Thursday, 2 October 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

Live Blogging The Vice Presidential Debate Between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden

Posted: 02 Oct 2008 12:45 PM CDT

Digital Journal Covering Debates Live, Giving All Bloggers Free Syndicated Coverage

If you're a blogger or citizen journalist who doesn't have the resources or time to live blog the event on your own, you can embed our widget and get up-to-the-second coverage for your blog's audience. The event will be live blogged by DigitalJournal.com staff, as well as citizen journalists. And all coverage is going to be fair and balanced, offering both comments and criticisms of all candidates.


I am embedding the Digital Journal Live Blog of the vice presidential debate, between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, on Wake up America.

I am not one of the moderators or hosts, this is a Digital Journal event, but I will not be live blogging myself, so this will offer readers a chance to see some blow by blows, participate by submitting comments from the Wake up America site to the DJ live blogging event, participate in their polls and interact with others across the web.

If you wish to embed this event on your own blog, you can get the embed code here.



The event will be activated at 5:45 p.m. ET.

Have fun!

(Disclaimer- This is an outside event and opinions, analysis and content may not reflect the views of Wake up America management.)

.

Sarah Palin On Journalism, Faith, Joe Six-Pack and Struggling Americans

Posted: 02 Oct 2008 12:22 PM CDT

The YouTube segment below is the audio of the Hugh Hewitt interview with Sarah Palin. (YouTube URL here)



Sarah Palin in a radio talk show interview speaks about her personal faith, journalistic ethics, Joe six-pack, Washington elite, personal attacks and rumors and how Americans are struggling during tough economic times.

Yesterday Hugh Hewitt conducted a talk radio show interview with Sarah Palin, where they discussed a variety of issues, including how her own family struggled to pay out-of-pocket for health coverage crossing their fingers hoping no one in their family got sick or injured, the attacks on her and her family in the media and throughout the blogosphere, her pro-life position and personal choices, her religious faith, Israel and much more.

Hewitt starts off with the reactions to the announcement of her candidacy for vice president on the GOP ticket, asking if she was surprised at the hostility shown and what she attributes the reactions to.

Palin answers by saying people were not used to someone coming from the "outside", continuing on to say "It's time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they're out of sorts, and they're ticked off about it, but it's motivation for John McCain and I to work that much harder to make sure that our ticket is victorious, and we put government back on the side of the people of Joe six-pack like me, and we start doing those things that are expected of our government, and we get rid of corruption, and we commit to the reform that is not only desired, but is deserved by Americans."

Hewitt goes on to ask about the public interviews Palin has conducted and the "pop quizzes" were considered by some to be attempts to embarrass her, asking if she shares that view.

Palin says she doesn't fight it, she invites it, because they make one work harder, articulate better, stating "Well, I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago. But I'm not going to pick a fight with those who buy ink by the barrelful," she goes on to say they should continue on in that mode.

When asked if she follows the number of attacks made on her, she says she doesn't have time to follow along with them all and those attacks on her are "nothing compared to what real shots are against Americans in this world," the Palin lists some of those attacks the American public are taking right now by stating "Americans today who are worried about losing their home and figuring out how in the world they're going to pay their fuel bill next month, and send their kid to college, and may be worried about losing a loved one that they're sending off to a war zone to protect our rights. Those are the shots that Americans are taking, so all this political nonsense and the lies, the rhetoric that is spun out there about someone just trying to offer themselves up in the name of service to this great country, I'll take it. "

Hewitt continued on that topic of struggling Americans, and asked Palin if she and her family has had to struggle, if they faced those same hard economic times and if they have had to make those tough choices.

This is a topic Palin hasn't been asked in any public interviews as of yet and many are expressing surprise at her answer.

Palin:

SP: Oh my goodness, yes, Hugh. I know what Americans are going through. Todd and I, heck, we're going through that right now even as we speak, which may put me again kind of on the outs of those Washington elite who don't like the idea of just an everyday working class American running for such an office. But yeah, there's been a lot of times that Todd and I have had to figure out how we were going to pay for health insurance. We've gone through periods of our life here with paying out of pocket for health coverage until Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs. Early on in our marriage, we didn't have health insurance, and we had to either make the choice of paying out of pocket for catastrophic coverage or just crossing our fingers, hoping that nobody would get hurt, nobody would get sick. So I know what Americans are going through there. And you know, even today, Todd and I are looking at what's going on in the stock market, the relatively low number of investments that we have, looking at the hit that we're taking, probably $20,000 dollars last week in his 401K plan that was hit. I'm thinking geez, the rest of America, they're facing the exact same thing that we are. We understand what the problems are. It's why I have all the faith in the world that John McCain is the right top of any ticket at this point to get us through these challenges. It's a good balanced ticket where he's got the experience, and he's got the bipartisan approach that it's going to take to get us through these challenges. And I have the acknowledgment and the experience of going through what America is going through.


They also speak of how the economic crisis facing America today is affecting her family.

Hewitt and Palin go on to discuss Israel, her personal faith, her pro-life position, her decision to have her latest child, Trig, despite knowing he was a Down Syndrome baby, her religious faith and her son Track who just left Kuwait and is heading to Iraq.

The interview transcript can be found at Town Hall and the audio recording of the interview can be found here.

Jim Geraghty participated after Palin in the show to analyze some of her answers, describes the beginning as "generic talking point Sarah", then highlighted four areas which caught his attention.

* She mentioned that she and Todd had lost $20,000 in the past few weeks in their 401(k)s. Can you recall the last time a politician gave a specific number to how much an economic crisis had impacted them? She talked about how she and Todd were worried about paying for college for their children.

* She mentioned she and Todd got their first health insurance when they were hired for union jobs.

* She said the only time the criticism had gotten "hurtful" was the commentary about Trig Palin, and the insinuation that carrying him to term was a mistake.

* She said she had spoken to her son in the Army, Track, when he was in Kuwait on his way to Iraq and that "the little stinker" had called his girlfriend before calling his mother in recent days.


He goes on to point out that Palin put the economic crisis, culture of life, and the war in Iraq, in "personal, human terms."

.

Pakistani President, Asif Ali Zardari, Earns Fatwa For Comments To Sarah Palin

Posted: 02 Oct 2008 11:10 AM CDT

A radical Muslim prayer leader issued a fatwa against Pakistani President, Zardari, saying he shamed the nation for "indecent gestures, filthy remarks, and repeated praise of a non-Muslim lady wearing a short skirt," referring to his meeting with Palin.

When Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin met with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari at the United Nations, the meeting was friendly, with Zardari calling Palin "gorgeous," and telling her "Now I know why the whole of America is crazy about you."

He also made remarks about hugging Palin if his handlers told him to.

These comments outraged a "radical religious leader, enough to issue a fatwa, which according to the dictionary means an Islamic religious decree.

The mosque that issued the fatwa was the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad, and the religious leaders comments about Zardari accuses him of "indecent gestures, filthy remarks, and repeated praise of a non-Muslim lady wearing a short skirt," according to the Christian Science Monitor.

Though the fatwa, issued days after the Sept. 24 exchange, carries little weight among most Pakistanis, it's indicative of the anger felt by Pakistan's increasingly assertive conservatives who consider physical contact and flattery between a man and woman who aren't married to each other distasteful. Though fatwas, or religious edicts, can range from advice on daily life to death sentences, this one does not call for any action or violence.


The religious leaders wasn't the only one offended by Zardari's words, albeit for different reasons, feninists also took issue with him, not for "cozying up" to Sarah palin but for what they perceived as "sexist remarks" towards her.

A member of the Women's Action Forum, Tahira Abdullah, says "As a Pakistani and as a woman, it was shameful and unacceptable. He was looking upon her merely as a woman and not as a politician in her own right."

While Abdullah called the religious leader who issued the fatwa "ranting", she also goes on to offer her own criticism against Zardari, stating "He should show some decorum – if he loved his wife so much as to press for a United Nations investigation into her death, he should behave like a mourning widower," referring to former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto who was assassinated on December 27, 2007.

Others saw nothing wrong with the exchanges between Palin and Zardari, with columnist Fasih Ahmed in the Daily Times writing "It was a sweet and innocuous exchange played as an international incident on Pakistani and rascally Indian front-pages with one English daily [writing] it in a scarlet box, half-implying Mrs. Palin would ditch Alaska's First Dude and become Pakistan's First Babe. As if."

Still others think there are more important things to worry about other than how politicians behave.

I gather from all accounts, the world leaders were mighty impressed with Palin, they found her likable, pleasant and for those who claim to be s worried about other countries "liking us", well they should be happy with how her UN meetings went.

Think they are?

.

Gwen Ifill Never Disclosed 'Age of Obama' Book To Presidential Debate Commission

Posted: 02 Oct 2008 09:44 AM CDT

Gwen Ifill's book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" was no secret, the publisher had it listed, and Ifill had done video promotions for it, but a report by AP shows, she never disclosed her authorship to the Presidential Debate Commission. (h/t Hot Air)

Gwen Ifill was chosen to moderate the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin and yesterday headlines hit the major media showing that Ifill was writing a book, to be released on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama."

In an interview with Associated Press, Ifill waves away concerns questioning her ability to be impartial as a moderator and wonders why people assume the portion of her book about Obama would be favorable to him.

Doubleday's online description of the book says Ifill "surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power."

In the eighth paragraph of the Associated Press article it states Ifill "she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book."

The Commission on Presidential Debates is responsible for choosing moderators and organizing debate terms between the candidates and/or their campaigns and as of now, they had no comment for the Associated Press and other media organizations that have tried to contact them regarding this issue.

Opinions vary, even within opposite political parties as to whether there is a conflict of interest with Ifill having a financial stake in the outcome of the elections. Some from both sides of the political aisle think Ifill can and should be able to moderate effectively and others believe there is a conflict of interest and Ifill should not have been chosen or should be replaced.

MSNBC has set up an online poll, which asks "Do you think PBS' Gwen Ifill was a smart choice to moderate the vice presidential debate?"

At this moment there are 118,633 responses and 31 percent answers "Yes, her stellar political record speaks for itself," and 69 percent say "No, there is a clear conflict between her moderating duties and the book she's authoring."

For many, the issue is not Gwen Ifill's ability to remain an impartial moderator given her political affiliation, but whether her having a monetary stake in the elections is considered a conflict of interest.

.

The Gwen Ifill Scandal and the Obama Democrats' Pattern of Contempt

Posted: 02 Oct 2008 03:43 AM CDT


Does anyone else notice what's going on in our nation right now? Has anyone else out there reached the same troubling conclusions that I have? This VP debate moderator bias scandal -- and it most certainly should be called a scandal -- is just the latest example of the Democratic Party's ability to ride roughshod over the rights of the American people. Here is the typical scenario: The Democrats perpetrate some outrageous affront to common decency and fair play, the Republicans howl in indignant but ultimately impotent outrage and disbelief, and nothing happens. The Obama train moves on to the next station, not even noticeably delayed in its journey to the White House. How many stories have been written expressing this helpless dismay? How many writers have pointed out how this unquestionably biased moderator scandal could never have happened if it were an avid McCain supporter at the center of this controversy? And the point is made and it makes perfect sense and everyone agrees and Gwen Ifill is still going to be the moderator. We the American people are virtually powerless in the Democrats eyes. They hold us and our impotent rage in contempt.

We have been sidelined. Our opinions no longer matter. All of our righteous anger, all of that conservative outrage is nothing but a fart in a snowstorm. The Democratic left is running this show and you'd better not forget it. No outrage, no matter how significant, no Reverend Wright scandal, no hate-America rhetoric from his angry hate-America wife, no William Ayers terrorist connections, no proven Rezco affiliations, no cynical and devious manipulation of our military's withdrawal schedule by Obama in Iraq make one damn bit of difference. The Obama train keeps rolling. And all of those Americans who look to the Obama future of America with dread, all of those Americans who fear an internationalist, socialistic, anti-white, anti-Western Administration have been effectively marginalized. No relevant government agency will respond to your complaints. No media will voice your outrage. Your concerns have been dismissed. The word is out: No scandal, no crime, no discovery, no matter how significant will be allowed to delay the inevitable course of the fateful Obama train.

We have been warned to keep silent. Our own Justice Department has warned us to watch our mouths. Obama is partially black and this must not, this will not, be mentioned. That questionable VP Debate Moderator, that obviously compromised Gwen Ifill is black, and has written extensively and glowingly about the rise of black politicians, and specifically, and rapturously, about Barack Hussein Obama. But this must not, this will not, be mentioned.

We have been warned to keep silent. All or almost all of the terrorist attacks against this nation have been perpetrated by Muslim jihadists. But our own State Department has forbidden its employees to use the word "jihadists", or to even associate terrorism and Islam in the same context.

And, most ironically of all, if anyone presumes to write about this virtual Democratic coup, they will be called a liberal propagandist or a weak-kneed defeatist by some members of their own party.

Now, my friends, I ask you once again -- Does anyone else notice what's going on in our nation right now? Has anyone else out there reached the same troubling conclusions that I have?

For more on the Gwen Ifill scandal see Stop the ACLU's recent article.

The Will Of The Congress Will Be Done

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 08:38 PM CDT


Harry Reid stated just the other day that the will of the Congress will be done. That sounds "Rather" definitive to me and has an air of inevitability. It is also very unconstitutional. Therefore, his very statement is grounds for impeachment proceedings against him. Where in the United States Constitution does the Senate Majority Leader get his validity and his finality of this statement "Congress will work its will"? Nancy Pelosi tries to explain it all here...
"Ever since yesterday's vote, House leaders have been in frequent communication with each other and the White House to find a plan that can win strong bipartisan approval in the House. Many Members have offered ideas to modify the emergency bill narrowly defeated yesterday, and we are discussing those recommendations.

"The Senate has made a decision about how to proceed and what can pass that body. The Senate will vote tomorrow night and the Congress will work its will.

"House Democrats remain strongly committed to a comprehensive bill that stabilizes the financial markets, restores confidence, and protects taxpayers, and we hope Congress can agree on legislation in the very near future."
Incredible. She repeated Reid's statement thereby confirming that both leaders of either House will see to it that the "will of Congress" is that which will be accomplished and not necessarily the "will of We The People". This is unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, whether or not anyone of any moral fortitude will actually call them on this blatant unconstitutional statement remains to be seen. I fully doubt it because not only are there none in either House capable of calling them on this garbage, there are none willing to step into the lion's lair. Regardless, this needs to be taken note of, does it not? It is the very epitome of that which is wholly wrong with our "Republic". If we were a "Democracy", the issue would be a non-issue. However, we were formed and based upon a Representative from of government.

Congress is charged by our very Constitution to serve The People and not Congress. They serve IN the Congress to SERVE the people, period. We don't elect them to office to have them turn around and take over nor to make friends with each other. I don't care if they have any friends "across the aisle" or on the same side of the aisle. I care about them being "friends" with their constituents of their prosepective Districts and not those of another District.

I wrote an article on this many moons ago. Initially, it was a two-part article and was eventually tailored down into one and was posted at Digital Journal. The original two-part pieces are located here and here with the merged pieces here. The Digital Journal version is located here. As a teaser;
[...] First, there is the Trustee form. This is where the elected official, theoretically, listens to the constituents and is trusted to use their best judgments to make decisions for or, in the stead of. (not a good plan)

Second, there is the Delegate representative who votes the way their constituents would want them to vote, whether or not the representative agrees with the majority of the constituents. (majority rule)

Third, there is the Politico representative which, flip-flops between the Delegate and Trustee forms of representation, depending on the issue(s). (not a good plan) [...]
Our Founding Fathers selected the DELEGATE form of Representation but through the decades of socialist indoctrination, Congress has morphed into a merged version of the TRUSTEE and POLITICO forms of Representation which is pretty much no Representation whatsoever. This morphed form rears its ugly head as revealed in such statements made by Harry Reid and confirmed by Nancy Pelosi. My essays ended thusly;
[...] This MUST be reversed before it is too late. Should a Leftinistra (a member of the socialist liberal) gain the Throne of American politics, we will be very close to another American Civil War. I make this statement because our country has not been this split since 1861. And, look what that bred. [END]
And I am serious. Take a look around you, if you are paying attention and can turn the television off, and find out for yourself. We have not been this politically split in decades, have we? I am not trying to sound like an alarmist as others have accused me of being. Was Paul Revere an alarmist or was he merely trotting around giving folks a heads up? Don;t get me wrong...I am no Paul Revere but I recognize that something is very seriously wrong when the two most powerful leaders in the House and Senate make statements as they have and no one calls them on their idiocy.

When will enough be enough? When it is too late? If so, what then my friends? What then?

The Crypt has an interesting post and interestingly enough, The Crypt is part of Politico. How ironic is that? Behold:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says she's voting yea despite receiving 85,000 calls against it -- out of 91,000 total calls.
Is that incredulous? No matter the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, Diane Feinstein is going to ignore her constituents.

Simply amazing. The vast majority say no to the bail-out and she is going to tell them to shut up and please the vast minority.

Where do we go from here and what do we do about it people?

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Says Joe Biden Sometimes Says 'Stupid Things'

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 06:29 PM CDT

Senator Claire McCaskill had what she called a "Joe Biden moment" when she was discussing Sarah Palin and Joe Biden with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where she said Joe Biden "sometimes say things that are kind of stupid."

In an interview about different issues, the Democratic Senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, discussed Sarah Palin saying the American people do not know much about her and suddenly she is thrust upon the stage and people are curious about her according to a report by ABC's Political Punch.

McCaskill then turns her comments to Joe Biden, the Deleware Senator and also the vice presidential running mate to Barack Obama and she states "has a tendency to talk forever and sometimes say things that are kind of stupid."

She goes on to say "He a regular guy and … he doesn't parse his words and he's not hyper-careful," and continues on to call him authentic."

Realizing her "stupid" comment probably wasn't the smartest thing to say about her party's vice presidential candidate, she then goes on to make matters worse by saying "I was probably having a Joe Biden moment myself," referring to her previous comment.

McCaskill is not the first to imply Biden makes his share of gaffes, in 2007, when Biden was running against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for presidency, it was reported that he said "I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

As an older LA Times article points out, Biden also caused a stir when speaking to an American Indian, trying to be endearing and popped out with "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."

On September 11, 2008, The International Herald Tribune headlined with "Biden living up to his gaffe-prone reputation," where they discuss some of his more recent "gaffes" like urging a a paraplegic state official to stand up to be recognized, or telling a crowd that Hillary Clinton might have been a better choice than he was as a running mate for Barack Obama.

Claire McCaskill should not feel bad, because other Biden supporters admit Biden's mouth often runs away from him as evidenced by James Baker, mayor of Wilmington, Delaware which is Biden's home town, who says, "He has overwhelming support here, he's well liked. We forgive him every once in a while when he says something dumb - 'Oh, that's just Joe."

Google search has a long list of pieces referencing Biden's gaffes and YouTube has a whole page of them, so it isn't like McCaskill let the cat out of the bag.

.

Offshore Drilling Ban Expires Today

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 04:38 PM CDT



Video above found here.

The Outer Continental Shelf Moratorium otherwise known as the offshore drilling ban expired today. The moratorium was first enacted in 1982 and has been extended yearly since.

After a hard fought congressional battle between Democrats and Republicans over the issue of allowing offshore drilling to add with other energy plans to help the US become more energy Independent, the final outcome was the expiration of the Outer Continental Shelf Moratorium.

In July President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling and encouraged Congress to lift the congressional ban.

After months of arguing over the issue and Nancy Pelosi refusing to allow a vote that included drilling from coming to the floor of the house as reported by USA Today, as well as the expiration of the previous ban nearing without the votes necessary to extend the ban, finally the Senate and the House decided to let the ban expire.

Environment News Service reports Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma called the expiration of these moratoria "a victory for the American people and our goal of energy security."

In a statement provided at Senator Jim DeMint's website, he says:

With all that is going on in Washington this week it can be hard to decipher the good from the bad. However, as Congress wraps up work it appears there is indeed a reason to celebrate: American Energy Freedom Day has finally arrived.

Thanks to pressure from the American people who are suffering at the pump, Democrats have reluctantly stepped aside and allowed the bans on oil shale and offshore drilling for oil and natural gas to expire. And the credit goes to you, the American people. Without the letters and phone calls to Capitol Hill and the urgent cries for energy freedom in townhall meetings throughout the country, this never would have happened. However, allowing the ban to expire is only the first step in enabling increased American energy production.


DeMint is also introducing the Drill Now Act, S. 3646, which will permanently end the ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific, Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Oil Shale Areas.

Summary of the Drill Now Act 3646:

• Expedites Leasing Process: Allows the Mineral Management Service to being preleasing and leasing activities immediately, without the need to completely write a new 5-year leasing plan. The Drill Now Act would eliminate the need to write this 5-year plan, and allows the pre-leasing to begin immediately. Under current law, drilling may not begin until 2011, but under Drill Now Act, drilling could begin in late 2009.

• Ensures 50/50 State Royalty Sharing: Creates revenue sharing for all states that allow drilling off their coasts divided – 50% for states and 50% for the Federal Treasury.

• Expedites Judicial Review of Environmental Lawsuits: Allows only 90 days to submit a legal case to U.S. District Courts. Any appeal of a district court can only be made in the U.S. District Court of Appeals in D.C. Limits judicial review for how the Secretary enforces laws.

More about the introduction of the bill can be found here.

.

Digital Journal Covering Debates Live, Giving All Bloggers Free Syndicated Coverage

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 03:03 PM CDT

For those that do not have the time, or even some that do not have the inclination to live blog tomorrow night's VP debate, Digital Journal will be doing so and is offering the embed codes for individual bloggers to have their live event embedded into their own blogs.

From the DJ announcement:

Digital Journal – If you're interested in politics, DigitalJournal.com will be the place to be on Thursday night, as we're covering both the U.S. vice presidential debate and the Canadian federal leaders debate live. Coverage will include play-by-play action, analysis, insight and opinion, as well as live polls and photography, and interaction with readers around the world. Anyone can take part in the debate coverage, and we hope all of you will join us.

But in addition to coverage on DigitalJournal.com, we're happy to announce a service for bloggers and citizen journalists outside the site as well. For both debates, DigitalJournal.com is now giving away the embed codes for our live blog coverage, allowing you to embed full, as-it-happens coverage on your own personal blog or even through Facebook.

If you're a blogger or citizen journalist who doesn't have the resources or time to live blog the event on your own, you can embed our widget and get up-to-the-second coverage for your blog's audience. The event will be live blogged by DigitalJournal.com staff, as well as citizen journalists. And all coverage is going to be fair and balanced, offering both comments and criticisms of all candidates.

Furthermore, if you embed our live blog widget on your page, the coverage will be entirely interactive. Readers will be able to submit comments and vote on polls right on your site. You get in-depth coverage, reader engagement and interactivity at no cost and no effort. We got great feedback on the U.S. presidential debate coverage last week, and so we thought this coverage could be extended to everyone as a service. Just because you might not have time to blog about the debates doesn't mean you have to miss out on having coverage.


Read the rest and grab the embed codes over at the original article. Place the embed codes in your blog today or tomorrow and your readers will have live coverage whether you are online or not.

.

Group Ad to Connect Obama With Wright, Rezko And Ayers

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 02:11 PM CDT

According to The Politico, a conservative group called Judicial Confirmation Network, is spending a million dollars on an ad buy, with a video connecting Barack Obama with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko.

It will air on networks in the smaller and more inexpensive markets across Ohio and Michigan. In Ohio, Zanesville, Lima, Toledo, Youngstown, and Wheeling-Steubenville. In Michigan, Marquette, Traverse City-Cadillac, Lansing, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Alpena. They're also buying time in Erie, Pennsylvania.


The video below can be found at YouTube.



The ad is narrated by Wendy Long from Judicial Confirmation Network.

Text:

Wendy: With the help of hundreds of thousands of Americans, the Judicial Confirmation Network fought for the nominations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Sam Alito. The next President may nominate 4 new Justices. So we'd like you to see this....

VO: Choosing the right Justices is critical for America. We don't know who Barack Obama would choose, but we know this: He chose as one of his first financial backers a slumlord now convicted on 16 counts of corruption. Obama chose as an associate a man who helped to bomb the Pentagon and said he "didn't do enough." And Obama chose as his pastor a man who has blamed America for the 9/11 attacks. Obama chose to associate with these men, while voting against these men.

Wendy: Please join the Judicial Confirmation Network. We need a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution and Justices who won't legislate from the bench. Judicial Confirmation Network paid for this message and is responsible for it.


Ayers is a former member of the Weatherman Underground Organization, which organized the Chicago Riot in 1969 and bombed buildings in the 1970's.

(William "Bill" Ayers, 2001, Chicago Magazine, trampling on the American Flag)


In 2001 Ayers spoke about his setting off bombs on US soil, saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." That was reported by NYT.

More background on William Ayers here.

Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama's pastor for the better part of 20 years, who recently became news fodder when his sermons became available online showing him saying things like "God Damn America" and referring to 9/11 as the chickens coming home to roost.

An example of Wright's rhetoric that Obama sat and listened to for almost 20 years can be found at YouTube here.

Some history on the political controversy surrounding Obama/Wright can be found here.

Tony Rezko, recently convicted of convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery in 2008. He was found guilty of 16 of the 24 charges filed against him.

More on Rezko's extensive ties to Barack Obama found here.


.

Nancy Pelosi Paid Husband From Political Action Committee Fund

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 01:29 PM CDT

Nancy Pelosi has directed $99,000 from her political action committee (PAC) to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the last decade. Since Paul Pelosi took over as treasurer for the PAC in 2007, payments have quadrupled.

Last year Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House for the U.S. House of Representatives, supported a bill that had it passed, would have banned the practice of paying for services rendered by a spouse of a politician using monies given as political donations.

As the Washington Times reports, according to Federal Election Commission records, Financial Leasing Services Inc. (FLS), owned by Paul F. Pelosi, has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future, over the last 9 years.

According to the report, FLS "on track to take in $48,000 in payments this year alone - eight times as much as it received annually from 2000 to 2005, when the committee was run by another treasurer."

Lawmakers' frequent use of campaign donations to pay relatives emerged as an issue in the 2006 election campaigns, when the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal gave Democrats fodder to criticize Republicans such as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Rep. John T. Doolittle of California for putting their wives on their campaign and PAC payrolls for fundraising work.


While not an illegal practice since the bill that would have banned this practice passed the house with a voice vote but did not get out of a Senate committee, therefore was never implemented into law, Melanie Sloan who is the executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit ethics and watchdog group, calls these payments from Pelosi's PAC, to her husband, "problematic," and goes on to explain "From what I understand, Mr. Pelosi doesn't need the money, but this isn't the issue. ... As speaker of the House, it sends the wrong message. She shouldn't be putting family members on the payroll."

Nancy Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, defends the payments saying "She's followed all the appropriate rules and regulations in terms of records and paperwork. When [former treasurer] Leo McCarthy became ill, she thought that it was best that that firm did the accounting and she's paid fair market value in San Francisco."

From 1999 and 2006, FLS was receiving $500 a month in rent, utilities and equipment, and in early 2007 when Paul Pelosi took over the job of treasurer, those payments quadrupled to $2,000 per month. Paul Pelosi also receives $24,000 per year for accounting work, all together totaling $48,000 a year paid.

Mr. McCarthy, the previous treasurer, had done the work as a volunteer, according to FEC documents and Jennifer Crider, a senior adviser to Mrs. Pelosi and spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She said FLS' accounting fees are in line with costs for other PACs.


In the first six months of 2008, Nancy Pelosi's husband's company, FLS, was the largest vendor for Nancy Pelosi's PAC.

According to the Washington Times report Political action committees are designed "to help politicians contribute to other candidates and build influence with colleagues."

This is not the first time one of Nancy Pelosi's PACs has been in trouble. In 2004, another of Pelosi's political action committees, named Team Majority, was fined $21,000 by the FEC for accepting over the legal limit donations and Team Majority was closed down after that fine was imposed.

I guess draining the Swamp" meant draining it into Nancy and Paul's own bank accounts.

.

No comments:

Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

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

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams

THE NEW GAME: POWER CLING !!!

Obama learned his lesson well


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama

WorldNetDaily

War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us


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

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

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

Deciphering Obama in Cairo


Deciphering Obama in Cairo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

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

See original article here.


WHO SAYS A STIMULUS ACTUALLY STIMULATES?

or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-UCLA-

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

LSMS368


AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

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

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

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

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

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

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

NOW LA PRESIDENT SUPPORTS SARAH PALIN

Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong

OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN

WHY IT IS WRONG TO CALL IRAQ A MISTAKE

OBAMA Comment by AltMuslim.com

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

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

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

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

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

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?

(crosstalk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


Comments

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

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


VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

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

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

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

VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2

Truth?

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