Wednesday, 3 September 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

When The Media Starts Reporting Rumor Without Verifying

Posted: 03 Sep 2008 12:33 PM CDT

For the second time in the last seven days, the media has reported rumor as news about Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, without verification or confirmation and has been proven to be wrong on both occasions.
The first in stance was over the weekend when and Internet rumor started at Daily Kos about Sarah Palin's youngest child, Trig, who was born in April with Downs Syndrome. It became news fodder lighting up the headlines across the world, all using the Kos story as their base, which included a photo DailyKos misrepresented as being from 2008 when in reality it was taken in 2006.

Yesterday again, another rumor based story hit the headline news at ABC and in the New York Times, with a piece based on the word of a woman, who took the rumor told to her by another person and gave it to the New York Times as fact, which in turn, the Times and other media outlets ran with it, none of them bothering to do the simple verification process that would have shown them before they reported, that it was all based in "incorrect" information.

The false story was about Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin again, this time alleging that she has belonged to the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the 1990's.

According to the New York Times, this issue was among the "news" that had been revealed about Sarah Palin.

Documents were produced showing the information was wrong, but the Times did not and still has not issued a correction on the main story page that rippled across the Internet yesterday, linked to by various sources.

"Governor Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982," Rogers says, providing voter registration documentation showing her to be a Republican. "As you know, if she changed her registration, there would have been some record of it. There isn't."


ABC News did report on the documents showing the story could very well be false and to give them credit for doing what the Times did not, they also issued an update at the bottom of their piece which said, "This post has been updated one day later, after the McCain campaign responded, and again after Fenumiai returned several calls for comment. And then, once again, after Clark rescinded her assertion that Gov. Palin had been a member of the AIP."

The New York Times Caucus blog, reported today how the "incorrect" information came to be reported.

The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party's chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify. The McCain campaign also disputed the Times report, saying that Ms. Palin had been registered consistently as a Republican.


It turns out that Todd Palin once belonged to the group, but Sarah Palin never did.

Once again, rumor was reported as news. No basic confirmation or verification was done by The New York Times, nor others that was spreading the rumor based so-called "news" and their Caucus blog was left to correct the mistake after the headlines and rumor spread throughout the day yesterday.

Is it any wonder why the majority of the public distrusts the major media organizations?

.

GOP Pushes Back At Media And Pundit Frenzy Over Sarah Palin VP Pick

Posted: 03 Sep 2008 10:49 AM CDT

The video below is of Newt Gingrich blasting the media.



Text Via, NewsBusters:

Such marvelously occurred Tuesday evening on the convention floor in St. Paul when MSNBC's Ron Allen said to the former Speaker, "But to be fair, her resume is not something we're familiar seeing with presidential candidates."

This didn't sit well with Gingrich who strongly replied (video embedded right, h/t NB readers Matt Noll and Patrick):

It's stronger than Barack Obama's. I don't know why you guys walk around saying this baloney. She has a stronger resume than Obama. She's been a real mayor, he hasn't. She has been a real governor, he hasn't. She's been in charge of the Alaskan National Guard, he hasn't. She was a whistleblower who defeated an incumbent mayor. He has never once shown that kind of courage. She's a whistleblower who turned in the chairman of her own party and got him fined $12,000. I've never seen Obama do one thing like that. She took on the incumbent governor of her own party and beat him, and then she beat a former Democratic governor in the general election. I don't know of a single thing Obama's done except talk and write.

Newt then challenged Allen:

I'd like you to tell me one thing Sen. Obama's done.

With that, Allen retreated, and said:

Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to leave it there. I'm not going to argue the case. Thanks very much.


After John McCain announced his choice of his running mate to be Sarah Palin, the media and political pundits went into what has been described as a frenzy with story after story, including unfounded rumors about Palin and now the GOP strikes back.
In a four page article The Politico reports that the John McCain campaign will be issuing a television ad which will directly compare Governor Sarah Palin's executive experience as a the Governor of Alaska, who oversees "24,000 state employees, 14 statewide cabinet agencies and a $ 10 billion budget to Barack Obama's experience as a one-term junior senator from Illinois."

The last three pages of The Politico article details examples of many of the media and liberal blogger's attacks on Sarah Palin, from the rumor of Palin's fifth child Trig being her daughter's child, to headlines shown on major media networks question if a mother of five has "time" to be a vice president without asking if Barack Obama, father of two, has "time" to be the president.

Other examples include Democratic politicians and even liberal radio talk show host, Ed Schultz , who said Sarah Palin had started a "bimbo alert."

The new ad which will detail and contrast the differences between being a junior Senator from Illinois and Barack Obama is and holding an executive position running a state the size of Alaska as Sarah Palin does, is only the beginning of the GOP push back against the firestorm of reports regarding Palin.

Yesterday former presidential candidate and Senator, Fred Thompson, blasted the New York Ties for their coverage of Palin as well as using a portion of his speech at the Republican Convention to state the "media big shots are in a frenzy over the selection of a woman who has actually governed rather than just talked a good game on the Sunday talk shows and hit the Washington cocktail circuit."

Let's be clear ... the selection of Governor Palin has the other side and their friends in the media in a state of panic. She is a courageous, successful, reformer, who is not afraid to take on the establishment.


That was the beginning of the push back and reports show that it starts in earnest, on multiple fronts today.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani will be on multiple television and cable stations speaking about Sarah Palin's historic candidacy being the first female ever the Republic ticket as well as addressing the media's frenzy regarding her family.

Former Democratic vice presidential candidate and sitting Senator for Connecticut Joseph Lieberman, who also spoke last night at the Republican Convention, and Congressman Eric Cantor will hold a press conference to denounce the Obama campaigns official spokesman's words implying that Governor Palin supported Nazi sympathy because she wore a Pat Buchanan pin on one single occasion.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, former Ebay CEO Meg Whitman, McCain senior advisor Nicolle Wallace, McCain communications director Jill Hazelbaker and McCain senior advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer will also be pushing back against the media attacks.

The Washington Post reports on Steve Schmidt, a top McCain official describes how the campaign was sieged with a "feeding frenzy" fueled by a rumor first posted on a popular liberal website, Daily Kos, and states that even the reporters forced to call were claiming they were ashamed as he tells the Post, "The campaign has been inundated by hundreds and hundreds of calls from some of the most respected reporters and news organizations. Many reporters have called the campaign and have apologized for asking the questions and said, 'Our editors are making us do this, and I am ashamed.' "

The media frenzy continued yesterday with claims that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the 1990's, which was reported by the New York Times and other media outlets, yet today it is reported by the Times' Caucus blog, the woman that provided that information to the Times, who went on to publish the story as others did, without bothering to confirm and verify, has now said "her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify."

After checking the party's archives, Ms. Clark said that she could find no documentation that Governor Palin had been a member of the party. She said Ms. Palin attended the party's 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention.

Ms. Clark said that Ms. Palin's husband, Todd, was a former member of the party.


Some claim the problem here is clear saying the media was caught flat footed when McCain chose Palin, they were unprepared and they started reported unconfirmed information and it takes their official "blog" to correct for them a day later, after the initial story was blasted across headlines.

The Wall Street Journal calls this type of reporting a "Beltway outburst" and tries to explain the phenomenon.

What's really going on here is that the Beltway class can see how popular the Palin pick is with Republicans outside Washington, and especially with middle-class conservatives. As Richard Land, a leader with the Southern Baptist Convention, said Monday, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin closed the "enthusiasm gap" between the two parties.

Some are pointing out the Republican Party speakers doing the media rounds need to focus on the smears, the lies reported on without confirmation or verification which end up being retracted or ignored the next day and the rumor reported as news, separating those specific attacks from any legitimate questions dealing with policy.

Sarah Palin is due to address the Republican Convention and the American people tonight and for many that do not focus on blogs, Internet political sites or major news papers, will get a chance to meet her for the first time and decide for themselves whether they like her, hate her, believe her and more importantly, if they will vote for the McCain ticket with Sarah Palin on it.

It is clear that Obama supporters are spinning in panic, especially the media which has seen one event from John McCain, choosing Palin, that has closed the enthusiasm gap, given the core base of the Republican party something to become excited about, and they are rallying around McCain and Palin in a spectacular manner.

The attempts to discredit her, use her family and children against her, have backfired and the more they run from website to website, comment section to comment section continuing to the same, the more Republicans will rally and bring it home for McCain/Palin in November.

They played their hand wrong and come November, if Obama loses the election, he will have his most ardent supporters to blame for it because they could and are throwing their own candidate, off the edge of the cliff without a parachute.

Irony works in wonderful ways.

.

Surprise Guest Poster--THOUGHTFUL and REASONED Dissent

Posted: 03 Sep 2008 03:09 AM CDT

Cross posted from Miss Beth's Victory Dance here.



Ladies
and Gentlemen, this is a first for Miss Beth. I'm not known for
allowing dissent to my views in general--after all, this is my blog and
I'll rant as I like.

However, I have a very dear friend, well
educated, articulate (heckuva computer whiz as well) who is absolutely
true-blue American to the core. We do have occasional disagreements on
some issues, but nothing explosive because we are comfortable in our
disagreements and can conduct ourselves in an adult fashion, we can
have a rousing good discussion and learn from each other. To that end,
I am more than willing to give her "dissent time" and ask you to really
read what she has to say--this isn't just talking points, and she's not
a fringe lunatic. THIS is how different view points should be
presented--and hopefully learned from. Hopefully, too, my friend will
allow her dissent to be presented here regularly.

By the way,
did I mention she lived in Alaska for awhile, so she has some actual
"working knowledge" we (or at least I) don't have on the issue of Gov.
Palin? She has a better working knowledge of the actualities; unlike
most people who can claim to have lived in Alaska during that relevant
time, I know she actually did. She has the credibility, whereas people
in a comment thread lose that credibility simply from anonymity.

To that end, I present my friend, Sadie Adams.

September 2, 2008 - Tuesday Sarah Palin is the noose around McCain's political neck: AKA Insult Me Some More '08

I
am smack dab in the middle of the demographic of middle-class,
educated, independent-minded women that the Republicans (and Democrats)
currently seek to court. And in response to their mistaken impression
that the Hillary-loving masses have been slapped in the ass hard enough
by the Obama-gods that these intelligent though oft-times vocally rabid
voting women will about-face and turn their votes to the "dark side" in
response to Hill's failure to win the nomination, the Republican
"smarty-pants" have brought inexperienced, backwoods, Alaska Governor
Sarah Palin to the ticket to fight the conservative fight alongside our
infamous Arizona political maverick, John McCain? I, for one, am
insulted. A vice-presidential candidate has never been a "make it or
break it" deal for me, but the spit in the eye of what seems to be the
"spoonful of sugar" to help the stale old Republican political
"medicine go down", is utterly disgusting to me.

Now don't get
me wrong... I am not on the front lines of the Democratic Party's
political battle. I am not one to be counted among the flock of
Kool-aid drinkin' Obama lovin' sheep. Even as eloquently as he spoke
during his recent nomination acceptance speech at the DNC convention in
Denver, I will never vote for Barack Hussein Obama (AKA "God/Allah's
Answer to All Our Prayers"). His communist/socialistic tendencies are
all too reminiscent of the early rantings from our island
neighbor/dictator to the south, Fidel Castro, for my taste. Couple this
with Obama's rise from relative political and managerial Nowhere-land,
I can't stomach the idea of this radically liberal "poster boy for
change" leading the American people, like Moses from the Bible stories,
out of wandering from the desert of despair which has come to exist on
the social, moral, legal, and economic landscape of today's American
society. But Sarah Palin as our country's wingman to the president,
face of American women, ambassador to the world, leader of our
legislative branch?! Are you freakin' kidding me?!

Sarah Palin
is proclaimed to be a skilled moose hunter and avid ice-fisherwoman.
She is the high-school sweetheart wife to a "superstar" Alaskan
snow-mobiler and a loving mother of five children: ranging from an
adult son serving honorably in our military to a 4 month old newborn
afflicted with Down's Syndrome. I have to admit she isn't all that hard
on the eyes and I'll be damned if she doesn't look like she just walked
off the set having nabbed the role of some "Hot For Teacher" babe in an
80s rock music video. But does Sarah Palin's résumé really do well to
balance out the Republican argument against Obama's obvious lack of
solid and proven experience to qualify himself to lead our nation,
which has always been McCain's ringer retort?

Even Obama was
smart enough to go along with the DNC money-wielding politicos to pick
a VP candidate with experience. Joe Biden got his start in Washington
politics while Obama was probably still a pimple-popping, wave-surfing,
binge-drinking, pot-smoking preteen back in Hawaii (even if it does
scream "bullshit!" at his own "time for change" mantra). And so, the
RNC's response is what?! Our 70-something year-old straight-talking and
venerated war hero is paired up with the gun-toting beauty queen with
heart of gold and a redneck brood of kids to go with it. I'll bet the
National Enquirer is standing in the streets of the town of Wasilla (a
small town, east of Anchorage - population approximately 8500 – where,
as mayor, Palin "cut her teeth on the political polls" before becoming
governor) just drooling at the chance to pay a measly $10,000 to the
first toothless wonder in exchange for any viable yet juicy tidbit
about the virtually unknown Sarah "Annie Oakley" Palin.

Sarah
Palin, though seemingly a well-rounded and well-spoken "All American
Girl" from what little us "Lower 48-ers" know and have heard from her,
is NOT my idea of a viable and experienced running mate to ANY
candidate for president, regardless of party affiliation, nor should
she be slated to be considered the voice of the intelligent,
middle-class American woman.

I, too, lived in the Last Frontier
for a time myself. After driving over 4,000 miles of treacherous road
from my home in Arizona, I lived in Alaska long enough:
- to earn a
decent wage, making nearly double in one year than I had in the
previous year in Arizona doing the same job, and pay off some bills,
even despite the increased cost of living;
- to take out a fishing
pole and troll for salmon with my two daughters in a small boat along
the glacial silt-filled rivers and fjords, surrounded by majestic
snow-capped mountains;
- to wonder at the moose trolling around
among the residential neighborhoods and city streets in Alaska's larges
city (which swelled to a "whopping" 250,000 or so people during
mid-summer);
- to be cautious enough when venturing out exploring
into the vast forests and mountains to remember to bring along a
shotgun and plenty of ammunition (aware of the presence of hungry
bears);
- to endure (as a desert rat accustomed to 60-70 degree
Christmases) one of the harshest winters the city of Anchorage had seen
in years;
- to escape death just before Thanksgiving with only nine
staples to my scalp and a cracked kneecap, injured when my vehicle slid
backwards, downhill, about 100 yards, then rolled over and landed
upside down in a ditch in the icy, snow-filled mountainside;
- to
learn first-hand, working for a reputable law firm, about the ins and
outs of the oil industry (as much from the big oil perspective as from
the environmentalist's perspective) and fishing industry;
- and to
get a literal "bird's eye's view" of the landscape and throngs of
wolves, and caribou, and bears which outnumber humans so greatly in the
vast and great last frontier;

But none of this translates to
experience to stand toe-to-toe with political heads-of-state of foreign
governments and to preside over our legislature or to possibly step in
as Leader of the Free World and Commander-in-Chief of our military
(should any ill fate happen upon our elderly statesman McCain, while
possible serving as President), does it?

Picking Sarah Palin to
try and bolster the conservative agenda is political suicide for the
Republicans and for any chance that the so-called conservatives might
have had to keep Obama from "preaching his way into the White House"
with his socialist rhetoric, and letting the deep pockets of the
MoveOn-type Libs get a final stranglehold over our nation.

The
Dems are getting at what some people at first, undoubtedly, thought HAD
to be a joke when "The Mav" made the announcement on Friday of "his" VP
pick. The gossip train has been given all the fuel it needs to grind
it's way right over McCain's pasty and war-scarred back, right on into
the Metro station closest to Michelle Obama's freshly painted, pretty,
new WhiteBlack House.

I sat at work today, surrounded by the
jabbering of the liberal, elitist, cream-of-the-crop, well-educated and
highly overpaid lawyers that I work with (actually for, since we
"pee-ons" who actually do most of the work they take credit for are
truly not, nor ever will be, equal to them). These same persons who
sell their souls daily to represent big business all in the name of the
mighty dollar that they earn as a result, while piously preaching and
seething about their rich clients' injustices on the world and
"everyday, little man" behind their backs, were giddy and excited today
in their chatter about McCain and the RNC's choice of Sarah Palin for
the Republican VP running mate. And who can blame them for their
exuberance?

Palin has brought with her to the Republican stage:
- a political scandal of allegations of abuse of power while having only been Governor of Alaska since 2006;
-
a very, very, very short list of political "accomplishments" before her
current gubernatorial position, including beating out a Republican
"political giant" who had faced some scandal of his own and being the
mayor of a very small town;
- and a baby sadly afflicted with Down's
Syndrome, which might not be hers, but actually her grandchild, born
from her 17-year-old daughter, now pregnant (again?) out of wedlock.

I
am sure the Enquirer will find something more for the Dems to complete
their "wet dream" with. Regardless of what truth any of the produced
gossip might actually bear, I cannot argue with the "oh-My-GOSH" truth
of the fact that Sarah Palin has got to be the most ridiculous choice
that the Republicans could have pushed McCain to endorse. Mitt Romney
with his painted face, plastered hair and strict Mormon conservative
base would have at least helped to lock in the conservative vote,
regardless of any of the differences between the former presidential
hopeful and his previous rival, now nominated candidate/victor, John
McCain. But a "Beauty and the Beast" ticket? What the hell is the RNC
thinking?

As a woman, I am insulted. I cannot and will not
stupidly chant the party's spin on this one. I am an independent,
intelligent and VOTING woman. I vote in every election cycle, even when
there isn't a presidential position at stake. I take my daughters to
stand in line at the polls while I wait, sometimes hours, to make my
mark and complete my civic duty. I try to teach them of the importance
of having a vote and in taking a stance on issues important to our
everyday lives and putting people into office to represent the common
good. But in thinking that Sarah Palin is the answer to bring in the
"minority" woman's vote they are attempting to court in the wake of
Hillary's sunken hopes for the first woman to steer the American ship
from the helms of the Oval Office (well, from behind, not below the
desk, anyhow) – the Republicans have got their read on American women
all wrong this time, baby! They should re-draw the Republican Party's
mascot elephant's ass with a big ole' Democratic Donkey hoof-print on
it now. Shit! I'd even give Monica Lewinsky credit for more experience
than I would Sarah Palin. (But Ms. Altoids wears blue, and not red, so
I guess she couldn't have made it to the Republican short list, could
she?)

Sarah Palin should gracefully bow out now while the
"gettin' is good", and none of us would fault her for it. Sad as it is
to say it, the rigors of a campaign trail, as they choke on Obama's
dust in the polls and as the Obama lovin' media rips her and her
family's still somewhat good name to shreds, will prove to be too much
for the Alaska girl and her December romance hero in the end. Mrs.
Palin needs to go home and earn her stripes before this intelligent,
All American girl will even think to stand in line and consider her
worthy of the No. 2 spot in my nation's government. She should go home
and take care of that sweet baby who is going to be challenged enough
in his lifetime, without the added difficulty of missing some very
crucial bonding time early on, and go encourage that 17-year-old
daughter to put down the fishing pole, and press forward, baby in tow,
to complete a college education so that she can adequately support
herself and unborn child in the future, head held high. Mrs. Palin, go
sit down in the Governor's mansion and listen to your state's workers
and citizens to learn about the challenges of governing from all
angles, from top to bottom.

A pretty face and some pretty
rhetoric, even if touted and paraded by the likes of Hannity and Rush,
will not stupify this independent woman into "plugging my nose and
voting McCain". I'll not be placing my vote for President this year -
Not if I have the choice of Old Man McCain and his lovely assistant,
What's Her Name versus Barack Hussein Obama and his unproud, American
wife and white-haired friend Joe, who has a sad case of verbal diarrhea
from time to time. I'd rather eat glacial silt for breakfast. I'll let
the dogs just fight this one out without me this time.

Now…
where's my TiVo remote? That 30-second fast forward button might be
just enough to bypass those "I'm Dodo Bird, and I approve this message"
ads and get to those really cool Geico gecko and caveman commercials
and the next season's episodes of Heroes to begin. That should keep the
bile down and me entertained at least until it's time for the World
Series, when I can start ranting again about overpaid, steroid-junkie
athletes again.

Video and Text of Joseph Liebermans Speech At Republican Convention

Posted: 02 Sep 2008 10:35 PM CDT

First video is 10 minutes long as is the second one below it. The start of the second one is where Lieberman says, "Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times.."



Part Two (10 minutes 6 seconds):



Great speech and really hit home. His appeal to independents, a Reagan Democrats or a Clinton Democrat, or just a Democrats, at the end was especially good. Watch them.

His remarks are slightly different from the prepared text, especially his appreciation for such a warm welcome.

Democratic blogs are already having a little fit over his speech.


Text below as prepared for Delivery: (He did make sure to tell everyone how he appreciated the warm welcome saying "you have to me to know how I appreciate it."


Thank you for that warm welcome. I am honored to be here.

We meet tonight in the wake of a terrible storm that has hit the Gulf Coast but that hurts all of us, because we are all members of our larger American family.

At times like this, we set aside all that divides us, and we come together to help our fellow citizens in need.

What matters is certainly not whether we are Democrats or Republicans, but that we are all Americans.

The truth is, it shouldn't take a hurricane to bring us together like this.

Every day, across our country, millions of our fellow citizens are facing huge problems.

They are worried about their homes, their jobs, and their businesses; they are worried about the outrageous cost of gas and of health insurance; and they are worried about the threats from our enemies abroad.

But when they look to Washington, all too often they do not see their leaders coming together to tackle these problems.

Instead they see Democrats and Republicans fighting each other, rather than fighting for the American people.

Our founding fathers foresaw the danger of this kind of senseless partisanship. George Washington himself — in his farewell address to our country — warned that the "spirit of party" is "the worst enemy" of our democracy and "enfeebles" our government's ability to do its job.

George Washington was absolutely right. The sad truth is — today we are living through his worst nightmare, in the capital city that bears his name.

And that brings me directly to why I am here tonight. What, after all, is a Democrat like me doing at a Republican convention like this?

The answer is simple.

I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party.

I'm here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward.

I'm here because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important.

But it is not more important than being an American.

Both presidential candidates this year talk about changing the culture of Washington, about breaking through the partisan gridlock and special interests that are poisoning our politics.

But only one of them has actually done it.

Only one leader has shown the courage and the capability to rise above the smallness of our politics to get big things done for our country and our people.

And that leader is John McCain!

John understands that it shouldn't take a natural disaster like Hurricane Gustav to get us to take off our partisan blinders and work together to get things done.

It shouldn't take a natural disaster to teach us that the American people don't care much if you have an "R" or a "D" after your name.

What they care about is, are we solving the problems they are up against every day?

What you can expect from John McCain as president is precisely what he has done this week: which is to put country first. That is the code by which he has lived his entire life, and that is the code he will carry with him into the White House.

I have personally seen John, over and over again, bring people together from both parties to tackle our toughest problems we face _to reform our campaign finance, lobbying and ethics laws, to create the 9/11 Commission and pass its critical national security reforms, and to end the partisan paralysis over judicial confirmations.

My Democratic friends know all about John's record of independence and accomplishment.

Maybe that's why some of them are spending so much time and so much money trying to convince voters that John McCain is someone else.

I'm here, as a Democrat myself, to tell you: Don't be fooled.

God only made one John McCain, and he is his own man.

If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never would have taken on corrupt Republican lobbyists, or big corporations that were cheating the American people, or powerful colleagues in Congress who were wasting taxpayer money.

But he did!

If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never would have led the fight to fix our broken immigration system or to do something about global warming.

But he did!

As a matter of fact, if John McCain is just another partisan Republican, then I'm Michael Moore's favorite Democrat.

And I'm not.

Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times.

In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party.

Contrast that to John McCain's record, or the record of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups and worked with Republicans to get important things done like welfare reform, free trade agreements, and a balanced budget.

Governor Sarah Palin, like John McCain, is a reformer who has taken on the special interests and reached across party lines. She is a leader we can count on to help John shake up Washington.

That's why the McCain-Palin ticket is the real ticket for change this year.

The Washington bureaucrats and power brokers can't build a pen strong enough to hold these two mavericks.

And together, you can count on John McCain and Sarah Palin to fight for America and to fight for you! And that's what our country needs most right now.

What we need most is not more party unity in America but more national unity!

Especially at a time of war, we need a president we can count on to fight for what's right for our country — not only when it is easy, but when it is hard.

When others were silent, John McCain had the judgment to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq. When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge, and because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor!

Before I conclude, I ask the indulgence of those in this hall tonight, as I want to speak directly to my fellow Democrats and independents who are watching.

I know many of you are angry and frustrated by our government and our politics and for good reason.

You may be thinking of voting for John McCain but you're not sure. Some of you have never voted for a Republican before and in an ordinary election, you probably wouldn't.

But this is no ordinary election, because these are not ordinary times, and John McCain is no ordinary candidate. You may not agree with John McCain on every issue.

But you can always count on him to be straight with you about where he stands, and to stand for what he thinks is right regardless of politics.

As president, you can count on John McCain to be a restless reformer, who will clean up Washington and get our government working again for you!

So tonight, I ask you whether you are an independent, a Reagan Democrat or a Clinton Democrat, or just a Democrat: This year, when you vote for president, vote for the person you believe is best for the country, not for the party you happen to belong to.

Vote for the leader who, since the age of 17, when he raised his hand and took an oath to defend and protect our Constitution, has always put our country first.

So, let's come together to make a great American patriot our next great president!



Highlights of Fred Thompson's speech found here.

.

Fred Thompson At Republican Convention- VIDEO added

Posted: 02 Sep 2008 10:19 PM CDT

The Corner has the entire text of the speech but I wanted to highlight a few things and I will slap the video up of his and Lieberman's speech as soon as it is available.


Fred Thompson on Sarah Palin:

Speaking of the vice presidential nominee, what a breath of fresh air Governor Sarah Palin is.

She is from a small town, with small town values, but that's not good enough for those folks who are attacking her and her family.

Some Washington pundits and media big shots are in a frenzy over the selection of a woman who has actually governed rather than just talked a good game on the Sunday talk shows and hit the Washington cocktail circuit. Well, give me a tough Alaskan Governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the Union — and won — over the beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week.

Let's be clear ... the selection of Governor Palin has the other side and their friends in the media in a state of panic. She is a courageous, successful, reformer, who is not afraid to take on the establishment.

Sound like anyone else we know?

She has run a municipality and she has run a state.

And I can say without fear of contradiction that she is the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field dress a moose ... with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.

She and John McCain are not going to care how much the alligators get irritated when they get to Washington, they're going to drain that swamp.


Video of Thompson's remarks about Palin is below:




Thompson's comments on John McCain after telling of his history as a POW said:


Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be President.

But it does reveal character.

This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders.

Strength.

Courage.

Humility.

Wisdom.

Duty.

Honor.

It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, "Who is this man?" and "Can we trust this man with the Presidency?"

He has been to Iraq eight times since 2003.

He went seeking truth, not publicity.

When he travels abroad, he prefers quietly speaking to the troops amidst the heat and hardship of their daily lives.


Thompson's references to Obama:

What I remember most about those years is sitting next to John on the Senate floor as he led battle after battle to change the acrimonious, pork barreling, self serving ways of Washington.

The Senate has always had more than its share of smooth talkers.

And big talkers.

It still has.


Thompson received a wonderful ovation after this next comment:

The respect he is given around the world is not because of a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad, but because of decades of clearly demonstrated character and statesmanship.



The best line of the night from Thompson about Obama and Congress:


To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history making nominee for president.

History making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history making, Democrat controlled Congress. History making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.


Taxes:

Video below:



Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business", like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.


For those that criticized Fred Thompson for a lack of "fire in his belly" during his campaigning when he was running for president.....he sure made up for it tonight!!!

He was on fire.


Video and complete text of Lieberman's remarks as prepared for delivery found here.

.

Obama on Palin's Family: Taking the Moral High Ground or Merely a Convenient Ploy?

Posted: 02 Sep 2008 08:53 PM CDT





From CNN.com
Obama Says Palin's Family Off Limits

MONROE, Michigan (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

"Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A note from Radarsite: After all that I have written about the very real dangers of an Obama Presidency, whenever I hear the leftist media -- and even some delusional conservatives shmoozing about how Obama has taken the moral high ground on an issue, my antennae start tingling. The latest example of OB's claim to moral heights is his kind and generous admonishment to his followers not to attempt to draw Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin's family into the fray. This high-toned rhetoric would have carried much more weight if his army of sycophantic minions in the leftist media had not already jumped all over these personal family issues in what they themselves later characterized as an orgiastic "feeding-frenzy". A media frenzy so blatant and tasteless, so vile and contemptuous, that even some well-known liberal talking heads appear to be genuinely shocked.

So then this is what we have -- a perfect example of how you can have your cake and eat it too. Have your character assassins do the best and most efficient hatchet job they can possibly do, as quickly and expeditiously as they can do it; then after the deed is done denounce the denouncers. After all the bloody knives have been put back in their sheaves, you can step back and look aghast at the carnage.

And there is another game afoot. If we are to make all candidate's family members taboo for investigative journalists' probings, doesn't that also have the added benefit of removing OB's embarrassingly anti-American rhetoric-spilling wife from the field of battle?

Barack Hussein Obama as president would be absolutely disastrous for this vulnerable nation of ours. To lend him or his campaign any moral weight, based on their cynical manipulation of their sympathetic media is delusional and foolhardy. The only way Barack Obama can take the high moral ground in this race is to withdraw himself from it, and not to unleash the chaos on this country that his presidency most certainly would.

Republican Convention Watch: Day Two Schedule

Posted: 02 Sep 2008 05:56 PM CDT

The schedule for day two of the Republican National Convention is set and the speaker lineup schedule has been announced with tidbits of what certain speakers will offer.

The overall theme of the Republican convention is "Country First", to which yesterday in deference to the pending Hurricane, Gustav, that was approaching the U.S. Gulf Coast, Republican delegates and convention attendees took to the phones and collected over a million dollars in relief funds for the victims of Hurricane Gustav.

Gustav did far less damage that projected and tonight the Republican Convention is back on track and the schedule of speakers and events have been announced which was changed originally because of Hurricane Gustav as reported by Bellingham Herald..

Via the Republican Convention website, the featured speeches for tonight will come from Senator Joseph Lieberman in what is being described by sources as a "trans-Partisan" speech as The Politico describes it. Lieberman will speak of John McCain's record of leadership and service.

It will be, promised the source, "like no other that has been given at any convention."

Also featured tonight is a speech that will be given by Former presidential candidate and Senator, Fred Thompson.

Excerpts of Thompson's speech has been released to show that he will discuss a number of topics.

On John McCain's qualifications to be president:
"This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders. Strength. Courage. Humility. Wisdom. Duty. Honor. It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, 'Who is this man?' and 'Can we trust this man with the presidency?'"

On John McCain's dedication to doing what is right – not what is popular:
"He has been to Iraq eight times since 2003. He went seeking truth, not publicity. When he travels abroad, he prefers quietly speaking to the troops amidst the heat and hardship of their daily lives. And the same character that marked John McCain's military career has also marked his political career. This man, John McCain, is not intimidated by what the polls say or by what is politically safe or popular."

On John McCain's commitment to taking real action to reform Washington:
"But while others were talking reform, John McCain led the effort to make reform happen – always pressing, always moving for what he believed was right and necessary to restore the people's faith in their government. Confronting when necessary, reaching across the aisle when possible, John personified why we came to Washington in the first place."

On John McCain's ability to restore integrity to our government:
"My role is to help remind you of the man behind the vision. Because tonight our country is calling to all of us to step up, stand up, and put 'Country First' with John McCain. Tonight we are being called upon to do what is right for our country."

The Weekly Standard has been given tips as to other subjects that Fred Thompson will address, one of which being Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarh Palin:

"What a breath of fresh air Governor Sarah Palin is. She is from a small town, with small town values, but that's not good enough for those folks who are attacking her and her family. Let's be clear, the selection of Governor Palin has the other side and their friends in the media in a state of panic. She is a courageous, successful, reformer, who is not afraid to take on the establishment."


Thompson will also address Barack Obama answers at the Saddleback Church from last month regarding abortion, where he will say, "We need a President, and Vice President, who will take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking. And we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade."

The full list of schedule speakers as of now will be :

* President George W. Bush (via satellite)
* First Lady Laura Bush
* U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
* Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.)
* U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio)
* U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.)
* U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
* Robert M. "Mike" Duncan, Chairman of the Republican National Committee
* Jo Ann Davidson, Co-Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Chairman of the 2008 Republican National Convention Committee on Arrangements


It is expected that further speakers will be appear as well, due to the conflict of some members of delegations having returned to their home states to deal with the hurricane yesterday the schedule was altered.

[Update] Excerpt from Joseph Lieberman's speech:

"And that brings me directly to why I am here tonight. What, after all, is a Democrat like me doing at a Republican convention like this? The answer is simple. I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party. I'm here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward. I'm here because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important. But it is not more important than being an American."


.

Breaking: Plane With Blown Tire Circling LAX Preparing For Emergency Landing

Posted: 02 Sep 2008 02:40 PM CDT

An American Airlines plane, flight 1586, a Boeing, carrying over 100 passengers is circling LAX preparing for an emergency landing because of a shredded tire.
The Orlando Sentinel is reporting that an American Airlines airplane, flight number 1586, blew a tire out on takeoff bound for Toronto, reported they must make an emergency landing.

Right now the plane is burning up fuel while circling LAX airport preparing for their emergency landing.

Fire fighters and emergency airport crews are awaiting the landing.

Pilots told officials they were planning to circle the airport for 45 minutes to an hour before attempting the emergency landing according to Albert Rodriguez, an LAX spokesman.

According to ABC7 it is a Boeing 737 and has nearly 130 passengers on board with a flight crew of five.

[ Update] Watching the landing on television and there were no sparks and everyone is safe and sound from reports on multiple channels.

Happy ending and the pilot, despite his asking for emergency crews to be on scene for a bad case scenario, landing the plane without any difficulty and looked as normal as if all tires were fine.

Pilots use simulations to practice this type of scenario but do not land planes with blown tires as part of training.

.

No comments:

Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

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

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams

THE NEW GAME: POWER CLING !!!

Obama learned his lesson well


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama

WorldNetDaily

War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us


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

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

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

Deciphering Obama in Cairo


Deciphering Obama in Cairo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

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

See original article here.


WHO SAYS A STIMULUS ACTUALLY STIMULATES?

or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-UCLA-

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

LSMS368


AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

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

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

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

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

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

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

NOW LA PRESIDENT SUPPORTS SARAH PALIN

Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong

OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN

WHY IT IS WRONG TO CALL IRAQ A MISTAKE

OBAMA Comment by AltMuslim.com

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

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

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

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

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

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?

(crosstalk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


Comments

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

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


VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

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

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

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

VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2

Truth?

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