Wednesday, 27 August 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

The Morning After: Mixed Reactions About Hillary Clinton's Speech

Posted: 27 Aug 2008 12:47 PM CDT

(Hillary Clinton takes the stage to give a speech on the second night of the Democratic National Convention- Photo by talkradionews)

Hillary Clinton was the last speaker at the Democratic Convention last night and gave a speech aimed at her supporters, specifically the supporters that were not satisfied with Barack Obama. Reactions to Clinton's speech were mixed.
The transcript of Hillary Clinton's speech can be found at the New York Times here and after watching the speech, reading the transcript and looking through media reactions, blogger reactions and forums discussing the speech, a variety of opinions and feedback is seen.

Areas of agreement.

From the multiple Clinton supporting sites and Obama supporting sites, there are areas of agreement regarding Clinton's speech.

Taking the stage in her orange pantsuit, after a touching video tribute to her childhood, her career and her primary campaign, looking perfectly made up, she spoke over the loud applause and began to make the case of why her supporters needed to vote for Barack Obama in the November general election.

It is generally agreed Hillary did what needed to be done, she did it eloquently, clearly and concisely while making the case that if she was not the candidate of choice for the democratic party, then Democratic supporters should naturally gravitate toward Obama who stands close to her positions on a variety of issues.

It is also generally agreed the primary focus of Hillary's speech was geared toward her supporters, her voters as she reminded people at her speaking engagements throughout yesterday, her 18 million voters.

This may be the reason why the reactions from Obama supporters and the reactions from Clinton supporters vary so widely.

(Hillary Clinton on stage at the 2008 Democratic Convention)

Areas of disagreement.

The reactions compiled in this section are from liberal bloggers, pundits and Democratic supporters because as Gallup shows, only 7 percent of of conservative voters will vote for the Democratic candidate, so the conservative pundits opinions are moot and they were not the audience Clinton's speech was geared towards.

The first reaction I looked for was from Taylor Marsh, who was generally known throughout the primaries and the "hub of anything Hillary". Marsh started backing Barack Obama the day after Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and has put her full support into helping to get Obama elected, never fearing to criticize some of his decisions, but always making it clear that she was behind him as firmly as she was behind Clinton before she suspended her campaign.

Marsh called Hillary's speech a show stopper, via Huffington Post, and firmly believes she brought the party together last night with her heartfelt speech. Then she dares anyone to step forward and criticize anything Hillary did or did not say.

So, let every commentator, writer and blogger who finds a crevice in which to slither forth and spew a doubting word on what Hillary said and meant, or should have done, last night finally be called by their proper name: sorcerers. Spiteful vipers who dare to find a toxic blend amidst an open heart and full throated generosity at a time when our country needed just a leader like Hillary to make a new path where the last footsteps have been taken down a road that has ended in the dirt.

Marsh has a few takers in the comment section as well as those that agree with her.

A quick trip to an Obama supporting site also finds a taker to Marsh's challenge.

The Anonymous Liberal describes himself as a liberal as the name indicates, and a litigator at a large national law firm. According to him, Clinton was under no obligation to say more than she did but he points out what he calls "glaring omissions" in what he calls his convention observations.

Look, I'm not one of those people who thinks Hillary is under some deep moral obligation to say all the right things or that the fate of the Democratic party depended on her delivering a truly great speech tonight, but it's pretty clear to me that she did neither of those things. Substantively, she gave basically the same speech she gave when she dropped out of the race in June. She made clear that issues matter and that if you believe in what she believes in, you should vote for the Democratic nominee. That's fine. Really. But she clearly could have done a lot more. For starters, the speech was completely and utterly devoid of praise for Barack Obama. At no point during the speech did she compliment him in any way. At no point did she vouch for his character. At no point did she say he was qualified to be president or ready to lead. Those are some pretty glaring omissions, ones that the McCain campaign quickly picked up on. She also could have done a lot more in attacking McCain. Yes, she included a few snarky lines at the end, but she didn't draw much blood nor did she really seem to try. Again, that's fine, but let's not pretend she did everything she could have.

A.L. also received criticism for his opinion.

(Democrats attending the Democratic National Convention in Denver show their support for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)-by talkradionews)

The two examples listed above is representative of what can be found throughout the blogosphere from Obama and Clinton supporters as well as in comment sections.

The beat goes on with the tensions between the Obama supporters and Clinton supporters threatening to overwhelm Clinton's attempt to bring forth party unity.

The Media.

Finally we get to the media reporting on the mixed reactions to Hillary Clinton's speech as well as their own conflicts about the topic.

As the Gallup report linked above showed, conservative Democrats are peeling away from Obama, many of which are part of the supporters aligned with Hilary Clinton and to whom Clinton's speech was aimed at.

The Washington Post reports mixed reactions and shows examples of Clinton supporters that will vote for Barack Obama, supporters that will not vote for Barack Obama, and those that are indifferent.

For example, JoAnn Enos, from Minnesota, took Clinton's endorsement for Barack Obama at face value and says she will move on and get behind Obama, saying, "I'll vote for [Obama] in the roll call, because that's what Hillary wants."

Another Clinton supporter, John Burkett from Pennsylvania, joins JoAnn and puts an Obama button on saying he will vote for Obama during the roll call vote tonight.

Terie Norelli says Clinton's speech made her want to work to get Obama elected.

Those reactions are countered in the same article by Blanche Darley from Texas, who says, ""I'm not going to vote for Obama. I'm not going to vote for McCain, either." Darley wore a button that said "Obamination Scares the Hell Out of Me."

Darley was a superdelegate for Bill Clinton in the 1990's and she concludes by saying, "We love her, but it's our vote if we don't trust him or don't like him."

(Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) gives a speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, CO (08-26-08).- by talkradionews)

Another example of those Clinton's speech did not change the mind of is Adita Blanco from Oklahoma, a lifelong Democrat that has never voted for a Republican who states, "I hate Obama so much that I'm going to devote as much time to McCain as I did to Hillary. Obama has nothing. He has no experience. The Democratic Party doesn't care about us. You couldn't treat [Clinton] any worse."

Then there is Jerry Straughan from California who believes Clinton's speech was a "tactic" and "predictable" and he states, "Who knows what she really thinks? With all the missteps that have taken place, this is the only thing she could do. So, yes, I'm still bitter."

Other examples show people that say they are Democrats, first and foremost, but are having a difficult time getting over the bitter primaries, what they perceived as biased news coverage and their anger at the Democratic party.

Perhaps the best example of the persistent divide in the Democratic Party came after Clinton's speech Tuesday night. The lights went down in the Pepsi Center, and some influential Democrats left downtown for good. They planned to head for the airport and fly home, long before Obama accepts the nomination in a speech at Invesco Field on Thursday night.

These reactions are also representative of what is being seen across the web today, as people detail each facet of Clinton's speech, Clinton supporters pointing to the message of unity whether they are going to accommodate Clinton's wishes or not and Obama supporters insisting that Hillary did not do "enough".

Democratic Convention Watch Day Three.

The New York Times' Maureen Dowd, describes the mood or "vibe" as she calls it, at the convention and she says there is "High Anxiety In The Mile High City."

Dowd says there are "bitter Clinton associates, fund-raisers and supporters wandering the halls, spewing vindictiveness, complaining of slights, scheming about Hillary's roll call and plotting trouble, with some in the Clinton coterie dissing Obama by planning early departures, before the nominee even speaks."

She claims that what some supporters came away with after the Clinton speech was the feeling that the speech had only reinforced their feelings that Clinton would have made a better president than Obama would make, some saying Obama had two months to prove himself.

At a meeting of the Democratic women's caucus Tuesday, 74-year-old Carol Anderson of Vancouver, Wash., a former Hillary volunteer, stood in the back of the room in a Hillary T-shirt and hat signed by Hillary and "Nobama" button and booed every time any of the women speakers mentioned Obama's name.

She's voting for McCain and had nothing nice to say about the Obamas. What about the kids, I asked. "Adorable," she agreed. Well, I said, Michelle raised them.

"I think her mother does," Anderson shot back, adding: "I wonder if Michelle would give the Queen one of her little knuckle punches?"

Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton speaks tonight and stories about his speech, his demeanor and his conflicting public messages, dominate much of the news cycle today.

Yesterday many thought he made some inappropriate implications at one public appearance, perhaps suggesting that Obama could not deliver on the promises he has made throughout the campaign season.

Today we see, via The Swamp, that he will make the case that this election is not about a "politician" and that Hillary "made the case" as to why Democrats must vote for Obama and he makes his point by saying, "You really don't have any choice. There is not an option here. ... Don't forget -- out there in this country the American people are aching and they are looking to us to shell down the corn and deliver the goods and the only way we can do it is if we do it together."

The conflicting public message Bill seems to be sending there comes from another report, by CNN's Political Ticker, which alleges that a source has told them that while Hillary Clinton will be attending Barack Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco field, Bill Clinton plans to leave and not attend, which some are considering a snub.


Hillary Clinton did what was required of her in last night's speech. To have insisted publicly that Barack Obama was ready, or experienced enough to be the president of the United States, would have angered her supporters since she previously pointed out the legitimate reasons he was not ready.

No one can point to this speech and say she did not try to promote party unity, and her supporters also did not get lied by her attempting to claim Obama was something that he is not.

She did right by the party and she refused to lie to her supporters and for that she deserves kudos.


Biden who?????????

Posted: 26 Aug 2008 11:04 PM CDT

Confession time: Until this week I had never heard of Biden. 'Tis true, and my only excuse is that this foreigner only started paying very close attention to the American political landscape in the last few years..As the msm pundits do their usual half-arsed jobs of analysis and reporting of the presumptive (presumptuous? lol) annointed one and his VP choice, some Americans have been paying attention.

CJ is one such American. I am sure you know that CJ is active duty US Army and, for me, that means when he talks, I listen. Today, CJ sent out a piece he has written about Biden. CJ uses Biden's OWN words to foretell America's future if BO (+ MO) and Biden take over the White House.

It should, of course, be required reading for all:

Exclusive: Obama VP's New World Order Aspirations

August 26th, 2008 by CJ

Everyone (except Hillary Clinton's supporters) seems to be pleased with the choice of Senator Joseph Biden as Senator Barack Obama's choice of VP. There's a lot of attention on Biden's negative comments about Obama and positive comments towards McCain, but that's really semantics. The real issue that everyone should be focusing on isn't even in the press yet. And I doubt they'll even investigate or publicize this if they knew anyway. Prepare for something you'll only find on ASP.

Barack Obama has claimed multiple times Saddam "illegally used American aid to buy arms", "slaughter[ed]…his own Kurdish citizens", and used American intelligence to aid in his invasion into Kuwait. That's not even the most damning of Biden's own claims. He bodly proclaimed, "Saddam provided safe haven for the world's most infamous terrorists." WHAT!?!?! I thought this war was NOTHING about terrorism! But, that's not all. Biden also stated that Saddam had a "manifest quest for chemical and nuclear weapons."

I know what the liberal robots are saying: Bush misled him. Interestingly, Biden has been making this case since 1992!! As a matter of fact, Biden published a 56 page "vision" in 1992 in which he published each of these statements and more.

The title of Biden's "vision" is "The Wilsonian Vision and American Foreign Policy in the 1990's and Beyond." Translation: I'm all for the New World Order. As a matter of fact, his paper is broken into three parts.

I. On the Threshold of the New World Order
II. An American Agenda for the New World Order
III. Fulfilling the Wilsonian Vision

To really understand the purpose of Biden's foreign policy white paper, you should probably know what the Wilsonian Vision is. Wilsonianism is based upon former President Woodrow Wilson's "14 Points" speech to Congress in the early 1900s. Parts of this vision include the removal of borders and completely free and unrestricted trade among nations. It calls for the removal of all armaments except the bare necessities needed for domestic safety. Sound familiar? Think Obama's call for the destruction of ALL American nuclear weapons and a refusal to build more, regardless of what our adversaries may have. Finally, it calls for the restructuring of Europe along ethnic and nationalist lines...

You really should go read the rest on CJ's blog, A Soldier's Perspective, here.

*cross-posted in the usual places ;) *

Bill Clinton Seen As Undermining Barack Obama In Speech Given Tuesday- UPDATED & BUMPED, Video added

Posted: 26 Aug 2008 09:13 PM CDT

[Update] Video added of Clinton's words.

Bill Clinton in the spotlight and accused of undercutting Barack Obama, as Hillary Clinton prepares to make her speech at the Democratic Convention tonight, where she is expected to promote party unity and help to bring her supporters over to back Obama,
The Hill reports critics are accusing Bill Clinton of deliberately trying to undermine Barack Obama, in a speech he gave in Denver today, the same day his wife is due to give a speech at the Democratic convention and a day before Bill Clinton is expected to speak at the same event.

Democrats that have expressed, privately and publicly, reservations about what the unpredictable Bill Clinton will say tomorrow night during his address to the Democratic National Convention, will understandably be a little more worried today after hearing about Bill Clinton's comments made in Denver.

Former President Bill Clinton posed a hypothetical question on Tuesday, which some see as an attempt to question the Democratic Party's choice of Obama as the nominee for presidency.

Clinton asked, "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Understanding immediately how his remarks might have been construed by some, he then went on to assure the audience by saying, "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

Bill Clinton went on to speak about the importance of a politician to be able to keep the promises they make during their campaign season, after they win an election an d how voters take into account whether a politician has that ability or not when deciding who to vote for.

During the contentious and at times nasty nomination battle between Clinton and Obama, the Clinton campaign repeatedly pushed the question of whether Obama, a freshman senator, had the experience or the ability to deliver on his promises if elected. Clinton, they argued, was more suited to do so.

The Hill also reports that Democrats are "very nervous" about the speech Bill Clinton will give tomorrow night because of his propensity to go off "teleprompter" and ad-lib during his speaking engagements.

Paul Begala, who is a former Clinton aide and strategist assures The Hill that Bill Clinton is solidly behind Barack Obama by stating, "He's totally for Barack. He's totally for Barack."

Some bloggers are having fun with Begala's assertions, with Weekly Standard writer, Dean Barnett, saying, "Phew! Can you imagine how Clinton would behave if he were only "partially" behind Barack?"

Was it an innocent hypothetical question the media is making too much of, or a subconscious attempt to point out what both Bill and Hillary tried to imply during the primaries against Barack Obama? Could it even have been a deliberate dig at the DNC for choosing Obama while Bill Clinton believes Obama does not have the ability to keep the promises he has made?

Maybe the more important question would be, how many people are more interested in seeing Bill Clinton's speech on Wednesday, waiting for him to go off script, than they are to see Barack Obama's speech on Thursday?


"I am the surge"

Posted: 26 Aug 2008 10:03 PM CDT

Vets for Freedom has a new tv ad out, and it's a goodie - of As my regular readers know, I ALWAYS set great store by what our troops, boots on the ground, say; unlike *some* politicians who 'know it all' about our War on Terror strategy, even though they declare failure before the surge is even done (no names

Watch the ad below, and maybe even make a phone call or two.:) Then, head over to Vets For Freedom here. We can educate people, Yes we can!!!!

*cross-posted in all the usual places*

Republicans Throw 'Happy Hour for Hillary' With Clinton Supporters Toasting McCain

Posted: 26 Aug 2008 07:51 PM CDT

The Republican National Committee threw an event in Denver called "Happy Hour for Hillary," where McCain and Clinton supporters gathered together for one specific cause: To oppose Barack Obama.
One of the Clinton supporters, Kathy Archuleta, never thought her first night at the Democratic National Convention in Denver would be spent at an event sponsored by the Republican party at the Paramount Café in downtown Denver, yet there she was, a 54 year-old Democrat having drinks and mingling with other Clinton supporters, McCain supporters, Independents, officials and volunteers from the John McCain campaign, according to CNN.

Approximately 100 people gathered at the Café, sipping drinks, eating tacos and cheese spread, discussing politics, sports and the Democratic Convention, while Michelle Obama was giving her speech at the Pepsi Center.

Archuleta, a lifelong Democrat, says, "I'm a registered Republican ... for the first time in my voting life. No Obama for me. I'm voting for John McCain," she then adds "He reminds me of what the Jimmy Carter era was like. ... If they think Jimmy Carter had it bad, just wait if Obama gets into the White House. That will be bad news in so many ways."

All those gathered at the Happy Hour for Hillary had one thing in common- they all believe that Barack Obama does not have the experience necessary to be the President of the United States, with Marnie Delano, who is a 58 year-old from New York stating, "His lack of experience has been demonstrated so painfully every time he opens his mouth just about. ... You cannot have good judgment without experience; that's how you get it."

Clinton supporters-turned-McCain converts at the event were not just angry at Obama's campaign; they're furious with the Democratic Party's nomination process this year.

"The DNC really pushed [Barack Obama] on us. Now they've left us with two choices: somebody who has no substance or a Republican," said Jessi Cleaver, 35, of New York. "And these are terrible choices, and they worked hard to select this candidate. ... We're watching the DNC pick this candidate for us."

Tom Kise who is the McCain campaign regional communications director, also attended the Happy Hour for Hillary, where he makes the point "Four years ago, if you said we'd be at a Hillary happy hour at the DNC, I would have called you crazy. But today is a great opportunity for people who ... agree that Sen. Barack Obama doesn't have the experience to be president of the United States."

In conjunction with the theme those gathered were speaking about, which was the experience factor, John McCain's campaign launched a new ad that will be showing during the Democratic convention, which utilizes portions of the infamous Hillary Clinton "3 a.m." ad, with a couple changes detailing the national security threats which face America.

In the original Clinton ad, she asked who was better prepared for a "3 a.m." phone call, to handle a national emergency, as she pointed out that Barack Obama was not the person voters would want answering that call.

One of the changes the McCain campaign made to the ad was the very end, where the announcer says, "Hillary's right."


John McCain 'Gallups' Ahead of Barack Obama

Posted: 26 Aug 2008 07:06 PM CDT

Sorry, I just couldn't resist the play on words, but the news is that according to Gallup, not only did Barack Obama receive no "Biden Bounce" but John McCain has actually taken a two point lead over Barack Obama.

(Click to enlarge)

Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 23-25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing John McCain and 44% supporting Obama, not appreciably different from the previous week's standing for both candidates. This is the first time since Obama clinched the nomination in early June, though, that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

This is the problem with peaking in too early as Barack Obama did, there is only one place to go then and that is down.

Obama did not receive the expected "bounce" after Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign. Obama lost the 3 point "bounce" he received after his highly touted overseas trip, and it was lost within days, and now McCain is showing a slight lead as he prepares to announce his vice president on Friday (or so reports say) and heading into the Republican Convention next week.

No wonder the Democrats are tense, they see an election that they should have trounced Republicans in, slipping through their incompetent fingers as they have made mistake after mistake, alienating millions of voters and to top it off, Obama angers those same voters further just 3 days before the convention starts.

It is almost like they are all trying to hand this election to McCain.

Now John McCain just has to pick a running mate that will not divide the party, making sure not to make the same type of mistakes that Obama made and we should see his "bounce" go far higher that Obama's will because the Republican convention should be far less chaotic... you know, the business about the tension between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters, Ted Kennedy stealing the spotlight from Michelle Obama, assassination plots being reported and massive protests, parades and rallies held outside the Convention doors.


Florida Man Reacts Badly To Michelle Obama's Speech, Leads to Standoff With Police

Posted: 26 Aug 2008 06:14 PM CDT

Is it a full moon or what?

After Michelle Obama spoke at the Democratic Convention last night, evidently one person in Pasco County Florida was extremely displeased. His negative reaction led to a six-hour standoff with police.
The Pasco County Sheriff's department was called to the scene after a man stood outside his recreational vehicle (RV) and fired his gun into the air, according to Tampa

When deputies arrived, the man ran into RV where he locked himself in and away from authorities for six-hours, even after SWAT teams arrived and fired riot gas into the home, which did not bring the man out.

The Sheriff's Office spokesman Kevin Doll did not release the identity of the man who finally exited his vehicle approximately at 5 am this morning, but Doll did say the cause of the man's "displeasure" was the speech given last night by Michelle Obama.

Doll concludes by telling reporters that the man will be undergoing psychological evaluation.

The crazies are really coming out now... word also is that moonbat protesters attacked Michelle Malkin yesterday as well.

Unacceptable behavior from people that belong in a mental hospital and/or jail.

Democratic Convention Watch: Day Two, It Is Still All About The Clintons

Posted: 26 Aug 2008 03:18 PM CDT

Is anyone else getting the feeling that the DNC and especially the media, might be realizing, too late, that they backed the wrong horse and perhaps lost the election the day they started actively working against Hillary Clinton to hand the nomination to Barack Obama?

Day one was not what Democratic officials hoped it would be with protests, assassination plots, Ted Kennedy and Bill and Hillary Clinton dominating the news. Coverage again today shows it is still all about the Clintons
As political junkies, bloggers and pundits go through the news of the day, one thing stands out on day two of the Democratic National Convention coverage- the names Hillary and Bill Clinton.


ABC News points out yesterdays coverage was frustrating to the Democrats as story after story focused on the tension at the convention between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters, to the point where accusations have been leveled at Obama delegates, via the Chicago Tribune, claiming one called a black Clinton delegate "Uncle Tom", with reports now showing that some want that Obama supporter to step down from his Senate position.

Other accounts show that Clinton supporters chanted "caucus fraud" and referred often to Barack Obama calling a reporter "sweetie," with source after source telling media reporters of tensions, including Bill Clinton being unhappy with the speaking role he was given at the convention for Wednesday night.

Protests outside the Pepsi Center where the Democrats are holding their convention grabbed headlines as well.

On a night where Michelle Obama was to be the main focus with her speech, which can be found at New York Times, many say went well and where she was clear and concise and spoke eloquently, the headlines show she was upstaged by the news that Ted Kennedy was there and would speak, which he did. Kennedy was recently diagnosed with cancer and is recovering from treatment as the Boston Herald explains.

At a convention that Democratic officials hoped would be focused and highlighting Barack Obama, the biggest news that surrounded him was the arrest of two and subsequently two more people, claiming they were planning an assassination plot against the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Not exactly the focus the Democrats were hoping would be on Barack Obama.

The Republican National Committee and the John McCain campaign played their part in making sure the coverage did not highlight Obama in a way the convention planners had organized it to either, by releasing ad after ad showing Clinton supporters voting to John McCain, Hillary Clinton's previous words, highlighting what she implied was his inexperience.

Even that brought news of Hillary as she declared publicly, "I am Hillary Clinton and I did not approve that message".

All the coverage, story after story, and Barack Obama barely received a glance on the whole first day of the Democratic Convention which was meant to spotlight him.

Day Two.

Which brings us to today's news, which included the ABC News article above, which once again highlights..... yes, Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is slated to speak at the convention tonight.

They spotlight a new Gallup poll which says less than half of Hillary Clinton supporters say they are solidly behind Barack Obama with 23 percent saying they will back him but might change their mind and 30 percent of Clinton supporters saying they will not vote or vote for someone else, including John McCain.

Hillary Clinton continues to make it clear that she is backing Barack Obama and calling for party unity, yet even she continues to mention her "18 million votes".

One Clinton supporter, Cynthia Ruccia, who formed the group Clinton Supporters Count Too, declares "I'm thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic Party. I believe the magic of Barack Obama was his ability to turn lifelong Democrats like us into McCain supporters overnight," she continues on to add, "My vote is a protest vote. I live in Ohio, I know our votes count in a very special way because whoever wins Ohio is often the person who becomes the president of the United States. And I do not want to reward the Democratic Party with my vote. I am disgusted with them."

Clinton supporters also went after MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews, chanting "sexist pig, sexist pig" referring to a comment he made in January, to which he later apologized publicly for.

ABC news isn't the only coverage out today focusing more on the Clinton's than Barack Obama.

SFGate describes how California Hillary Clinton delegates are protesting, saying DNC rules require delegates to vote as they are elected. Pointing out that Clinton received 204 delegates pledged to her from California while Barack Obama only received 166.

One well known Clinton delegate, Gloria Allred who is a California women's lawyer, went as far as to take a napkin off the breakfast table to wear as a gag in protest of not being allowed to speak at the breakfast.

Allred states, through the gag, "I was not elected to be a potted plant."

Clinton delegate Julie Wong of Los Gatos was handing out white wrist bands to rally solidarity at the convention tonight when Clinton speaks. Hillary supporters have a march planned for today, which coincides with the anniversary of the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote.

Allred said Clinton herself "doesn't have the legal power" to tell her own delegates how to vote. "She can do it, but that doesn't mean we have to do it," Allred said.

Moving right along to The Politico to a piece titled "Denver drama: Can Clintons' get over it?"

That is a three page article focused on.... you got it... the Clintons and how Bill Clinton is still bitterly angry and resentful over how he perceived the Obama campaign and the media as being unfair during the hard fought primary season.

Even papers from other countries, such as the Telegraph UK, are focused on , the Clintons, asking if "Barack Obama blown it with Bill and Hillary Clinton?"

That article points out how the Obama supporters feel the Clinton supporters just need to "get over it", then goes on to say, "But this kind of thinking is exactly how to lose to McCain. It's the Obama people who need to get over it - and quickly."

Doing a Google News search for the word Clinton shows thousands upon thousands of articles and who are they focused on?

Bill and Hillary Clinton.

While Hillary Clinton sends emails allowing people a photo spray opportunity while she tours the podium where she will be speaking tonight and Clinton supporters holding a parade and rally in Denver today, the latest controversy to which my email is full of unhappy, angry emails, informing me that after all the hard work and petitions signed to get Hillary Clinton's name placed in nomination, there is an agreement for her to end the state-by-state roll call before it is finished and hand it the official nomination to Barack Obama as MSNBC reports.

Yet as the AP reported last night, the Clinton and Obama camps have agreed to limit the roll call vote. "The deal would allow some states to cast votes for both Obama and Clinton before ending the roll call in acclamation for the Illinois senator. Clinton herself may cut off the vote and recommend unanimous nomination of Obama, according to Democratic officials involved in the negotiations."

According to the LA Times' Top of the Ticket, one DNC member says it is all up to Obama, stating, "Whether or not there will be a roll call -- and. if so, under what conditions -- is entirely up to the Obama campaign. And they have not yet decided what the roll call is going to look like."

If anyone is under any illusion that tomorrow's news coverage will be any different or will focus more on Barack Obama regarding a convention being held to spotlight him, let me remind you, Bill Clinton is slated to speak at tomorrow night's event.

Face it, the Clinton's are the show, have been the show, and now that the public and the media are tired of the "new kid on the block", they are all suffering buyers remorse.


No comments:

Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

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

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams


Obama learned his lesson well

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama


War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us

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

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

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

Deciphering Obama in Cairo

Deciphering Obama in Cairo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

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

See original article here.


or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

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

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

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

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

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

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


Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong



OBAMA Comment by

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

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

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

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

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

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


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

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


This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

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

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at

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

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

[excerpted from]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

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


This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2


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