Wednesday, 6 August 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

ACLU Blogburst:ACLU Crying About Osama bin Laden’s Drivers Conviction

Posted: 06 Aug 2008 12:01 PM CDT

ACLU Blogburst:

Just a few minutes ago, Special Contributor wrote The ACLU are sure to crying about human rights violations any minute now. Yup!

After a trial filled with overwhelming constitutional and procedural flaws, a jury of military officers today found Salim Hamdan guilty of providing material support for terrorism. The American Civil Liberties Union has been at Guantánamo Bay observing the Hamdan proceedings, which lacked the fundamental legal safeguards found in traditional U.S. courts or military courts governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Followed by bloviation and terrorist love from Anthony Romero.

The Center For Constitutional Law is also pitching a hissy fit.

And in a large surprise to me, Firedoglake is weepy about this conviction. But don't say that the Left supports terrorism. That would be mean.

Ed Morrissey sums it up:

Hamdan's case has been a test in several ways. He challenged his detention, forcing Congress and the Bush administration to re-engineer the tribunals twice. As a driver, he had less obvious culpability for the deaths of thousands of American civilians than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In the end, the verdict recognized the differences. They put aside emotion and acquitted him of being a member of the AQ conspiracy in these attacks, but recognized his role in supporting the organization.
Essentially, they recognized Hamdan as a smaller part of the terrorist group, but that doesn't absolve him from responsibility for his support of AQ. The verdict demonstrates that the Gitmo tribunals are not kangaroo courts, and that justice can be found in this process.

Justice was served, despite how much the ACLU cries about it. The fact that these terrorist defending lawyers think foreign terrorists deserve constitutional rights is absolutely abhorent. That they convinced SCOTUS to grant them is even scarier.

Lawhawk is on the same page:

Considering that terrorists caught on the battlefield are not a class of individuals protected under the Geneva Conventions, and would have been summarily executed in prior conflicts, the lengths to which the US has gone to provide rights to these terrorists - up to and including habeas access to US courts undermines the arguments by the defense. Hamdan has had more bites of the apple of justice than most defendants could ever hope to achieve in traditional criminal justice cases.

Cry me a river about the tactics that include sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. Hamdan admits that he was Osama's driver, but claims that he was a mere lackey and didn't partake in Osama's jihad against the US.

More from Malkin. McClatchy's article here.

.

U.S. Marine Fights To Return To Combat And Wins

Posted: 06 Aug 2008 11:48 AM CDT

U.S. Marine Cpl. Garrett Jones lost his left leg while serving in Iraq as an infantry fighter and after massive rehabilitation and with his prosthetic leg, he fought and won the right to return to combat duty.
While serving in Iraq, a roadside bomb took U.S. Marine Cpl. Garrett Jones' leg but despite that and after working hard to regain his ability to function normally again, he demanded that he be sent back to combat duty.

His unit is now in Afghanistan and he is again part of that unit.

Due to his injuries, he changed his military specialty from infantry assault man to intelligence analyst, living on a fortified base and assuming the same risks of mortar or rocket attacks as his fellow Marines.

Jones was injured 23 months after he first enlisted and besides having a prosthetic leg, he also lost partial hearing in one ear, but other Marines say he doesn't ask for nor does he receive special treatment, with Staff Sgt. Michael Ortiz who works with Jones, saying, "Not with this guy. He doesn't want to be treated any different than any other Marine. Everybody respects him for wanting to come back after all he gave."

Jones said he had to pass medical tests and "prove in training that he could walk effectively, get in and out of a Humvee and perform other physical tasks", which he did and after fighting to be allowed to join his unit which is now deployed in Afghanisatn, his fellow Marines have nothing but wonderful things to say about him.

Jones didn't get his first prosthesis until November. By the end of December, he had learned how to snowboard again, a sport he had enjoyed for years. He plans to compete in freestyle snowboarding in the 2010 Paralympics in Vancouver, Canada.

"I can do stuff on a snowboard I don't think any other amputee can do," he said. He would compete to win, which would create "good publicity for the Marine Corps," he said.

"He's amazing -- he can do anything," said Cpl. Paul Savage, who works with Jones here at the headquarters for the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, which is based in Twentynine Palms. "There are no limitations with this guy."


Sgt. Matthew Leonard, who worked with Jones in Iraq and now works beside him in Afghanistan is one such example, showing that despite Jones not asking for any special treatment, Jones, according to Leonard, "has earned a special status among Marines because he demanded to be sent back to combat."

Leonard goes on to say, "He didn't just choose to come -- he fought to come. We bled and sweated with this guy in Iraq, and he wants to be with us more than anything. That's awesome."

According to the LA Times, Jones discusses his injuries without any self-consciousness as he states, "I roll with the punches. I'll always have some pain and discomfort, and I've accepted that."

Jones went on to say that he was determined to prove that he could perform in a war zone even with his injuries and the fact that he has won that battle and is again joined with his unit, helping in every way he can, that determination was indeed strong.

In Afghanistan there is an increased risk of the same type of roadside bombs that took Jones' leg originally and yet Jones still says he would gladly take that risk to perform active combat duties again outside of the wire (the base) as he says, "If I were to get the opportunity to leave the wire, I would be throwing gear on in a second, happily. I miss being outside and operating. . . . Believe me, the first opportunity, I'll be there."

It brings an old expression to mind: You can't keep a good man down.

.

Rasmussen: McCain Trusted More Than Obama On 9 Out of 14 Electoral Issues

Posted: 06 Aug 2008 10:11 AM CDT

John McCain has expanded his lead in all areas previous reports showed him ahead while Barack Obama's leads have diminished over the past two weeks.
The issues that John McCain has either taken the lead on or increased his advantage on are; Iraq, immigration, federal budget, negotiating trade agreements, taxes, social security, abortion, national security and energy.

The few issues that Barack Obama enjoys a lead on are healthcare, education, environmental issues and government ethics and corruption.

The Breakdown.

In the latest Rasmussen Report, John McCain has tripled his previous lead over Obama on the topic of immigration. Two weeks ago, McCain held a three percentage point lead over Obama and this report shows McCain ahead in the public's trust by 45 percent to 36 percent. 19 percent of respondents said not sure.

McCain's biggest advantage over Obama is on the Iraq war, where McCain enjoys a double digit lead of 12 percent with Obama receiving 39 percent and McCain holding 51 percent. 10 percent of respondents said not sure.

John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate has also pulled ahead of Barack Obama in the area of balancing the federal budget, a topic the candidates were tied on with 40 percent two weeks ago, and today McCain holds a three percentage point advantage with 43 to 40 percent for Obama. 17 percent not sure.

On the issue of negotiating trade agreements, McCain holds a 5 percent advantage over Obama with 45 to 40 percent.

On taxes, John McCain receives 47 percent while Obama gets 40 percent and 13 percent are not sure.

Previously Obama was ahead in public trust on the topic of Social Security, a lead which he has lost now as the latest report shows that McCain has pulled ahead with a 44 percent lead and Obama holds 38 percent. 18 percent not sure.

Regarding abortion, John McCain holds a lead of 6 percent, with 40 percent favoring McCain and 34 percent favoring Obama and 26 percent not sure.

The issues that Barack Obama held a wide lead on two weeks ago has shown his leads decreasing.

Two weeks ago on health care, Obama enjoyed a 12 percentage point lead and now he leads with 5 percentage points, 46 percent to 41 percent for McCain.

Same with education, Obama previously had a 10 percentage point lead, which has now decreased to a 4 point lead, 43 to 39 percent.

The two presumptive presidential candidates are tied at 45 percent on the topic of the economy, Obama held a one percent lead last week.

On national security, an issue that McCain consistently performs well on, the Republican leads 52% to 40%. His lead represents an improvement from the eight-point lead he held the week before.


Barack Obama holds an 8 percent lead on environmental issues, with 48 to 40 percent and 12 percent stating they aren't sure.

In another poll released this week it showed that over half the respondents support Obama's proposal to provide working families with energy credits, while not being sure about his plan to tax big oil companies, yet when voters were asked who they trust more on energy issues, they chose John McCain by a 46 percent to 42 percent margin.

When it comes to government ethics and corruption, Obama has a 46 percent to 44 percent advantage over McCain.

Compared with prior results John McCain is showing a growing trust with voters on key issues.

Data for this article gathered from Rasmussen report, August 5, 2008, and the Rasmussen Toplines.

.

Paris Hilton's Energy Ideas Are better Than Barack Obama's!!!

Posted: 06 Aug 2008 08:37 AM CDT

Paris Hilton responds to John McCain's ad that compared Barack Obama to her and guess what? She has a better energy plan than Barack Obama does!!!!

See more funny videos at Funny or Die


She then discusses energy policy, and suggests a combination of McCain's offshore oil drilling plan and Obama's incentives for new energy technology.

"Energy crisis solved! I'll see you at the debates," she said,


Pretty bad when Paris understands the need for offshore drilling before Obama does.

TMZ has McCain's response:

In the unkindest cut of all, McCain's spokesperson Tucker Bounds tells TMZ that on the subject of energy, Paris is deeper than Barack. He says, "Sounds like Paris is taking the 'All of the Above' energy approach that John McCain has advocated -- both alternatives and drilling. Perhaps the reality is that Paris has a more substantive energy plan than Barack Obama."


Tucker Bounds, McCain's spokesman also makes the point:

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said Hilton appears to support his candidate's "all of the above" energy solution.

"Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan," Bounds said.


The "old white dude" as Paris calls him, really should send her some flowers for this one.

1) she keeps his ad in the news, 2) she shows that she has a better grasp of the reality and supports drilling, which shows that she is showing more common sense than Obama has (he is only willing to tolerate it to get other options in a bill) and last but not least, she gave McCain the opportunity to respond fast, while the Obama campaign brightly came up with "Whatever." (Via Bill Burton)

Maybe Paris should be the one running against McCain, she is showing much more substance than Obama is.

.

Serpents in the Nest: CAIR and the German American Bund

Posted: 06 Aug 2008 02:16 AM CDT

Pro-Nazi German American Bund rally at Madison Square Garden. New York, United States, February 20, 1939.

Fritz Kuhn, head of the antisemitic and pro-Nazi German American Bund, speaks at a rally. United States, between 1936 and 1939.



Cross posted from Radarsite
What exactly was the German American Bund?

The German American Bund, an organization of ethnic Germans living in the United States, was marked by a pro-Nazi stance. Aside from its admiration for Adolf Hitler and the achievements of Nazi Germany, the German American Bund program included antisemitism, strong anti-Communist sentiments, and the demand that the United States remain neutral in the approaching European conflict. Public opinion surveys of 1939 show that Fritz Kuhn, the leader of the German American Bund, was seen by the U.S. public as the leading antisemite in the country.




Actual membership figures for the German American Bund are not known with certainty, but reliable estimates place membership at 25,000 dues-paying members, including some 8,000 uniformed Sturmabteilungen (SA), more commonly known as Storm Troopers.

The German American Bund carried out active propaganda for its causes, published magazines and brochures, organized demonstrations, and maintained a number of youth camps run like Hitler Youth camps.

German American Bund activities often led to clashes--even street battles--with other groups, most notably with Jewish veterans of World War I. A February 1939 rally was held on George Washington's birthday to proclaim the rights of white gentiles, the "true patriots." This Madison Square Garden rally drew a crowd of 20,000 who consistently booed President Franklin D. Roosevelt and chanted the Nazi salutation "Heil Hitler."

The German American Bund closely cooperated with the "Christian Front" organized by the antisemitic priest Father Charles Coughlin. The activities of the German American Bund led both Jewish and non-Jewish congressional representatives to demand that it be investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee chaired by Martin Dies. The Committee hearings, held in 1939, showed clear evidence of German American Bund ties to the Nazi government.

Shortly thereafter, Kuhn was convicted of embezzling funds from the organization and was sentenced to prison. In the following years, a number of other German American Bund leaders were interned as dangerous aliens, and others were jailed for various offenses. By 1941 the membership of the organization had waned. After the United States entered World War II in December 1941, the U.S. government outlawed the German American Bund.

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

And what exactly is CAIR?



Read more


Isabel Garcia Has GOT to Go--UPDATE

Posted: 06 Aug 2008 12:21 AM CDT



[UPDATE AUGUST 5, 2008 #4]

The issues with this attorney and her criminal activities was addressed
today by the Pima County Board of Supervisors. Her partner in crime
presented a letter of support with 739 signatures. The number of people
wanting her gone was not given. Here is the article published by the
Tucson Citizen today (
link here):
Pima County lawyer slammed, defended over sheriff piñata
B. POOLE
Tucson Citizen

Controversy continued Tuesday over Isabel Garcia, the Pima County legal defender
who carried a paper-mâché head of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in
front of a cheering crowd during a protest last month.

The issue was not on the agenda for Tuesday's Pima County Board of Supervisors
meeting, but about 20 speakers - about half in support of Garcia and
half in protest of her actions - came to a microphone during a call to
the audience.

During a July 10 protest she organized, Garcia,
who is a defense attorney, was seen holding the paper head - which had
been beaten off of a piñata by youths wielding sticks - while the crowd
cheered. The episode sparked calls for Garcia's disbarment and firing.

The issue is not about immigration or Joe Arpaio, who was in Tucson for a
book signing, but about Garcia, who is also director of the Coalición
de Derechos Hermanos, inciting children to violence, Kendra Wood said.

"I don't think she has any business holding a position of public trust," Wood told the supervisors.

Kat Rodriguez of Derechos Hermanos, sent the supervisors a letter
supporting Garcia. The letter contained 739 signatures supporting a
woman who has worked tirelessly for immigrants' rights, Rodriguez said.

The protest was not intended to incite violence; it was a traditional form of protest, she said.

"It was a symbol of the oppression we have seen," Rodriguez said.

Lori Oien seemed less concerned about Garcia's actions than the county's reaction.

"What is concerning to me is your approval by silence," she said.

County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said after the meeting that the county
is looking into Garcia's actions. The Legal Defender's Office, which
Garcia heads, takes indigent defense cases the Pima County public
defender can't because of conflicts or other reasons.

"It's under review," he said.

Several speakers decried Garcia's actions as hurtful to law enforcement
officers. Larry Lopez, president of the Tucson Police Officers
Association, demanded an investigation.

"Law enforcement around this state does not think this is funny," he said.

Leilani Clark was at the July 10 protest and held the piñata. She denied Garcia had any hand in what the youths did.

"She had no control over us. . . . We acted on our own," Clark said.
Notice how the kids have been brainwashed into protecting her--juveniles.

Here is the letter of support, complete with all 739 names (
pdf link here):

I suggest everyone contact ICE (866-347-2423) and the Border Patrol
Tucson Sector (520-748-3000) with these names and demand investigation
of them. The reasoning is they support illegals and are most likely
illegal themselves. At the very least, report Garcia and Rodriguez to
ICE, DHS and Border Patrol. The office information for Garcia is: Pima
County Legal Defender, 32 North Stone Avenue, Suite 703, Tucson, 85701
(520) 740-5775 and fax of (520) 740-882-7338; Derechos contact
information is: 631 South 6th Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701; (520) 770-1373
and fax of (520) 770-7445.

Keep in mind this is not a First Amendment issue, this is an issue of
an attorney's blatant disregard for the law, her signing documents with
the Mexican government stating she would give aid and succor to illegal
border crossers, her disregard for the law regarding juveniles, her
attempts to stifle the freedom of others in their free speech, her
encouragement of violence upon lawfully elected law enforcement
officials, her delight in exhibiting a severed head (a la Nick Berg)
and doing it all on the taxpayer dime. It is about an attorney
violating the Model Rules of Procedure and her oaths of office.

It is not about hate speech--the only hate speech is her own. It is
not about hate actions--the only hate actions are her own. It is not
about legal immigration, it is about enforcement of current laws
regarding ILLEGALS.

It is about a corrupt city council and board of supervisors who shield her.

It is about time she is gone. Call, write, email--all the information
is here and below. Flood these offices with the demand she be removed
from public employ and disbarred. Don't let this rest.

[UPDATE JULY 17, 2008 #3]

Izzy's "partner in crime" Kat Rodriguez [coordinator of Coalicion de
Derechos Humanos] weighs in, using almost word for word Izzy's whiny,
spin filled diatribe from the Derechos site here.

[UPDATE JULY 17, 2008 #2] Sheriff Joe weighs in on Izzy here.

[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 is?

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
Chuckelberry@co.pima.az.us
chh@pima.gov

KGUN 9 Email: kgun9news@kgun9.com
KVOA 4 Email: kchoal@kvoa.com
FOX 11 AZ Email: news@fox11az.com.
News 13 Hotline: (520) 744-6397
Jon Justice: Website here.


No comments:

Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

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

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams

THE NEW GAME: POWER CLING !!!

Obama learned his lesson well


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama

WorldNetDaily

War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us


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

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

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

Deciphering Obama in Cairo


Deciphering Obama in Cairo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

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

See original article here.


WHO SAYS A STIMULUS ACTUALLY STIMULATES?

or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-UCLA-

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

LSMS368


AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

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

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

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

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

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

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

NOW LA PRESIDENT SUPPORTS SARAH PALIN

Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong

OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN

WHY IT IS WRONG TO CALL IRAQ A MISTAKE

OBAMA Comment by AltMuslim.com

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

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

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

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

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

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?

(crosstalk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


Comments

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

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


VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

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

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

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

VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2

Truth?

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