Friday, 17 October 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

Military Times Poll: Military Men and Women Overwhelmingly Favor John McCain Over Barack Obama

Posted: 17 Oct 2008 12:22 PM CDT

Not something we are seeing reported in the New York Times, or Washington Post, but the numbers are staggering in favor of John McCain among the members of the military of the United States of America.

From the Military Times, 2 page PDF here.

(Click image to enlarge)


The above graphs are from page one, click the PDF link to see page two.

Military Times poll: Troops backing McCain

Sen. John McCain enjoys overwhelming support from the military's professional core, a Military Times survey of nearly 4,300 readers, indicates, though career-oriented black service members strongly favored the Democratic Party candidate.

McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers and former subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.



The Breakdown.

Overall:

McCain- 68%
Obama- 23%
Undecided- 6%


Army:

McCain- 68%
Obama- 23%
Undecided- 6%

Navy:

McCain- 69%
Obama- 24%
Undecided- 5%

Air Force:

McCain- 67%
Obama- 24%
Undecided- 7%

Marines:

McCain- 75%
Obama- 18%
Undecided- 4%

By Gender.

Men:

McCain- 70%
Obama- 22%
Undecided- 5%

Women:

McCain- 53%
Obama- 36%
Undecided- 7%

By Age.

18 to 34:

McCain- 65%
Obama- 27%
Undecided- 5%

35 and Older:

McCain- 70%
Obama- 21%
Undecided- 6%

Our military members are pretty clear about who they prefer as Commander and Chief.


H/T to Liberty Card for the email.

.

Another 'Joe The Plumber' Opposes An Obama Presidency

Posted: 17 Oct 2008 11:31 AM CDT

Knoxville has a "Joe The Plumber" also.

Joe the plumber is the man that has been given to Joe Wurzelbacher, a man that asked Barack Obama a question, which happened to get caught on video where Obama's answer included the sentiment about "spreading the wealth", speaking of income distribution.

The left went on the rampage against poor Joe, declaring he held liens, he owed taxes and he didn't have his plumbing licensing and the media went after him in a way they have refused to research Obama's own scandals.

Well, guess what? It isn't Joe, it was Obama's answer, his unguarded response where he admitted clearly that he is nothing more than a socialist.

Joe was simply a man that asked Barack Obama a question and he is really a symbol, nothing more, nothing less. A symbol of ordinary, hard working men and women that do not like the idea of Barack Obama or any politician determining to take the money they work hard for, away from them and hand it to other people that did not produce, did not work for it.



Nothing against Mr. Wurzelbacher here, but he isn't the point as the left's reaction so clearly shows, he is the catalyst that forced Obama to finally tell people exactly what he is and what his plans are.

That is why the left is howling so loudly against "Joe the Plumber".

I feel bad for Joe that he has become the target of such idiocy, but the fact that he has caused this reaction and the fact that the left is still going after him is really a good thing because people that never would have heard Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, have now heard it loud and clear because it has been blasted on almost every television station, Joe has been subject to barrels of ink and "Joe the Plumber" has become a household name in a matter of days.

Another example of the left shooting themselves in the head, make Joe bigger than life and guarantee that voters hear exactly what Obama's true plans are without the illusion of what Obama wanted them to "think" his plans were.

Which brings me to Knoxville and another article about a different "Joe the plumber", a man named Joe Shanks, who is a licensed master plumber and owner of Joe's Plumbing Service in the Cedar Bluff area.

Shanks, an independent voter, said he's supporting Republican Sen. John McCain, citing the official's career experience in office as the deciding factor for him.

"I'd just feel more comfortable, confident and safe with McCain," the plumber said. "McCain's been there. Obama's just not that experienced."

Shanks likened the decision to a homeowner in need of a plumber - would you hire the guy who just got his trade license, he asked, or a seasoned professional?


These men are just men, working men, middle class Americans that worry about what Barack Obama's policy stances will mean to them and the millions of hard working Americans just like them.

The two Joes are ordinary Americans, but they have managed to do something the major media has not doe by carrying Obama's water and refusing to vet him or ask the hard questions about his associations.... these two ordinary men have ripped the roof off of hell and allowed the American public to peek inside.

How do we know Americans have heard this? Well, Gallup yesterday showed that among "likely voters" there is now only a 2 percentage point difference between McCain and Obama and today Rasmussen has Obama's lead down to four percentage points and BattleGround shows Obama, who held a 13 percent lead over McCain last week, now only holds a four percent lead and IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll has Obama ahead by three percent.

As we get to the last couple weeks before the election, McCain is narrowing the gap and Obama is being scrutinized a little more.

So, although I feel bad for the scrutiny Mr. Wurzelbacher is suffering now because of the left's desire to make the focus be him instead of where the focus should be, which is Obama's tax plan, he has done us a great favor and we owe him a huge thanks for exposing Barack Obama for what he is.

A socialist.




Previous posts about "Joe The Plumber", on WUA:

AWESOME Cartoon added!!- John McCain's 'Joe The Plumber' Ad Hits YouTube'
The Left's Pathetic Attempt To Discredit Joe The Plumber
Who Is Joe The Plumber?
Obama: 'The government is going to make you "spread the wealth around."


.

Barack Obama Whines About Fox News

Posted: 17 Oct 2008 10:24 AM CDT



Andrew Malcolm from LA Times' Top of the Ticket brings us news of Barack Obama whining to the New York Times about Fox News:

The New York Times, of all places, has a long interview coming out Sunday with the freshman senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

Obama's complaint:

"I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls. If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right?

"Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?"


In it, the Democratic presidential nominee, who's leading in most recent political polls, still bemoans the existence of Fox News because he feels he'd be doing even better in voter polls without it.


Well if the shoe fits dude!!!!

Malcolm points out that he is sure McCain/Palin would probably feel the same way about MSNBC's Keith Olbermann or even the New York Times themselves.

Fox News replies:

Senator Obama's comments about Fox News are misdirected. If he is uncomfortable with tough questions, it may be because he has faced so few from the news media.

The McCain campaign also complains when we make them squirm. We will continue to do hard, honest reporting and let American viewers decide if we're being fair.


(Click image to enlarge for better reading)


The difference here is Fox News has and will continue to ask both candidates and their surrogates the hard questions, while people like MSNBC and The NYT are busying carrying Obama's water and neglecting to the research into his ties, questionable associations and criminal friends.

Poor Obama just can't catch a break huh?

.

Oh, Canada!

Posted: 17 Oct 2008 10:15 AM CDT

canadaflag
$290million and no change!
media file picture

Canada's third election in four years is over - except for the weeping and wailing. The "winners" have been congratulated and the "losers" have given gracious concession speeches (sometimes!)

Really, though, the BIG loser from this election is Canada. Despite over $290 million spent on this 40th election - that saw the 10th minority government in Canada's history elected - voter turnout was the lowest in the nation's history. That is a sad commentary. Of course, many streeter interviews were conducted with "average" Canadians as to why they didn't vote, and the prevailing reason seemed to be: "Why bother?" Why, indeed. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives had been waging a negative ad campaign on a newly-minted leader, Stephane Dion of the Liberal party, from the moment he was chosen as leader, way before any election was called. ...


Read the rest here at NewsBlaze for MY insights.

*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita, of course!*

What You Don't Know About Governor Sarah Palin

Posted: 17 Oct 2008 09:39 AM CDT




Courtesy of our good friend Len Peracchio


Question: What is America 's first line of missile interceptor defense that protects the entire United States ?
Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.

Question: What is the ONLY National Guard unit on permanent active duty?
Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard

Question: Who is the Commander in Chief of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

Question: What U.S. governor is routinely briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

Question: What U.S. governor has a higher classified security rating than either candidate of the Democrat Party?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska
. According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

Now you DO know!

--------------------------------------------------

A note from Radarsite: Now there is something else we know about Sarah Palin, isn't there? We now know that when she was viciously attacked for her lack of Foreign Policy experience she could have used these facts to her advantage but chose not to. And that, my friends, is what is called character. - rg

Can Obama Still Win?

Posted: 17 Oct 2008 08:49 AM CDT

Obama's Birth Certificate Scandal

Michelle Obama's Telephone Threats to AFI Scandal

Obama's Bill Ayers Association Scandal


Obama in Iraq Troop Withdrawal Scandal

Obama Questionable Patriotism Scandal

Obama's African Ties Scandal

Obama's Rev Wright Scandal

Obama's Rezko Scandal


Obama's Socialist "New Party" Scandal

Obama's Odinga Endorsement Scandal

Michelle Obama's "Finally Proud to be an American" Scandal

Obama's Ties to Black Radical Organizations Scandal

--------------------------------------------------------------


A note from Radarsite: Smothered under the enormous accumulative weight of these ongoing and unresolved major scandals how can Barack Obama survive? Given the number and the severity of these charges against him, any one of which would have been sufficient grounds for immediate withdrawal for any other presidential candidate in our history, how could Barack Obama even dare to contemplate running for President of the United States of America? And finally, despite the best efforts of a shamefully biased MSM and of his fanatical legions of passionate supporters to dampen the fires of public outrage, despite the enormous damage already done to his shady character and questionable credibility, the biggest question remains:

Can Obama still win?

African Press Speaks About Michelle Obama's Phone Call

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 09:13 PM CDT

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

African Press International recently claimed that Michelle Obama telephoned them and made various statements...statements that definitely caught America's attention. If you are not already aware of this story, my advice is, read the following first, and then read the first report that has caused such a firestorm.

The question has been, if Michelle actually did call API, did API record the call? The API article below, published October 17, 2008 (their time) tells us they do have a recording, and their hesitation has been the speculation of a lawsuit against them once the tape is released, as MO was not made aware that the conversation was being recorded. They say they are attempting to give MO time to "come clean" before the release, and they advise her to tell the "American people that she will not discriminate those who are not Obama fanatics if she becomes the first lady."

And...they state why the First-Lady-to-be-maybe, would call API in the first place.

The original API article is quite long, so here are the most compelling alleged quotes from MO, then the latest article:

African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view," and she went to state that, "it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband's face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband's heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API.

...many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.
API claimed that she offered an inaugural invitation in exchange for a "good story."

As I said in my initial post, I do not know what is true and what isn't. We'll just have to wait and see.

African Press International
October 17, 2008 (no time stamp)
API is disturbed by the way many have reacted to the story on Mrs Obama's call. Many have shown us by the way they have behaved towards API that they only think of their own interests because they have demanded that the audio recordings should be released immediately. We understand that the tapes should be released, but those who have demanded the release of the tapes seem not take into account that API may become a suing target.

The Recordings:

API has recordings of the conversation between API and Mrs Obama (Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: "My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks", on a direct telephone to API., and we confirm that the audio will be released to the public. In the last 24 hours, API has been consulting legal advisers on the way forward in order to avoid being sued by the Obama camp. API has realised that the contents of the tapes if made public may change the political atmosphere in America for ever, especially in the next few days.

Due to enormous reactions received, API now understands the impact of the statements made by Mrs Obama. The American people have reacted in a way we in API would never have expected.

Many have question why Mrs Obama would choose a little known online media group instead of the American media. API was chosen because of a Nairobi contact that did not like the way API was covering Barack Obama using information collected from American media outlets. The Nairobi contact prevailed upon Mrs Obama to talk to API.

The only thing API may have done wrong is not informing Mrs Obama that the conversation was being recorded. This is why it is taking time to release the recording while consulting a legal team because API wants to be legally safe from any Obama camp law suit.

The US Media Outlets:

Since the release of Mrs Obama story, many US media outlets have insisted that API should release the recordings made when Mrs Obama spoke with API. We understand the importance of the recordings in our possession and yet the first thing we are thinking of is not simply to make them public because groups are pressurising API to do so. The release of the information will be done, because we know we have Mrs Obama on tape, but API must do it in a way that does not put API in an embarrassing legal situation.

Die-hard Obama supporters:

A number of Americans who are die-hard Obama followers have tried their best to intimidate API using all kinds of threatening methods when they call in and when they email us. They are implying that API is planning to destroy Obama's chances to become the next US President. API does not have a direct interest in the US Presidential elections and we want Obama supporters to understand that. However, when someone who may become the next first lady makes such comments as in the story we have published, the public have the right to know. Intimidation directed to the publishers of the story is not the answer.

The delay to make public the recordings is expected to give time to Mrs Obama to come clean and tell the American people that her comments were not meant to harm anyone, but that she was reacting to the media pressure on her husband. She should also come out and tell the American people that she will not discriminate those who are not Obama fanatics if she becomes the first lady.

There's more. Read it here.

Related:

Michelle Obama to African Press: Bribes? and No Law Will Stop My Husband...

Michelle Obama and African Press Update

Tribune Company Dropping Associated Press

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 07:44 PM CDT


Good news!!

According to Editor and Publisher, the Tribune Company is has given Associated Press two year notice that they are dropping their news service.

Tribune, which owns nine daily papers including the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, joins a growing list of newspapers that have sought to end AP contracts, or given notice of that, following plans to introduce a new controversial rate structure in 2009. The notice was given earlier this week.

AP Spokesman Paul Colford confirmed the cancellation notice, but said he had no more specifics. He issued the following statement about it:

"We understand that in this climate a lot of newspapers are re-examining their strategies. The Associated Press will continue to work with all members of the cooperative to ensure that we are providing the most efficient, valued and essential news service for them."


Considering the lack of ethical standards and journalistic integrity which we have spoken here about often, this comes as welcome news.

Tribune daily papers besids the flagship in Chicago affected include The Sun Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; The Orlando Sentinel; Red Eye of Chicago; the Hartford Courant; The Baltimore Sun; The Morning Call of Allentown, Pa.; and The Daily Press of Newport News, Va.

"I think many editors are concerned about the new financial rate model that AP has rolled out," Earl Maucker, editor of the Sun Sentinel, said about the notice. "It is a natural approach for us to take a hard look at that. Are there other alternatives out there that would provide the depth and breadth of coverage we need?"

In recent months, other non-Tribune papers have also given the required two-year's notice to drop AP. Those include: The Star Tribune of Minneapolis, The Bakersfield Californian, The Post Register of Idaho Falls, and The Yakima Herald-Republic and Wenatchee World, both of Washington.


Like I said, good news!!

Hat Tip to Len for the email.

.

Glenn Beck Moves To Fox News Channel

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 07:23 PM CDT

Headline says it all. About time he left the Communist News Network.

Via The Politico:

Glenn Beck has signed a multi-year agreement to join FOX News, announced Roger Ailes, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of FOX News. Beginning next spring, Beck will host FOX News Channel's (FNC) 5 PM/ET weekday program as well as a weekend show on the network.

Currently, Beck serves as the host of Glenn Beck, a talk show on CNN's Headline News which has grown more than 200% in viewership in both the 7pm and 9pm timeslots since its 2006 debut. He also hosts a daily radio show The Glenn Beck Program which is syndicated via Premiere Radio Networks to more than 300 stations nationwide as well as XM Satellite Radio, and ranks as the third most listened to radio talk show in America among adults 25-54.

In making the announcement, Ailes said, "As we embark on a new political landscape, Glenn's thought provoking commentary will complement an already stellar line-up of stars at FOX News"

Prior to his television career, Beck served as a talk radio show host at WFLA-AM in Tampa, FL where he took his program to number one within his first year there. He began his radio career in Corpus Christi, Texas as the youngest Top 40 morning show disc jockey in America at 18 years of age. Beck later moved on to become a top 40 disc jockey in major markets around the country, including Houston, Washington, DC, Baltimore, Phoenix and New Haven, CT.

Beck added, "I am thrilled and profoundly humbled to have the chance to bring my program to FOX News. Expanding my audience is exciting, but I'm really looking forward to joining Mr. Ailes and his world-class team."

A recipient of the 2008 Marconi Award for Network Syndicated Personality of the Year from the National Association of Broadcasters, Beck is also the author of the New York Times bestseller An Inconvenient Book - Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems (2007) as well as The Real America - Messages from the Heart and Heartland (2005).


.

National Security: The Lost Political Issue

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 05:42 PM CDT

By guest columnist, Charles E. Sowell

As we close in on the presidential election of 2008, it is becoming more and more evident to many Americans, particularly those who truly understand history, that the fate of America and western civilization may literally hang in the balance. At this point in time Americans have a lot to be concerned with, but it should be apparent that the two most critical concerns facing this country are national security and the economy. Most recently, as a result of the current economic crisis, we have heard very little about national security, despite the fact that we are still engaged in a fierce war with the same group of extremists that attacked us more than 7 years ago. It is time for America to reawaken to the fact that if we do not have national security, we will not have an economy to worry about!

I will leave it to the historians to conclude whether the invasion of Iraq at that unique point in time was the right or wrong decision for America, but from that point forward, it is hard for me to understand the logic of Senator Obama on many foreign policy/national security issues. I am constantly amazed at what appears to be his naiveté on many of these issues. As part of his very elite educational training, did he not study history? Even more amazing to me is that it appears that the majority of the American public has also bought into his guile and glib style over his negligible substance. Past electoral concerns of malaise and apathy seem to pale in comparison to the current naivety of so many Americans, particularly the young, many of whom have not yet had enough life experience, much less understanding of history, to keep from falling under the spell of the first snake oil salesman that comes along.

Senator Obama is a very eloquent orator, and his affable manner and good looks give him the ability to be very persuasive. But when you break down his foreign policy into simple logic, it just doesn’t fly. If Senator Obama’s prior opposition to the surge in Iraq had been successful, America might now be out of that country, but we would have left in defeat and either Al Qaeda or Iran would have quickly moved into the vacuum, providing another base for extremists ready to resume further atrocities against America and the rest of the world. Had we allowed that to happen, we would have also been looked upon by the rest of the world as an unreliable paper tiger for decades to come. Russia, China, and any other strong adversary would be taking advantage of us at every opportunity. Like it or not, defeat in Iraq is not an option.

Senator Obama’s current insistence on establishing a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq is also nothing short of pure folly. A smart and determined enemy only has to await the withdrawal of our troops before resuming the fight with an all out effort, with a realistic hope by then that the American public will no longer have the will to rejoin the fight. If you want to win a football game, you don’t broadcast to your opponent the timing of the snap of the ball.

Perhaps the most illustrative example of Senator Obama’s naivety is his self expressed willingness to sit down and negotiate with any adversary without any preconditions. Anyone who knows anything about the art of negotiation understands, first and foremost, that you negotiate only with an adversary that has the authority to negotiate (someone who has the ability to execute the results of that negotiation). Sitting down with someone like Ahmadinejad would not only be a waste of time, but would be foolhardy at best. Any good negotiator also knows that every negotiating session is always preceded by posturing, position measuring (preconditions), and having in mind specific objectives for outcome. Just “sitting down to talk” for the novice negotiator could be a recipe for disaster.

At this critical time it is important for Americans to recognize that proven experience and seasoned knowledge are what we need to lead America out of our current difficulties, not an idealistic member of the intellectually elite. As it has been said by many others before me, this is not a time for on the job training.

Cross-posted from Faultline USA

AWESOME Cartoon added!!- John McCain's 'Joe The Plumber' Ad Hits YouTube'

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 03:37 PM CDT

(Cartoon compliments of Americans for Limited Government)

On my past post about Joe Wurzelbacher, I said "McCain needs to take Joe on some campaign stops with him..as I said earlier, this Joe is you, me, every middle class, middle income family that works hard and tries to become successful."

The video says it all, but a quickie recap. Joe Wurzelbacher asked Barack Obama a question about his tax plan, Obama used the expression "spread the wealth" when Joe was worried about his middle class earnings if he bought a company being hit, then Mccain brought Joe and Obama's answer up at the third debate, then Joe made the rounds today showing why he thought Obama's tax plan and health care plan was bad for middle America, then the left decided to attack Joe because they couldn't justify Obama's answers.

Caught up? Good!! All the pieces pertaining to the info above will be listed at the bottom of the post.

Almost as good, McCain has his Joe The Plumber video out already!!!!



Text:

Script For "Joe The Plumber"

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

ANNCR: Americans are catching…

JOE WURZELBACHER: Your new tax plan is going to tax me more.

BARACK OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. … I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

ANNCR: Everybody?

Leading papers call Obama's taxes "welfare" … "government handouts".

Obama raises taxes on seniors, hard working families to give "welfare" to those who pay none.

Just as you suspected, Obama's not truthful on taxes.


AD FACTS, From McCain/Palin website:

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message. ANNCR: Americans are catching on... JOE WURZELBACHER: Your new tax plan is going to tax me more. BARACK OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

Barack Obama: "And I Think When You Spread The Wealth Around, It's Good For Everybody." JOE WURZELBACHER: "I'm a plumber. You know, I work, you know, 10, 12 hours a day. If I buy another truck and add something else to it, and you know, build the company..." OBAMA: "Right." WURZELBACHER: "... you know, I'm getting taxed more and more." OBAMA: "Nobody likes high taxes." WURZELBACHER: "No, not at all." OBAMA: "Right? Of course not. So -- but what's happened is, is that we end up -- we've cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than $250,000. We haven't given a break to folks who make less. It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And everybody is so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." (FOX News' "On The Record," 10/13/08)

ANNCR: Everybody? Leading papers call Obama's taxes "welfare" ... "government handouts".

The Wall Street Journal Calls Obama's Numerous Refundable Tax Credits "Tens Of Billions Of Dollars In Government Handouts." "For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase 'tax credit.'" (Editorial, "Obama's 95% Illusion," The Wall Street Journal, 10/13/08)

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "[T]he One-Third Of All American Working Families Who Pay No Income Taxes Now Will Receive A Government Check Under The Obama Plan. And That Number Could Rise To About 44 Percent Under Obama's Proposal." "The 'tax-cut plan' of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama is anything but. In fact, it's nothing more than another liberaled-up wealth-transference program that, in the 'old days,' was known as welfare. ... Just as troubling, however, is this little factoid: Even the one-third of all American working families who pay no income taxes now will receive a government check under the Obama plan. And that number could rise to about 44 percent under Obama's proposal." (Editorial, "Obama's Tax Cut: New Welfare Deal," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/14/08)

New York Post: "[O]bama's 'Tax Cuts' Really Amount To A Sizable Expansion Of Welfare." "In truth, as The Wall Street Journal detailed yesterday, nearly all of those 'cuts' actually come in the form of 'refundable tax credits,' by which the government in effect writes a check to those who meet certain criteria - even if they don't pay taxes in the first place. In other words, Obama's 'tax cuts' really amount to a sizable expansion of welfare. That leaves American taxpayers to foot the bill - both directly, and through the lost economic opportunity that's sure to follow Obama's promised tax hikes on income, dividends and capital gains." (Editorial, "Ready, Set ... Spend!" New York Post, 10/14/08)

ANNCR: Obama raises taxes on seniors, hard working families to give "welfare" to those who pay none.

Just as you suspected, Obama's not truthful on taxes.

Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

Barack Obama Would Raise Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. "Sen. Obama wants to raise the long-term capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to around 20 percent or somewhat higher but not above the 28 percent level it reached during the Reagan presidency, an Obama economic adviser says. The same rate would apply to most dividend income for these investors." (Tom Herman, "Tax Report Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ," The Associated Press, 6/18/08)

Tax Policy Center: Barack Obama Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. "Even though Senator Obama's plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income." (Burman et al., "A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans," The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)

Tax Foundation: Seniors "Rely Most On The Stable Flow Of Income That Dividends Provide." "Most debate over whether to extend the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains has focused on the tax benefits of these cuts to high-income taxpayers. What has been largely ignored is the impact these tax policies have on corporations' decisions on how best to distribute their income to shareholders--including senior citizens, who rely most on the stable flow of income that dividends provide. A recent Tax Foundation analysis illustrated that a large number of those benefiting from dividends are seniors and those on the verge of retirement (See www.taxfoundation.org). A further analysis of these seniors earning dividends reveals that lower-income seniors who file tax returns depend more heavily on dividend income than high-income seniors." (Gerald Prante, "The Importance Of Dividend Income For Low-Income Seniors," Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1354.html, 2/8/06)

Barack Obama Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: "[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)

U.S. Department Of Treasury: Small Business Owners "Are Frequently Subject To The Highest Individual Income Tax Rates." "Changes in the individual income tax affect most businesses in the United States. That is because taxes on business earnings are often paid through the individual income tax when 'passed-through' to business owners. The business income from sole proprietorships, farm proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, etc., is all taxed at the owners' individual income tax rates. This year 34 million business owners are expected to receive this type of income and pay tax on this income through the individual income tax. These businesses are typically small and often entrepreneurial in nature, and a source of innovation and risk-taking in the economy. Moreover, these business owners are frequently subject to the highest individual income tax rates." ("Topics Related To The President's Tax Relief," U.S. Department Of Treasu ry, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/president_taxrelief_topics_0508.pdf, May 2008)

Barack Obama Would Raise Social Security Taxes. "Obama's proposal ... would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes." (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)



Previous posts about "Joe The Plumber", on WUA:

The Left's Pathetic Attempt To Discredit Joe The Plumber
Who Is Joe The Plumber?
Obama: 'The government is going to make you "spread the wealth around."

.

The Left's Pathetic Attempt To Discredit Joe The Plumber

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 02:30 PM CDT

Pathetic.

Barack Obama is the one that answered Joe Wurzelbacher (the Plumber's) question by saying he wanted to "spread the wealth", aka Redistribute monies, and the left's answer is to try to discredit JOE??

Thank God we live in a free country, where you can speak your mind on public issues, without fear that those who disagree will respond by exposing anything you've ever done that you regret or that could embarrass your family.

Oh, wait, never mind. We have to know, according to some, about Joe the Plumber's tax lien, and how he doesn't have a license - which, if the smear artists bothered to check the law, he only needs for commercial work, not residential work.



What a joke they have become.

They cannot justify Obama's redistribution and welfare plans, they cannot explain it, excuse it or make redistribution more palatable to the American people that have shown they against redistribution of wealth, so instead they try to distract by attacking someone that asked Obama a simple question?

Pathetic.

McCain needs to take Joe on some campaign stops with him..as I said earlier, this Joe is you, me, every middle class, middle income family that works hard and tries to become successful.


Previously:

Who Is Joe The Plumber?

Obama: 'The government is going to make you "spread the wealth around."

.

Internal Emails Show Obama Campaign Targeting Felons To Vote

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 01:47 PM CDT

The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire has obtained internal emails from the Michigan Department of Corrections which discusses a request from the Barack Obama campaign, which was denied, to enter the prison facility to register voters.

From the internal email, Cheryl Groves, 8/1/08- : "Hi Richard, Alice Corey, Field organizer for the Obama campaign, called ICF asking if she can come in and preregister prisoners who will be discharging prior to the election. Is this something we should or should not allow? I am sure other facilities will be contacted as well..."



An Obama spokesman in Michigan acknowledged that a new organizer made the request, but supervisors nixed the idea as soon as they found out about it. The campaign denied all association with a second request to the Department of Corrections. The emails say that a Theresa Collins, identified as the national coordinator of "Inmates to Support Barack Obama," asked the prison to post information about how prisoners could make campaign contributions to Obama. That group doesn't appear to have any Web site.

The email chain shows that Richard Stapleton, administrator of the department's Office of Legal Affairs, told a colleague to deny the campaign's request. The email, which Washington Wire received from Obama opponent, was verified by a Corrections Department spokesman.

"We've got to make sure they're out first," said John Cordell, the spokesman. "We could say you're out on Oct. 31, but if they do something between now and Oct. 31 that would make us think they're a danger to society, then we'll rescind their parole."
The second question referred to was from Cheryl Groves, subject :"Another election question," which says "Richard- Carson City has now received information from Ms. Theresa Collins, National Coordinator of the 'Inmates to support Barack Obama' campaign. She wants us to post information detailing how inmates can be 'part of the solution by helping to support Barack Obama through individual contributions.' She has included a form for inmates to donate $2.00, $5.00, $10.00 or other amount.

Since you indicated below that we cannot facilitate campaign activities on state properties, I assume we should be denying this request as well...correct?

Let me know what you think. If you'd like me to fax you a copy of what was sent to Carson City, just let me know. Thanks Richard!."

According to the Obama campaign, via AP, Obama has "co-sponsored a Senate measure that would allow all ex-felons to vote," but they deny they are "directly targeting ex-felons for registration."

Obama has co-sponsored a Senate measure that would allow all ex-felons to vote, but his campaign isn't directly targeting ex-felons for registration. His campaign does include relevant info on its Web site and educates volunteers so they can explain state laws to those who may not realize they have the right to vote, said spokesman Kevin Griffis.


These internal emails obtained, linked above, shows those denials to be just more lies by the Obama campaign, because requesting a voter registration drive IN prisons, is directly targeting felons.

Obama, more lies we can believe in!!!

.

Comparing the Candidate's Platforms on Jewish Issues

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 01:44 PM CDT


When I was a kid, I used to hear adults talk about the big current event of the day and it always ended with the same question "Is it good for the Jews?" Even when the question didn't belong. For example

"Did You hear that Phelps won his 9th gold medal?"
"Yes But is it Good For the Jews?

That one question is a big issue in the presidential campaign. Since Jews tend to be passionate Democrats, most Jewish Dems would ignore his anti-Israel advisers (including Dick Lugar who the candidate mentioned yesterday as a favorite source of foreign policy advice) and answer a resounding YES. But the real truth is, if you take a look at the platforms the candidates are running on, you will find some REAL and Uncomfortable differences between the two candidates.

In this month's Journal of International Security Affairs, Michael Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center makes an Item by Item comparison of the "Jewish Issues" in the both campaign's platforms. Click here for the analysis.

Secret Service Report: No 'Kill Him' Threats At Palin Rally

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 12:15 PM CDT

Another manufactured story bites the dust, according to the Secret Service that investigated media claims saying someone yelled out "kill him" when Barack Obama's name was invoked at a Sarah Palin Rally in Scranton PA.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

"I was baffled," he said after reading the report in Wednesday's Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell "kill him."

"We have yet to find someone to back up the story," Slavoski said. "We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it."


So now media is not only reporting what they call news, they are creating it, faking it and manufacturing their own news.

Anyone surprised?

Hat Tip LGF.

.

Sarah Palin, Beyond Simple Politics

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 10:57 AM CDT

H/T to Andrew Malcolm from LA Times' Top of the Ticket for the video alert.



The video above is a short MSNBC video that I have not seen anywhere except at the Top of the Ticket.

It speaks to the heart of how Palin relates to a special group of people.

Thanks for the email Andrew!

.

Who Is Joe The Plumber?

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 10:20 AM CDT

(Cartoon compliments of Americans for Limited Government)


During last night's Debate a name rang out, Joe the Plumber aka Joe Wurzelbacher and many wonder who the heck Joe the Plumber is.

He is you, he is me, he is every hard working American that has busted his butt in his chosen profession to the point where after years of working hard, he might finally be able to buy a plumbing business, hire people, and run his own company.

Why has his name popped up all of a sudden?

As we discussed yesterday, Joe Wurzelbacher managed to ask Barack Obama a question about Obama's tax plan and he directly asked him why a man like himself would be punished for his hard work and abilities under Obama's tax plan, to which Obama finally, publicly stated the words which capture the essence of who and what Obama is.

Obama said Joe's hard earned money would be taken so that Obama could "spread the wealth."

Joe isn't a rich man and has worked his whole life as a plumber, saved, paid his bills, and got himself in the position where he could buy his own business and if his business succeeds, Obama would raise his taxes to hand out to others that have not done as well as Joe.

Socialism.

After the presidential debate last night, Joe the plumber was questioned about Obama's responses to which he says that Obama does "a tap dance...almost as good as Sammy Davis, Jr."

Mr. Obama didn't win Mr. Wurzelbacher's support on Sunday, and he didn't change his mind last night.

He did allow, "Obama, you can't take away that he's a damn good speaker."

Overall, though, Mr. Wurzelbacher was pleased with Mr. McCain's performance.

"McCain was doing much better this time," he said. "McCain came across with some solid points. I like his tax cuts."

But he said Mr. Obama's health-care plan scares him.

"It's just one step closer to socialism," he said.

He said he hopes both candidates will talk about family and family values before the November election because he believes problems such as education and senior health care should come back to families taking care of each other. "Sense of family has to be brought back," Mr. Wurzelbacher said.

He added: "I believe there was too much emphasis put on me. The debate was more important."


Mr. Wurzelbacher is embarrassed that so much attention is being paid to him, but I disagree about people not being interested in him. He is representative of many Americans, not rich, not poor, just a hard working man that would suffer from Obama's Tax plan.

Fact is Joe is us, he is the hard working man or woman, considered middle class, that gets to a point in their lives when they can grab that brass ring and Obama's tax plan scares them because if they do the right thing, if they work hard enough, if they do a good enough job, they will succeed to the point where they will make enough for their "wealth to be spread around" to others who have not done the work.

ABC reports that Nightline's Terry Moran spoke to Joe Wurzelbacher:

"Joe The Plumber" has weighed in on Wednesday's presidential debate and he says that Barack Obama's tax plan "infuriates me."

"To be honest with you, that infuriates me," plumber Joe Wurzelbacher told Nightline's Terry Moran. "It's not right for someone to decide you made too much---that you've done too good and now we're going to take some of it back."

"That's just completely wrong," he added.


I think Joe's final words in that interview pretty much says it all.

"I don't like it. "You know, me or -- you know, Bill Gates, I don't care who you are. If you worked for it, if it was your idea, and you implemented it, it's not right for someone to decide you made too much."


.

America's Bright Future

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 04:20 AM CDT




Hope Personified


What was the purpose of this presidential debate?
Cross posted from Deb Hamilton's Right Truth

After watching the debate tonight between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama, I wondered just who this debate was for? Certainly this was not intended for Obama's supporters, they are hardcore behind him. If this little face-to-face was for the moderates and independents, or the former Hillary supporters, surely they have already made up their minds and nothing said tonight swayed their votes.

That only leaves the 'undecided' voters to entice and if any eligible American voter is undecided at this late date, I have to question their intelligence. Early voting started today, people are already casting their votes. Come on, people know who they are going to vote for.

How did John McCain do tonight? The answer lies in the battle of the metaphors: "McCain got to the plate, but didn't hit a home run." "McCain kept jabbing, but landed no punches." "McCain took the fight to Obama, but he didn't follow through."

John McCain did better in this debate than he has done in any other. At least he brought up some questions about Obama's past, his allies, his plan to increase government, tax everybody to death, hand out taxpayers money (spread the wealth) to those who don't pay taxes and others, and McCain even told Obama he was not George W. Bush.

I have three questions that no polling has been done on: One, how many McCain voters are casting a vote FOR McCain? Two, how many McCain voters are casting votes for Gov. Sarah Palin? Three, how many McCain voters are casting votes AGAINST Obama?

If Barack Obama wins this election, which is still not a certainty by any means, or even if McCain wins, I believe this will be the beginning of a new, strong, growing Conservative movement gathered behind folks like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and many others who have risen to the top during this 2008 election process.

It takes time for the cream to rise to the top -- that time begins now !

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A note from Radarsite: Wow! This is such a heartening article. Thank you Debbie. What a bright and optimistic vision. And it's something that makes sense. More than anything I've read lately, this gives us some real solid hope for the future. For those of us who work full time on these issues, this has been a grueling and at times disheartening journey. There have been times when our future really has seemed bleak, as though this great nation of ours is determined to self-destruct.
But with this short essay of yours you have reignited the flame. More than at any time in recent history this fateful election has brought us American conservatives together. We have become centered and focused. We have become aware of ourselves and our mission. We believe in our mission. We are not "right-wingers", as some liberals would have people believe, we are simply patriotic Americans who refuse to surrender all that is fine and good about our great country to those who despise this nation and everything it stands for.

Do the leftists really believe that if their slippery candidate actually wins this election we are just going to go away? Hell no! If anything we will be more vocal, more inspired and more focused. We will be the relentless conscience of America. We will be watching their every move and reporting on it truthfully. And in the process we will be getting stronger and stronger.

We have bemoaned the absence of real leaders coming out of these elections, but we have forgotten our Sarah Palins and Bobby Jindals, and a whole host of other true American patriots we still have to rally around. Your wonderful post has reinvigorated my flagging spirits. I truly believe that there is still hope out there for us and for our great country.

We have clearly defined ourselves in this great battle. We are the moral opposition. We are beyond the confines of labels, beyond the confines of words like Republican or Conservative. We have defined ourselves by our united opposition to those who would change the whole character and purpose of America. We have defined ourselves by our moral standards. Rock-solid moral standards steeped in our great Judeo/Christian traditions. We oppose changing our whole value system just to accommodate the amorality of small militant groups of vocal minorities. We will not allow our cherished Judeo/Christian values to be expunged from our schools and our civic life: these are the values we live by. We will not embrace the latest redefinitions of marriage or families to suit the needs of those few for whom fairness and tolerance just aren't enough. We will not allow our schools to become breeding grounds for little amoral leftists. We will not allow homosexuals, lesbians or transgenders to change our social structure to suit their agenda. We will not allow them to advocate or promote these alternative lifestyles to our children in our schools. We believe that they must accommodate themselves to our traditional values, not the other way around.

We will not allow America to become a Socialistic Welfare state. We will not allow illegal aliens to subsume our American culture into theirs. We will not allow the naked evil of Islam to take over our country and we will fight them tooth and nail at every turn.

In short, we have become aware of ourselves and of our shared morality. And the left hates us for this. And their hatred gives us strength. Despite their ludicrous claims of patriotism, we see them for the devious hypocrites that they are. We truly do love America, we love her for what she is now and for what she always has been. We will apologize to no one, to no country, or group of countries for our integrity and our success.

Thank you again Debbie for this wonderful rallying cry. The more the American people begin to understand what the alternatives are, the stronger we will become

God bless America. - rg.

Live Blogging The Third Presidential Debate With Obama and McCain- Reminder

Posted: 15 Oct 2008 07:15 PM CDT

A little reminder here at the top of the page, to visit out Live Blogging URL tonight and interact with members from multiple blogs. The Live Blog is being run by WUA contributor Jay, who also owns and runs the Stop The ACLU blog and above the live blog where everyone can participate there will also be a live stream of the whole debate from Hulu.

Other readers from blogs such as PoliGazette will be joining in and everyone will be participating in the live event by leaving comments and interacting with each other.

Presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama starting at 9 p.m. EDT/6 p.m. PDT Wednesday.

URL:

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/10/live-blog-live-stream-election-08-third.html

Join the fun!!!

.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner: 'Thousands could lose their right to vote'

Posted: 15 Oct 2008 06:58 PM CDT

Why could thousands upon thousands of people lose their right to vote? Because Brunner was just ordered by the the 6th circuit full panel of judges to comply with the law, something she has been trying to fight having to do and the 6th also told her straight up she was violating federal election laws.... we wrote about this earlier, but things have just gotten a whole lot more complicated because of this Democratic politicians attempt to violate federal election laws.

ACE of Spades is all over this story, so I will do a quick rundown but you have to follow the links...we are talking almost 200,000 registrants here.

More than 200,000 Ohioans who registered to vote this year for the first time or updated their voting information since Jan. 1 could be affected by the latest court ruling requiring the state to set up a new registration verification system by Friday, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said.

Brunner said she would comply with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling late Tuesday but said she is deeply concerned that the decision is a veiled attempt at disenfranchising voters.

The court's 9-6 opinion, written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, suggested that voters whose driver's license number or Social Security number does not exactly match those found on databases maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or Social Security Administration could be required to use provisional ballots instead of conventional ones.

"The thing that concerns me is that Judge Sutton indicated that these mismatched names could be subjected to provisional voting and nowhere in [Help America Vote Act] is that the case. The Help America Vote Act is really not meant to be used to disenfranchise or to help determine voter eligibility," Brunner said in an interview today.

"Essentially that provision of HAVA is basically supposed to maintain voter registration databases," she said. "It is not for determining voter eligibility. The interpretation that seems to be coming from at least that particular judge takes HAVA and uses it as a means to exclude voters from a regular ballot. That is a concern."

The full 6th Circuit's opinion overturned the decision of a three-judge panel at the federal court last week and restored the ruling announced last week by U.S. District Court Judge George C. Smith.

Since Jan. 1, Ohio has 666,000 newly registered or updated voters -- all of whom fall under scrutiny by this latest court ruling. Brunner said an initial review found that at least 200,000 of them might have mismatched information. Once the office identifies all of the mismatched voters, Brunner will send the list to the county boards of election where the individuals have registered.

But state Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett said Brunner's decision to not implement the verification system sooner without the court forcing her to do so has cost county boards of election valuable time reining in examples of fraud.

"Unfortunately, her delay in providing this matching system leaves little time for election officials to act on questionable registrations," Bennett said in a statement. "Secretary Brunner should immediately issue a new directive providing clear guidance on how the boards should handle the mismatched voter data."


Ace also points everyone to Malkin who has found something equally disturbing, like people allowing ON Ohio residents to list their addresses as their own so they could cast fraudulent Obama votes.

Ace's Update:

UPDATE: Young Obama cultists signing up to vote in whatever swing state The One needs them to -- even having no connection to the state whatsoever. Apart from an in-state friend willing to claim, Oh, sure, all 50 of you live in my hovel.

There's a goddamned website facilitating this fraud -- telling you who is willing to claim you live in their house, and which states you should be fraudulently signing up to vote in.

FBI? Hello? FBI?




More from Dispatch Politics on the goings on in Ohio, which have reached the level of simply ridiculous.

Follow all the links, believe me, you will be shaking your head when you are done.

How on earth did Brunner think she was going to get away with this?

.

Michelle Obama and African Press Update

Posted: 15 Oct 2008 06:09 PM CDT


Many of you are familiar with Jeff Schreiber's site, America's Right. Jeff has closely followed Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's citizenship.

It appears that Jeff has been corresponding with Jerome Corsi, a WorldNetDaily Senior Staff Reporter, and author of The Obama Nation. You may recall that Dr. Corsi was recently arrested and held in Kenya while investigating Barack Obama's relationship with Kenya's Prime Minister, Raila Odinga. That, of course, is another story.

Here's the update. Corsi has been in touch with African Press International (API) regarding the validity of an article API posted online quoting Michelle Obama. Depending on your point-of-view, the alleged quotes by Michelle Obama were not the kind of rhetoric you would expect from a soon-to-be-maybe, First Lady.

The shorter story is that API, in the emails below, is telling Jerome Corsi that they will post audio of the telephone conversation online within the next few days.

There's more to this, including Corsi's emails to API and Jeff Schrieber's conversation with Corsi, not to mention everything available about Berg v. Obama. Please visit
America's Right.

*****

Email No. 1
From: African Press International (API)
Subject: Re: J.Corsi on Michelle Obama story
To: [Address Blocked]
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 11:53 AM

I want to thank you for your email.

API hereby confirms to you that the story is true and if the huge interest on this particular story continues, we will post the recording on our website in the next immediate days.

When we published the story we did not intend to cause any chaos but we are shocked by the huge interest the story is receiving from the Americans and the American Media.

Mrs Obama called us just to ask API to stop joining the mainstream hate online media that is trying to destroy her husband's opportunity to get the presidency.

Our editorial will sit today and agree on how to release the information that will verify the story.

Very many media outlets are asking us to email them the recording but we think the best way to satisfy all at once is by publishing it on our website and people can retrieve it themselves.

We understand the urgency this may have but it is important for us that we do it right so that we do not land into problems with Obama's just like you did while in Kenyan recently.

Yours Sincerely,

Chief Editor Korikr


Email No. 2
From: African Press International (API)
Subject: Re: J.Corsi on Michelle Obama story
To: [Address Blocked]
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 12:57 PM

To Jerome Corsi,

We do not want to be misunderstood. We are not out to stop Obama from capturing the presidency.

We are not here to prove to people the story, but we will give proper verification so that people will understand that the story is true.

Soon, when we come with more information on the site, those who doubt the story will be surprised why Mrs Obama would choose to talk to us and not other media outlets.

We will bring out information on how she was connected to us, how she was convinced her story was safe with us and why she trusted API. And who introduced her to those who contacted API first before she personally took contact in an effort to ensure that API does not publish things on her husband that may be seen to be harmfull.

If we start dishing out audio to media outlets, we will be misunderstood. We do not want people to think that we published the story in order to spoil Obama's chances to become the president.

Those who are contacting you demanding that the story should be verified now, should be directed by your media to check our website in the next day or two. All the information will be made available, but we must do it carefully.

Regards,

Chief Editor Korir
API


End API emails

As I said in an earlier post, this whole thing is, indeed, odd. It would be odd for Michelle Obama to make a phone call like this. It's also odd that only the campaign is denying this, and not Michelle Obama. I don't where the truth lies.

I do know, however, that the Obama's make it very difficult to know anything for certain, about them, including the status of his citizenship

Live Blog, Live Stream- Election '08: Third Presidential Debate

Posted: 15 Oct 2008 04:00 PM CDT

Live Blogging The Third Presidential Debate

Hulu is offering a live stream of the complete presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama (courtesy of our friends at Fox) starting at 9 p.m. EDT/6 p.m. PDT Wednesday.



I have never used the Hulu embed before tonight, but I will be monitoring it to make sure that readers are offered everything live.

Feel free discuss the full debate as it is happening.

Thanks to Hulu for offering this service.

Update: This is Jay, Susan's co-blogger from Stop the ACLU. I'll be liveblogging tonight and you can join in via the nifty embed below. Its faster than the comment section section, but be patient. I do have to approve comments. We'll get started about 9 p.m.



Note from Hulu:

Too tied up to catch McCain and Obama live? We'll post the event in its entirety, along with clips and pre- and post-debate commentary, as soon as they become available following the live feed. You can find it all -- along with election-related standup and sketches -- on our Election '08 Spotlight page.

Enjoy the debate!!!!

.

Obama's ACORN Tree

Posted: 15 Oct 2008 03:28 PM CDT

Obama: "I've been fighting alongside Acorn on issues you care about my entire career…" (Steven Malanga, "Organizer In Chief," [New York] City Journal, Summer 2008)


With massive voter fraud investigations in 14 states, ACORN has become a household name these days with investigations being reported on every day, Mickey Mouse being registered to vote, ACORN bribing people with cigarettes and money to register 73 times, dead people being put on voter rolls because ACORN registered them, underage children (7 years old) being registered and pets receiving applications.... all this and more has been reported just in the last months.

At the bottom of this post there will be a link to all WUA's ACORN articles.

Now a new site helps every understand the Barack Obama connections with ACORN, set up with a family tree named the Obama ACORN tree, found here.



When you click on the individual areas they explain the Obama connections in an easy to read and follow manner.

Go. Visit. See for yourself how closely tied to Obama this organization and their illegal activities are.

More details on the Barack Obama/Acorn connection found at BarackBook.


Previously at WUA about ACORN.

.

A Pre- Election Message to my Readers

Posted: 15 Oct 2008 02:17 PM CDT


I just made the mistake of deleting an objectionable comment. It was I believe from a certain "Larry". Larry it seems was very upset with me for continuing to write about the Berg v. Obama suit. Berg, according to our commenter Larry is a "Truther", by which I assume he means a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. He was so upset over my wasting my time -- all of our time -- covering this worthless story that he let me know that he was taking me off his Daily Read List. Immediately after receiving this crushing admonishment I received the url from Susan Duclos on her breaking story of a similar major suit being brought against the State of Washington for essentially the same reasons: allegedly allowing a unqualified candidate to run for President of the United States.

So there you have it. Even more people are now it appears wasting their valuable time over this non-issue. What are we to make of these wildly divergent opinions on the merits of this case? It certainly isn't going away, is it? In fact, despite the most valiant efforts of the naysayers to discredit it and dismiss it, it seems to be growing more formidable every day. I wonder why? I wonder why Mr. Obama would put himself and all of us through this long torturous ordeal when all he has to do is produce a simple document to make it, and us, all go away?

So, to all those disgruntled Larry's out there who are writing in to tell us how we are wasting our time on useless causes I will say this. For me, and many others like myself, the Berg story is extremely important. I don't care if he believes in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth fairy, if he or his case can hurt Obama's chances of ever getting hold of the reins of power to this vulnerable nation of ours I say go for it and go for it big. And don't let up for an instant. Yes, Berg is important and Acorn is important and Ayers is important and Dorhn is important and Rezko is important, and anyone anywhere out there who can help us to discredit this abomination of a candidate is important. These are the only weapons we have at our disposal. We are almost hopelessly outnumbered by delusional fools and a hopelessly biased media. We must use whatever we have at hand and hope that something sticks, something that could actually bring this evil Socialistic charlatan down . Something to make certain that he and his hate-spewing wife never ever set foot in the White House.
Between now and November 4 I will relentlessly pursue any scandal or whiff of scandal with all of my energy. I will beat the public over their heads with every new and old scandal that comes out of the woodwork until they see the light of the truth, or until I am arrested.

You say you're dismayed because I made common cause with someone of whom you do not approve. Well, my eager critic, know that I would eagerly make common cause with far worse than the controversial Atty Berg if I thought it would help to bring Barack Obama down.

How dare you presume to judge me. I have worked 13-14 hours a day, 7 days a week for months now just for this one single cause -- to defeat Barack Hussein Obama, and I have no intentions of slowing down. Not even if you take me off your Daily Read List.

All we can do at this point is put it all out there, all of the outrageous crimes and scandals and hope beyond hope that one of them, just one of them sticks, and that he is destroyed. For there is no other way, no other course. It's either him or us. Either Obama or America. Despair or hope. So either help us or get the hell out of the way. - rg


.

Obama: 'The government is going to make you “spread the wealth around.”

Posted: 15 Oct 2008 01:07 PM CDT

(Cartoon compliments of Americans for Limited Government)


Family Security Matters has interviewed the plumber, Joe Wurzelbacher, who asked Barack Obama a question, which he explains in an exclusive interview with FSM:

Initially, I started off asking him if he believed in the American Dream and he said yes, he does – and then I proceeded to ask him then why he's penalizing me for trying to fulfill it. He asked, "what do you mean," and I explained to him that I'm planning on purchasing this company – it's not something I'm gonna purchase outright, it's something I'm going to have to make payments on for years – but essentially I'm going to buy this company, and the profits generated by that could possibly put me in that tax bracket he's talking about and that bothers me. It's not like I would be rich; I would still just be a working plumber. I work hard for my money, and the fact that he thinks I make a little too much that he just wants to redistribute it to other people. Some of them might need it, but at the same time, it's not their discretion to do it – it's mine.


Obama's answer to Mr. Wurzelbacher:

"It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have a chance at success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody."


Here is the YouTube video of the exchange where Obama told this hard working man that plans to b uy his own business, why he plans to take his hard fought earnings away from him, like some modern day Robin Hood.

Video Below:



Jake Tapper at ABC has more about the while exchange.

Joe Wurzelbacher, in his interview with Family Security Matters, has some thoughts on this "spread the wealth" around, redistribution of wealth idea that Obama has been pushing.

PM: So a potential tax increase – how do you see that affecting your ability to hire more people to work with you at your company?

JW: Obviously these are hypothetical questions to a degree because I don't know what the economy is going to do…

PM: Of course.

JW: Essentially what that would do is, I'd have to see how much money is available after everything else is paid, to see if I can one, afford a new vehicle, two, outfit it, and then three, pay a good salary. And if I'm being taxed too much, one of those three things is going to get shorted. One, I won't be able to buy as good a good vehicle or I won't stock it as well, or the guy I hire – if I'm able to hire somebody – is not going to make as much as he should.

PM: Obama gave you quite a long answer, I see, on Jake Tapper's blog on ABC News. He did give you quite an extensive answer to your question talking about a 50% tax credit for healthcare costs, that sort of thing, and he talked about the reason he's doing this – saying 95% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year. He talked about your time as a plumber– you said you've been a plumber for 15 years?

JW: Yes.

PM: Okay, and then he talked about 10, 15 years ago maybe you weren't making that sort of money, how would you feel – if you were just starting out, or maybe looking back – the kind of tax cut that he's promising for other people, does that still make you think that that's a great idea?

JW: No. See, I believe in working for what I get. I don't want to say it's a handout, but essentially that's what it comes down to. You're going to tax someone else more that's been working hard to fulfill the American Dream and you're gonna give it to other people who – I'm not saying they don't work as hard, but I'm sure some of them don't – and I don't think it's right just to give it to them or reduce taxes on their part and hike it up on my part like a teeter totter to bring it back even. So no, that wouldn't – well, let me rephrase that. It would appeal to me because back then I was struggling. That kind of thing appeals to me – anybody wants to cut my taxes, I look at it very seriously, it's like, it sounds great. But you gotta see what the other hand is doing too.

PM: Still, in that vein, Obama says he doesn't want to "punish" you, but he wants to – let me see if I can see what his exact quote was…

JW: Redistribute the wealth.

PM: …taxing small businesses making $250,000 and above is going to help the people "behind you." And yes, "spreading the wealth around." How did you feel about that?

JW: As soon as he said it, he contradicted himself. He doesn't want to "punish" me, but – when you use the word "but," you pretty much negate everything you just said prior to that. So he does want to punish me, he does want to punish me for working harder to – you know, my big thing is the American Dream. I work hard. You know, I was poor; my mom raised me and my brother by herself for a very long time until my dad came along. So I know what it's like to suffer. It's not like I was born with a silver spoon. Usually it was a wooden spoon and it was on my butt. It was just a contradiction of terms, what he said: he doesn't want to punish me but he wants to redistribute my wealth. And what I mean when I say my wealth, I mean the collective. Eventually – I mean, just to sound a little silly here, but you need rich people. I mean, who are you going to work for?

PM: Do you fear this is the possibility of America turning more down the socialist road if Obama does become elected and if he is able to implement these policies?

JW: Very much so. You start giving people stuff, and then they start expecting it – and that scares me. A lot of people expect it now. They get upset when their check's late, they get upset when they don't get as many benefits as they used to, or when different government agencies are cut or spending is cut here and there for whatever reason – people get upset at that. And that's because they're used to getting it and they want more. I mean, everyone's always gonna want more. People work the system left and right to get more out of welfare, to get more out of state assistance, federal assistance. And if government's there for them, they're gonna keep on trying to manipulate it to get more out of it. You got people that come along and say, "Hey, I wanna help you people," I mean, they're all ears! They're like, "Hey, you can help me more, I don't have to work as hard, I don't have to do as much, and you're gonna give me this? Man, that's great, you're a good guy."

So yeah, it goes down the socialist – His healthcare plan scares me. You know, I don't like people going without healthcare, but it's not my job to pay for everyone else's healthcare. It's hard enough paying for my own. I like the idea of deregulation as far as – nationally, you know, you only get insurance companies that can work in this state – if you deregulate that then you have more people competing and then the prices would go lower. It seems pretty simple to me. It probably isn't that simple – but you flood the market with more products, usually they go down cheaper.
There is much more to the interview so head over to FSM and read the entire thing. These are the type of business men and women, people who have worked hard to get where they are, are planning to expand, and whom Barack Obama would "tax" aka "steal" their hard fought for profits, to give to others in his "redistribution" plan.

Socialism at it's core and people like Mr. Wurzelbacher is one of the millions of Americans Barack Obama would take from to give to others.

Hardworking men that provide for their families are the ones that Barack Obama would "punish" for being hard working, while handing their money to others.

Yeah, that is change you can believe in alright.

This and many more reasons is why hundreds of Economists are opposing Barack Obama's economic plan?

.

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.