Sunday, 6 July 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

Police In Wales Called To Investigate UFO - Discover It Was The Moon

Posted: 06 Jul 2008 12:00 PM CDT

Too funny and goes to show that some people really need a babysitter and shouldn't be allowed to touch the phone.

In order to show an example of how time is wasted for the police with calls to the police emergency line, police released a transcript of one such call which showed a citizen reporting a UFO, which was actually the moon.
Control: "South Wales Police, what's your emergency?"

Caller: "It's not really. I just need to inform you that across the mountain there's a bright stationary object."

Control: "Right."

Caller: "If you've got a couple of minutes perhaps you could find out what it is? It's been there at least half an hour and it's still there."


That was a portion of the 999 call received by the police in Wales from a South Wales resident and when the police were dispatched to observe the "stationary object" that concerned the resident, they discovered it was the moon, not an unidentified flying object.

The police then called their control room to report their findings and that call went as follows:

Control: "Alpha Zulu 20, this object in the sky, did anyone have a look at it?"

Officer: "Yes, it's the moon. Over."


A police spokesperson admits that they can see the comical side of this whole exchange but that the phone call wasted time and could have blocked "a genuine call for vital seconds and put lives at risk."

They cited other calls just as time wasting as the first but one has to wonder about people that can mistake the moon for an unidentified flying object.

Who mistakes the moon for a UFO?

My heavens.

This has been the ridiculous item for the weekend, now back to regularly scheduled programming...

.

In The UK, Booties To Be Issued to Police Sniffer Dogs That Enter Muslim Homes

Posted: 06 Jul 2008 10:28 AM CDT

Recently a couple of news stories were reported dealing with dogs, and Muslims being offended at the police using them, saying dogs are unclean. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) will start using booties for the dogs that enter Muslim homes.
First there was a situation where the Muslim population in a Scottish district were offended by the use of a puppy sitting in a police hat that was used on postcards sent out by the police to advertise their non-emergency phone numbers.

(Post card that offended the Muslim population in a Scottish district)


It was later reported that dogs called terrorist sniffer dogs, used at railway stations in the wake of the 2005 London suicide bomb attacks, were being complained about for the same reason, that they were "spiritually unclean".

Since then the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has been drawing up guidelines, which are due to be published this year, and they will encourage awareness of religious sensitivities.

Originally the guidelines were designed for mosques but are being expanded to include other buildings, such a Muslim homes.

In those guidelines, if Muslims object to the use of the sniffer dogs, then they will only be used in "exceptional" cases and when they are used they will have to wear little booties with rubber soles.

According to Acpo "We are trying to ensure that police forces are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within people's homes. It is being addressed and forces are working towards doing it."

One leading British Imam, Ibrahim Mogra, disagrees with these new guidelines, saying "Acpo needs to consult better and more widely."

He contends that "In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its saliva is. Most Islamic schools of law agree on that. If security measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done." He then concludes by saying, "I know in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, but this is cultural. Also, we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should do our bit to change our attitudes."

For those unaware, an Imam, is described in the Brittanica Encyclopedia as "the head of the Muslim community; the title is used in the Qurʾān several times to refer to leaders and to Abraham."

Is Mogra correct that Acpo is going overboard and needs to do a little more homework?

American Commander In Iraq: 'I think we’re at the irreversible point'

Posted: 06 Jul 2008 09:25 AM CDT

Al-Qaeda is driven from Mosul

It has been a long hard fight but the troops on the ground in Iraq, both Iraqi and American are expressing optimism and seeing the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.

In the Mosul bastion, al-Qaedas remaining force made what is being called "a last stand" and they lost.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion's Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans' 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.


A senior Iraqi commander, Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, states, "We've limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they're mostly not succeeding."

The American Commander in the North, Major-General Mark Hertling, confirms this and for the first time shows the incredible optimism from his observations, to say, "I think we're at the irreversible point."

You can read more about what is happening and how from a correspondent with the TimesOnline, on the front lines, in another piece, found here.

The Iraqis and Americans have got Al-Qaeda on the run. How have they come so far, so fast? ON the night of May 9, 87 "target packets" landed on the walnut desk of Abdul, the commander of the Iraqi army's 2nd Division.

The details of each named target were specific. One read: "Action: capture. Characteristics: white hair, hazel eyes, sunburnt skin. Alias: Abu Mohamed. Car: drives a station wagon. Residence: a two-storey house painted black (with map attached showing location). Credibility of source: reliable."

By early the next morning – the launch day for Operation Lion's Roar to recapture Mosul – hundreds of police and army checkpoints had been set up across the city.


Read the rest.... As was promised, the Iraqis stood up and we stood down and they are doing the job they have been trained to do.
.

There Are No Jokes in Islam

Posted: 06 Jul 2008 01:38 AM CDT





Happy Fourth of July From Barbie




Cross posted respectfully from Planck's Constant
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2008/07/happy_4th_of_july_from_barbie.html

In my previous article Barbie Conquers Iran I reported on the poor youth living under Islam wishing that America would bomb them out of their misery. On this glorious 4th of July when we celebrate the declaring of this nation's independence from tyrannical rule, I think it is appropriate to remember that Muslims who live in the non-civilized world are suffering under odious oppressive regimes.

Barbie is hated by those who rule in Islamic nations not only because she represents the Great Satan, but also because she is an independent woman who doesn't need Ken or any man to validate her existence. She buys her own wardrobe and although she has more clothing than any Muslim woman can ever hope to have, she still fails to cover up those parts of her body offensive to Islam.

Of course, Muslims who have always lived in Europe or America do not really understand Islam. They think that Islam as practiced in the West is the true Islam. They point out that they have fun, listen to music, and have infidel friends. And so they think that if America or Europe were ever to fall under Islamic rule that civilized life as they experienced it would continue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The so-called Westernized Muslim, the average moderate Muslim that you see on the streets of Canada or America is living under a delusion. Female Muslims in our part of the world that go to work or school without a chador or burqa actually believe that if there were more Muslims here, that things would still remain the same. They do not understand that the only reason they aren't treated like cattle is precisely because our government forbids it. If enough Muslims vote for it, our government will rule under Shariah Law. It is beginning to happen in the UK and will happen in every European country that fails to stem the Muslim infestation there.

Of course, we still have the occasional Honor killings even here in North America. But idiot Muslim women assume that those incidents are just an extreme anomaly, that these are rare events. They will learn, as other Muslim women have learned, that under Islam, as practiced in nations with Muslim majorities, disobeying any male member of their family results in a brutal whipping or death. Shariah Law will not permit women the kind of freedom that they now enjoy in civilized countries.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If one had to pick three essential things for a rational man's existence, would there be any but these three? Pursuit of happiness may seem an odd choice, equated as important as a man's life or liberty. Jefferson may have been inspired in part by the sentiments expressed in Ecclesiastes 8:15 - "So I commended pleasure, for there is nothing good for a man under the sun except to eat and to drink and to be merry, and this will stand by him in his toils throughout the days of his life which God has given him under the sun."

In my post Eat, Drink and be Merry - 13 Last Words, I wrote:
While other religions may ask man to extinguish all desires and passions in this world (Buddhism) or to submit to misery and squalor in this world in order to attain joy and pleasure in the next (Islam), Judaism instructs us to enjoy the simple gifts that God gives in the present world. Eat, drink and be merry. Enjoy this life, on this Earth, in this time.

Reader Mohamed Shedou, who blogs at Why I am a Muslim disagreed with me:
Comment
enjoying eating and drinking in this life is not forbidden is islam:quran 7:32Say, "Who prohibited the nice things GOD has created for His creatures, and the good provisions?" Say, "Such provisions are to be enjoyed in this life by those who believe. Moreover, the good provisions will be exclusively theirs on the Day of Resurrection." We thus explain the revelations for people who know.

I don't know about you, but the Hebrew verse is quite explicit, one can eat, drink and be merry. Who the hell wants to enjoy provisions? And what are provisions anyway. I say, let's go to an expert on Islam and the explicit word 'fun.'
Wiki, Political thought and legacy of Khomeini

Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials.


But, Mohamed may object and say that's only one man's opinion. I say, it's the opinion of a man who set the rules for an entire religion. But let's look at typical Muslims and see if they really have fun: From my article Muslim Cruises and Islamic Travel I answered the question How many Muslim Cruises are available for Muslims? ZERO!

A MUSLIMS-only day at Britain's biggest theme park has been axed after a huge bookings flop [Dhimmi Watch].

I won't bother listing Muslim attacks against other Muslims who listen to music, play soccer, or simply dance. Why bother with the obvious? Sorry Mohamed, your lips say Muslims can have fun, your coreligionists practice otherwise.

So on this day we celebrate the founding of a nation in which we are not only allowed to have fun, but it is declared that we have the fundamental right to so.


Today, I will pursue my happiness with a picnic with my family. We will eat, we will drink, and we will be merry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A note from Radarsite: "There are no jokes in Islam." Just one look at that deadly face of the good Ayatollah tells the whole story. "There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam." No swimming, no kite-flying, no dancing, no music -- there is no fun in Islam.

What, then, is there in Islam?

First of all, there's that unlimited capacity to take offense. Then, of course there's that apparently permanent state of being enraged. Add to this, that infamous reputation for infinite intolerance and hatred, those eternal inter-generational bequests of self-inflicted victimhood, the seething resentments, and the endless plottings of revenge. And we must not forget to mention that inate distrust and contempt of all women, all unbelievers, all apostates, and all of the Others. And we must also remember the stonings, the beheadings, the female genital mutilations, the honor killings, the terrorist attacks, the suicide-bombers, and those ceaseless and senseless rocket attacks against their neighbor's kindergartens in Sderot.

Ah, yes, there is certainly no fun in Islam.

What, then, is there in Islam?

Look closely at this picture, a suicide bomber's last will and testament:



Look closely into this young man's eyes. Enraptured, possessed, transfixed by his fervent vision, his personal and final jihad. He has prepared himself well, this young man, he is ready now. He is ready to slaughter the Others and to give himself to Allah. To give himself to Islam. To give himself to death. And there is no joy in death. And there is no fun in Islam.

Now, let us listen to the Jews of Sderot:


You can hear them singing. They are dancing and laughing and singing, the Jews of Sderot. And the rockets are still falling and the Jews are still dancing. And the men are watching, and the children are playing, and the women are laughing, and --
I rest my case.


http://sderotmedia.com/

Since The Start Of 2007, President Bush Has Raised More Campaign Money Than The Entire Democratic National Committee

Posted: 05 Jul 2008 04:20 PM CDT

For an unpopular president, Bush sure can still bring in the dollars in fundraising.

They sneak him in, they take no pictures with him and yet he has brought more money in for Republican National Committee than has been raised by the entire Democratic National Committee.

The numbers for this year alone:

He has already clocked 31 political events this year, raising nearly $70 million for GOP candidates and the national and state parties, according to the Republican National Committee. The tally puts the president on track to meet or exceed the amount he raised before the midterm elections in 2006, according to GOP officials.


A man who was a senior adviser to Gore, Michael Feldman, shows what a fine line Bush has to walk with his popularity rating being so low when he says, "His strongest contribution will be going to high-dollar fundraisers and raising as much money for the campaign and the RNC as he can, and staying as far removed as possible from the McCain campaign in the process."

Recently the news came out that the Republican National Committee has 13 times the amount of money in the bank as the Democratic National Committee does and has has outraised the DNC by 5 times in the same timeframe.

Based on the numbers so far, the Republican Party appears poised to act as the financial equalizer in the fall campaign. The RNC disclosed that it ended May with $53.5 million in the bank, compared to $3.9 million for the Democratic National Committee, which is headed by Howard Dean.

Thanks to the continuing GOP popularity and fundraising attraction of President Bush, the RNC continued to vastly out-raise the Democratic Party, amassing $24.4 million just in May.


Other recent reports have shown that John McCain's fundraising has been on the rise making May his highest contribution month to date with $21.5 million while Barack Obama saw his lowest fundraising month in May bringing in $22 million.

Despite Barack Obama's phenomenal grassroots personal fundraising ability, the DNC has not come close to matching that type of enthusiasm, and the RNC, with considerable help from President George Bush, has managed to level the monetary playing field between Obama and McCain.

The fact Bush's fund raising capabilities, while being limited because of his overall popularity being at the lowest point, has still brought in more monies than the entire Democratic National Committee, just goes to show that despite his problems, his overall fundraising capabilities are a force to be reckoned with still.

The president is not done yet either, as his chief political adviser, Barry Jackson, makes clear when he states that Bush spent the better part of last year laying the groundwork to help whoever the candidate for the GOP would end up being, and Jackson says that Bush will continue to do so for the"candidates from the top of the ticket on down."

.

Vets For Freedom "Four Months, For Victory" Campaign To Show The Progress In Iraq

Posted: 05 Jul 2008 03:31 PM CDT



YouTube video URL for video above, found here)

The Vets for Freedom is a 20,000-member, nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and they will be launching a million dollar plus TV campaign geared to showing the general public the progress and successes being seen in Iraq.

The Vets for Freedom has always said they will stand with anyone, Democrat or Republican and stands with the troops and their mission to victory.

Now they will be launching this campaign called "Four Months, For Victory" with see ads airing in key swing states like, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Here are excerpts of the advisory Vets for Freedom will be sending the media:

"WHO/WHAT: On July 9, Vets for Freedom will hold a press conference featuring over a dozen Iraq war veterans to launch a national "Four Months, For Victory" media and grass-roots campaign. The effort will culminate on Veterans Day (November 11) and is intended to inform the American public and key lawmakers about the phenomenal success that our troops have achieved as a result of the surge and the importance of ensuring victory in Iraq, Afghanistan and the overall Global war on Terrorism.

"The launch includes a multimillion-dollar television-advertising buy in target markets and on national cable that will air this week and run throughout July and August. The first television ad will be released at the press conference featuring the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans appearing in the ad. These pointed ads are aimed at informing the American people about the truth regarding progress in Iraq.

"Simultaneously, Vets for Freedom will mobilize our grass-roots veteran membership throughout the country to spread the "ground truth" about progress in Iraq. The "Four Months, For Victory" campaign is a national grass-roots effort taking place in all 50 states, but will aggressively focus on 12 key states that are home to key lawmakers: MN, IA, WI, MI, PA, NV, NM, MO, CO, OH, FL and VA.


These ads will overwhelmingly end up helping John McCain at a time when Barack Obama just tried to hedge his bets about Iraq timelines for withdrawing our troops, which created a firestorm throughout the liberal blogosphere which forced him to call a second press conference the same day and deny that he was "refining" his Iraq withdrawal plans.

These ads are also coming at a time when recent polls are showing that Obama is not only losing more support from Clinton supporters but has lost numbers with all registered Democrats in comparison with polls done by the same organizations a month earlier.

His recent decision to go against his far left based in regards to FISA, his changing position on second amendment, death penalty for child rapist and most recently his words on abortion...etc, his sharp turn to the right to appeal to moderates and Independents seems to have angered his progressive base and lessened that highly touted enthusiasm that his supporters once had.

On a side note it looks like another problem facing Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is that they are showing that they have a hard time budgeting their own convention finances...which makes one wonder how on earth they expect the general public to trust them with the whole economy.

Some of the Democratic missteps started almost immediately after planning for the event began. The Democratic National Convention Committee decided not to take cheap office space and and instead rented top-quality offices in downtown Denver at $100,000 a month, only to need less than half the space, which it then filled with rental furniture at $50,000 a month. And in a costly misstep, the Denver host committee, early on, told corporate donors that their contributions were not tax-deductible, rather than to encourage donations by saying that the tax-exempt application was pending and expected to be approved.

Overly ambitious environmental goals — to turn the event into a "green" convention — have backfired as only three states' full delegations have so far agreed to participate in the program. Negotiations over where to locate demonstrators remain unsettled with members of the national news media concerned over proposals to locate the demonstrators — with their loud gatherings — next to the media tent.

And then there is the food: A 28-page contract requested by Denver organizers that caterers provide food in "at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple and white." Garnishes could not be counted toward the colors. No fried foods would be allowed. Organic and locally grown foods were mandated, and each plate had to be 50 percent fruits and vegetables. As a result, caterers are shying away.

For the Democratic Party, the danger is that a poorly run convention, or one that misses the mark financially, will reflect badly on the party, and raise questions about Democratic management skills. And more worrisome for the Obama campaign is that it will be left with the bill for cost overruns or fund-raising shortfalls, and that the candidate will have to compete in raising money against a convention effort desperate for cash.


The article goes on to point out that the Democrats are behind in their fundraising leaving them "about $11 million short of the $40.6 million needed to stage the event — even before cost overruns were taken into consideration."

The Vets for Freedom $1 million campaign will be very big help to McCain, since he was the one that initially pushed for the surge, well before Bush ever implemented it, and the successful nature of that surge brought to the forefront on television screens across America will show a stark contrast between John McCain and Barack with Obama being the one that wants to quit while our troops are winning, simply to appease his far left base.

Remember, Obama has stated, on his website that he wants an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.... he does this without having sat down to be briefed by General Pteraeus, refusing to meet with veterans that wish to discuss this with him and not having been to Iraq in over 2 years to see the progress for himself.

[Update] The Caucus has a little more on these ads:

Update: Mr. Hegseth, the group's chairman, provided some additional details about the upcoming advertising campaign.

The group has purchased an initial $1.5 million in advertising time over the next two weeks, with the commercials broadcasting on national cable, as well as in Michigan, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado.

The commercial does not explicitly mention Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain, but the end of the advertisement does contain a jab at Mr. Obama's message about change, with several veterans declaring for the camera: 'We changed strategy in Iraq and the surge worked. Now that's change you can believe in."

But Mr. Hegseth insisted his group is not seeking to boost anyone: "These are meant to drive a message, 'The surge has worked. We need to finish the job.'"



Love the "Change you can believe in line". HEH

.

Victory For Minutemen When Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against The California Department of Transportation

Posted: 05 Jul 2008 02:08 PM CDT

In what the Minutemen call a total victory, a California judge grants them a preliminary injunction to have a sign replaced that the California Department of Transportation reassigned to another location.
The Minutemen are an anti-illegal immigration group with chapters across the United States. There stated goal on their website is:

To see the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employ all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish this goal.


As of now, they show the border watch total as, 30,671 Illegal Aliens Sighted; 326 Rescues; 13,710 Intruder Apprehensions from 26 Countries Confirmed by Border Patrol.

Background.

Video at YouTube here and below of news account.



The trouble started in November when the Minutemen applied and was granted an Adopt-A-Highway permit at the Border Patrol's San Clemente checkpoint from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Once granted a sign went up for the Minutemen and they were allowed a litter cleanup permit for that stretch of road.

The founder of the San Diego Minutemen, Jeff Schwilk, received a letter from Caltrans, welcoming them to the Adopt-A-Highway program and they received training and conducted their first cleanup of the stretch of road in January without a hitch.

When the Minutemen sign went up, the trouble began.

Enrique Morones who is a Mexican-American immediately declared that he would see to it the signs came down, saying there was "no way we were going to let these hate groups promote themselves on our freeways."

He registered complaints with the Governors office, Caltrans, the California Latino Caucus and Latino legislators, demanding that the sign be removed and claiming it was a "huge security and safety risk to allow these signs and members of the SDMM to 'work' alongside our roads.".

In January, after the Minutemen had conducted their first cleanup of the road, Schwilk received another letter.

Subsequently, Schwilk received a letter from Caltrans District Director Pedro Orso-Delgado stating, "The location of your existing AAH permit has raised questions regarding public safety due to the proximity of your assigned highway segment to a U.S. Border Patrol facility that is co-located with the CHP San Clemente Inspection facility."

Orso-Delgado, who bought into Morones allegations that the group's participation at the assigned location posed significant risk of disruption to the operation of the state highway, as well as public safety concerns for both the traveling public and participants in the AAH Program, told Schwilk the SDMM's AAH permit "is hereby modified and the related courtesy sign will be moved," and stated there was another "more suitable location" along State Route 52 near Santee for assignment to the SDMM under the program.


In February the San Diego Minutemen, with the help of their attorney, former North County Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, initiated a lawsuit against Caltrans on the basis of free speech, with Kaloogian saying, "I think that they have made a bad decision, which violated our clients' equal rights."

In the meantime, four months after the suit was filed in court, Caltrans suspended the Adopt-A-Highway program, putting permit applications on hold while they reviewed the guidelines for the program.

Schwilk commented at that time, saying, "They are discriminating against a group of American citizens because they don't like our political message of 'Secure the borders.' "

Preliminary Injunction To Restore The Sign.

While the lawsuit was still pending, in May, the San Diego Minutemen organization filed for a preliminary injunction to have the Minutemen signs reposted until a judgment in the lawsuit was made.

On Friday, June 27, 2008, Judge William Q. Hayes, granted the Minutemen their preliminary injunction against Caltran saying that there was not enough evidence supplied by Caltrans to support their claim that the signs posed a safety risk, with Kaloogian later calling those claims "bogus".

Will Kempton, the Director of Caltrans issued a prepared statement saying that Caltrans was considering it options, including appealing the decision and also stating, "It's regrettable the court did not agree with our concerns for the safety implications. We are reviewing the judge's decision and determining next steps."

The judge gave Caltrans 30 days to restore the sign.

I will end this with a question that writer, Logan Jenkins, asks in an article he writes for SignOn San Diego.com, "How many taxpayer dollars will be blown as Caltrans, an agency commissioned to build and maintain roads, struggles to determine who, and who is not, good enough to pick up trash on the shoulders of the highway?"

.

CLOSE GITMO, MR. PRESIDENT!

Posted: 05 Jul 2008 01:50 PM CDT

I think just about anybody who is informed understands the far-reaching ramifications of the recent ruling by SCOTUS that any of the terrorists currently being coddled in Gitmo are to be tried in American civilian courts. Doesn't take a mental giant to be more than a little peeved to hear that now these people who wish America (and the rest of us) harm are going to be given civilian lawyers and full access to the same rights and priviledges as US citizens. Yes, it is insane, I know. You will also have heard all the outrage throughout the blogosphere.

Poison Pen (here) adds their 2 cents. Because I think they say what a lot of us are thinking, and it is a must read, I am copying the whole thing for you. Read on:

The Supreme Court has decided to give MY American rights and due processes to Foreign Terrorists.

NO.
You're fired. You are relieved of your duties Supreme Court Justices.


Your votes to allow TERRORISTS American RIGHTS and Processes; SLAPS every Member of this Nations ARMED FORCES in the face. The military members that PROTECT our Freedoms and solidify our constitutional rights, the very soldiers that have fought, bled, and DIED for our Freedoms; you have just STABBED in the back by allowing the TERRORISTS to trample all over what they fight to uphold. YOUR FIRED!

Attorneys in the United States are waiting with baited breath to represent Foreign Terrorists and help them absolve their crimes against the people of Iraq, coalition forces, and American Soldiers with American Laws and Rights.

NO.
Your licenses to practice law should be revoked. You can give those Gitmo detainee's your personal address and contact information if you feel they are so "innocent."

"A Few Good Men"- "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it." - Jack Nicholson

Gitmo detainee's are there because soldiers had more than enough compelling evidence upon detaining them, turning them over to higher ranking officials, and sending them through an assortment of military processes to deem it VITAL that they be sent to Guantanamo verses secondary or lesser detention facilities. This is not an eenie-meenie-miney-mo-pick-a-terrorist-by-the-toe hap hazard random choosing of placements.

Gitmo is for leaders of terrorist's cells and groups. The playing card types that the military had hundreds of actual names for. Gitmo detainees are organizers, leaders, high contacts and at the top of the tiers. Gitmo is like our Federal Penitentiary.

Abu Ghraib is for second rung terrorists, the lesser offenders. There is still enough compelling evidence and terrorism attacks on the people of Iraq and American soldiers to warrant detention. Abu Ghraib is similar to our state prisons.

Local people who have committed a one time or lesser degree act of terrorism under circumstances such as coercion by cell groups or rogue acts and most often because an organized terrorist group threatens their entire family with brutal death if the head of household does not perform according to their will, they are detained locally—but usually released after a short period of time and information is gathered.

What most Americans fail to understand, and the Media HIDES is that in THIS war, terrorists are not defined by a uniform, or an assembly of soldiers or particular front designator.

Farmer Joe down the road with 7 sheep, 2 goats and a field of palms owns at least one AK-47 rifle. It is STANDARD of the lifestyle and environment. His neighbor who fixes machines and sells vegetables at the market from his garden also owns an AK-47.

A village over-with friends, cousins, brothers, and assortment of cohorts; all have civilian "day jobs" and all own AK-47's. Within each of these homes, one person keeps detonation cord; one person keeps remote equipment, another keeps cell phones, another chemicals, and still another parts and pieces of bomb casings hidden.

At night these civilians gather together and bring the bits and parts to plant IED's along military traveled roads. Or they make vests to blow themselves up in crowded markets, or perhaps rig an old car so it becomes a super driven explosive through a convoy or checkpoint barrier killing as many as possible.

Then they quietly scurry back home to civilian life again. They don't wear signs, patches, or insignia that screams "Al-Qaeda Iraq" or "Mahdi Army Militia" on them. They hide in crowds with rifles under their clothing, take their shots, drop their weapons and blend back in with the crowd.

The media spins words like "insurgency, militia, cells, groups, etc; to invoke or provide the American armchair warrior with an ideal that there is a "type" of enemy combative being fought.

THERE IS NOT. This is URBAN-GORILLA CITIES-TOWNS-VILLAGES filled with average people and no way of knowing for certain who is a combative or not. The moment of clarity comes in split seconds. The moment is when that "local" is pointing a weapon at a soldier, or walking into a crowded market with explosives wearing civilian clothing.

Our soldiers have less than 3 seconds to save lives. This includes the local civilians around them, soldiers in their squads, and themselves. 3 s-e-c-o-n-d-s. Hold your breath.

Military intelligence, local villagers, and Imams who are tired of their children dying, their homes being destroyed and their family members being beheaded in front of them turn in information on these terrorists. Military personnel then have to WATCH to verify that the information given is valid, always knowing that it is dangerous and could cost them their lives.

If our soldiers get into a battle with one or one hundred of these terrorists they do not have time to yell "STOP! I have to take some incriminating photos and oh by the way, will you the terrorists, please sign this form declaring your guilt in planting the IED that just blew up the humvee in front of us, and while you do that, lets all turn our backs and go pick up those shell casings we spent while shooting back under enemy fire." (evidence and all)

Yet this is what the CIVILIAN ATTORNEYS who represent the terrorists want to use to FREE them.

"A Few Good Men"- "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it." - Jack Nicholson

Has anyone in America stopped to think where the Gitmo terrorists will go after the Supreme Court Judge's gavel declares innocence?

THEY WILL WALK STRAIGHT-OUT-OF-THE-COURTHOUSE-ONTO-AMERICAN-SOIL. If by some measure they are secured and deported back to Iraq, they will RESUME terrorist activities. THEY WILL. These are HIGH Tier Terrorists. Well organized, high RUNG of the ladder members. It does not require surveys and a special commissions group to determine whether or not it will happen. COMMON sense dictates here.

These terrorists have NO RIGHTS to MY AMERICAN rights.

CLOSE GITMO, Mr. President.

Send the terrorists to Iraq to the fortified prison Saddam stayed at, or Abu Ghraib where they can await trial on their soil, with their laws, their guards, and their oil funding paying for their comforts and detention.

Let the justice system that served Saddam, serve them.

Right now Mr. President, you have less than 5 months to complete one more solid task to insure security for OUR Nation.


CLOSE GITMO, Mr. President.

Cross-posted by Brat in all sorts of places!


.

No comments:

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.