Thursday, 17 July 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

Clinton Supporters Receiving Death Threats From Obama Supporters

Posted: 17 Jul 2008 12:05 PM CDT

Spending the last hour doing searches into something written over at PUMA PAC, it is apparent that there is some concern about death threats from Barack Obama supporters against Hillary Clinton supporters.

For the record, I am a conservative that is backing John McCain. I was never a Hillary supporter and had much criticism for her up until about six months before the Democratic primaries ended where I developed a grudging respect for her ability to fight against the bias, the unfair news coverage and the general misogyny I saw leveled against her and her 18 million supporters. I might not agree with her policy stances, but that in no way takes away from the grudging admiration I came to have for her as a woman and a politician.

With that said...

There are number of Hillary Clinton supporters that refuse to vote for Barack Obama, some willing to sit out the election, others preparing to vote for John McCain and still others that continue their valiant battle to force a roll call vote in at the Democratic convention to be held in August, wanting her name to in nomination so the superdelegates actually have a choice to publicly state who they support.

All the Hillary supporters listed above are the subject of this post.

Many are reporting that they are receiving death threats from Barack Obama supporters and the list that PUMA PAC has published is still growing.

Senator Obama's supporters asked Hillary Clinton to publicly distance herself from a long-time Hillraiser fundraiser and loyal supporter, Ricki Lieberman, who is working day and night to save our party from a landslide loss in November by highlighting the weaknesses of Obama the candidate. Senator Clinton promptly complied.

Perhaps we should ask Senator Obama to "distance" himself from his supporters who are threatening women who oppose him with death? What do YOU think HIS response will be?


So far, my list includes these women. If you have received threats of violence or death from Obama supporters because of your political activities or writing, or you know someone who has, please tell us in comments. Also send me an email at

* Riverdaughter of the Confluence
* Digby
* Diane at JSND
* Murphy at Puma PAC
* Paula Abeles
* Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
* Patsy, Soldier For Hillary
* Sugar from PA
* IP from Puma PAC
* Heidi Li of the Denver Group

One of those names on the list is Representative Sheila Jackson, a Democrat that refused to "fall in line" and back Barack Obama after the primaries were over.

In looking further into this, I found many other references to these death threats.

For example, on the Hillary Clinton Forum, there is a thread titled, " I'm getting very disturbed by these death threats to Hillary supporters - should authorities be notified?"

In the following comments, there are people claiming they too have received death threats because of their continued support for Hillary and their opposition to Obama.

Doug Ross points out that there are others having the same problem.

Via Hillary's My Girl08:

One evening I received a phone call another death threat and then shortly after my son came in and yelled fire. Someone set my tree on fire. The fire department said the fire was arson.

I do not know if Senator Obama realizes that his followers are giving death threats to all sorts of people. I do not know if Senator Obama realizes that he needs to keep his cultists under control. I am not afraid of Death Threats I have faced several in my life including some of my own making. I also battled cancer and I am in the middle of battling Obesity. These threats only make me more determined to stop this man he is dangerous and I am not afraid.

It would be very easy for Barack Obama to get in front of this and simply, publicly denounce those types of threats and let the weight of it fall to only those making the threats.

I am still going through the variety of sites and have not seen other specific examples, so to any Hillary Clinton supporters that have received death threats or any threat for that matter, please either forward the email, with the complete header to or simply copy and paste everything into the comment section of this post and I will add them as an update to the original piece.

Secondly, if you have been threatened offline, please describe those threats in the comment section.

Last but not least.

If you receive a threat offline, report it to the authorities immediately to make sure there is a public record and if the threats are made online, you should immediately contact your local FBI office, either by Internet Form or a phone call, both of which you can find here at the FBI contact page.

Barack Obama cannot be held directly responsible for the acts of some unhinged supporter(s), but he does need to publicly denounce those types of threats and he needs to do it fast.


Chain Of Command Gaffe Made By Barack Obama Ignored By Media #2

Posted: 17 Jul 2008 11:30 AM CDT

This was mentioned yesterday in a short post but it bears looking a little deeper into the ramifications of the inexperience that Barack Obama actually showed with his comment about the Joint Chief of Staff.

Barack Obama said, "I'm going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close." The problem is that the Joint Chief of Staff does not have operational command of the U.S. Military.
The chain of command is the line of authority and responsibility along which orders are passed.

It is a common misconception that the Joint Chief of Staff runs military operations for those that have no military experience, but according to the chain of command for the United States, the responsibility of conducting military operations goes directly from the President of the United States of America to the Secretary of Defense and straight from there to the Unified Combatant Commands.

Those orders bypass the Joint Chief of Staff completely. The primary responsibility of the Joint Chief of Staff is to ensure the personnel readiness, policy, planning and training of their respective military services for the combatant commanders to utilize. They also militarily advise the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense with the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff being a chief military adviser to both.

CNN, while showing the clip of Obama saying "I'm going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close. We are going to get out", which can be seen here, never mentioned the misstatement by Obama and, as of now, a search shows that no other major news organization has reported the gaffe.

Originally this was caught by conservative writer and radio show host, Hugh Hewitt from Townhall and picked up by NewsBusters and The Media Research Center, who instantly sent out an alert via email.

Bloggers have picked up on this with Dean Barnett, from the Weekly Standard Blog, asking, "As he's been running for office for 18 months now, shouldn't he have found some time to explore the way the president interacts with the military rather than repeat canned (not to mention erroneous) assumptions he's probably held since his community organizing days?"

The question here is where is the media on this? CNN actually showed the clip of Obama's words, which means the gaffe was shown publicly but they haven't reported on that specific aspect of his comment yet.

The second question revolves around the type of knowledge Americans expect from those running to be the Commander in Chief of the United States Military.

Do Americans expect candidates to understand the chain of command and the duties and responsibilities of those they wish to command?


Isabel Garcia-Deputy Pima County Public Defender-Needs to Go-UPDATE

Posted: 17 Jul 2008 07:06 AM CDT

[UPDATE JULY 17, 2008]

Original article here.

This story is starting to pick up some traction and we need to keep up the pressure on Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry [contact information below], the State Bar of Arizona and the ethics review boards of the Bar and Pima County Merit Rules and Personnel Policies [Pima County Human Resources].

Speaking of the Pima County Merit Rules and Personnel Policies, they can be found here. Isabel Garcia has violated Rule 7-119 [Rules of Conduct] and the disciplinary procedures are addressed under Rule 12 [Disciplinary Actions, Administrative Suspension and Administrative Suspension; specifically Rule 12.1 C 10 and 12]. I know people who were fired for "dirty" emails on county time--Garcia's behavior is far more egregious in scope and gravity.

I also reported this woman to the State Attorney and received this response via email:
If you believe a public official to have broken the criminal or ethical
laws- then please put it all in writing along with links or print outs
of your pictures, videos etc and send them to:

Fraud and Public Corruption Section
Office of the Arizona Attorney General
1275 W Washington St
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926

We cannot take complaints on the internet or phone still. Only in writing.
I would strongly suggest taking this action as well and keep flooding them with reports.

It's interesting to note the media in Tucson [the notable exception, of course, being Jon Justice' morning show on 104.1 The Truth, from 6-9am Monday through Friday, who first broke the story] has yet to pick up this story but has, in fact, buried it, despite the outcry from the citizens of Tucson wanting investigation and exposure. Of course, Garcia is a democrat and figures she's protected.

However. Legal, taxpaying citizens of Tucson, those who pay Garcia's wage, have spread the word far and wide. Michelle Malkin has two stories about this incident, "Unhinged in Arizona: Open Borders mob, led by public official, ravages Joe Arpaio effigy" here and "Tucson open-borders official gloats about effigy-beating here". So far, there are 211 comments on the first article and 39 on the second article. Some of those comments are hilarious, yet a few bring home a point people are noticing and it's not a pretty point.

Some of the comments from "Unhinged":
RedDog said: Dang! Does that chick holding up the effigy in the lead still photo look like Linda Blair or what!? eeeeeeeeee!
right_on said: At what point does "free speech" and the right to peacefully assemble, become "hate speech" and the encouragement to commit violence against
law enforcement?
The only difference I see here, between Islamo-terrorists, and Azlano-terrorists is the language.

Unfortunately, to our demise, the liberals not only tolerate this type of action, they openly encourage it.

What we need is a law enforcement, Rapid Deployment Force, that would descend on this type of illegal alien love-fest, round up all participants/lookers-on, identify them, and if here illegally, deport them.

What would you suppose would happen, if someone created an effigy of
a Latino "Illegal Jose," and began beating it with a bat (to the
cheering and encouragement of a pro-American crowd, of, oh I don't
know, say white people?) You got it! It would not be tolerated…but this

vickisoup said: If our US citizens and [some] public officals don't see anything wrong with proudly strutting around with an effigeal head of another public
official (outrageous conduct previously reserved to the neanderthal Islamofascists), we are closer to a complete takeover than I'd feared.

Alphonse said: Wow, looks just like pictures you see of Mugabe's thugs ravaging Zimbabwe. That's what chamberpot immigration will do for you.
And, some comments from "Tucson Open Borders":
RaisedRight said: "We stand for the principles of peace and justice… except when you try to reinforce laws that we don't like, then we tear your heads off."

Blind_Mule said: Jeeez, this stuff just makes me want to go out and kick the Chihuahua. :smile:
These people and this women in paticular have absolutley no respect, morals or shame. Reminds me of some middle eastern street protest, what's next burning the American Flag and Death to America signs.
abstractmind said: I'd love to see some resident trolls explain how this event represents their tolerance, but also how it demonstrates peace and justice.

I'm glad that they are putting pressure on this vile woman. She looks like a replacement for one of the zombies in a Romero film, btw. Scary stuff.
Bill Grant said: Caution, disturbing links. Does this photo remind anyone else of the Nick Berg beheading? Do these creeps realize that? I wonder.

One thing more and more people are seeing in Garcia's actions is how similar her actions are to the terrorists we are fighting and to the Mugabe regime. This is disturbing in the extreme. Commenter Bill Grant, above, has the photos exactly right--Garcia emulates Berg's murderers well.

Several commenters and people calling in to Jon's show have made the observation should anyone have committed this "act of free speech" upon an effigy of Garcia or an illegal, there would be an uproar for weeks based on the alleged hate crime implicit in such an action, yet Garcia gets away with this action with impunity. Such is the hypocrisy of the lunatic left and their fringe followers. The commenters and callers are, of course, correct. Here is the official, 2004 definition of "Hate Crime" from the FBI website here:

A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

It's about time that definition applied to those covered and committing such acts themselves. Garcia committed a hate crime--and encouraged juveniles to commit a hate crime themselves--with her actions. Just because she is Mexican and follows the Reconquista/Aztlan/La Raza agenda does not mean she's immune from the laws applying to the United States.

She claims Jon Justice and Joe Arpaio are "haters"--yet who stands like a Nick Berg murderer holding an effigy severed head? Jon Justice is just as entitled to his opinion and Freedom of Speech as Garcia; Joe Arpaio is doing his job of enforcing laws on the books, as he was elected to do. Neither are inciting riots, contributing to the delinquency of minors or disrupting private business. They are not involved in conflicts of interest as Garcia is--encouraging illegal activities while on the county payroll; hiding behind hate crime legislation when it suits their purpose; committed to the overthrow of the US Government she's sworn to uphold and violating her oath as an attorney.

If people don't like what Jon has to say they won't tune him in. If they don't like Arpaio's actions, they'll vote him out of office. We don't have those choices with Garcia. She was appointed to her position and Huckleberry refuses to remove her, despite a growing demand from the legal taxpayers of Pima County.

Now, here's the "rich" part. Garcia responds on the Coalicion de Derechos Humanos website here. Her "rebuttal" is entitled, "Response to Sheriff Arpaio Protest" and is nothing more than a "whine fest"; not once does she address her own wrongdoing. She pulls the usual spin; below are some quotes (comments of mine inserted and emphasized):
...many of us in Tucson have made a promise that we will not allow him to come into our town without him hearing from those of us who stand in support of the thousands of workers and their families who have borne the brunt of his narrow-minded, ignorant policies. That he would come to Tucson to promote a book filled with lies, fear, and ignorant perspectives about immigrants, was especially appalling to us.

The leaflet states that we "continue to work for a community that is diverse, respectful, and appreciative of each other's differences." Others brought signs and megaphones, with someone bringing a large piñata with Arpaio's face glued on the head. I am sure you are aware that these types of symbolic images are not only
common, but generally are used in context of referring to the policies of individuals in power.

I am now the target of a corporate-media-sponsored campaign to get me fired from my job as the Pima County Legal Defender (who is the corporate-media-sponsor?). The first thing that you should know is that this is not a community-based campaign by those that disagree with me, but a campaign
that was instigated by Jon Justice (not his true name) who has a program in the new hate-radio in town, 104.1 FM. On Friday morning, he was on his program urging everyone to call Chuck Huckelberry to fire me because I dared exercise my 1st Amendment right to express my views. (And we are entitled to exercise our First Amendment rights to express OUR views in wanting you GONE-Jon didn't hold guns to our heads to call and write!) They cover it by saying that the breaking of a piñata is a violent act! ??? That is simply absurd. The piñata was a symbol of Arpaio's racist, violent and brutal policies. The youth did not hit Arpaio,
they hit the piñata to break the policies that keep us fearful of each other, and that have caused so much pain to so many hardworking men, women and their children. (And this differs from the actions of islamists in the Middle East how?) He is the violent one. I have spoken directly to some of his victims/survivors of his power, and have cried just listening to their accounts.

I am proud to have been part of the community's response to his arrival in Tucson. We stand committed to stop hatred and xenophobia (it seems you and your cadre are the ones exhibiting the hatred and xenophobia by your actions and encouragement), and to work for a society that respects human rights for
everyone regardless of their age, color, race, ethnic background, gender, gender-preference, religion. As an attorney I find it is not only my right, but my responsibility to stand up when the power of the state is used to crush people (it is not your right or responsibility to advocate the overthrow of a legal government or engage in inappropriate political activity nor to advocate illegal activity in minors). I will continue to do so.

Follow the link and read the entire drivel--make sure your stomach is empty beforehand as you will be heaving at the heaping of self serving, absolute delusional lunatic agenda.

The Tucson Citizen also has an article up entitled, "The big debate: Joe Arpaio, pinata". Below are some quotes from that article:
Immigration rights protesters acted like "out-of-control, raving
lunatics" when they destroyed a piñata bearing the likeness of Maricopa
County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, "a bully with a badge" who was in Tucson
last week to promote his book, says Citizen columnist Anne T. Denogean.

Garcia, whose Human Rights Coalition organized the protest, said breaking the piñata was "funny."

No, it was "classless," says Reyes F. and "treasonous," (Chris F.).
Garcia should make a public apology, Adam L. says. Bruce S. terms the
protest "disgusting" and wonders how Pima County officials would
distinguish between Garcia's involvement in it and another employee's
participation in a Ku Klux Klan rally.
And that last line is the very heart of the matter--had this been a white person engaging in this kind of behavior, a white Pima County Deputy Public Defender, paid by the legal taxpaying citizens, and this had been a klan rally, they would have been fired already.

Denogean's article, "Protesters as offensive as Sheriff Arpaio", has this to say:
But I don't think you persuade the public that the man is an out-of-control, raving lunatic by behaving like out-of-control, raving lunatics.
That's the kindest description I have for the immigration rights protesters who beat to a pulp a piñata meant to represent the sheriff during Arpaio's visit to Tucson last week.

What occurred about midway through the protest, however, was truly disturbing. Several young protesters outside the store brought out a piñata meant to represent Arpaio.

The piñata, with a picture of Arpaio's face taped or glued to the head, was clad in a sheriff's uniform and equipped with pink handcuffs. One woman held up the piñata, while teenage protesters took turns bashing it with sticks. The Tucson Citizen ran a picture the next day of a teenage boy carting away the remains of the beheaded piñata.
While the beating of Arpaio in effigy proceeded, Isabel Garcia, head of Humanos Derechos, a group that purports to stand for the dignity of all human beings, stood by and laughed.
Follow the link above to the rest of the article--it's extremely enlightening. The Citizen also ran a poll with that article asking, "Do you think Coalicion de Derechos went too far when it smashed an Arpaio pinata?". Overwhelmingly, the answer was "Yes, members act like the people they say they hate (91%) compared to just six percent saying "No, it was deserved" and two percent saying "Other" (total number of votes=759).

The bottom line is this: Isabel Garcia, Pima County Deputy Public Defender, paid by the legal taxpayers of Pima County, needs to be fired and disbarred. Please follow the links to the appropriate officials and agencies and keep up the pressure. The officials and agencies will do NOTHING about it without overwhelming public pressure, stating clearly and unequivocally we are tired of this nonsense and we want the cancer GONE. Do your part to remove the cancer that is Isabel Garcia.


Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry Contact Information:
(520) 740-8661

KGUN 9 Email:
KVOA 4 Email:
FOX 11 AZ Email:
News 13 Hotline: (520) 744-6397
Jon Justice: Website here.

McCain Surrogate Carly Fiorina Meets With Clinton Supporters and 'Hillraisers'

Posted: 16 Jul 2008 11:52 PM CDT

The above video is of Lady Rothschild, a founder of, a Hillary Clinton supporter. You can find out more about Rothschild from her Forbes profile here and more history here.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008, Carly Fiorina spent an hour and a half meeting about 25 Hillary Clinton supporters, activists and prominent fundraisers, at a private home, discussing a variety of issues, from health care to foreign policy to workplace rights.
The meeting was initiated by the former Clinton supporters, many of which have declared "adamantly" that they would not support Barack Obama and they wanted to hear John McCain's position on issues including mandating health insurance to cover birth control pills, federal mandates for paid maternity leave and equal pay for comparable work in the workplace.

Amy Siskind, who is a former wall Street executive, helped organize the town-hall style meeting and although she declined to identify the majority of those that attended the meeting, many of which preferred to maintain their privacy, some of those attending were not as concerned with such privacies.

Siskind said the group told Fiorina that if McCain would give some concrete assurances of support on such issues, the people in the room and the organizations they represented could help deliver "hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of votes" to the presumptive Republican nominee.

The meeting was hosted by a recently formed pro-Hillary organization,, which has been especially critical of Barack Obama and representatives from the Just Say No Deal group attended the meeting as well. lists its founders as Jill Iscol, Lady Lynn de Rothschild (from the video above) and Gretchen Glasscock.

Also attending the meeting were a number of Clinton supporters known as "Hillraisers" who are people that collected over $100,000 for the Clinton campaign during the primary season and according to Fiorina, "I didn't ask how many of them were Hillraisers but certainly a number of them were."

Recently Fiorina hosted another meeting of this type in Ohio with Clinton supporters.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have been vying for the Clinton supporters and many of them have gravitated to Obama as Clinton has asked them to, but a percentage of those voters have refused to back Obama for the general election and are looking at McCain and deciding if there is enough common ground on certain issues for them to feel comfortable in supporting him for the general election.

One issue that received very little attention at this meeting was abortion and Fiorina explains, "John McCain has a very strong record of being pro-life, as do I. They knew that. This was not a one-issue crowd.''

In June it was reported that 17 percent of Clinton supporters would vote for John McCain and 22 percent would stay home and not vote at all. Out of that 22 percent, Fiorina, who was the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Co., and is now a McCain adviser, has been arranging and agreeing to meet with as many prominent disaffected Clinton supporters, activists and fundraisers as possible to address their concerns, explain McCain's stances and persuade them to actively support John McCain for the presidency.


Was Acknowledging The New Yorker Satire A Blunder?

Posted: 16 Jul 2008 09:10 PM CDT

LA Times' Top of the Ticket makes a very persuasive argument as to why the Obama campaign might have strategically blundered by reacting to the cover of The New Yorker Magazine.

They may have highlighted it and caused millions more people to actively seek it out to see it than would have had his campaign simply shrugged it off.


It was a huge PR mistake by a campaign that doesn't make many. The denunciations by both presidential campaigns accomplished one thing: They pushed a simple cartoon to the top of most-searched terms online and the top of the news lists of countless online sites, commentators, cable news shows, commentators and network TV newscasts for more than two days. No doubt it also helped the bottom line, boosting New Yorker single-copy sales this week.

Worse, the coverage of the strong reactions understandably made many curious to see what the fuss was about.

But think a minute. If the cover is so tasteless and offensive, why purposely call it to the attention of millions of Americans with a strong denunciation on an otherwise slow news Sunday afternoon? It turned a mere magazine cover that the Obama campaign would rather no one see into a must-see for millions. Say, the magazine prints a million copies. A million covers. But there are nearly 305 million Americans.

Read the whole analysis at Top of The Ticket.

Andrew Malcolm is right, this was a major PR gaffe on the part of the Obama campaign.


Barack Obama Doesn't Understand The Chain Of Command and The Media Ignores His Comments

Posted: 16 Jul 2008 08:13 PM CDT

NewsBusters has caught a major gaffe on the part of Barack Obama and yet the media, even the station where he made his incorrect comments, has not mentioned it and they did not even correct him at the time.

BARACK OBAMA: I'm going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close. We are going to get out.

There's only one problem. The Joint Chiefs of Staff does not have operational command of U.S. military forces. That authority resides in the commanders of the various Unified Combatant Commands. CENTCOM is the command with responsibility for Iraq [and 26 other countries including Afghanistan and Pakistan]. Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed Pres. Bush's appointment of Gen. David Petraeus as CENTCOM commander. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno is the new US commander for Iraq, replacing Gen. Petraeus. Those are the people, along with the Secretary of Defense, to whom the orders Obama spoke of would be issued.

View video here.

Read the rest at NewsBusters.

Where is the media on this?

Hello? The man wants to become the president and he doesn't even know the chain of command of which he thinks he is capable of running?

That is a lack of knowledge, experience and basic common sense for speaking about something, publicly, that he has no idea about!

Hat tip to Cassie for the email.

Jesse Jackson Shows Hypocrisy By Calling Blacks, Niggers.

Posted: 16 Jul 2008 06:16 PM CDT

Recently Jesse Jackson created a major firestorm with his stated desire to mutilate parts of Barack Obama's anatomy. Fox News held back other remarks that Jackson made, which have now been reported by TVNewser. Jackson called black people niggers.
The TVNewser reports that they have received a partial transcript of remarks made at the same time as Jesse Jackson made his other disparaging remarks about Barack Obama's anatomy and they say they have received confirmation from Fox News Channel representatives saying the transcript is authentic.

The portion shown in the original video was where Jackson had said that Barack Obama was "talking down to black people". What wasn't shown was the remark made after that.

The full remark was, "Barack...he's talking down to black people...telling niggers how to behave."

Bill O'Reilly, went on Shep Smith's show, The Fox Report, and stated that a "weasel" leaked it to the internet, so he will address the topic on his show tonight on O'Reilly's show. He claims they left it out of the original report because the "trashtalk" wasn't aimed at Obama, so they made an editing choice to only include the portion that was aimed at Obama.

This brings back up a situation in 2006 when Michael Richard's, who played Kramer on the popular Seinfeld television comedy show, called members of his audience at a stand up routine, niggers, and Jesse Jackson was very high profile in insisting that the word not be used publicly or privately due to the offensive nature of the word.

In fact, Jackson called for a boycott of all entertainment media that used the word.

Jackson also asked the public not to buy a DVD box set of the seventh season of the TV show "Seinfeld" that was released last week. Richards played wacky neighbor "Kramer" on the show, although Jerry Seinfeld would be hardest hit by a boycott of the DVD.

"Yeah, but he is a Jew," Jackson said.

Jackson also called on a boycott of all entertainment media that uses the "n-word." Among the items on Jackson's blacklist are:

* The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, which includes the character Nigger Jim, a runaway slave
* Blazing Saddles, which featured prominent use of the "n-word"
* Magnum P.I., starring Tom Selleck, a Republican, and featuring John Hillerman, who also appeared in Blazing Saddles
* Redd Fox Uncensored, which included the routine "Colored People"
* Bicentennial Nigger by Richard Pryor, which includes the routine "Mudbone Goes To Hollywood"

Richard's also appeared on Jesse Jackson's radio show "Keep Hope Alive" and apologized as well as made many other appearances and many other apologies. On that program, after Richard apologized, Jackson went on to say, "A simple apology does not deal with the depth of the trauma. The first step is to acknowledge you're wrong. The second step is to be contrite about it, not arrogant. The third is, it takes time to regain or earn trust, and that's where the healing process begins."

Jesse Jackson used the incident with Richard to call on the entertainment industry to ban the n-word, including rap artists that use it in the lyrics, actors and major television and movie studios.

This campaign, led by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton was felt in cities around the country, with s New York city council banning the use of the word in an attempt to eradicate it. The resolution they passed didn't even include the word, they simply referred to it as the "N-Word". From New York straight to Texas, where a Mayor proposed making the punishment for using the word a crime equal to disturbing the peace and punishable by a fine of up to $500.

This brought about tremendous criticism, with Chris Rock, a black comedian telling Reuters in an interview, "What, is there a fine? Am I going to get a ticket? Do judges say, 'Ten years, nigger!' "

Jesse Jackson made this as high profile as possible back in 2006, which brings up the question of hypocrisy.

Is it hypocritical for Jackson to have tried to get movies, books and the entertainment industry, as well as the general public, to ban the use of a word that he, himself, utilizes?

Shep Smith brings up another interesting question in the video at the top of this piece, and that is with the amount of times that Jesse Jackson has appeared on television, it is strange that he would say such things knowing that the microphones are never turned off while attached.

Something to think about.

More from Michelle Malkin on this issue.


South Carolina In An Uproar Over London Gay Tourism Ad

Posted: 16 Jul 2008 04:12 PM CDT

Amro Worldwide is a travel agency that focuses in gay travel and in a series of ads with posters plastering the London subway regarding 6 U.S. cities. The state of South Carolina is in an uproar over the "South Carolina is so gay" advertisement.
The posters put up in the London subway advertised the charms of South Carolina, Atlanta, Boston, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Washington, D.C, but in South Carolina the ads didn't go over well.

The advertising campaign was which is being called "the gayest ever mainstream media advertising campaign in London", was designed by an Australian firm called "Out Now" for the Amro Worldwide Travel Agency.

Although there was no backlash from the other 5 major U.S. cities, in South Carolina the reaction was almost immediate after a South Carolina political blog called The Palmetto Scoop discovered the advertising campaign and the poster specifying South Carolina and wrote about it..

The advertisements were timed for London's Gay Pride Week, which ended Saturday. The posters touted the attractions of the state to gay tourists, including its "gay beaches" and its Civil War-era plantations.

Gay rights have been a hot button topic for South Carolina and almost immediately after finding out about this advertisement, the Republican Senator from Greenville, S.C., David Thomas, called for an audit of the advertising budget handled by the state Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. He also issued a statement stating, "South Carolinians will be irate when they learn their hard earned tax dollars are being spent to advertise our state as 'so gay.'"

The tourism department canceled the $5,000 for the posters advertising the state, claiming that a state worker approved the ad without running it by senior officials and that state worker has since resigned.

South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford, agreed the posters were "inappropriate".

The chief executive of Amro Worldwide, Andrew Roberts, said the campaigned was designed specifically to "send a clear message to everyone who sees this campaign that it is long past time that 'so gay' should be used as a negative phrase of disapproval." He called the campaign a success asserting that they reached over 2 million people in London and continued on to say, "From where we sit, and for all our many customers, being described as 'so gay' is not a negative thing at all. We think it is just great to be so gay."

State tourism officials insisted that they had known nothing about the campaign. But when the promotion was first announced last month, the tourism board said in a statement that "it sends a powerful positive message."

"For our gay visitors, it is actually quite wonderful for them to discover just how much South Carolina has to offer — from stunning plantation homes to miles of wide sandy beaches," the statement said.

After dealing with irate residents of South Carolina, they have reversed that position.

One comment from a resident, a Mr. Ventphis Stafford reacted to the advertising campaign by stating, "We're so gay? Nah. Wrong state. Go to California."

According to the Gay and Lesbian Travel Association estimates, gay tourism is a $64.5 billion market in the United States and they claim to have gay-themed campaigns in over 75 cities around the world with no controversy. They also maintain that the reason this campaign is causing an uproar in South Carolina is because recently there was a debate over gay rights in the schools.

That debate ended with a principal of a Columbia high school resigning his position rather than approving the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance at the school.

They certainly miscalculated in using South Carolina.


Viva la France!: Muslim woman deemed too submissive to be French

Posted: 16 Jul 2008 03:28 PM CDT

Cross posted from Radarsite

Muslim woman deemed too submissive to be French
By Estelle Shirbon
Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:31pm BST

PARIS (Reuters) - France has denied citizenship to a veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that her "radical" practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes, a legal ruling showed on Friday.
The case will reignite debate about how to reconcile freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the French constitution, and other fundamental rights, which many in France feel are being challenged by the way of life of some Muslims.
Le Monde newspaper said it was the first time a Muslim applicant had been rejected for reasons to do with personal religious practice.
"She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes," said a ruling by the Council of State handed down last month and sent to Reuters on Friday to confirm a report in Le Monde.
The Council of State is a judicial body which has final say on disputes between individuals and the public administration.

Married to a French national, the woman arrived in France in 2000, speaks good French and has three children born in France.
She wears a black burqa that covers all her body except her eyes, which are visible through a narrow slit, and lives in "total submission" to her husband and male relatives, according to reports by social services. Le Monde said the woman is 32.
The woman's application for French nationality was rejected in 2005 on grounds of "insufficient assimilation". She appealed to the Council of State, which last month approved the rejection.

In the past, nationality was denied to Muslims who were known to have links with extremist circles or who had publicly advocated radicalism, which is not the case here.

The ruling comes weeks after a heated debate over whether traditional Muslim views were creeping into French law, prompted by a court annulment of the marriage of two Muslims because the husband said the wife was not a virgin as she had claimed to be.
In the case of the Moroccan woman, Le Monde suggested the Council of State had gone to the opposite extreme by rejecting the woman's beliefs and way of life rather than accommodating them.

"Is a burqa incompatible with French nationality?" the newspaper asked.
The legal expert who provided a formal report on the case to the Council of State wrote that the woman's interviews with social services revealed that "she lives almost as a recluse, isolated from French society," Le Monde reported.
"She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind,"
Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave wrote.

Le Monde quoted Daniele Lochak, a law professor not involved in the case, as saying it was bizarre to consider that excessive submission to men was a reason not to grant citizenship.

"If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French," Lochak said.

(Additional reporting by Gerard Bon; Editing by Ibon Villelabeitia)

A note from Radarsite: "...she lives almost as a recluse, isolated from French society," Le Monde reported. "She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind," So there you have it, in one short paragraph: the key perhaps to that impenetrable Muslim female mindset. Ignorance is bliss. To a westerner, the submissive compliance of Muslim women -- indeed, their often passionate defense of their obvious subjugation, their ignoble state of second-class citizenship, has always been something of a mystery. We wonder how they can accept a fate which to us appears so bleak and unfulfilling, an existence so circumscribed and limited. Not only accepting it, but vigorously defending it.
The bird in the gilded cage. If submission is all you have ever known, then submission becomes the norm, the status quo. And people tend to defend the status quo.

So, actually we have two stories here in this one small article. Story number one treats us to the welcome news that one more European nation is getting fed up with Islam, getting fed up with their Muslim immigrants incessant demands for more and more cultural concessions, for more and more rights and privileges. They are finally beginning to draw the lines: This is where you end and we begin. This is what you must do to adapt to our society if you want to become a member of our society. This is of course very good news; any news of European societies fighting back against this Muslim onslaught is good news and should be celebrated and encouraged.

The second story is a peek behind the veil of Muslim obscurantism. This is the mindset we must understand. This is the enemy we must keep from our shores. This is the evil of ignorance. This is not just another religion, this is the death of the soul. This oppressive cult of darkness deserves no place at our table, deserves no more accommodation and respect in our western world than does Nazism or Fascism. And, hopefully, some of our European cousins are finally waking up to this fact.

So, yes, Viva la France! May you succeed in this crucial battle for your national honor. America wishes you well. - rg


Hillary Hysteria?

Posted: 16 Jul 2008 01:43 PM CDT

Note to those calling Clinton supporters "hysterical"-- That is not helping your cause!

If anyone thought that Hillary Clinton would be allowed to fade quietly out of the spotlight they severely underestimated her supporters tenacity and drive. Three recent events have fueled their fire and given them a reason to continue fighting.
Fueling the fire and anger of dejected but motivated Hillary Clinton supporters are three recent developments. A Rasmussen report released yesterday, showing that Clinton fairs better against McCain than Obama does, a new group created that is lobbying the Democratic National Committee to list Clinton as a nominee and hold an open roll call vote on the convention floor where superdelegates would have to state who they would prefer, and last but not least rumors that 8 superdelegates would vote for Clinton if there was an open roll call vote on the Democratic convention floor and last but not least

The title comes from a high profile blogger, Taylor Marsh, that used to be called the "hub for everything Hillary" and now titles a piece saying "Hillary Hysteria Mounts" as she describes emails she is receiving which accuse her and others of trying to discount their vote by not backing their call to have an open roll call vote at the Democratic convention.

The Rasmussen Report.

A Rasmussen report released shows that while Barack Obama holds a a 4 percentage point lead over John McCain with 45 to 41 percent, when "leaners" are included, it's Obama 48 percent and McCain 45 percent, but when McCain is matched up against Hillary Clinton, she would lead McCain by 8 percentage points.

However, McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%.

These numbers help explain why Election 2008 is competitive even though events so heavily favor the Democrats -- because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not. Perhaps even more importantly, the data suggests that voters don't see a potential McCain Administration as the third term of President Bush.

The portion emphasized has been the running theme throughout the Clinton supporting blogs since Barack Obama was named the presumptive nominee, and now many are citing this latest Rasmussen report to prove their point.

Clinton supporters and The Denver Group.

Congressional Quarterly, (CQ) politics ran an article on July 13, 2008, showing that a newly formed group called The Denver Group is actively lobbying Democratic officials to hold and open roll call vote at the Democratic convention which will be held in Denver in August.

What they want is Hillary Clinton's name to be listed as a nominee, which can be done since her campaign is suspended but was not ended.

The Denver group formed quietly but has gathered strength even before they were highlighted by CQ and other media outlets. One of the people that started the group is what is known as a "Hillraiser", which are contributors that contributed more than $100,000 to the Clinton campaign.

With donations for their efforts they have already run an ad in the Chicago Tribune and are preparing to launch a television campaign, all in an effort to force the Democratic National Committee, headed by Howard Dean, into assuring that Clinton's name be in the nomination at the Democratic convention.

(CLICK TO ENLARGE to read the whole ad placed in the Chicago Tribune, sponsored by The Denver Group)

"Senator Clinton's name must be put in nomination. Her supporters must be allowed to make speeches on her behalf of her candidacy. There must be an honest roll call vote, not a symbolic one, so superdelegates can cast their votes honestly, for either candidate, as their judgment, conscience and democratic principles dictate."

The reasoning behind forcing the superdelegates to stand up and have their open roll call vote be counted is a variety of reasons.

One major reason is that Barack Obama did not win enough pledged delegates to assure himself the nomination and it was the superdelegates that selected him.

The number that was needed to win the presumptive nominee status was 2,118 and Obama had received 1766.5 while Clinton received 1639.5 and the superdelegates put Obama over the magic number with 463 for Obama and 257 for Clinton.

Superdelegates have the option of changing their vote from now until the Democratic convention in August.

Another reason stated by a founder of The Denver Groups, Heidi Li Feldman, is, "What they have to do is make it possible for people to say to themselves that there was a fair and correct process."

Rumor spreading in Hillary Clinton blogs.

There is a fast spreading rumor within the Clinton bloggers, that when following link after link, seems to have started with a blog called Alegre's Corner, which claims that through unconfirmed sources, eight superdelegates have stated that if Clinton is given nomination at the Democratic convention, they will switch their votes from Obama to Clinton.

I heard about an interview Will Bower of PUMA did recently, where he said delegates are starting to say they'll vote for Hillary in Denver if the DNC did the right thing and ran an open and fair convention. That means a roll call vote with Hillary's name put into nomination, and on the ballot.

So I shot an email to Bower to ask him where he got that info from, and here's what he sent me regarding the efforts of a friend of his

"A large phone banking effort to the super d's combined with Obama's flips and poor presumptive nominee performance, etc have yielded doubts within the super delegates, enough that 3 elected and 5 DNC members have confided that should they have the opportunity to do so, they will vote for Hillary."

Clinton would need 100 superdelegates to switch in order to reach the number needed to obtain the official nomination as the Democratic candidate.

That hasn't stopped Clinton bloggers from writing about the claim made by Alegre's Corner though, which was written yesterday and by this morning the rumor had spread to a large number of other Clinton blogs.

The questions.

Simple questions arise from these recent developments.

Given the recent reports about Democrats on the Hill complaining about the Obama campaign, is it at all possible that enough of the superdelegates would switch their votes to Hillary Clinton if she was listed as a nomination and a roll call vote was taken?

Considering the growing movement within the Clinton supporter community with 22 percent of her supporters saying they will not vote at all and 17 percent of her supporters claiming they will vote for John McCain, can Obama and the Democrats win the presidential election in November without that large a number of their Democratic voters?

If the Obama campaign and the DNC are positive that in August the superdelegates will choose Obama, why not allay the concerns of millions of Clinton supporters and allow the process to play itself out?

Last but not least, is this Hillary Hysteria as Taylor Marsh calls it, or is this a legitimate attempt by Clinton supporters to have their voices heard at the Democratic convention, win, lose or draw?

You can read more about the history of the Democratic conventions, using wikipedia as just a loose reference point, but it bears noting that since 1972 the nature of conventions changed to being an event that officially ratifies the nominees instead of choosing them.

This eliminated the type of dissent that holding a roll call vote with Clinton listed as a nominee would potentially cause.

There are pros and cons, no matter what the Democratic National Committee decides to do and refusing to make a final decision and announce it promptly, either way, is simply prolonging the hopes, the anger and encouraging the growth of the Clinton movement at a time when many think the DNC should be helping Obama and Clinton unite the party.


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


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


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.


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."



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!


Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong



OBAMA Comment by

This is an interesting comment by the website
[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?


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.


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)


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


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

Page Printed from: at March 30, 2008 - 11:06:16 PM EDT

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

[excerpted from]

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.


This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2


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.