Wednesday 1 October 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

Tin Foil Hat ALERT:, Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney: DoD Shot 5,000 After Katrina

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 12:33 PM CDT

Hat Tip American Thinker and Hot Air.

The video below shows the Green Party's presidential nominee, Cynthia McKinney, speaking to thousands at Critical Resistance conference at Laney College, claims the Pentagon executed 5,000 prisoners during Hurricane Katrina. (YouTube URL here)



McKinney text from East Bay Express:

"In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I had a woman, I've never really said this in public, out loud, in front of a lot of cameras, and there's a lot of cameras in this room now. But I had a mother call me, because her son had a very gruesome task.

"Her son's charge by the Department of Defense was to process five thousand bodies that had received a single bullet wound to the head. And these were mostly males. And her son was afraid to talk, because he had signed a silence agreement. So he only complained to his mother. But the data about these individuals was entered into a Pentagon computer. And then, reportedly, the bodies were dumped in the swamp in Louisiana. This is the result of the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. And I have verification from insiders who wish to remain anonymous, and the Red Cross. This is true.

"I suspect that these were prisoners. So, you know, this investigation of the whole prison industrial complex is extremely important. And it should end with just the nature of prisons in our country, but these five thousand souls also need some justice too."


From Ed Morrissey "McKinney is a former member of Congress and a candidate for President on a party that wants to claim national legitimacy."

Insanity usually speaks for itself, so no commentary needed from me.

.

VP Debate Moderator, Gwen Ifill, Wrote Book Featuring Barack Obama

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 11:34 AM CDT



Video above is of Gwen Ifill discussing her new book. (YouTube URL here)

Gwen Ifill was named to be the moderator of the US vice presidential debate to be held on Thursday, October 2, 2008. Reports show that Ifill also has a book to be released called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama."

Moderators of the presidential and vice presidential debates determine the questions to be asked as well making sure the candidates keep to their time limits in response to those questions and during the rebuttal phases of the question and answer period.

Gwen Ifill is the moderator and managing editor of the Public Broadcasting Service program "Washington Week."

It has been confirmed that the information about Ifill's book, to go on sale on January 20, 2009, called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," was not disclosed to the McCain campaign before agreeing on the moderator to host the vice presidential debate.

January 20, 2009 is also Inauguration Day.

World Net Daily reports Ifill was "cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., earlier this month."

Reactions.

The issue of objectivity aside, some conservative pundits are asking if there is a conflict of interest because of Ifill's book, with her standing to gain financially if Obama wins the November election, which gives ifill a financial stake in the outcome of the election.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Ifill doesn't show any particular bias in this book towards Obama, even though Michelle documents both an Essence flack job and complaints about her coverage of the Republican convention that make her bias clear. Instead, let's just focus on the financial interest Ifill has in an Obama victory in five weeks. If Obama loses, how will her book sell? Not nearly as well as if Obama wins, and everyone knows that.

Moderators should not have a financial stake in the election. That should be exceedingly obvious, and is to most people outside of the mainstream media and the Commission. Her pending book publication should alone disqualify her to moderate any of the debates this cycle. If Ifill had any sense of journalistic ethics, she would have turned them down herself.


Center-left pundits are asking some questions as well about objectivity and appearances, as evidenced by T-Steele at Moderate Voice:

My dear ladies and gentlemen, in Election '08 where partisanship is as thick as the foundation of the Empire State Building, having a moderator that appears "so friendly" to Senator Obama just doesn't look right and opens the door to "the fix" talk. Although Ifill isn't one of those screaming political pundits, I've heard her on various radio shows (especially urban radio) where she just gushes about Senator Obama's historic run for the presidency. And with so much riding on Governor Palin's performance in this debate, why have someone with an Obama tilt moderate? While I'm hardly a conservative and/or Republican (I do have a smattering of some conservative views), they have every right to not like this situation. And I would say the same if the moderator was a person who gushed about a McCain presidency.


TV Newser has contacted the Commission on Presidential Debates for a comment but has not received a response as of yet. According to a poll they have on their site, the majority of respondents think Ifill should simply disclose the news of her book to viewers on debate night.

World Mag thinks McCain's campaign should have done more homework about Ifill before agreeing to allow her to moderate and that debate organizers and ifill had an "obligation to fully disclose this information to them,"

WGIR speaks to the concerns being expressed about Ifill's ability to be unbiased.

Although the WND piece was published last night, Drudge has it headlined on his main page today.

Greta Van Susteren, former criminal and civil trial lawyer and current host of "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, asks if this should be considered a conflict of interest.


Should Ifill be acting as moderator for the debate considering she has a vested interest, financially, in the outcome of the election?

If so, should she disclose that self-interest to the viewers on Thursday night?

.

.

"Commandments Before the Strike - October 7, 2008": An Update

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 01:23 AM CDT

The original note from Radarsite to the first article: Once again we have received information of a possible imminent major al Qaeda attack on American soil. And once again we are challenged to make a decision based on the credibility of the sources involved as to whether or not to post this information. We have chosen to err on the side of caution and post any information which seems at all credible. We are certainly very aware of all of the projected dates for major attacks on the US which have - thankfully - come and gone uneventfully. However, each case must be judged on its own merit. And this particular information does, unfortunately, comes to us with some undeniable credentials.

Note from Radarsite to this 28 September 2008 update: Unfortunately, this additional information does nothing to dispel the gravity of the original report. Indeed, if anything, it seems to be reinforcing the previous information, both in terms of its reliability and its accuracy. The potential intended date of 7 October 2008 thus appears to have even more validity than it did when the original article was published by HSUS on 24 September 2008. The bold red highlighting is by Radarsite. - rg
—————————————————————————-
From Northeast Intelligence Network
Analyzing patterns & pre-attack indicators
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director, & the Northeast Intelligence Network Investigative Staff

28 September 2008: Since we published our article concerning terrorist communications naming October 7, 2008, as a potential intended date for a terrorist attack, we have received a record number of e-mails from people across the U.S. asking for additional and more specific information. In an effort to address the questions we have received, it was the consensus of the members of the Northeast Intelligence Network that we supplement our previous report with clarifications and possible additional indicators we have since developed.Obviously, we are not going to publish our investigatory methods or detail our vetting process, as doing so would be counter-productive. Simply put, the terrorists and their supporters read our site too. We will, however, provide some details that we hope will add some clarity to our methods and the contextual implications of the last few postings.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the article we posted on 24 September 2008 that needs to be understood is that we are not predicting a date for the next attack inside the U.S., nor are we predicting a specific location or even the method of an attack. In fact, we don't predict anything.We are simply doing two things. First, we are reporting to our readers what is being communicated on Arabic language message boards used by known Islamic terrorists, their supporters and sympathizers. We only report those findings that have undergone a very strict vetting process conducted by trained investigators, researchers and analysts. Factors we use for that vetting process include but are not limited to the venue in which the communication was published, the "profile" of the author, replies, responses and links to the post, if any, and other factors of a non-disclosable nature.

Secondly, we provide an analysis based on a combination of the results of the vetting process and further analysis using historical data and identified patterns relative to previous attacks (both successful and disrupted) by Islamic terrorists. Since the attacks against the U.S. seven years ago, various forums, message boards, data repositories, uploading sites, and methods of communication have evolved. Numerous sites have come and gone, some have become password protected, while others have been set-up merely as a propaganda tool and are generally devoid of any actual intelligence value. Within this period, however, certain patterns have become evident. These patterns themselves have become an evidenctiary tool, an important piece of intelligence that is quite often overlooked or misunderstood.Many do not realize that the U.S. has experienced over three dozen attacks or attempted attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11, and many more on a global scale. By correlating postings on terrorist forums with the timing of disrupted attacks, and large scale attacks in London and Madrid, for example, certain pre-attack indicators can be discerned. We publish those messages that meet such qualifying criteria for your information and review.

ADDITONAL INFORMATION: Directives for Islamic terrorist attack in U.S. appear on the InternetAlthough this post references a very specific date, it is never advisable to rely solely on open data, or consider a specific date as absolute. Since we published the article containing this information, however, analysts have found additional references to an event (or events) expected to occur on or about October 7, 2008. Such additional information increases the possibility that something appears to be planned around that time, or in the near term. Therefore, it is our consensus that the threat window could be anytime from the present and extend into early November. Terrorists might time an attack or attacks to take place close to our November elections, such as we saw in Madrid.

It should also be noted that while operations appear to be focused on locations within the U.S., assets of the U.S. located throughout the world and our allies are also targeted. We just saw this with the bombing of the U.S. owned Marriott in Islamabad. Comprehensive analysis indicates that concurrent attacks abroad and in the U.S. cannot be ruled out.It is interesting and quite relevant that certain postings have addressed the likelihood of Arabic language forums being shut down at the time of (or perhaps as a consequence of) such an event. Members of various forums have been asking where they will meet (in terms of a forum location) after Ramadan. Obviously these posters believe something is going to happen and the forums will be taken down or infiltrated by intelligence operatives searching for information.Additional postings on numerous forums are urging attacks to be executed quickly, in order to exacerbate the current economic crisis being experienced within the U.S. The current condition of our economy will act as a force multiplier. Launching attacks at retail chains and malls, for example, as we approach the biggest retail season of the year, will do further damage to our economy. The terrorists are paying attention to our current problems, and are heavily promoting attacking us while we are down.

To be blunt, we are reporting our findings not to alarm our readers, but to inform. We are reporting on the information that is currently out there, although mostly inaccessible to the average person, but present nonetheless. As men and women with families, children and grandchildren, we believe that it is better to let you know what we are seeing – at least that which we deem to be credible after it is fully vetted – than to say or do nothing. The latter is the type and amount of threat information that everyone seems to be getting for their tax dollars, anyway.Obviously, we would like nothing better than to be utterly incorrect about our analysis, and hope that we are wrong. We are certain that we are correct about one thing: every man, woman and child of the United States are a target for Islamic terrorists, and they are planning on striking us again.

Click here for more about Northeast Intelligence Network
FYI: The end of Ramadan is October 12.http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/09/saad-bin-laden-leaves-iran-goes-home-to-papa-in-pakistan.html Question: Is this new move just coincidental?

That Sound You Heard Today

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 01:45 AM CDT

cross-posted from TOCB

This post was written and posted at TOCB the day the unconstitutional Wall Street bail out bill failed…

~Snooper~

That sound you heard today was Common Sense once thought to be dead and buried coming to life and coming home to roost.

That sound you heard today was the United States Constitution making itself noticed.

That sound you heard today was We The People getting our message made known.

That sound you heard today was socialists screaming from the rooftops in anguish and pain.

That sound you heard today was Collective Reasoning forcing itself upon the unreasonable and the intolerant.

That sound you heard today was the fat cats, crooks and robbers screeching in agony as their reign of deceit, lies and charlatanism being exposed.

That sound you heard today was Free Markets fixing itself in spite of government fabricated cure intrusion.

That sound you heard today was defective government meddling into financial markets coming to a screeching halt.

That sound you heard today was the sound of the demanding of Personal and Professional Accountability of those responsible for the current self-induced quagmire.

That sound you heard today was the sound of charlatans admitting, without the integrity to actually admit, failure.

That sound you heard today was the groans of those responsible being made known.

That sound you heard today were those trying to not get caught red-handed lying as being exposed as liars and having to face the American People for their lies.

That sound you heard today was the death of an unconstitutional Wall Street Bail Out Bill.

That sound you heard today was the politicians that actually still care about the United States Constitution standing up to be recognized as the Constitutional Caretakers that they are, both Democrat and Republican alike.

That sound you heard today was the Free Market Ghosts of days past being revived as if to say, "Leave us alone and we will take care of ourselves, thank you very much."

That sound you heard today was foolish people knowing that their days of defrauding the American People are gone.

That sound you heard today was a message being sent to CONgress and those in CONgress responsible for the self-induced idiocy CONgress has become: "The party is over."

That sound you heard today was the sound of We The People dictating to CONgress and not the other way around.

That sound you heard today was the American People reclaiming their Constitution and once more claiming it as their own as it does not belong to the government and never has.

That sound you heard today was the sound of Freedom annihilating the Socialist Demons of the Democrat and Republican Parties.

That sound you heard today was Free Enterprise reasserting itself.

That sound you heard today was Capitalism reasserting itself and granting the ability to either succeed or fail on one's own merit and not some governmental intrusion and fabricated reality.

That sound you heard today was Reality settling in.

That sound you heard today was Personal Responsibility raising its ugly head.

That sound you heard today was the inevitability of the official acknowledgment of the total and complete lack of leadership qualities of the Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi being revealed for what it is...the worse leadership in the People's House in the history of this Nation.

That sound you heard today was the inevitability of the official acknowledgment of the total and complete lack of leadership qualities of the Senate leader Senator Harry Reid being revealed for what it is...the worse leadership in the People's Senate in the history of this Nation.

And I will ask the following: what program, policy or legislation of note that has had a positive influence on our Nation that the SoH Pelosi or Senate Leader Reid has accomplished in their two years of service? Someone please name me one. Just one. That is all I ask. I have been searching and I have not detected any. And they dare criticize others within and without or Nation? Please. Stop insulting our intelligence.

That sound you heard today was the Death Knell of American Socialism.

Selah.

Boston Herald Endorses John McCain: 'No Room For A Naif In The Oval Office'

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 07:30 PM CDT

The Boston Herald has come forward and endorsed John McCain today in a piece titled "McCain for president: A certain leader for uncertain times."

The Boston Herald piece starts out saying the last week has shown the need for a leader who is steady in the face of crisis, mature in judgment and has the ability to reach across the aisle to break the "gridlock" that has gripped Washington for too long.

The go to state "That man is Sen. John McCain and at this critical moment in history, this paper is pleased to endorse his candidacy for president of the United States."

The paper wonders what it would have happened had Mccain won the party's nomination in 2000 and goes on to explain how, in their opinion, it is "impossible to envision the future of this great nation being put in the hands of an articulate but inexperienced first-term senator from Illinois."

•This Senate maverick has spent years forging coalitions - on campaign finance reform, immigration reform, on judicial nominations - all with the intent of getting things done in the toxically partisan world of Washington.

His efforts at budget reform, at controlling congressional earmarks - not just because taxpayers can no longer afford them, but because of the corrupting effect they have on the political process - have surely not endeared him to fellow Republicans. But McCain has never shied away from a good fight - on issues worth fighting for.


The Boston Herald goes on to list more reasons why they believe John McCain should be elected in November and then states "There is no room for a naif in the Oval Office," referring to what they consider Obama's inexperience.

But being president is also about character. During his decades of service to his country John McCain has given us all ample evidence of his courage, his character and his leadership. And never more has this nation needed a president with all that John McCain has to offer.


In December of 2007, the Boston Herald also endorsed John McCain over his other Republican rivals for the GOP nomination.

.

Mermaid Jingle Jam: Getting Creative With Videos Can Help Stop Hunger

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 12:11 AM CDT



Chicken of the Sea and Feeding America have formed a partnership in creating a contest which is being dubbed "Mermaid Jingle Jam," where people are asked to join a video contest to help stop hunger.

The video above is a Mermaid Jingle Jam Video Contest Montage. (YouTube URL here)

As Hunger Action Month ends, Feeding America has sent out a news release to remind people there are still ways to help fight hunger, including the online video contest dubbed Mermaid Jingle Jam.

The contest asks people to create a 30-second-90-second video and jingle which incorporates "Chicken of the Sea's original jingle lyrics and a new verse using key themes," and contestants can win individual prizes as well as putting seafood into the hands of hungry Americans.

The Feeding America food bank in the hometown of the winner will receive $100,000 worth of Chicken of the Sea seafood.

Feeding America Spokesperson Ross Fraser says, "We've seen some really creative entries, and we are excited about the contest because it provides a fun and unique way for people to get involved, while helping raise awareness about the issue of hunger in America."

Contestants have until Nov. 7 to upload a video at MermaidJingleJam.com.

Sample videos and a compilation of current entries can be viewed at YouTube.com/TheMermaid2008.

The first 100 valid entries will receive iPod shuffles(R) and the next 50 valid entries will receive $10 iTunes(R) Gift Cards. In addition to the $100,000 worth of seafood for their local food bank, the grand-prize winner will receive a celebrity-style trip to Universal Studios Hollywood(SM), complete with a behind-the-scenes tour, airfare, hotel and dinner at a Hollywood hotspot.

All participants must be registered Mermaid Club members and meet all eligibility requirements to enter.


You can find out more about Feeding America at their website and more about Chicken of the Sea at their website.

.

Congratulations to Catherine Moy from Move America Forward

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 07:13 PM CDT

Via email from Mary Pearson at Move America Forward!!!:

In case you haven't heard, our very own Catherine Moy, Fairfield/Solano RWF has just been appointed to fill the seat left by Frank Kardos, of the Fairfield City Council!
Catherine (Cat) is also the Executive Director of Move America Forward. You can read her daily words on our website www.MoveAmericaForward.com as well in many Blogs, such as Human Events! She has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for her writings and speaks to Patriotic Americans everywhere! She has been the guest on Fox News many times and Cat has lead the charge against many wrongs against our finest, our Military! She is currently leading the way with the MAF Freedom Pac, helping our brave men and women have their votes counted as they put their lives on the line for all of us everyday!
When we feel our plates are to full, think of this wonderful woman who is such a shining example of a Lady who gives all her roadblocks to our Heavenly Father above and prays daily for the strength to continue with all she does, whether it is fighting the evils in our world today or being a wonderful Mom and wife! Cat will make a difference and she knows God never gives us more than he knows we can handle, so we know the City of Fairfield has filled that seat with a "true leader!"
I started to write that Cat is the shining example of the "Women of Today," but the words of our Heavenly Father in Proverbs 31:10-31 of the "Virtuous Woman," describes our Catherine Moy completely! I hope you know of or will read the words to learn of why I am so proud to call Cat my dear friend! And I'm sure all of you that know Cat, will agree!
God's Blessings to her and all she is doing! We love and are so proud of her and keep her in your prayers for her healtlh and strength to face each day!
God Bless America and our Troops!
Mary


Congratulations to Catherine Moy.... a big win for the good guys!

.

From Lionheart: The Latest in the New Battle of Britain

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 07:07 PM CDT


l Quds Counter demo London 28th September


The sleeping English Lions are stirring are you one of them?
The Islamic Kingdom of Great Britain staged one of their annual demonstrations through the streets of London on Sunday showing their support for their Islamic Palestinian brothers and sisters in Israel.

The Al Quds brigade is an arm of the extreme Islamic Palestinian organisation Islamic Jihad that is operating in Israel, so this should show the mentality behind those who were demonstrating on OUR streets at the weekend.

Amongst other groups present in their lines, they were joined by the British wing of the extreme Islamic group Hiz But Tahrir whose open mandate is to transform Great Britain into an Islamic State and who call for Jews to be murdered wherever you find them. The Moslem Council of Britain which is a Government funded organisation that helps to influence policy making within OUR Country, and the extreme Left Wing Political Party Respect that is a terrorist supporting British Political party.

Why these groups are not banned from spewing their hatred on OUR streets is any ones guess, but at least now there is an uprising amongst the people of this Land who have sat back watching this hatred promoted for long enough and have finally said 'enough is enough' and taken to the streets to counter the hate.

This is the start of much bigger things as people start to wake up and realise what is happening to their Country. When they do they will now see that there are people out there already who are standing up and demonstrating for everything the hold dear within their ancestral homeland, which is the protection of OUR women and children and everything the Realm in which we live encompasses.

This is OUR Country so what right have these Molems to be doing and saying what they are on OUR streets?

It's a free for all for them now in OUR Country and all in the name of multiculturalism. Its their right, its their culture, its their religion, lets let them do what they want because it's a part of multiculturalism.

NO, they shouldn't be allowed to do just what they want, just like British citizens are not allowed to do what they want, I think the term for this is ANARCHY

This is National suicide being inflicted upon the people by the political class and then enforced upon us against OUR will by the 'Power of the State', and by their Civil servants who need to put food on their families tables so are actively helping the destruction of their Nation.

When all is said and done they and their families will know what part they played in the genocide of Great Britain just like those who worked for the Gestapo in Nazi Germany knew what part they played in the Holocaust with the genocide of Millions of innocent Jews.

The actions of the Islamic Kingdom of Great Britain and its followers are an affront to the British peoples society and way of life, not only that, it endangers and threatens peaceful minorities who are living in OUR Land. This is OUR Land and any guests or long term residents have a right to be protected by the heirs of the British Isles, just like the Police are now doing by bending over backwards to protect Moslems and their benign religion from even the smallest offence like written words which might hurt their feelings. Moslems in Britain have brought everything upon themselves because of the Koran in which they follow. Protection of others is the hospitality that the British people extend to any foreign natives upon OUR Isles as long as they do not threaten the peaceful co-existence of the people living here and the society to which we belong that has been built over millennia by OUR ancestors.

This is OUR Ancestral homeland no one else's!

Many people now within Great Britain realise that by its nature the Islamic religion and the conduct of its Moslem followers are both highly un-conducive to OUR civilized society and are a direct threat to our living environment.

Moderates/Radicals, if they uphold their Religion then they are one and the same just playing different parts of the ultimate religious agenda within OUR Land which is to transform OUR Nation into an Islamic State ruled by Sharia Law.

The problem has gone way past the point of no return for the Political Class who now serve the interests of this benign religious force just too keep the peace under the guise of multiculturalism, with the real problems of this course of action now felt by the innocent men and women on the streets who are now face to face with this invading religious military political force that is exercising its new found strength and power over the innocent people of OUR Nation and OUR way of life.

The heirs of these Isles along with every other innocent race and creed who live peacefully along side of us have had enough of this evil confrontation from the Islamic religion and its Moslem followers that threatens our very human existence and OUR way of life.

The anti-Al Quds demonstration this weekend is the start of the uprising amongst the people who have said 'enough is enough' we don't want these people on OUR streets, we don't want them to be freely allowed to spew their hatred against us and against OUR peaceful friends, and have decided to leave the comfort of their own homes, give up their days off and take to the streets in protest.

There are hundreds of thousands more people like this out there and its is just a matter of time and circumstances until they too take to the streets in protest.

It must be very unsettling to the minority 300,000+ Jewish residents of Britain to see such hatred towards them actually allowed to be promoted on British streets, but they can rest assured that the heirs of this land stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with them in such uncertain days that we are no living through and not just here in the UK but throughout the World.

Islamic teaching says that the end will not come until all the Jews are killed, that is why all prominent Islamic organisations throughout the World justify and actively promote the murder of innocent Jews just like Hitler did during the Holocaust. They are openly and actively calling for another Holocaust in our generation.

People should look at Moslems and the beliefs and desires they hold dear and realise just what savage barbarians they are just like Hitler and the Nazis were.

Not all those who claim the label Moslem are Moslems just like not all who claim the label CofE are Christian, it is the ones who live by their religion and the teachings and example of their child molesting warmongering false prophet Mohamed.

You will see from the photographs and the video that the Moslems demonstrating on OUR streets were holding placards saying 'We are all Hezbollah now'. Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organisation in the 'War on Terror' and we have these people living amongst us saying we are all Hezbollah.

What would the World say if there were people marching through the streets of London saying 'War are all Nazis'?

It is no different and just as hate filled yet it is allowed and condoned under the banner of multiculturalism.

The inevitable has finally arrived and long overdue and I take my hat off to the leaders of March for England and the U.B.A who have organised an grass roots movement to make OUR voices heard, and to all those who stand behind them and have taken to the streets in protest of everything that is now happening in OUR society, and what OUR Country has become.

In their own words:

U.B.A stands shoulder to Shoulder with Sikhs, Jews, in fact anyone whom unites aginst the new nazism that we struggled through world wars to remove... hence you see us stand besides the jewish flag... if you look at the lambeth palace i held a danish and jewish flag.. as the police thought we was right wing, a right wing idiot would die before hold a isreali flag.

March For England is for England... and in that atmosphere anything that threatens our way of life is against the English... be it terrorists, governments e.t.c... united as one but for Queen and Country

U.B.A is solely against terrorists (islam) over-riding our country.....

this is where we unite... two groups united even though we hold strong to the union jack, and they the St George... it is a strong enemy which via government has slowly started to over-ride our freedom, way of life...e.t.c... so both have united,.. but under an umbrella in support.

Both groups joined SIOE (Stop the Islamisation of Europe) recently when they marched to Lambeth Palace on September 11th to demonstrate against the introduction of Sharia Law into OUR Country.

The time has come for people to stand up before it's too late!

No surrender is the British motto, and may God bless these organisations, fill their ranks and bring other groups by their side (no-Neo Nazi's welcome here thank you) to join forces to let the peoples of these Isles voices be heard for the sake of everything we hold dear now, and for the sake of OUR children and grandchildren in the future.

What would OUR forefathers say about what has become of the 'Realm' that they handed down to us, that which has been handed down from generation to generation for safe keeping and protection from ancient of days.

Deus Vult

Beware: Some colourful English language

U.S. House Puts Limit On Constituent Emails To Prevent Website Crash

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 07:26 PM CDT

The U.S. House of Representatives are limiting the amount of emails their constituents can send to individual House members due to the volume of emails coming in regarding the "bailout". They fear too many will crash the House website.

A spokesman for the spokesman for the Chief Administrative Office (CAO), Jeff Ventura, who is responsible for the House website and email services says "We were trying to figure out a way that the House.gov website wouldn't completely crash."

To that end, the CAO sent out a letter on Tuesday morning stating his office had place a limit on the number of emails that could be sent using the "Write Your Representative" function found at the House of Representatives website. The limit would be in effect during peak email traffic times according to The Hill.

"This measure has become temporarily necessary to ensure that Congressional websites are not completely disabled by the millions of e-mails flowing into the system,"the letter reads.


Ventura continued to explain how this function would work by saying "What we had to do was basically install the digital equivalent of a traffic cop. It was a question of inconveniencing everybody or inconveniencing some people some of the time, while servicing other people the other half of the time."

Members of the house starting noticing massive amounts of emails coming in regarding the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, otherwise known as the "bailout" package, as more people became aware of the text of the bill itself and had some type of comment they wanted to make in communications with their respective representatives.

The error message that is seen reads: (Right now the message below shows at the "Write your Representative" link on the U.S. House website.

"The House of Representatives is currently experiencing an extraordinarily high amount of e-mail traffic. The Write Your Representative function is therefore intermittently available. While we realize communicating to your Members of Congress is critical, we suggest attempting to do so at a later time, when demand is not so high. System engineers are working to resolve this issue and we appreciate your patience."


Ventura admits the problems the email volume caused to the website might not be fixed until the economic package was finalized.

This will make it extremely difficult for constituents to contact their representative to communicate their feelings about any bill that comes up for a vote, including any further bailout bills.

Another option for contacting Congress is the by telephone at (202)225-3121 for the U.S. House switchboard operator.

See, this mass email to the Reps happened with the immigration reform bill and it was because of the massive emails, phones calls, letters and people close enough stopping in, that forced Congress to defeat it.

Guess what? Those millions of emails did not force a "limit" on how many emails the House site allowed. We crashed their switchboard a time or two and we certainly brought the site down to a crawl, but they didn't do this.

This is far more than just limiting for the sake of their site, they are, in MY opinion, deliberately trying to stop the public from threatening their members reelection chances by telling them straight up, "vote for this, get voted out."

It is so obvious that I cannot believe they are even trying it.

Hence my making sure to provide the phone number. Constituents should always be able to email their reps...this is bull.

UPDATE:

Now we know why they are limiting the emails, via Malkin:

A Senate bailout vote is scheduled tomorrow at 9pm Eastern.

Schedule:

(1)Motion to concur on the House message, H.R. 2095, Rail Safety;
(2)a Dorgan amendment relating to H.R. 7081, the U.S. - India Nuclear agreement;
(3)a Bingaman amendment relating to H.R. 7081, the U.S. - India Nuclear agreement;
(4)passage of H.R. 7081, the U.S. - India Nuclear agreement;
(5)a Dodd amendment to H.R. 1424, relating to the bailout package; and
(6)passage of H.R. 1424, the bailout.

Get your fingers dialing:

202-224-3121.


No details on whether any changes have been made to the bill that failed to pass.

.

McCain Ad Highlights Bill Clinton Blaming Democrats For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 02:57 PM CDT

McCain video ad titled "Rein" below and found at YouTube.



In a one minute ad released by the McCain campaign they highlight Bill Clinton's words in a recently reported interview where he said Democrats resisted Republican efforts and his own to tighten standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

When the Bill Clinton interview with Chris Cuomo of ABC News was first reported, reactions from the liberal forums, blogs and websites were also shown, with them criticizing him for giving conservatives and Republicans more ammunition against liberals and Democrats.

Clinton's words were in response to Chris Cuomo asking him "A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

Clinton's answer, as shown in the McCain video ad above was "Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Text of the video ad above titled "Rein":

ANNCR: John McCain fought to rein in Fannie and Freddie.

The Post says: McCain "pushed for stronger regulation"..."while Mr. Obama was notably silent."

But, Democrats blocked the reforms.

Loans soared.

Then, the bubble burst.

And, taxpayers are on the hook for billions.

Bill Clinton knows who is responsible.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

ANNCR: You're right, Mr. President. It didn't have to happen.

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.


At the time the Bill Clinton interview was released, he was being called and "absolute disgrace" said be the "Underminer" and those were the most polite of criticisms shown.

With the blame game going on in Washington DC at the moment over the failure of the bailout plan not passing the US House, some are trying to determine where the mess on Wall Street started, how it could have been prevented and what can be done about it that will have the support of the American people.

Some liberals believe Bill Clinton handed the ammunition and the weapon to John McCain and he even loaded it for them, and many believe it was only a matter of time before they used it.

Popular opinion is, more of Bill Clinton's interviews over the last couple of weeks, will be part of any ads produced and released by the Republican National Committee and the John McCain campaign as well as outside groups.

According to The Politico, this ad will be aired nationally and it is the first appearance of Bill Clinton in a campaign ad this general election campaign season.

.

Ohio Drunken Drivers Will Be Listed On Searchable Database

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 01:36 PM CDT

An Ohio law takes effect today which will require courts to send information on repeat drunk driver offenders to the Ohio Department of Public Safety for the creation of a searchable database.

Any driver that has been convicted of driving drunk at least five times in a 20 year period will be listed on a new manageable searchable data base created by the Ohio Department of Public Safety with information sent to them by Ohio courts.

Their name, birth date and address will be listed on the database for Ohio residents to search and discover who in their neighborhood is a multiple offender.

Other offenses related will also qualify towards the five-conviction minimum, such as vehicular assault, vehicular homicide or driving under the influence of drugs as reported by The Columbus Dispatch.

One supporter of this new law, Scott Woodworth, has been convicted 13 times and believes he poses a danger to the public and says the database is a good idea saying "People have a right to know who among them is a drunk."

Woodworth is 49 years old and is currently serving a 5 year sentence at Pickaway Correctional Institution in Orient.

The new legislation was pushed hard by Senator Timothy J. Grendell, a Geauga County Republican, who also helped get further restrictions applied, such as anybody with at least two drunk driving convictions will not be allowed to refuse a blood test when stopped by the police.

Grendell states "You don't come up to a murder scene and have a man standing there with a smoking gun and allow him to say, 'No, I refuse to hand you the best evidence you've got. So why should suspected drunk drivers be allowed to keep our evidence from authorities?"

Further portions of the newly passed legislation mandates earlier court ordered treatments and more utilization of a device that requires drivers to blow into it to prove no alcohol has been consumed before allowing the car to start. Also those who violate their court probation will have to wear an ankle bracelet which will monitor the amount of alcohol in their sweat.

In the past 11 years, 2,979 people have gone to an Ohio prison for felonious drunken driving. An additional 462 went in for drunken driving and other crimes.

The repeaters are overwhelmingly male and white. Their average age is 39 1/2 .

In July, the most recent month for which statistics were available, Woodworth was one of 541 impaired drivers in Ohio prisons.


Woodworth asserts that if there had been devices to prove no alcohol consumption before allow people to drive, it would have kept him off the streets for all the previous years and it was by "God's grace" he never killed anyone, continuing on to say "I don't think I ever hit anything. At least that I know about."

The Ohio Department of Public Safety has until the end of the year to have the database up and running but according to spokeswoman Lindsay Komlanc, they are not sure when it will be ready.

.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

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

Loading...

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.

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?]

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By
Meg Sullivan
| 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM

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


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 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?

==========================================

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

From http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30616.html

==========================================

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

AR Articles on Black Culture
Lethal Garbage: Anti-White Rap Lyrics
Hip-Hop Nation (Jul 2000)
Hot Times in the Big City (Mar. 1992)
More news stories on Black Culture
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

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!

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.