Tuesday, 21 October 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

Video- Sarah Palin In Colorado

Posted: 21 Oct 2008 12:49 PM CDT

The beginning of the video below is John McCain discussing Joe Biden's comments yesterday when he said that if Barack Obama was elected, within six months there would be an "international crisis" and people wouldn't be happy with how Barack Obama handled it.

50 seconds into the video, it shows Sarah Palin speaking to a large crowd in Colorado, where she discusses Barack Obama's socialism plans for America.

The crowd loves her and she received an amazing response when she pointed out "we are all Joe".


Palin Gives Obama A Nickname: 'Barack the Wealth Spender'

Posted: 21 Oct 2008 10:23 AM CDT

I love it.

Sarah Palin added a little something into her stump speech, something we mentioned yesterday after reading a piece at the NRO, about "Phil the bricklayer", "Rose the teacher" and hundreds of other people that identify with "Joe the Plumber".

Long story short for those that somehow missed the talk of who Joe The Plumber is, his name is Joe Wurzelbacher and when Barack Obama came to his street, his driveway, Joe asked Obama a simple question about his tax plan, to which Obama made the comment heard around the world in saying "spread the wealth" which means income redistribution.

Now at Rallies, people are all showing up, plumbers, construction workers, teachers and bricklayers as well as hundreds of other occupations, all wondering why Obama's answer wasn't spoken about by the media, but instead they all attacked "Joe" for asking the question.

Caught up? Good.

In that NRO piece yesterday, another name came up, Tito Munoz, a Colombian immigrant who came here and built his American dream. Tito was noticed at a recent rally when he took on the media angrily about their behavior toward Joe, their savaging him for daring ask Obama a question.

Sarah Palin noticed Tito as well it seems and she had some things to say about him.

Palin revealed the new moniker at an outdoor rally in Grand Junction, Colorado, where she also introduced a new working-class hero into the ever-expanding pantheon of "Joe the plumber"-types who oppose to Obama's tax plan.

His name? Tito Munoz, christened by Palin as "Tito the builder."

The McCain campaign discovered Munoz on Saturday at a rally in Woodbridge, Virginia, where the Colombian-born construction worker took on a group of reporters for digging into Joe Wurzelbacher's background after the Toledo-based plumber questioned Obama's proposal to raise taxes on workers making over $250,000 a year.

Munoz's stand against the media was detailed by Byron York on the web site of the National Review magazine, and Palin was eager to thrust the tale into the political spotlight.

"Tito is not pleased with how the Barack Obama campaign and some of the media friends there have been roughing up Joe the Plumber," Palin said, after accusing the Obama campaign of "investigating" Wurzelbacher's background.

"He has a question of his own, and Barack Obama is not going to like this one either. Tito wants to know, and I quote, he asked, 'Why the heck are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something greater. He wants to be something else. Why is that so wrong?'"

"Tito explained that he's an immigrant from Colombia and he also had this reminder for us," Palin continued. "He says, quote, 'Everything is possible in America. I made it.'"

The best part though is the nickname Palin now has given Barack Obama. "Barack the Wealth Spender", what an appropriate name too. The man that wants to take other peoples hard earned wealth and spread it around, spend it as he sees fit and hand it out like welfare to those that did not earn it.

LA Times is talking about Tito as well:

At a John McCain rally in Virginia on Saturday, Tito Munoz had come to face the enemy: the news media, which had declared war on Joe Wurzelbacher.

"Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber?" he yelled at a group of reporters, including my National Review colleague, Byron York. "Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. ... I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A."

Lest fools think Obama's plan is not to take from hard working Americans to hand out to those that did not earn it, here is his tax plan broken down for you, via the Wall Street Journal:

Titled "Obama Talks Nonsense on Tax Cuts"

Now, if you have been following this so far, you have learned that people who pay no income tax will get an income tax refund. You have also learned that this check will represent relief for the payroll taxes these people do pay. And you have been assured that this rebate check won't actually come out of payroll taxes, lest we harm Social Security.

You have to admire the audacity. With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul's tax relief. Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of "Making Work Pay."

Not everyone is persuaded. Andrew Biggs is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Social Security Administration official who has written a great deal about Mr. Obama's plans on his blog (AndrewBiggs.blogspot.com). He notes that to understand the unintended consequences, it helps to remember that while people at the bottom pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes, they are accruing benefits in excess of what they pay in.

"It's interesting that Mr. Obama calls his plan 'Making Work Pay,'" says Mr. Biggs, "because the incentives are just the opposite. By expanding benefits for people whose benefits exceed their taxes, you're increasing their disincentive for work. And you're doing the same at the top of the income scale, where you are raising their taxes so you can distribute the revenue to others."

Even more interesting is what Mr. Obama's "tax cuts" do to Social Security financing. As Mr. Biggs notes, had Mr. Obama proposed to pay for payroll tax relief out of, well, payroll taxes, his plan would never have a chance in Congress. Most members would look at a plan that defunded a trust fund that seniors are counting on for their retirement as political suicide.

And that leads us to the heart of this problem. If the government is going to give tax cuts to 44% of American based on their Social Security taxes -- without actually refunding to them the money they are paying into Social Security -- Mr. Obama will have to get the funds elsewhere. And this is where "general revenues" turns out to be a more agreeable way of saying "Other People's Money."

That is just the beginning of looking into the "fine print" of Barack Obama's so-called "tax cuts". He seems to think if he simply changes the name of what he is doing to make it "sound" pretty, people will actually believe him and run around repeating it.

Some idiots actually do too, so he is right in thinking certain folks are too stupid to read the plan and understand the illusion he has created is nothing more than an illusion.

All previous WUA pieces about Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher found here.


Reclaiming the Power of Hate: Revisited

Posted: 21 Oct 2008 07:08 AM CDT

Gayle Williams

A note from Radarsite: I am resurrecting this older article in response to two current developments. The first is the report by Holger Awakens of the brutal murder of a defenseless female Western Aid Worker [in photo above] in Afghanistan by the Taliban.
The second reason is to respond to the avalanche of outraged and indignant liberal commenters to my October in New England article cross posted to Susan Duclos' fine Wake Up America website.
Basically, October in New England attempts to address the liberals adamant refusal to acknowledge the existential threats that confront us, or to accept the premise that an Obama presidency is one of the worst of these threats. Interwoven into this premise is a refutation of the liberal concept of tolerating the intolerant. This is the offending paragraph:

Then I see another little sign, tacked up on a telephone pole. An innocuous little sign, weather beaten and torn at the edges -- it's been up there for quite a while now. "No room in this town for hate" it reads. And I shudder to myself. This is the sign that advertises our vulnerabilities and our weaknesses. This is what makes this beautiful little town of mine so friendly and pleasant and so blind to the steady encroachment of that other less friendly reality. We have no room here for hate. And without hate we are vulnerable to those who hate us. We are, this sign proclaims, a community determined to be tolerant and just. We are fair-minded and trusting. We don't just welcome the Other into our midst,we eagerly embrace them. And if you are different than us, we say, if your culture is different than ours, and if your values are different from ours, no matter, we will embrace you just the same. Our survival is secondary to our tolerance.

Here is one response:

I don't know what Sharia law and socialism have to do with what Roger was warning against. Does he mean that these are evils and that only hatred can protect us from them?

And another:

This post reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw recently..."All Fanatics Must Be Killed" it said...Apart from the hysterical thinking behind the idea that a Democratic administration won't care about protecting America, or that the public sector's role in responsible regulation of the economy is somehow equivalent to Stalinism I would point out that hate is always the product of fear. I refuse to live in fear, and it frankly saddens me to see how many Americans have chosen to do otherwise.There is nothing courageous or noble or useful about hatred; being able to defend ourselves depends on courage, foresight and thoughtfulness while hatred brings blindness, paralysis and violence. I wish more Americans would forget their hatred and embrace courage.

And here is a short exchange with a commenter to that original article:

All hate is self hate.
Mr. Golyadkin 12.04.07 - 11:33 pm #


Sounds pretty catchy Mr. G., but it just ain't true.
Hate is not always some sort of psychological transference of a self-destructive impulse. It's not always a sign of moral sickness or weakness.

Hate is a legitimate emotion, like love or fear, and sometimes, under certain circumstances, it's quite appropriate. Sometimes, as I tried to point out in that article, it's even essential as a source of strength.

I'm sorry, but if an enemy hates you enough to want to kill you, and is attempting to do just that, clever words like yours just won't help us.

It would be wonderful to live in a world where hate was unnecessary, but I'm afraid we're not quite there yet. And until we are, hate is a weapon we still need in our arsenal. You can not win a battle against people you merely dislike; your lack of passion will be your downfall.

Save your pacifist wisdom for a battle against other pacifists. Against naked aggression your lofty sentiments are useless.
Roger W. Gardner Homepage 12.05.07 - 2:09 am #


This I believe has become a truly crucial topic, perhaps even more critical today than when this article was first written over a year ago. To put oneself in the position of promoting hatred, violence and war is certainly not a way of winning any popularity contests. But, unfortunately, the problems addressed in these essays are not just going to go away because we find them unpleasant to deal with; if anything, they have become even more pertinent and deadly.

At the very core of this monumental debate is the concept that we are presently in a war, a war for our very existence. If you still doubt the validity of this basic premise, if you still honestly believe that this recent Taliban murder of this innocent and defenseless young aid worker is just an aberration, an unfortunate episode that should be addressed as an isolated criminal act; that the proper response to this criminal act should be some form of formal diplomatic indignation; if you still believe that the threats posed to our nation by unchecked Muslim immigration and the slow, subtle but undeniable infiltration of sharia law into our American judicial system; and that the gradual Socialization of America and the accompanying inevitable loss of our national sovereignty are merely the twin bogeymen of right-winger conspiracies, then there is probably no point in reading further.

If, however, this particular Afghan murder of this particular young woman makes your blood boil and pushes you beyond outrage and indignation; if you see this great nation of ours slipping away from us; and all of the core values upon which this great and noble experiment was founded being eroded, undermined and displaced; if you feel, as I do, that within a very short span of time our national resolve will be tested in ways which today may be inconceivable; and that we are in so many ways increasingly vulnerable and imperilled, then please read on. - rg

Incredible: Murtha Unhinged - Racists and Rednecks

Posted: 21 Oct 2008 01:04 AM CDT

I try and stay away from writing about John Murtha because every time I do, I feel soiled and violated and no matter how much I scrub and no matter how many times I shower, the filth doesn't seem to be gone. The man is a lout and he disgusts me and besmirches the names of the Troops all for the Almighty Political Power.

He destroyed the lives and the careers of eight of his "fellow" Marines for political expediency and he is one of the subjects in my research in my quest to expose the Dems and Terrorists Syndrome or, DTS. All but one Marine have been exonerated and hopefully the last one will also be cleared...he was once but someone is now trying to save face. Pathetic.

Anyway, we have all heard by now that he made the claim that Western Pennsylvania was a racist area namely because Obama is doing poorly there and since he made that statement, Barack began to fair worse. Murtha then went on and said that he really didn't mean what he said. He is a typical member of the Leftinistra and as Jim O'Neill stated in his article at Canada Free Press in regards to Obama, Murtha is now in the SOP mode by conducting himself as follows: "Obfuscate, misdirect, and downplay all dangerous questions, but most importantly, simply deny." Murtha is in the OWM...Official Waffle Mode. It isn't working.

Murtha canceled the scheduled debate with his opponent LTC William Russell, of whom Cyber Pastor and myself had lunch with him in DC during a Vets For Freedom event. I also accompanied, by invitation, LTC Russell and at least two Haditha Marines to Murtha's office in DC. At first, he wasn't there but then we learned he was there and did not have the time to visit with his constituents but later on had the time to meet with Code Skank. The man, and I use that term very loosely, is a coward. I was there when LTC Russell issued the Debate Challenge to one of Murtha's "helpers" there in his office and heard for myself that "Rep Murtha always puts the Troops first".

All of us in the group mentioned that we are the Troops and we didn't see it that way.

Now, in light of his political cowardice of not visiting with his constituents that oppose his standings and will meet with constituents and non-constituents that agree with him, and having lied about the Haditha non-Massacre, and calling his constituents racists and then "un-calling" them that, he cancels his debate with LTC Russell. And now...and now the worthless toad Murtha has come out and shot himself in the foot one more time. His district is now not racists but they are rednecks.

From Saleno Zito of the Forty-Fourth Estate:
On the heels of telling the Pittsburgh Tribune Review that racism would play into the vote in Western Pennsylvania for president next month, Rep. Jack Murtha told local Pittsburgh television station WTAE that it's difficult for many in the area to change, saying just five to 10 years ago the entire area was "redneck."

You have to wonder how residents of Pennsylvania like the descriptive phrases that have been piled on in the past few months. First, it was bitter and God and gun clinging, then it was racist, now they are rednecks.

In an interview with reporter David Brown at the Trib today, John McCain took exception to the "good people in Western Pennsylvania' being framed as racists.

"I'm going to tell people in Western Pennsylvania that I don't believe they are racists, as Congressman Murtha alleges," said McCain, in the interview. He called the comment "disgraceful." Murtha, a Johnstown Democrat, has apologized for the racist comments.

Murtha last week said that a racist mindset in Western Pennsylvania could cost Obama as much as four percentage points at the polls.

"Congressman Murtha made inexcusable statements. I'm glad he apologized but that's the nature of Congressman Murtha," McCain said. "Why anybody would say that about the good people in Western Pennsylvania or anywhere else in America is utterly inexcusable."

No word on McCain's feelings about rednecks.
Well, I know how he feels about it and so does everyone else. Murtha doesn't and Murtha is in a panic. Nothing will please me more than watching Murtha pack his crap and move out of DC.

The following are articles, pieces and posts I have read to develop the above post and no authors were injured in the development:

Vets 4 Russell, Weasel Zippers, Pat Dollard, CEM, Ace, CR, NB, BF, MM, GP, Ace, HA, TCB, PL, drillanwr,

Yid With Lid wrote this a while back in regards to Murtha...
"You can wipe the rest of your life Mister, you will never wipe off that yellow stain"-Caine Mutiny

At the end of the Caine Mutiny, Jose Ferrer delivers that classic line as he flings a glass of champagne into Fred McMurray's face. The reason for the outburst was McMurray's character's cynicism.

It is not often that one can call a former US Marine a COWARD, but John Murtha fits that bill. He is a disgrace to congress, but even worse, he is a disgrace to that uniform that he once wore. Not only did he commit slander against US Troops in Iraq saddling them with false massacre charges but he also called his constituents RACISTS. Now he is refusing to debate his challenger, Army Lt. Col. Bill Russell: [...]
Bingo and Roger That.

More at Pittsburgh News with video here...and the Power Line post linked above is gathering data that may be pointing to a LTC Russell win over Murtha, Saints be Praised!

Banks In Colorado And Oklahoma Receive Letters With White Powder

Posted: 20 Oct 2008 06:03 PM CDT

Nine or ten banks in two states have received letters containing a white powder which caused a flurry of activity with evacuations and even a couple people being taken to the hospital for testing as a precaution.

Preliminary testing has shown the white powder is not toxic.

9News.com says nine banks, yet ABC7 News says it is ten banks in the two states.

Some of the banks were closed and evacuated as police and Hazmat crews were called in to investigate and decontaminate.

The Chase Bank in Arapahoe County was inside an Albertson's grocery store. After a suspicious package was found at that bank, the entire store was evacuated, police said.

In Oklahoma, two Chase bank branches in Oklahoma City and one in Norman, Okla., also received threatening letters with white powder, the FBI said.

FBI spokeswoman Kathy Wright in Denver said investigators believe the incidents are related.

Mary Jane Rogers, a spokeswoman for JP Morgan Chase & Co. in Phoenix, said bank officials are cooperating with the FBI and local police in both states.

The bank released the following statement: "Several branches in Colorado and Oklahoma received threatening letters, some with suspicious powder. The branches are in Metro Denver, Oklahoma City and Norman, Oklahoma areas. There are no reported injuries but some employees did request to be examined by a doctor. We take these threats seriously and are working closely with law enforcement."

From 9News:

All of the banks that were sent the letters were Chase Bank branches.

No one has been taken to the hospital according to Mary Jane Rogers, JP Morgan Chase spokesperson. She says some bank locations were evacuated, but did not have an exact number.

The FBI has also confirmed it has responded to two Chase Bank locations in Denver, and one each in Centennial, Westminster, Lakewood and Arvada. The FBI says all banks were closed for decontamination as a precaution.

Two banks in Oklahoma City also recieved the letters and another in Norman, Okla. also got a letter.

Denver Fire Department confirmed to 9NEWS that one of the affected banks is the Chase Bank located near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Colorado Blvd.

Denver Fire says an employee at that branch found the powder when he opened a letter.

In Westminster, an employee at the branch near 94th and Sheridan opened a letter just before 2 p.m. on Monday. The Westminster Fire Department says 17 people were held while a Hazmat team tested the powder. A test revealed it was harmless and they were released. The FBI took a sample of the substance.

In Arvada, the fire department says the letter was sent to the branch at 80th and Kipling. They determined it was a type of calcium powder and was not hazardous.

The West Metro Fire Department says they responded to a bank at Colorado Mills Mall.

The Cunningham Fire Department says they responded to a bank at Smoky Hill and Buckley just after 1 p.m. The powder there was determined to be not hazardous and the crews left the scene by 4 p.m.

Lutheran Hospital says its emergency room went into lockdown temporarily on Monday afternoon after two people from one of the banks were taken there to get checked out. The lockdown was standard procedure and only lasted for about 35 minutes while the two people were decontaminated.

Rogers says in addition to working with the FBI, JP Morgan Chase is also working with U.S. Postal Inspection Services.

More at Reuters but I am not seeing anything about the language of what is being called the "threatening" letters.

Rogers said Chase would not release the total number of banks affected until they were sure all the letters had been found.

"We immediately called the FBI and Postal Inspection Service to handle the matter and ensure the safety of our customers and employees," Rogers said.

She did not know the contents of the letters or if they contained return addresses.

At least it was a false alarm but shutting down banks like this is definitely worrisome especially with the number of banks this happened to.

6 of the banks and locations have been released as:

Denver -- 3300 Colorado Blvd.
Denver -- 1760 16th St.
Lakewood -- 1400 W. Colfax
Arvada -- 8015 Kipling St.
Arapahoe County -- 16746 E. Smoky Hill Road
Westminster -- 94th and Sheridan


Reader Generated 'I am Joe, McCain/Palin' Sign

Posted: 20 Oct 2008 04:41 PM CDT

Reader Susan Bailey, graphic artist has created a sign saying "I am Joe" and underneath of it "McCain/Palin" and has kindly offered it to WUA so that readers can use it if they wish.

(Click to enlarge)

Anyone that wishes the PDF forwarded to them, just email wakeupamerica.spree@gmail.com and put "I am Joe" sign as the subject and I will email it to you.

Susan Bailey, thank you for making the sign and offering it.


Joe Biden:If Obama Is Elected There Will Be A International Crisis

Posted: 20 Oct 2008 02:19 PM CDT

I guess we now know why Palin is more accessible to the press than Biden and Obama is, he simply destroys Obama whenever he opens his mouth.

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Biden warns everyone to "gird their loins."

My heavens, Biden just gave everyone one perfect reason for why it is dangerous to vote for him to be president.

Voting Obama in will increase our risk for an "incident" and his inexperience will guarantee that folks will not agree with his handling of the predicted (by Biden no less) "crisis."

There is a hundred different things I could say to this, but let us look at a few reactions from around the web.

Hot Air:

Isn't this an argument for electing someone with more experience? Why should we elect a man who will embolden our enemies and push us to the brink of disaster? Biden seems convinced that electing John McCain will make our enemies abroad much less sanguine about provoking us — which is one of the best arguments yet heard for electing McCain.

Even worse, Biden admits that an Obama administration will likely fumble the ball. "It's not going to be apparent that we're right." Really? Why not? I'd say that Biden admits that Obama will deviate from long-held principles of American foreign policy and diplomacy, and expects to reap a whirlwind of disapproval because of that. Where will that be most likely to occur, given Obama's previous political alliances with people like Rashid Khalidi?

Let's not forget the example that Biden himself uses here. John Kennedy got tested because he met with Nikita Khrushchev with "no preconditions". Kennedy acknowledged afterwards that it was an "unmitigated disaster":

Commentary Magazine:

Biden is saying two things about an Obama presidency: first, that Obama will be tested by America's rivals; and second, that Obama's response to such a test will likely be unpopular with the American people. Presumably Biden does not believe that the reason for that unpopularity will be because Obama is too decisive or too tough with our enemies — it will be because Obama is perceived as too soft and indecisive in a crisis.

This is the moment when Biden is asking Obama supporters to "stand with him," even if he appears to be channeling Jimmy Carter. Biden says that it will not be "apparent initially that we're right." But does he think that the passage of time has vindicated Jimmy Carter?

Confederate Yankee:

Good grief.

Has any Vice President in U.S. electoral history ever made it more clear that his running mate is completely unfit for the office that he seeks?

And if Biden dosn't have faith in Obama, why should the rest of us?


Biden's statement is a prediction of the future and thus is subject to some uncertainty. Only time will tell, but surely Biden's is on solid ground with his prediction. Biden's prediction is thus what Michael Kinsley defines as a gaffe. According to Kinsley, a gaffe occurs "when a politician tells the truth." Kinsley has subsequently explained that "A gaffe is what happens when the spin breaks down."

Last year Kinsley himself accorded Biden the honor of his recognition for being the author of a Kinsley gaffe regarding Obama. Biden has now topped himself, as only Biden can, with a gaffe that constitutes a timely warning that deserves wide notice among the voting public.

Just One Minute

Oh, great - so per Biden, after Obama gets the 3 AM phone call we will all think he blew it. I deplore this negative, attack-oriented campaigning. C'mon, Joe, give me a reason to Go With O!

Hmm - people deplored similar fear-mongering from Hillary and Rudy. Seasons change.

Weekly Standard:

I don't think anyone has ever accused Joe Biden of being "fasely humble", but at least he has a high enough IQ to realize he ought to shut up after he saw a reporter in the back of the room: "I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here."

Then again, I probably shouldn't give Biden such a hard time. Perhaps he just helped sound the alarm for voters to take another look at Obama and let pre-election buyers' remorse set in. Is Obama really the one we want facing down these threats?

, who also has a portion of Biden's idiocy on video:

On the very same day that Colin Powell's endorsement supposedly calmed the nerves of those worried about Obama's foreign policy inexperience, running mate Joe Biden makes the counter-argument --- God love 'im:

The Jawa Report gets right to the heart of the issue:

Stunning in its stupidity....just freaking WOW!

Find more blog reaction at memeorandum.

Well, you might also notice when you click the memeorandum link that the liberals, the Obama supporters, are completely ignoring Biden's words, they are praying he and his big mouth will just go away.

First Obama tells "Joe the plumber" the truth about his plans for socialism and now Biden tells the truth in how dangerous an Obama presidency will be and that Obama's response to an "international crisis" won't be popular or even correct.

WOW, talk about making your opponents case for them!!!

Keep up the good work Joe, we luv ya!!!


They Are All 'Joe'

Posted: 20 Oct 2008 01:23 PM CDT

NRO has an article up that is a must read.

Phil the bricklayer, Rose the teacher, construction workers for McCain, all making the point, with their presence and their signs that they are "Joe".

Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber was visited by Barack Obama and dared ask him a question about his tax plan, Obama's answer included the phrase "spread the wealth" around showing his plans to bring socialism to America.

Boy did that cause a fuss and instead of looking into Obam's answer, the media, Obama supporters and Obama surrogates as well as Joe Biden and Barack Obama, decided that "savaging" Joe was a better way to spend their time.

The backlash can be seen at McCain rallies, with every day, hard working Americans, bringing signs showing that THEY ARE JOE!!!

Woodbridge, Va. — Tito Munoz was ready to rock when John McCain showed here up at the Connaughton Community Plaza in Woodbridge, Virginia Saturday afternoon. Dressed in a yellow hard hat covered with McCain-Palin stickers, wearing an orange high-visibility vest, Munoz carried a hand-lettered sign that said CONSTRUCTION WORKER FOR McCAIN. He got a coveted spot in the bleachers directly behind McCain, where he could be seen in the camera shot along with the guy holding the sign that said PHIL THE BRICK LAYER and the woman with the ROSE THE TEACHER banner. He cheered a lot.

Everybody was playing on the Joe-the-Plumber theme. McCain spent a lot of time on it in his stump speech, using the now-famous Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio, as a stand-in for "small businessmen and women all over America [who] want to keep their earnings and not give it to the government." McCain added that Obama's response to Wurzelbacher — the assertion that it would be best to "spread the wealth around" — made Joe the Plumber "the only person to get a real answer out of Sen. Obama."

Read the whole thing and while you are at it, take a look at someone else who identifies with "Joe", a Colombian immigrant, here legally, who is outraged to see Joe attacked and Obama's Ayers connection completely ignored by the media.

Munoz said he owned a small construction business. "I have a license, if you guys want to check," he said.

Someone asked why Munoz had come to the rally. "I support McCain, but I've come to face you guys because I'm disgusted with you guys," he said. "Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. . . . I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A."

The scene turned into a mini-fracas when David Corn, of Mother Jones, defended press coverage. Munoz was having none of it. Why, he asked, would the press whack Joe the Plumber when it didn't want to report on Obama's relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber? "How come that's not in the news all the time?" Munoz said. "How come Joe the Plumber is every second? I'm talking about NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN."A black woman with a strong Caribbean accent jumped in the fray. "Tell me," she said to Corn, "why is it you can go and find out about Joe the Plumber's tax lien and when he divorced his wife and you can't tell me when Barack Obama met with William Ayers? Why? Why could you not tell us that? Joe the Plumber is me!"

"I am Joe the Plumber!" Munoz chimed in. "You're attacking me."

I show Munoz's words because yesterday I wrote a piece saying "I am Joe" and it seems that others can identify with Joe as well, and they what I said they were feeling yesterday when I said:

Americans understand that it isn't the "rich" that was attacked when they went after Joe like dogs with a bone, it was an ordinary, hard working American that is being attacked.

It is them being attacked. It is you being attacked. It is me being attacked.

It is every American that wants to reach for that brass ring, buy a business, make it successful enough, by their own hard work, to earn over $250,000 and are scared that if they do so, if they work hard enough to accomplish their goal, Obama would take their hard earnings away from them and hand their money to someone who didn't earn it.

Yes, I am Joe, and folks, so are you.

How does it feel to be attacked and savaged?

Looks to me like Obama supporters, Obama, Biden and the media forgot that hard working, ordinary citizens of this great country can identify with Joe and they are not liking the attacks on him and they are standing up for him, against Obama and for John McCain.

All previous WUA pieces about Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher found here.


Michelle Obama - African Press Update 10/20/08

Posted: 20 Oct 2008 01:13 PM CDT

African Press International (API) has announced that Pennsylvania attorney, Philip Berg will represent API against expected lawsuits from Barack and Michelle Obama.

API claims that they have a tape recording of a telephone call Michelle Obama made to API. In that alleged phone call, API claims that MO made some astonishing statements. For background and for the specific alleged comments, go here and here.

In addition to apparently representing API against the Obama's, Philip Berg filed a suit in a Philadelphia court against Barack Obama, The Democrat National Committee (DNC) and the Federal Election Commision (FEC) for release of proof of Barack Obama's citizenship. This lawsuit is on-going. For a video update, go here.

API said the following in today's edition:

For us in API we wanted to get the tapes released - aired by a news channel that has a good reputation in the US, one that has listeners interested in the elections.

API is not interested in selling the tapes to any network. Our demand is that the tapes must be aired unedited by the network that we finally select.
API reports that an email is circulating (read it at the above link) saying API is looking for monetary bidders for the tape, which they strongly deny.

Well...Philip Berg is a feisty attorney. We'll see what this brings

Obama and Ayers Shared an Office for Three Years

Posted: 20 Oct 2008 12:53 PM CDT

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

William Ayers, Weather Underground
Photo credit: AP

Barack Obama's Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) office and William Ayers' Small Schools Workshop shared the same address for a number of years - three years that can be proven by tax returns.

Visit Jon at Verum Serum for a look at his verifying screen shots and updates on the monies directly distributed by Barack Obama through the CAC (more than previously known), and a note about the $750,000.00 given to John Ayers, William Ayers' father, from the coffers of the CAC.

Remember, Obama has faced the cameras and told the voters that Weather Underground terrorist, William Ayers, is just "a guy in the neighborhood." He lied, yet again. To Verum Serum, great reporting!

William Ayers writes about Barack Obama:
Michelle Malkin, courtesy of "ex-blogger," See-dubya, snagged a quote by Bill Ayers about THAT other guy in the neighborhood, Barack Obama. Here's the story:

You may remember that as Associate Dean of Student Services at University of Chicago, Michelle Obama hosted a 1997 panel discussion based on a book published that same year by William Ayers, The Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court.

State Senator Barack Obama was the only other panelist, and Obama was there in support of Ayers' position that juvenile offenders should not be placed into the adult prison system. Students were invited to attend the discussion.

Speaking of the Hyde Park area of Chicago, where the University of Illinois is located, Ayers says:
Our neighbors include Muhammad Ali, former mayor Eugene Sawyer, poets Gwendolyn Brooks and Elisabeth Alexander, and writer Barack Obama. Minister Louis Farrakhan lives a block from our home and adds, we think, a unique dimension to the idea of "safe neighborhood watch": the Fruit of Islam, his security force, has an eye on things twenty-four hours a day.
Then Ayers dishes about the urban blight surrounding his "safe neighborhood" and quotes Mike Nichols (I'm assuming this is the director, writer, producer, grad of the University of Chicago, and husband of ABC's Diane Sawyer] who once described Hyde Park as:
"...the only racially integrated neighborhood in Chicago," and then added caustically, "it's black and white shoulder to shoulder against the poor."
"There's painful truth in that description," says Ayers, "as the powerful university and its allied neighborhood association have worked to manipulate boundaries and borders to assure "stability" and separation."

Ayers says he passes Farrakhan's mansion each day, turns North a couple of blocks and "into the lap of urban blight," - which, remember, the residents of Hyde Park stand shoulder to shoulder, on-guard AGAINST intrusion into their tony neighborhood.

Barack Obama speaks about William Ayers:
Being neighborly demands the return of a good deed. Right? So Obama reviews Ayers' book shortly after the panel discussion.

Thanks to Zomblog for sharing the research, and Dr. Sanity for the heads-up.

Ayers believes that he and his terrorist buddies from the Weather Underground, as well as his terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn, have been a great force for social justice in America - standing up for the poor and the oppressed - and bombing American institutions like the Pentagon, the State Department and the U.S. Capitol.

In truth, he cost America taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollar in the 1970's for repair to some of our most beloved institutions, he threatened lives and later, after Barack Obama thought Ayers was rehabilitated, he blatantly stole huge sums of money from Chicago schools.

William Ayers speaks about William Ayers:
In September 2008, Ayers blogged about his mission as a terrorist and provided a cartoon strip to quote himself! The MSM, for the most part, ignored this message from William Ayers. Of the few places I've found the "strip" printed, Global Labor nailed it. The text in the "strip" is small, so Global Labor provided it, along with some great commentary following the cartoon strip.

Scrubbing The Obama-Ayers Connection?

Posted: 20 Oct 2008 12:53 PM CDT

Nice try but no cigar is the basic theme over at Patterico's Pontifications.

It seems that Obama tried to denied launching his career in the living room of William Ayers, known domestic terrorist that admitted to planting and detonating bombs on US soil, the Capital, the Pentagon, police stations and a judge's home.

It also seems that the reports of his now famous launch in William Ayers' living room are now being scrubbed off the Internet, but not quite so fast, Patterico has the full quotes and screen shots of the original reports.

Doing our small part in making sure this type of thing cannot be scrubbed into oblivion, here is the screen shot, via Patterico:

(Click image to enlarge)

Here is the full quote, via Jim Treacher:

Thursday, January 27, 2005
Get to know Barack Obama
When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread. His "bright eyes and easy smile" struck me as contrived and calculated--maybe because I was supporting another candidate. Since then, I've never heard him say anything new or earthshaking, or support anything that would require the courage of his convictions. I only voted for him in this last race--because his opponent was a pinhead. And I've been mostly alone in my views. But maybe that's changing.

Thanks, Barack. By voting to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State you confirmed my opinion of you as someone who will not come through when it counts. You voted with the entire Republican membership rather than your compadre, Dick Durbin, and the man you supported for president, John Kerry. Your sense of collegiality is ridiculous under the circumstances.

What are all those people who thought you walked on water thinking now? I'm just wondering who's going to whisper in President CandyAss's ear when Condo's busy playing Secretary of State.

Here is the original archive version.

When is the left going to understand, once something is online, you cannot scrub it like it never existed?


No comments:

Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

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

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams


Obama learned his lesson well

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama


War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us

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

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

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

Deciphering Obama in Cairo

Deciphering Obama in Cairo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

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

See original article here.


or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

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

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

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

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

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

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


Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong



OBAMA Comment by AltMuslim.com

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

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

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

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

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

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


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

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


This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

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

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

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


This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2


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