Tuesday, 2 September 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

While Cleaning Up After Gustav, Eyes Turn To Hanna, Ike and Perhaps Josephine

Posted: 02 Sep 2008 12:36 PM CDT

While the U.S. Gulf states clean up the mess that Gustav has left behind, the National Hurricane Center is staying busy keeping their eyes on Tropical Storms Hanna, Ike and Josephine.
Gustav made landfall yesterday and surprised many by not doing as much damage as some expected.

Next on the list is tropical storm Hanna who as of the latest advisory from the National Hurricane Center, is the tenth tropical storm of the season in the Eastern Atlantic, which is raining heavily on Southeastern Bahamas and Hispaniola.

Tropical storm warnings have been issued for Northern coast of Haiti from Le Mole St. Nicholas eastward to the northern border with the Dominican Republic. A tropical storm warning has means tropical storm conditions are expected within the warning area within the next 24 hours.

From there the projected path can be seen in the graph below.

Computer models project the paths of storms so changes are made until the last minute but they do give authorities time to issue warnings and take steps to prepare for a potential hit.

Behind Hanna is Tropical Storm IKE.

The latest advisory on IKE, which is continuously update, shows that IKE has strengthened a little over the Central Atlantic and located East of the Leeward Islands, moving West at approximately 18 miles per hour.

IKE is forecasted to gradually strengthen with the possibility of reaching hurricane strength by Wednesday.

Next on the list is Tropical Storm Josephine.

The latest advisory on Josephine from the National Hurricane Center, shows that Josephine is approximately 125 miles South-Southwest of the Southernmost Cape Verde Islands.

Josephine is moving west at about 15 miles per hour and the project path indicates it will pass South of the Cape Verde Islands today and tonight and be in open water in the Eastern Tropical Atlantic on Wednesday and Thursday. According to the National Hurricane Center Josephine could reach hurricane strength by Wednesday or Thursday as well.

To keep up with updated projections of where these storms are heading, you can access each set of advisories as well as 3 day and 5 day projected paths at the National Hurricane Center.


The Vetting Process Of Sarah Palin

Posted: 02 Sep 2008 09:12 AM CDT

The sheer ridiculous of the speculation, rumors and outright lies being told by pundits across the web with no regard to actual research is amazing in it's scope.

What is does vetting entail for a vice presidential candidate such as Sarah Palin?

With Barack Obama's vetting process, it was apparent by his high profile team that was sent to speak to people on the Hill as word leaked time and time again, with John McCain the process was a little more discreet.

The man who was in charge of the vetting process for the McCain campaign was a lawyer by the name of Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr.

After being impressed with Sarah Palin after a one-on-one talk with her back in February at the National Governors Association meeting as reported by The Washington Post, John McCain had her name was added to a list of many, including the high profile candidates such as Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge, Tim Pawlenty and Joseph Lieberman.

The process stayed discreet until after John McCain had officially announced her as his running mate last Friday and since then speculation about the "vetting" process has been running wild.

The Washington Times details the process used by Culvahouse on behalf of John McCain and his campaign.

With the news that the McCain campaign has sent operatives and lawyers to Alaska a day before McCain announced her as his running mate, came more speculation asking if the McCain campaign was only now getting around to vetting Sarah Palin, with a senior adviser for the McCain campaign Steve Schmidt saying that a "jump team" was always scheduled to go to the eventual running mate's home town after the choice had been officially made "to work with the nominee's staff, help with information requests from local and national reporters, and answer questions about documents that were part of the review."

It all started with a list of potential candidates under consideration, which included Palin's name. From there approximately 25 people were tasked with the responsibility to pour through public records, public speeches and her stands on policy issues to identify any trouble spots she may have.

Culvahouse tells the Associated Press that as with the other possible VP choices, Palin's public speeches,financial records, tax information, litigation, investigations, ethical charges, as well as marriages and divorces were all scoured through.

For Palin specifically, the team studied online archives of the state's largest newspapers, including the Anchorage Daily News, but didn't request paper archives for Palin's hometown newspaper for fear the secret review would become public.

That public search produced information about the investigation in the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner, who alleges he was dismissed for not firing Palin's brother-in-law, which has been come to be known as "troopergate" across the web.

A 40 page report, per candidate, was then put together and given to John McCain, Schmidt, campaign manager Rick Davis, and top advisers Mark Salter and Charlie Black. to go through.

The follow-up, according Culvahouse, included sending Palin a 70 page "intrusive" questionnaire asking for personal data and she was asked to submit federal and state tax returns for a number of previous years.

Throughout the vetting process, Rick Davis, had multiple conversations with Palin and then it was time for Culvahouse to speak in-depth to Palin, which it is believed by some to have been done via a tip to Alaska, which ended up being tipped to a blogger who writes for Wizbang, who reported that Culvahouse was spotted in Juneau, Alaska, back in May.

Culvahouse conducted a three-hour interview with Palin, where she informed him of her daughters pregnancy, which he says was the first thing she volunteered, and she made mention of her husband Todd's DUI arrest in 1986.

Culvahouse also asked Palin follow up questions on the "troopergate" issue and then spent hours with her lawyer going over the details.

Among the findings from the public search of records on Palin, the Mccain campaign did find one more detail about Palin that has not been disclosed and spoken about endlessly in the media, blogs, forums and other outlets across the web, but it may be a deal breaker for some.

Palin had once received a citation for fishing without a license.

Oh the humanity!!!!!!!

That's it, throw her under the bus.


American Fringe Groups and Media Have Hit an All Time Low

Posted: 02 Sep 2008 04:32 AM CDT

Ladies and Gentlemen, it has been almost two months since I posted anything of my own. Those who know me know I'm currently in a round of studies which are, quite literally, kicking my behind. I will be in these studies until the culmination--a major exam September 27, 2008.

That being said, I may have been sitting on the sidelines but I haven't been ignoring what's going on in the ring.

Frankly, I am appalled at the behavior of the general population. I'm even more appalled at the behavior of the media, in all its forms. For several reasons.

First, why have we come to expect such obnoxious behavior as that of Michael Moore and his ilk as common place? Why do we just roll our eyes and go on our way when we hear any of the drivel coming out of their mouths? When did it become acceptable to let their filth stand unchallenged--and unprosecuted? Who says we have to listen to the filth spewing forth and why aren't people like him being run out of towns on a rail?

Why? Because the fringe groups have tapped into all that guilt about not allowing people their First Amendment rights. Well, guess what. Those rights go both ways. Sure they are entitled to show themselves to be the idiots they are. We are entitled to not have to listen to them if we do not wish to.

Michael Moore thought it would be funny to make a comment regarding Hurricane Gustav--and project how God must be on the DNC's side because the expected landfall date was the start of the RNC Convention. Never mind people's lives were in danger. Never mind Michael Moore doesn't believe in God. Never mind the absolute offensiveness of these words coming from the mouth of a man who never said no to anything remotely edible (and probably quite a bit not considered edible). He thought Gustav was a wonderful joke.

And apparently former DNC Chair Dan Fowler thought the same. Actually laughing about a disaster set to hit an area still recovering from Katrina and Rita. Isn't that a lovely joke? Of course, when caught by some astute person on the plane he was traveling on, he immediately backpedaled, blaming the VRWC for his actions. And his apology?

Here it is:
"If this offended anybody, I personally apologize," Fowler told ABC News. "It was a mistake, and it was a satirical statement made in jest. And one that I clearly don't believe."

Fowler was secretly recorded by the person sitting behind him while flying from Denver, Colo., to Charlotte, N.C., following the Democratic National Convention. His conversation with Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., was anonymously posted to YouTube and highlighted by RedState.com, a conservative blog.

"One doesn't anticipate that one's private conversation will be surreptitiously taped by some right-wing nutcase," said Fowler. "But that's the nature of what we're dealing with."
Followed by this:
"I believe in a benevolent God," said Fowler. "I'm a religious person. It was a facetious statement, some might even say satirical, play off of what Falwell said."

"If it offended anybody. I'm sorry for that," said Fowler. "I don't think anybody in America wishes for something bad to happen to New Orleans. I certainly don't."

That's an apology? I don't think so. It's the ramblings of a sick, twisted individual who, as an embodiment of what the DNC has become, can't take responsibility for his own words or actions.

Michael Moore has yet to apologize for his nonsense; in fact he's expanded on it.

Here is his original comment:

I was just thinking that, uh, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in Heaven — that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans on Day One of the Republican Convention in the Twin Cities at the top of the Mississippi River.

Followed by this from his website [An Open Letter to God]:

Sunday, August 31st, 2008
An Open Letter to God, from Michael Moore

Dear God,

The other night, James Dobson's organization asked all believers to pray for a storm on Thursday night so that the Obama acceptance speech outdoors in Denver would have to be canceled.

I see that You have answered Dr. Dobson's prayers -- except the storm You have sent to earth is not over Denver, but on its way to New Orleans! In fact, You have scheduled it to hit Louisiana at exactly the moment that George W. Bush is to deliver his speech at the Republican National Convention.

Now, heavenly Father, we all know You have a great sense of humor and impeccable timing. To send a hurricane on the third anniversary of the Katrina disaster AND right at the beginning of the Republican Convention was, at first blush, a stroke of divine irony. I don't blame You, I know You're angry that the Republicans tried to blame YOU for Katrina by calling it an "Act of God" -- when the truth was that the hurricane itself caused few casualties in New Orleans. Over a thousand people died because of the mistakes and neglect caused by humans, not You.

Some of us tried to help after Katrina hit, while Bush ate cake with McCain and twiddled his thumbs. I closed my office in New York and sent my entire staff down to New Orleans to help. I asked people on my website to contribute to the relief effort I organized -- and I ended up sending over two million dollars in donations, food, water, and supplies (collected from thousands of fans) to New Orleans while Bush's FEMA ice trucks were still driving around Maine three weeks later.

But this past Thursday night, the Washington Post reported that the Republicans had begun making plans to possibly postpone the convention. The AP had reported that there were no shelters set up in New Orleans for this storm, and that the levee repairs have not been adequate. In other words, as the great Ronald Reagan would say, "There you go again!"

So the last thing John McCain and the Republicans needed was to have a split-screen on TVs across America: one side with Bush and McCain partying in St. Paul, and on the other side of the screen, live footage of their Republican administration screwing up once again while New Orleans drowns.

So, yes, You have scared the Jesus, Mary and Joseph out of them, and more than a few million of your followers tip their hats to You.

But now it appears that You haven't been having just a little fun with Bush & Co. It appears that Hurricane Gustav is truly heading to New Orleans and the Gulf coast. We hear You, O Lord, loud and clear, just as we did when Rev. Falwell said You made 9/11 happen because of all those gays and abortions. We beseech You, O Merciful One, not to punish us again as Pat Robertson said You did by giving us Katrina because of America's "wholesale slaughter of unborn children." His sentiments were echoed by other Republicans in 2005.

So this is my plea to you: Don't do this to Louisiana again. The Republicans got your message. They are scrambling and doing the best they can to get planes, trains and buses to New Orleans so that everyone can get out. They haven't sent the entire Louisiana National Guard to Iraq this time -- they are already patrolling the city streets. And, in a nod to I don't know what, Bush's head of FEMA has named a man to help manage the federal government's response. His name is W. Michael Moore. I kid you not, heavenly Father. They have sent a man with both my name AND W's to help save the Gulf Coast.

So please God, let the storm die out at sea. It's done enough damage already. If you do this one favor for me, I promise not to invoke your name again. I'll leave that to the followers of Dr. Dobson and to those gathering this week in St. Paul.

Your faithful servant and former seminarian,

Michael Moore

P.S. To all of God's fellow children who are reading this, the city of New Orleans has not yet recovered from Katrina. Please click here for a list of things you can do to help our brothers and sisters on the Gulf Coast. And, if you do live along the Gulf Coast, please take all necessary safety precautions immediately.

These are sick people folks. But it gets better

Since the announcement of Governor Sarah Palin as the VP running mate with John McCain, the press, and indeed the entire country, has decided it's open season on her family, particularly her children.

It's been tradition children are untouched during campaigns. Apparently not if they are the children of the first female GOP VP pick. Then it's open season.

First, KOS started things off saying the Palins' youngest child was actually their grandchild. They had no proof of this, just seemed like something to say. The Palins shot back by exposing their oldest daughter Bristol is indeed 5 months pregnant and she and her boyfriend plan to 1) keep the child and 2) marry.

Let the howling begin.

Gov. Palin did the unthinkable and *GASP* allowed her baby to live, fully knowing he would be a Down's Syndrome child. This was her first mistake, according to the insane asylum refugees. She should have killed him in accordance with their views. To allow him to live is just wrong in their eyes. And oh, yeah--Trig had to be her daughter's child because Sarah never really "looked" that pregnant and didn't make all kinds of announcements. She actually did something most politicos find foreign--she did her job.

Then, horrors, it's come out she flew to Dallas, made a speech and flew back to Alaska one month prior to her due date. She developed an amniotic leak and by all accounts was in constant contact with her doctor. Her doctor--who was well apprised of the situation and more than likely had properly prepared delivery facilities to meet both Sarah's and her child's needs--before, during and after delivery. Sarah was not in labor. She was, understandably, in a hurry to get back to Alaska, and the doctors who were familiar with her case. BTW, Down's Syndrome occurs at conception--there is nothing after conception which "causes" Down's Syndrome. And, it occurs in older women ALMOST exclusively due to the age of the ova.

Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes fame decided he was going to take his shot and accused Sarah of causing Trig's Down Syndrome by her irresponsible plane trip after her "water broke" and "she went into labor" rather than staying in the hospital in Texas. Never mind she wasn't in labor, she was in constant contact with her personal physician and her water didn't BREAK, it was a leak.

THEN Sarah commits the horrible crime of returning to work 3 days after she gave birth. That's just the ultimate crime. Never mind this woman is responsible for running a state government. Never mind she is probably in better physical shape than about 90% of the general population. Never mind each individual woman is different in their recovery time. Never mind all that, she's committed the unpardonable sin of returning to work after 3 days. From all accounts, Trig goes with her to work. She doesn't rely on nannies to take care of her child.

Let's twist this a little more--some are even obliquely accusing Mr. Palin of being the father of Trig--with his daughter Bristol. Oh yeah, they went there.

The filth coming out today, greeting the news from the Palins that Bristol was indeed pregnant was absolutely unconscionable. Here are a few quotes from comment threads I've been helping monitor:
I think I will let the Christian Bible say it best:

1 Timothy, Chapter 2

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Deueronomy 22:20-21

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
BettyBowers4Prez on September 1st, 2008 6:50 pm

Candidate for "Vice" President Sarah Palin has finally fessed up that her unmarried teenage daughter has been running around town having unprotected sex. Truly, the Lord Jesus is showing us two things by this sad example of teenage harlotry:

1. That a mother who also engages in sexual activity outside of a traditional, Christian marriage (if you doubt this, check out the birthday of Sarah's first son — April 20, 1989 — and the date she and her handsome hubby eloped — August 29, 1988!) sets an appalling example for her own children. Indeed, studies from Focus on the Family have proven that harlot mothers wind up with harlot daughters 93.4% of the time. Similar studies by the godly gals at Concerned Women for America have concluded that these poor, impressionable girls learn to strut, show inappropriate décolletage and beguile like pushy prostitutes in their very own living rooms.

2. And a mother who values her career (to the point of abandoning a newborn to campaign 24-7 for a new job in another state) above raising her precious family should not be surprised when she FINALLY steps back inside her family home (if she remembers the address) to find that it has been filled with bastards in her shocking absence!

And, honestly, what is happening to our once-godly country when REPUBLICANS are getting all giddy over a unrepentant harlot? I expect Demoncrats to go for that nonsense, but not the party of God. Please join me in praying to the Lord Jesus that Mr. McCain kick this trash to the curb!

Then there was this gem:
Jesse on September 1st, 2008 6:10 pm

Here is my problem with this… I don't think it is refreshing that Sarah is dealing with a problem faced by other families. Her outspoken moral values should be reflected in her own family. Lead by example… don't just talk the talk.

As a conservative, I want someone who actually practices what they preach, and whose message is truly effective, and since it was not effective in even her own family, I cannot say she is walking the walk.

My problem is we were all in agreement when Jamie Spears was found to be pregnant, out of wedlock, at 16 (Bristol was 16 I believe then during conception), that this was likely a result of not enough true guidance and parental involvement, along with instilling the proper values which led to her irresponsibility.

Now, because Sarah claims to be a conservative, it is OK and she should be applauded? I just don't get it my fellow conservatives, this is not examples we want set for our country or children. The example she is teaching and you are all reinforcing is it OK to have sex before marriage and as a young teenager, because "these things happen".

Wrong… when you follow a moral code and pass those down properly, and stay involved it doesn't happen. Even liberals in my community, they don't have the same moral compass as me, but they do know how to set example and keep their kids from making the kind of irresponsible choices like this.

I hold her higher because she claims to be conservative, but the fact she can't keep her own kitchen clean so to speak tells me she has no authority to lead the rest of us on this issue.

McCain made a terrible mistake, and unfortunately this issue and a couple others are making it very hard to vote for him.

We need leaders who lead by example, not by telling us what we want to hear.

So frustrating
And this:

PS- Let's stop turning this into an abortion issue. It has nothing to do with it. The bottom line is she has failed as a conservative parent to keep her daughter on the right path. There is no upside to this. We expect her to keep the baby, duh. The problem is under Sarah's watch, her daughter:
Was having sex, unmarried, at a young age, and if that wasn't enough, she didn't even have the sense to at least be safer about it to prevent bringing a child into the world under the wrong circumstances for her and the baby.

A baby should be born to a couple who is old enough to know they are truly in love and will spend the rest of their life together, because they are already married. Anything else is not only a sin, but totally selfish and irresponsible.

How do I explain to my children that Sarah is a model for America, but she can't even keep her children on the right path of the lord, or even just the common sense for those who don't lend as much credence his teachings?

and finally:

What I don't understand is why did they send in the low level, of the Republican tier, to deal with this issue if the base is so excited?

Where are the big endorsements from prominent Republican members such as: Newt, Pat Buch, George Bush (41 especially, and, 43) Karl Rove, Rice, Cheney? And, the brigade of high ranking Republican military to solidify her "readiness"?
Just to name a few players.

What happened to Morning Joe Scarborough this morning promoting her?

Basically, the "buzz" is the Republican Party has realized McCain blew it with this choice. Nobody, is buying this hard sell.

The internet is a-buzz because mainstream media is running scared of their bosses who want to keep the good spin going. There has been no oposing viewpoint on any media channel since the announcement. If we had been getting regular news and if Palin had been vetted properly, there would be no need for tens of thousands of people to be digging into her past, which, she put on the table when deciding to run for Vice President.

We Americans are loving this. It's pure power, just like MSM. We can go from site to site linking stories, sourcing out our own material and sharing it with other voters in our social groups. With this being a holiday weekend, and because of what I described above, we can circulate our own media bias just as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, FOX NEWS, etc., whatever, that may be. That is the real problem. We did not wait for mainstream media to shape our thinking about the Palin issue.

In my fact finding research mostly Alaskian Newspapers (I was reading for an entire day, it was that extensive); as an Independent, voter with conservative viewpoints, I found out:

Palin has ethics and judgment problems - 1.) Questions about the baby, high risk pregnancy travel, her behavior when faced with going into labor while out of town, etc. 2.) Using a special needs baby, for campaigning, is extremely poor judgment even with some conservatives.

What does her husband do? Every report is--has worked for, or seasonal. What does that mean...sits home, lives off his wife, pumps out babies and watches his wife work herself to death? She's either on her back or her feet working.

This picture sends the wrong message to our conservative sons and daughters. Maybe, you should give us clarity by doing a investigative story on him so voters can have all the facts.

NOW THE 17 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT AND IT MAY NOT BE THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR. PUSHING FOR A DNA to before I would vote for McCain, Palin. People this is an election.

Whatever method we use to intelligently pick our candidate is applicable. I went from blog to blog yesterday, some for the first time. I didn't see any attacks. Define attacks. Questioning something is not attacking.

Guess you didn't read above where it says no anonymous posts, did you? Your research, so called, is tabloid style and is in keeping with trash. What do you want a DNA test for? What's this crap Bristol was pregnant before? Are you Palin's doctor and qualified to comment on her medical care? Your comment is being allowed to stay for one reason--to show the idiocy you, and others like you, are stooping to in your fear of a strong women who connects with Americans. Next time, you're gone.

Edited By Siteowner

Sophie's Star: A Tale of Two Successful Operations

Posted: 02 Sep 2008 12:47 AM CDT

My best friends have two kids. A bright and endlessly energized little boy, named after yours truly -- and therefore destined to have the unfortunate and slightly demeaning moniker of Little Roger for probably as long as I am still around; and a beautiful little girl named Sophie, for whom this story is named. Sophie is a precocious and unexpectedly articulate, perhaps even loquacious eleven-year old: It has become virtually impossible to talk over Sophie's head or to attempt to disguise a supposedly adult conversation behind erudite words. However, this advanced state of intellectual development is neither intimidating nor annoying, because fortunately Sophie is also generous, sweet, kind and funny, and -- most importantly, not above laughing at herself. Sophie also has Cerebral Palsy.

Every summer, on Sophie's birthday, her father's generous employers hold an outdoor fundraising barbecue and party known as Sophie's Star. Over the years this worthy celebration has grown into one of this small town's major social events, with local bands playing and people dancing, the crowds getting bigger every year. Thousands of dollars have been raised for the cause, little Sophie has become something of a small town celebrity (you can see cars driving by with "Sophie's Star" bumper stickers), and this annual birthday gala has had the wonderful effect of bringing this good community of ours together in ways that are very rewarding and very special.

And the funds thus raised are indeed critical. The medical expenses involved in the continuous ongoing treatment and therapy required for children with Cerebral Palsy are truly staggering. But thanks to the open-hearted generosity of this little community, all of Sophie's needs have thus far been met. Among these treatments are annual visits to the Children's Hospital in Boston for her Botox/Phenol shots. Because this is an invasive procedure, and the patient is put to sleep during the operation, it is considered a form of minor surgery.

Three summers ago, in July of 2005, I joined the family for this annual trip to the hospital in Boston. Among all of her other worthy attributes, little Sophie is boundlessly courageous and brave. She faces these ongoing assaults to her little body without complaint. In fact, she appears to be genetically incapable of self-pity -- an admirable quality inherited no doubt from her loving parents.

After the operation, as we sat waiting in the hospital lobby for Sophie to awaken from her sleep, I was watching all the busy people hurrying by. The doctors, the nurses, the medical technicians, administrators and various hospital employees, all preoccupied with the fulfillment of their various missions, all serving that one major over-riding mission: To help people in their time of need, and to save lives, to save as many lives as they could possibly save. Many of these people had sacrificed and given up much of their personal lives just to be able to be here today, performing their missions, one of which, had been our lovely Sophie's minor operation.

Earlier that day, July 7, 2005, three thousand miles away, in London, another kind of operation had just taken place.
Read more at Radarsite

While Republicans Collect Money for Gustav Victims, Protesters Turn Violent Outside

Posted: 01 Sep 2008 07:08 PM CDT

Classy protesters attack GOP delegates injuring an 80 year-old man. Yes, Pro-Peace folks are just so peaceful huh?

The Republican Convention has been altered with state delegates collecting money for victims of Hurricane Gustav, Anti-war protesters did not alter their plans, turned violent and started damaging property and attacked an 80 year-old delegate.
While Republicans are left with time on their hands because of altered conventions plans, they have taken to the phones and are collecting money for the victims of Hurricane Gustav who is pounding the U.S. Gulf Coast, as reported by Fox News.

About 150 red phones were set up in the ballroom and Cindy McCain not only helped make the calls, she and husband John McCain donated $25,000 dollars to relief efforts. In all, 90 delegates, volunteers, campaign staff and others in the Twin Cities for the convention were helping out at the telethon.

The telethon" started at 2 p.m. ET and had raised $1.165 million by 3 p.m. ET. One anonymous donor had donated one million dollars alone.

Inside the convention hall had been turned into a relief effort as the GOP suspended most activities and focused on helping the victims of the massive stor,

Outside, anti-war protesters, did not altered their plans at all.

What was supposed to be a "peaceful" anti-war protest, organized by a group called the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, turned violent when another group called Funk the War started becoming violent. Delegates were attacked, windows broken, tires were flattened and bottles were thrown and reports from Yahoo News say at least one fire was set.

The Police used tear gas and the end result so far is 56 protesters, dressed in black and telling reporters they were "anarchists", were arrested.

The scene took place several blocks from the Xcel Energy Center where the Republican Convention is being held in St Paul, Minnesota.

The delegates that were attacked were members of the Connecticut delegation. The disembarked from their bus near the Xcel Energy Center and were approached by a group of protesters that tried to rip their credentials off their necks and sprayed them with an unknown toxic substance which stained their clothes and burned their eyes.

One of those delegates was 80 years old and he needed treatment for injuries.

Five of those arrested had set a fire to a garbage can and tried to push it into the police vehicles

At one point, people pushed a trash bin filled with trash and threw garbage in the streets and at cars. They also took down orange detour road signs. One of them used a screwdriver to puncture the back tire of a limousine waiting at an intersection and threw a wooden board at the vehicle, denting its side. Another hurled a glass bottle at a charter bus that had stopped at an intersection. The bottle smashed into pieces but didn't appear to damage the bus.

After the official march ended, police spent hours dispersing smaller groups of protesters, employing officers on horses, smoke bombs and tear gas.

Authorities have asked for and received 150 Minnesota National Guard soldiers to help them deal with protesters.


Sarah Palin A Hit With GOP Donors, ABC Calls Her The '$10 Million Woman'

Posted: 01 Sep 2008 04:56 PM CDT

(ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)

Reports are coming out that John McCain has a record month in contributions with $10 million pouring into the campaign since the announcement of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate.
The final numbers are still being tallied but McCain campaign officials tell ABC News the total contributions for August made to the campaign is over $47 million, with $10 million coming in since the announcement of Sarah Palin as his VP pick on Friday.

According to Brian Rogers, a campaign spokesman, "We're still counting."

A top McCain official, tells reporters, "We were blown away. She has energized our base and when we see the money flowing like that we know we have a hit."

As a result, the official said, Palin will be asked to spend at least 80 per cent of her time raising money between now and the election.

Future monies will be collected on behalf of the Republican National Committee because John McCain opted to use the public financing system that has been used for decades, but which Barack Obama opted out of.

Any excess campaign funds from these donations, after McCain is made the official candidate will be steered to other candidates and different committees as required by law.

The overwhelmingly positive reactions in the last couple of days to the choice of the McCain VP pick in Palin, is amazing to see.

She is winning over conservative America by leaps and bounds, she has evangelical leaders stepping up and speaking up for her after her announcement about her daughter being pregnant, she has feminists, especially Clinton supporters, are watching the media with eagle eyes to trounce on sexism where ever it rears it's ugly head.

Crowds are larger than usual when she shows up with John McCain. People impressed with her all American attitude, her love for her country, her spirit and spunk.

John McCain chose well and I think the more people see of her, hear from her, talk with her and get to know her, these reactions will only get better.

There are those with doubts and few not as excited as others are expressing, but the majority of responses I have seen here and elsewhere, shows me that Palin is the right woman, for the right job.


Video Added!!-- Barack Obama Warns People To Back Away From Attacks Against Sarah Palin's Family

Posted: 01 Sep 2008 02:30 PM CDT

Video of Obama "strongly urging" people to "back off", below.

In the short time since the announcement from Sarah Palin that her daughter is pregnant and will be marrying the father of her child, reactions have started to come out with Barack Obama, taking the high road and declaring "families are off limits."
The statement issued by Sarah Palin and her husband Todd, via the McCain website:

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

Reactions are coming out fast and furiously from Evangelicals, supporters and even Barack Obama issued a harsh response.

Starting with Barack Obama's reaction when he was asked to comment on the news that Sarah Palin's 17 year-old daughter was pregnant, he said it was irrelevant to the political campaign and went on to admonish "I think peoples families are off limits and people's children are especially off limits, " as reported by CBS News.

He continued on to say that he would strongly urge people to "back off" further stating , "My mother had me when she was 18 years old," Obama said, adding that families should deal with these issues privately. "That shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off limits."

He continued on to assert that no one in his campaign is involved nor will be and he concluded by saying, "And if I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired."

Watch the whole video above, those were just the highlights.

Other reactions coming out include evangelical leaders, who expressed excitement and immediately united behind the John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket within hours of McCain announcing Palin as his running mate as TIME noted last Friday when the announcement was made.

Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family issued a statement right after the news came out today, reported by ABC News:

"In the 32-year history of Focus on the Family, we have offered prayer, counseling and resource assistance to tens of thousands of parents and children in the same situation the Palins are now facing. We have always encouraged the parents to love and support their children and always advised the girls to see their pregnancies through, even though there will of course be challenges along the way. That is what the Palins are doing, and they should be commended once again for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances.

"Being a Christian does not mean you're perfect. Nor does it mean your children are perfect. But it does mean there is forgiveness and restoration when we confess our imperfections to the Lord. I've been the beneficiary of that forgiveness and restoration in my own life countless times, as I'm sure the Palins have.

"The media are already trying to spin this as evidence Gov. Palin is a 'hypocrite,' but all it really means is that she and her family are human. They are in my prayers and those of millions of Americans."

David Brody brings the response of another top Evangelical leader Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who states, "This is the pro-life choice. The fact that people will criticize her for this shows the astounding extent to which the secular critics of the pro-life movement just don't get it. Those who criticize the Palin family don't understand that we don't see babies as a punishment but as a blessing. Barack Obama said that if one of his daughters made a mistake and got pregnant out of wedlock he wouldn't want her to be punished with a child. Pro lifers don't see a child as punishment."

Brody himself believes this will resound with the religious community as well as with Americans as he points out, "Look, this development will actually be positive for the most part with Evangelicals. First they hear that Sarah Palin chooses the life option even though she had a Downs Syndrome baby and once again the family (and Bristol) has chosen the life option in this recent case. That's a double "ca-ching". Let's call this the Evangelical daily double," he thin goes on to point out how this will cause people to relate to Palin and her family.

These were the first reactions from the core base of the Republican Party supporters and considering their are already hundreds of stories written about this in such a short amount of time, it should be expected that more reactions will be coming out in the days to come, from both sides of the aisle.

The handling of this delicate situation will be a true indicator of the "tone" the next two months of political campaigning will go.

Obama probably understands immediately that if his supporters continue to attack Palin on this issue, he will be the one to suffer for it politically and no one can blame him for trying to set the tone and shut his far left extremist supporters up before they kill his chances completely.

Do I think his supporters will listen?

The smart ones will, the "Obamabot" portion of his supporters will not, and they will make such noise that it will be associated with Obama and he will suffer politically because of them.

(Added the updates from the previous post on this issue into the body of this piece because the other post was getting unruly.)

Hurricane Hannah Threat The Bahamas And U.S. East Coast

Posted: 01 Sep 2008 01:37 PM CDT

While Hurricane Gustav makes landfall in the U.S Gulf Coast states, Hurricane Hannah now heads toward the U.S. East Coast.
According to the latest advisory from the National Weather Center, which is listed here as advisory number 19, but is constantly changing as the advisories are updated, Hannah has become the fourth storm of the season, at 75 mile an hour winds it makes Hannah a Category 1 as of this time and is has caused the Government of the Bahamas to issue a Hurricane warning for Central and Southeastern Bahamas.

Projections show that Hannah could continue along it's current path and make landfall potentially affecting Florida, Georgia and possibly North Carolina if it follows the projected path, which has the North Carolina Red Cross keeping some of their supplies close to home in case they are needed to combat the potential hit from Hannah.

The U.S. Coast Guard units are prepared to send more ships, aircrafts, medical teams, disaster assistance teams to areas affected and some have already been sent to the Gulf Coast to help with the damage seen from Gustav which is a Category 2 as reported at Bradenton News.

The projected path of what is now a Hurricane Hanna is expected to hit the East Coast of Florida within 3 days unless the storm slows or loses strength after hitting land in the Bahamas, but even then it is expected to gain strength again once it goes over the warm waters again.

Hannah was not projected to become a Hurricane until Tuesday or Wednesday initially.


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 AltMuslim.com

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

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

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

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

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

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?


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 dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

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


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.