny!] Rahm Emanuel's statement in November, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

Well now we have the proof. I said it before Mr. Obama was elected. The ONLY change that Obama expects to bring to Washington is him in the white house!

Now we have the proof. This "STIMULUS" bill is anything BUT stimulating! Apparently hundreds of phone calls against the bill are coming into government offices. But the government of the people, by the people and for the people has now become the government OVER the people, right by the people and FOR the democratic party in government!

Didn't Mr. Obama say that he wanted to CHANGE the way Washington worked? Ha, well now we know how.

So Mr. Obama has brought CHANGE TO AMERICA... yes CHANGE AS TO WHO GETS THE PORK. - His soundbytes about there being NO PORK in the bill are absolute blatant lies.

The letters and calls to the congress were 100:1 AGAINST this package but that did not thwart the courageous congress from paying back all their supporters AGAINST the will of the people!

However it was that unofficial third party in the U.S. called the left-wing socialist media combined with the fairy-tale elite in Hollywood. who actually elected Mr. Obama.

The so-called "stimulus" bill just passed in the U.S. will stimulate that famous employer, the National Association for the Endowment for the Arts, build Milwaukee schools when 15 are empty with declining enrolment and so on.

It is complete PORK. There may be a few million of the billions here and there which might actually do a little but the stock market tells all as they have been in freefall as the "package" made it's way through the congress.

Yes is it payback time as the hog trough package goes out to all the supporters which the Democrats did not have the power to reward previously.

What Mr. Obama came to the Whitehouse to change was ONE THING ... WHO GET'S THE PORK?

The bill is full of nothing but spending to reward those who elected Mr. Obama and his "Democratic" presidential guards and very little to help the average worker at all.

It is a sad time when telling blatant lies and rewarding those who support you are more important than actually helping people cope with this deep recession.

So much for the country of Abraham Lincoln and a country which was "of the people, by the people, for the people". Unless of course those people are Democratic suckies.

If even comedian Jackie Mason sees this, there perhaps is hope for the American people somewhere.

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.

See original article here.


WHO SAYS A STIMULUS ACTUALLY STIMULATES?

or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

-"Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"

- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.

Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.

But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.

[Doesn't it make you wonder when nobody seems to know what to do but some of the advice of the best researchers suggests that a STIMULUS may actually HARM the economy? Some economic researchers point to FDR and the Great Depression and suggest that FDR actually INCREASED the length of the depression. He was obviously and encourager and inspired hope which is an important factor as we see when the markets fall like bricks. But did his fiscal policy actually make it longer?]

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

LSMS368


AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

Mr. Obama will now have to prove he is non-partisan.

Editor: If he makes the mistake of believing that he is only the President of the 52% of the population that elected him and of the far-left liberal democrats, and tries to enact laws which the 46% who voted for McCain vehementally oppose, he will create more partisanship than has ever occurred before.

Now is his test. Will he leave failed socialistic policies like the War on Poverty and the Great Society behind, or will he make the same mistakes as his liberal precessors?

So now is the time for Mr. Obama to shine, but shine on the right as well as the left. Shine on the almost half the United States which are part of red states and red counties in blue states. He will become president of both and to be inclusive as an agent of change, he must govern in the best interests of middle America.

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

Jacqueline Thorpe, National Post Published: Thursday, November 06, 2008

As the fervour fades, the world will have to get used to a new word: Obamanomics.

It means tax hikes for the rich, tax cuts for the poor and middle class, a promise to renegotiate NAFTA, greater union power, windfall taxes on oil and gas profits, higher taxes on capital gains and corporate dividends and more comprehensive health care coverage.

Barack Obama's economic plan may deliver the greater income equality Americans have apparently been craving, but also slower growth. Despite the vast tax hikes, it will cost a vast sum and U. S. federal finances, already ravaged by bailouts and recession, will slide deeper into the red.

The plan is not market-friendly but that does not mean the markets will not like an Obama presidency. If he can give the U. S. back its confidence, restore its reputation and sense of optimism, markets will take the bait as they have done with Democratic presidents so often in the past.

If he can become a Clintonstyle pragmatist, resist caving to every whim of a deeply left Congress, and not meddle with the bailouts that seem to be gingerly gaining traction, markets might even run with his presidency. The year from hell for investors could then be nearing an end.

Obamanomics is essentially about taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor, plain old-fashioned "neighbourliness" as Mr. Obama has described it.

-

Or, as others have remarked, taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't.

Under his income tax plan, Mr. Obama says he will provide tax cuts for 95% of Americans. He will do this by repealing Bush tax cuts -- set to expire in 2010 -- and bumping the top rates back to 36% from 33% and to 39.6% from 35%. Individuals earning over US$200,000 and families over US$250,000 will see sizable tax increases. This includes sole proprietors of businesses such as lawyers, accountants or plumbers called Joe.

Since 38% of Americans currently do not pay federal income taxes, Mr. Obama will provide them with refundable tax credits. Under his plan, 48% of Americans will pay no income tax.

"For the people that don't pay taxes, he is simply going to write them a cheque," says Andy Busch, global foreign exchange strategist at BMO Capital Markets. "That is income redistribution at its worst and produces very little value."

Other plans include raising taxes on capital gains and dividends to 20% from 15% for families earning more than US$250,000. He plans to leave the corporate tax rate at 35%, which in a world of rapidly falling rates, looks positively anti-business. He will introduce windfall taxes on oil and gas companies but offer US$4-billion in credits to U. S. auto-makers to retool to greener cars.

Much has been made of Mr. Obama's plan to renegotiate NAFTA to make it more labour-friendly, though no one seems to believe he will actually make it more protectionist.

The bottom line is this: Obama's economic plan is likely to be a drag on growth and it will cost money. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates Obama's program would add US$3.5-trillion to U. S. debt over the next 10 years, including interest. His plans for health care-- which may be delayed by financial necessity -- would tack on another US$1.6-trillion.

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

Obama Sued by Democrat to Produce Birth Certificate Obama's Birth Certificate MUST SEE VIDEO Philip Berg, a DEMOCRAT is the man who is suing Barack Obama to hand over his Birth Certificate. The video below gives his Credentials and the Mr. Berg lays out his case in Berg v. Obama, and explains why it is important for the case to be resolved quickly. In his argumentation, Mr. Berg points out that Senator Obama could settle the lawsuit immediately by producing the proper documents to prove Obama is a natural-born citizen as required by our constitution. It is A MUST SEE..MUST PASS AROUND VIDEO!

NOW LA PRESIDENT SUPPORTS SARAH PALIN

Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong

OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN

WHY IT IS WRONG TO CALL IRAQ A MISTAKE

OBAMA Comment by AltMuslim.com

This is an interesting comment by the website AltMuslim.com.
[Editor:Just because his middle name is Hussain does NOT mean he's a Muslim. Just because his church gave Lewis Farakhan last year a Lifetime Achievement award does

NOT mean he is a Muslim. Just because he wore traditional Muslim dress when visiting in Sudan does NOT mean he is a Muslim. So what does it mean? Read what they say for yourself.]
=================================

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

First the "hundred years" controversy, and now this. Is the man a liar, or are his speechwriters and advisors just that willing to leave him vulnerable to attack?

Obama's Problem
February 07, 2008 01:00 PM EST

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

Spengler, Asia Times (Hong Kong), March 18, 2008

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”. At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

What played out last week on America’s television screens was a clash of two irreconcilable cultures, the posture of “black liberation theology” and the mainstream American understanding of Christianity. Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash.

One of the strangest dialogues in American political history ensued on March 15 when Fox News interviewed Obama’s pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of Chicago’s Trinity Church. Wright asserted the authority of the “black liberation” theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins:

Wright: How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read?

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?

(crosstalk)

Wright: How many books of Cone’s have you head?

Hannity: I’m going to ask you this question . . .

Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?

Hannity: You’re very angry and defensive. I’m just trying to ask a question here.

Wright: You haven’t answered—you haven’t answered my question.

Hopkins is a full professor at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School; Cone is now distinguished professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary. They promote a “black power” reading of Christianity, to which liberal academic establishment condescends.

Obama referred to this when he asserted in a March 14 statement, “I knew Reverend Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago.” But the fact the liberal academy condescends to sponsor black liberation theology does not make it less peculiar to mainstream American Christians. Obama wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says. But that way lies apolitical quicksand.

Since Christianity taught the concept of divine election to the Gentiles, every recalcitrant tribe in Christendom has rebelled against Christian universalism, insisting that it is the “Chosen People” of God—French, English, Russian, Germans and even (through the peculiar doctrine of Mormonism) certain Americans. America remains the only really Christian country in the industrial world, precisely because it transcends ethnicity. One finds ethnocentricity only in odd corners of its religious life; one of these is African-American.

During the black-power heyday of the late 1960s, after the murder of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, the mentors of Wright decided that blacks were the Chosen People. James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the “black liberation” school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:

Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

Theologically, Cone’s argument is as silly as the “Aryan Christianity” popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the “chosen people”. Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.

Biblical theology teaches that even the most terrible events to befall Israel, such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, embody the workings of divine justice, even if humankind cannot see God’s purpose. James Cone sees the matter very differently. Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]

In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:

In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors. . . . Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].

In this respect black liberation theology is identical in content to all the ethnocentric heresies that preceded it. Christianity has no use for the nations, a “drop of the bucket” and “dust on the scales”, in the words of Isaiah. It requires that individuals turn their back on their ethnicity to be reborn into Israel in the spirit. That is much easier for Americans than for the citizens of other nations, for Americans have no ethnicity. But the tribes of the world do not want to abandon their Gentile nature and as individuals join the New Israel. Instead they demand eternal life in their own Gentile flesh, that is, to be the “Chosen People”.

That is the “biblical scholarship” to which Obama referred in his March 14 defense of Wright and his academic prominence. In his response to Hannity, Wright genuinely seemed to believe that the authority of Cone and Hopkins, who now hold important posts at liberal theological seminaries, was sufficient to make the issue go away. His faith in the white establishment is touching; he honestly cannot understand why the white reporters at Fox News are bothering him when the University of Chicago and the Union Theological Seminary have put their stamp of approval on black liberation theology.

Many things that the liberal academy has adopted, though, will horrify most Americans, and not only “black liberation theology” (Queer Studies comes to mind, among other things). It cannot be in Obama’s best interests to appeal to the authority of Cone, whose unapologetic racism must be repugnant to the great majority of Americans, including the majority of black Americans, who for the most part belong to Christian churches that preach mainstream Christian doctrine. Christianity teaches unconditional love for a God whose love for humankind is absolute; it does not teach the repudiation of a God who does not destroy our enemies on the spot.

Whether Obama takes seriously the doctrines that Wright preaches is another matter. It is possible that Obama does not believe a word of what Wright, Cone and Hopkins teach. Perhaps he merely used the Trinity United Church of Christ as a political stepping-stone. African-American political life is centered around churches, and his election to the Illinois State Senate with the support of Chicago’s black political machine required church membership. Trinity United happens to be Chicago’s largest and most politically active black church.

Obama views Wright rather at arm’s length: as the New York Times reported on April 30, 2007:

Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.

Obama holds his own views close. But it seems unlikely that he would identify with the ideological fits of the black-power movement of the 1960s. Obama does not come to the matter with the perspective of an American black, but of the child of a left-wing anthropologist raised in the Third World, as I wrote elsewhere (Obama’s women reveal his secret , Asia Times Online, February 26, 2008). It is possible that because of the Wright affair Obama will suffer for what he pretended to be, rather than for what he really is.

Note

1. See William R Jones, “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


Comments

I have mixed feelings about the whole Jeremiah Wright ordeal. On one hand, I understand his feelings. As a white man, I choose to stand with my race just as he chooses to stand with his. Thus, I can’t fault him for his views. On the other hand, I also recognize that Rev. Wright would never attempt to understand my feelings or concerns so why should I try to understand his? The fact is, people like Wright are not intellectually consistent with their beliefs; they preach ethno-centrism and border-line hatred of other races yet would accuse a white man of being “racist” for the slightest perceived insult.

Posted by Conrad R. at 6:03 PM on March 17


VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Jeremiah Wright, Obama's Former Pastor - Christian in Name but what???

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

By James Lewis
Until the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's spiritual mentor in Black Liberation Theology, popped out of the woodwork, I didn't even know about BLT -- Black Liberation Theology. But the doctrines of Black Liberation have been preached since 1966 in black churches, with the enthusiastic support of white churches of the Left, notably the United Church of Christ. The Rev. Wright runs an official UCC church.

Though I am not a professional theologian, I daresay that Jesus would not, repeat not, approve of BLT. Because Black Liberation Theology seems to go straight against every single word in the Sermon on the Mount. Odd that the UCC has never noticed that over the last fifty years.

In fact, the liberal churches have bestowed great influence and prestige on the inventor of Black Liberation Theology, a Dr. James Hal Cone. Writes Dr. Cone, among other things,


* "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."

* "All white men are responsible for white oppression."

* "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism."

* "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil.""

* "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples."

* "We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal."

Apparently liberal religious authorities like those at the United Church of Christ love this preaching so much that they have made Dr. Cone a professor at the Union Theological Seminary, the "Charles Augustus Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology." It is a stamp of official approval for a peddler of race hatred.

What would Jesus say? Well, we may never know that, but in a month we'll know what Pennsylvania Democrats will say. And if they turn thumbs down on that grandchild of Black Liberation Theology, Senator Barack Obama, the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. Including the Churches of the Left, which have reveled in rage-mongering radical chic since the Sixties.

If you've ever wondered why black people in America have had such a hard time rising in society, even after slavery ended in 1865, even after the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, even after affirmative action tilted the playing field in their favor, the answer has to be found in the doctrines that have been preached to blacks by their most powerful leaders. If Black Liberation Theology is to be believed, blacks can never make it on their own. They have to rely on a separatist, rage-filled ideology, supported whole-heartedly by white Leftist churches.

The Left has a long, long habit of shafting the very people is purports to love. Instead, the Left only empowers Leftist elites. Look at the history of the Soviet Union, of Maoist China, of Fidel Castro. Who profited from those regimes except the elites, dining on caviar while ordinary people starved? Today Hugo Chavez is squandering Venezuela's oil wealth on his personal ego trips. It is the poor who suffer from Chavez' caudillismo.

What the Church of the Left have done to poor blacks is just like that. Instead of supporting messages of hope and strength, they celebrated the rage demagogues who keep people in thrall. "Black Liberation" is an enslavement of the mind. If you keep black people popping with anger at whites, half a century after the end of Jim Crow, you are not helping them. You are hurting them.

For the Democrats, who have knowingly supported this corruption of the poor for decades, the churches of Left have set a time bomb. Next month we'll see if it explodes.

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/how_the_leftist_churches_set_a.html at March 30, 2008 - 11:06:16 PM EDT

Why is Obama Ducking the Questions? Only One Possible Reason!

[excerpted from http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11541]

March 21, 2008
Dems 2008: McClatchy discovers Black Liberation Theology [Karl]

Given the chain’s general leftward slant, it is all the more notable that McClatchy is perhaps the first establishment media outlet to report some of the specifics of the Black Liberation Theology that is the vision of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama’s church — and to note (as already noted here) that Obama dodged the larger issue:

Obama’s speech Tuesday on race in America was hailed as a masterful handling of the controversy over divisive sermons by the longtime pastor of Trinity United, the recently retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright’s inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn’t address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

McClatchy’s Margaret Talev went so far as to interview Dr. James H. Cone, who first presented Black Liberation Theology as a system of thought in the late 1960s. Dr. Cone reaffirmed his prior view that Trinity most embodies his message and opined that he thought the Rev. Wright’s successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition. (It does seem likely so far.)

Unfortunately, the piece quotes only Dr. Cone and Dwight Hopkins, a Trinity member and liberation theology professor at the University of Chicago’s divinity school. Apparently, McClatchy could not be bothered to contact neutral theologians or critics of Black Liberation Theology. As a result, Cone and Hopkins get away with softening the harder edges of their theology.

Nevertheless, McClatchy has now done more than most of the establishment media (and certainly more than TIME magazine’s new puff piece or the ignorant and inane ramblings of E.J. Dionne, Jr.) on the underlying issue, even as it hypothesizes Obama’s church membership is one of political convenience rather than reading Obama’s writings on the subject, which are consistent with the theology.

Most important, McClatchy sought answers from the Obama campaign on the issue:

It isn’t clear where Obama’s beliefs and the church’s diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology.

That is the standard response of the Obama campaign to any controversy, as anyone trying to report on Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko will tell you. Obama will not answer press inquiries until the establishment media turns up the heat to the point where he feels compelled to do so. That pattern should trouble people far beyond those concerned about the degree to which Obama susbscribes to Black Liberation Theology.

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

Was Tony Blair right? Was George Bush right? Is Geert Wilder right? Check out this video.

VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2

Truth?

Press4Truth contains opinions of various authors and does not necessarily represent the views of Press 4 Truth. They are presented often to challenge the accepted thinking which very often is obtained from soundbytes rather than study of the issues.