Thursday, 31 July 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

Obama's 'Mojo' Went The Way Of Paris and Britney's 'Mojo'

Posted: 31 Jul 2008 11:05 AM CDT

Our friend Andrew from LA Times' Top of the Ticket asks where Barack Obama's mojo went.

The title is his answer..the mojo went where Paris Hilton's mojo went, where Britney Spears' mojo went, where everyones mojo, who is inundated with news coverage, bad and good, goes.

Yesterday when I saw the ad associating Barack Obama with Paris and Britney, after I laughed, I thought....exactly.

Here is ad in question, via YouTube and shown below.



This ad does two things, it brings up the point that Obama is against offshore drilling, while the majority of the American public is for it, and tells of Obama's propensity to think higher taxes is the key to solving everything.

The second thing it does is show something we brought up yesterday, Obama has bought his own "rock star, messiah, golden child" hype and even the media has noticed and mentioned it.

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, sent an email out to supporters, which said, "As you and I know, simply attracting large crowds of fans with empty rhetoric doesn't prepare a person to lead a country. The more we get to know the real Barack Obama, the more he shows that he is not ready to lead our country."

Character, when trying to obtain the most powerful office in the United states, is just as important as policy issues because that is a person that represents the country to the world and although Obama was largely an unknown entity before this campaign season, thanks to the media fawning all over him, he is not unknown any longer.

The American people now know that he can speak well, but they also know that he changes his mind on the turn of a dime even to the point of angering his most ardent base (think FISA here), he speaks without thinking then claims that he "phrased" things badly and didn't really mean his words they way they came out (think undivided Jerusalem here), his associations (think Wright, Rezko, Meeks, Pfleger, Ayers....etc) have been scrutinized almost as strongly as Britney's lack of wearing underwear was.

Scrutiny is a good thing and the information obtained from that scrutiny is what has happened to that mojo that Andrew asks about.

Barack Obama has become a prima donna, criticisms and pointing out his character flaws is automatically a "smear" in his and his supporters minds and mentioning his complete inexperience is considered racism because they cannot counter the argument, screaming racism is the best they can do. It is Obama himself and his supporters that bring race into every argument.

He has angered Hill Democrats and annoyed the press with his attitude. He has told middle America they cling to their guns and religion because they are bitter and he has gone back on his word to his own supporters.

His mojo was gone as soon as the media decided to focus on their love child to the exclusion of almost everything else because when you shone a spotlight on a person, their flaws become apparent.

The Politico declares that the "GOP's celeb-Obama message gains traction"...they are right, the Obama celebrity message is resounding with the public, as evidenced by David Letterman's skit of the "Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident".

1. Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to "Oklobama"
2. Offered Bush 20 bucks for the "Mission Accomplished" banner
3. Asked guy at Staples, "Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?"
4. The affair with Barbara Walters
5. Having head measured for Mount Rushmore
6. Guy sits around eating soup all day
7. He's voting for Nader
8. Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama Presidential Library
9. Announced his running mate will be Andy Dick
10. Been cruising for chicks with John Edwards

The problem with The Politico's headline though is that it wasn't the GOP's message, it was Obama's message, the GOP just pointed it out.

It was Obama that decided to change venues for the last day of the DNC convention to a "larger" stadium for a bigger audience. It was Obama that decided to take a full media entourage on his overseas "fact finding" trip, it was Obama that decided to speak to tens of thousands of non American voters in Berlin, Germany. It was Obama that declared "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Obama and his campaign, with his supporters are the ones that made the "celebrity" message resonate and now they are whining that the McCain campaign noticed it and highlighted it?

Obama is now being laughed at by comedians and audiences across the spectrum, just as Britney was when she was caught without underwear and when she shaved her head, just as Paris was when that video surfaced.

That is the problem when you try to become a celebrity, it works, it gets noticed and it gets spoken about.

.

Another fire - another call for help

Posted: 31 Jul 2008 10:05 AM CDT

Yes, another fire has taken EVERYTHING some of our troops have. This time it is an army unit in Iraq. Excerpts from the calls for help I got:
It is ... Army and they are at FOB ****** which is somewhere in Baghdad and a pit hole to begin with....

40 guys lost EVERYTHING - I MEAN EVERYTHING - so anything is good as they have nothing. More than that lost some things due to water and smoke and all the other things that come with a fire...

It can be as small as snacks or coffee or towels or socks or t-shirts or underwear - I mean they lost everything..

...ARMY unit who had a fire in their building and they lost EVERYTHING!! I mean these kids lost their uniforms, ipods, computer, cd's, DVD's, shoes, towels, Literally everything! ...

...but it was like close to 100 soldiers who are without anything....They are all male soldiers....

I combined a few different emails to put this together - but the main point is that these guys lost EVERYTHING. If you can help with any of this - or donate money to help cover costs of the stuff that has also ready gone out via Soldiers' Angels - please email me at:

tankerbrosbrat@gmail.com

or my personal email addy if you know me well enough to have that.;) If I know you, I can give you a direct POC. If I don't know you, I'll give you the gmail addy of the person within SA who is co-ordinating this one.

Let's get THIS one done. Thank you!

HOO-frickin-AAAH!

Looking for Airmen, Sailors, Soldiers and Marines...

Posted: 31 Jul 2008 01:12 AM CDT

Could this be you, or someone you know? From an email I got:


Currently we are looking for Airmen, Sailors Soldiers and Marines who have been
injured in OIF/OEF to be part of a team.

The mission: to promote a positive and healthy lifestyle for our nation's heroes through multi sports. There are no sign fee's, there are no try outs. We have three major events coming up.

The dates are August 30/31st, Sept 14th and Sept 28th.

For those interested please contact me directly for more information:

John.szczepanowski@gmail.com

I have also provided the links for the events.

http://www.24hoursoftriathlon.com/index_1.html

http://www.thenationstriathlon.com/

http://www.mountainmanevents.com/lasvegastriathlon.htm

Sounds like a GREAT idea to me. Please pass this on to anyone else you think might be interested. Thank you.

Someone made time for our wounded troops

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 07:48 PM CDT

Found the following over at Mudville Gazette (via Blackfive.lol). As I comment on Mudville, I won't be holding my breath waiting for this to be on the front pages of any msm, but as I have said before, who needs the old media anyway? Read on:

Someone made time for our wounded troops

Mrs Greyhawk

Why isn't this in the news?...

Iraq's Interior Minister Thanks U.S. Troops for Liberating Iraq -- [CNS News]

A top Iraqi official visited wounded American troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., Tuesday to thank them for their part in ending Saddam Hussein's rule in his country.

"We have come … to express our gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifices made by these great warriors, soldiers, in freeing the Iraqi people and in helping us in Iraq recover from tyranny and dictatorship," Jawad Karim al-Bolani, Iraq's minister of the interior, said through a translator to a handful of journalists in the lobby of the medical center.
...probably because all the major networks are following some other guy

Go read the rest here. Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone gave this to Obama to read? Maybe he would get a clue? Naaaaaaaaah, never mind.

*Cross-posted in all the usual places*

More Boogeymen For The Anti-War Crowd- Colorado Information Analysis Center Stepping Up Security For Democratic Convention

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 05:08 PM CDT

With the planned protests from a variety of groups to be held during the Democratic National Convention, the CIAC will be operating 24 hours a day and be fully staffed with up to eight intelligence analysts at any given time.
The CIAC is the Colorado Information Analysis Center, also known as a "fusion center", which is one of the agencies set up after the September 11, 2001 attack and their responsibility is to coordinate efforts to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and prosecute acts of terrorism. The CIAC is a multi agency fusion center created to help prevent terrorism incidents in Colorado.

CIAC personnel also take reports of suspicious activities from citizens and other police departments. If a report is deemed by analysts to require additional investigation, it is shared with the appropriate law enforcement officials, but if a report is not determined to merit further inspection, CIAC workers make a log of the event, according to Clem, essentially creating a massive collection of data, some of it reliable and some of it not.


There has been much talk about the planned protests that will coincide with the Democratic National Convention.

Re-create 68 is planning to protest, some Clinton supporters have vowed to be there and anti-war activists, angry that the Democrats have funded the Iraq war further, have also promised to protest.

The concern of Colorado officials has caused certain security measures to be discussed, such as chains, quick-setting cement, homemade locking devices that are resistant to bolt cutters and "any noxious substance", according to City Council members.

Other precautions being implemented are the use of fences to be built around the area where the protesters will be allowed to gather. That measure was criticized by the ACLU and other groups who brought suit against officials for those preparations

According to U.S. Secret Service agent Steven Hughes, who is overseeing security for the convention attendees, there will also be a fence to surround an area where delegates, VIPs, former presidents, and others with credentials for the convention will pass, his reasoning being so that no explosive objects can be hurled over the fences. He continues to say, "As delegates arrive, we want to offer them the opportunity to walk safely into the Pepsi Center. We don't extend our perimeter further than we believe is necessary."

Other concerns expressed by members of the Re-create 68 crowd and other activists is their belief that the Government will use what they term as "Brown Notes" on them. Legend has it has the Brown Note is an infrasonic frequency believed to resonate through human body parts and cause a loss of bowel control.

The scene is set and news today shows us that the CIAC is planning to step up their intelligence gathering operations during the Democratic National Convention, to keep the officials attending the convention safe.

"CIAC is going to be expanding hours for physical presence in the office," Clem says about the convention. "Any known threats specifically related to the convention are going to go right to the United States Secret Service and FBI, but CIAC is going to be there to take any reports that citizens have."

Malcolm Wiley, a spokesman for the Secret Service, says he can't confirm if members of his agency will be physically present at CIAC while the convention takes place, but he does acknowledge the center's part in analyzing intelligence data during the event.

"They'll be sharing information with other intelligence gatherers," including the Secret Service and FBI, Wiley says.


Once again though, activists are expressing concern about the heightened security measures being implemented.

When the Democratic National Convention is held in August, CIAC will be operating 24 hours a day and be fully staffed with up to eight intelligence analysts at any given time.

Some civil libertarians claim that the reports that the intelligence agencies might be investigating could just be anti-war protesters or "photographing federal facilities that could be targeted for terrorist attack". They are also expressing worry that the CIAC will be spying on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights at the convention.

The four days of the Democratic convention are guaranteed to be busy and probably hectic as well with the events going on inside, the protests outside and the massive security being implemented to keep the members of the Democratic party safe.

The security measures have both pros and cons associated with them. On one hand they have critics claiming that some of those measures are infringing on their first amendment rights and on the other hand the government does have a responsibility to the members of the Democratic party and all those attending the Democratic National Convention, to keep them safe.

The balancing act will be for officials to manage to find the middle ground so they do not infringe on first amendment rights and they do keep the attendees safe.

.

What Do You Tell the Demons?

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 04:51 PM CDT



Cross posted from Radarsite
http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-do-you-tell-demons.html

Radarsite is fortunate to have made a lot of good friends in this small part of the blogosphere. Many of these friends and fellow bloggers are veterans. Some from the deadly jungles of Vietnam. And some from unheralded battles and wars that must still remain classified. These people are special. They all seem to share some common fundamental traits: a certain toughness of mind, coupled with a deep hard-won humility. And one common trait which I particularly value -- an absolute and uncompromising self-honesty, and a correspondingly low threshold for bulls**t. It's almost as though they've developed a sixth sense that picks it up immediately. This is one of the reasons why it pays to listen to their opinions and to heed their warnings. They are coming to you directly without interference from the ego.

Our good friend Snooper is one of these special people. For those of you who know him you are familiar with the sound of his voice. And it's an impressive sound, isn't it? It gets your attention immediately. It reaches right out and grabs you. There's no equivocation there, no fumbling ambiguities. Just dead on truth. His truth. And if you don't like it, tough.

Men like this seldom wax nostalgic. They seldom complain, they rarely talk about their feelings or their fears. But on those rare occasions when they do, we listen. And we listen closely.

This is one of those times. This particular posting took me completely off guard. It 'reached out and grabbed me'. It is something special. Something we don't see every day. Something we will remember.

I am posting this short essay of Snooper's today in honor of all of those friends of ours who have learned what truth really means. Those who have served and have sacrificed, and who, in their very private moments in the darkness still serve and still sacrifice. - rg

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

By Snooper
Cross posted from A Newt One
A Newt One

Many years ago, there came a point in my life when I had to deal with the demons that came to me from time to time once and for all. They still appear from time to time but I know what to say to them now to dispense with their intent to destroy anything they are set out to destroy. And no, I am not talking about some grotesque monster or some sabre-toothed, four-eyed beast-man nor am I referring to some anti-angelic supernatural presence. I am talking about things that cannot be described unless someone has experienced the same events. I am referring to memories triggered by people, places and things beyond my control. I am talking about fighting the "what if" or the "if I had only done this differently" syndrome(s).

Those that have met me don't really know who I am but yet I sense that they sense things about me...kind of hard to explain that but there it is. Those that have read selected readings from my manuscript know a little bit more about me but have a stronger sense as to who I am. Those that have read my articles, pieces and blog posts might think they have an inside track as to a beginning of a glimpse into the Real Me.

Years ago, an individual that I respected very deeply asked me a question during a time of reckoning in my life. He asked, "What do you tell the demons when they come out at night?" The question floored me because at the time, we were doing the deal for God, Flag and Country. We were marking targets. We were observing enemy movements. We were plotting their very demise. My answer was, "I tell them to kiss my ass". We laughed and never spoke of it again. Until. There was nothing for us to fear really because after all, we owned the night. Demons? Screw them. Until.

A short time later, we watched a movie entitled "In The Line Of Fire". It had our hero Clint Eastwood in it so naturally it just had to be a good flick. Yes? Certainly. Until. Until "Frank" asked the "Bad Guy" a question: "What do you see in the dark when the demons come?" The answer? "I see you". We didn't remember much of the movie thereafter because we looked at each other in complete amazement and our world crumbled before us. The cat was out of the bag. One can only suppress so many things for a specific period of time until the bottom drops out from under you. No one knows when that will take place but take place it will.The dialog just before that question and answer period is as follows: "They made you into a real monster didn't they?" "That's right. And now they want to destroy me because we can't have monsters running around the quiet countryside now can we?" (audio file here)

Does that give you chills? Does it? Does it not? I have seen this movie several times since and that particular part of the movie to this day sends chills up and down my spine because that movie started my "associate" and I on our long journey of recovery.He has since passed on to the Soldier's Lair having died where he wanted to, on the beaches of Australia almost two years ago. I will miss him but, before he left for Australia, he asked me to promise that I will never give up the fight and I swore an Oath to him, knowing that I would never see him again on this planet, that I would Soldier On. We shook hands, hugged and saluted our last. And, I - Soldier On. Will you Soldier On? Will you Embrace The Suck?

I believe that I have more insight than most into that which we face in this nation at this current time in the cosmos. Barack Hussein Obama or, Czarbama as I have come to call him, is America's latest Demon. What will we say to our children and our children's children when they ask us, "Why did we sit idly by and allow this cretin to become president and destroy the last hope of freedom in the world?"

As this country spirals down into some allusively morphed form of socio-communist-American liberal tyranny, what will you say to the demons as they come to you at night as you lay in bed kicking yourself in the ass for not standing up and fighting?The time has come to choose sides. Will you be a part of the American Awakening or will you sit idly by and let others do the dirty work because it is too inconvenient to turn the TV off? In this era of the pollsters knowing absolutely nothing, will you sit idly by and allow the politicians under a Leftinistra veto-proof Congress with a Marxist Thug Demon as in Czarbama at the helm bring about forced servitude of those between the ages of 18 and 42? Is this your Grand Scheme? And, it is a Good Plan? Not hardly. We saw how well that worked in 2006, didn't we? Why are Conservatives so stupid at times anyway?

We all know why the Unions - read that Teamsters - all favor the Democrats, I mean Leftinistra, don't we? We do know that union wages are tied to minimum wage, don't we? We do know that union wages are set to be at times 6 times the minimum wage, don't we? Is it any wonder why the labor unions suck up to the socialists? Can you spell useful morons? With The American Demon Czarbama at the helm, he wants to get rid of Teamsters oversight. Is that a good thing? Why, no, it isn't. Perhaps Czarbama wants to create his Civilian National Security Force with the culling from the Teamsters. One never knows.

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House a few days ago placed an article up entitled, "TOP TEN THINGS THAT CREEP ME OUT ABOUT OBAMA". Whereas he has touched Spot On, I would like to add a few things to that list. Behold:
#11) Czarbama has stated publicly that he intends to create a Civilian National Security Force that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded as the United States Armed Forces.

#12) Czarbama has publicly confirmed that he intends to create a Civilian National Security Force that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded as the United States Armed Forces.

#13) Czarbama carries with him at all times his magic wand of indecisiveness, charlatanism and the ability to agree with every point of every issue from every side and has the uncanny ability to have everyone he speaks to think he is the Pied Piper.

#14) Czarbama has stated publicly that he will review and reverse everything that President Bush has done.

#15) Czarbama has publicly presented himself as the New Lenin and all one has to do to confirm that is to gaze upon his posters in Berlin and compare them to the posters from the age of Lenin.

#16) Czarbama doesn't chastise his followers for praising Che Guacamole.

#17) Czarbama associates himself with those that have financed our enemies to fight against us and to kill and wound our Troops in battle.

#18) Czarbama blames the United States for 91101 and he did that eight says after the infamous day when the dust and smoke hadn't even subsided yet.

#19) Czarbama denies that the Troop Surge was an ingenious plan and that it was successful.
#20) Czarbama wants to increase our taxes by $4,000 per household.Is that enough yet? Not quite.

#21) Czarbama wants to add an additional $285 BILLION in taxes to finance the American Global War on Poverty.

#22) Czarbama wants to ratify L.O.S.T..That is all for now. So, tell me again how he will be good for the nation in the long run. Czarbama wants to strip this nation of its sovereignty and surrender to our enemies. Some say that he will be a lame duck from his first day. Consider this.Czarbama gets into the White House and along with him comes a veto-proof conglomerate and there will be nothing to stop him from reversing all of President Bush's accomplishments, both good and bad. There will be nothing to stop the Fairness Doctrine from becoming a reality. There will be nothing to stop him from raising taxes to the degree of which we have never seen. There will be nothing to stop him from creating his Civilian National Security Forces and there will be nothing to stop the Universal National Service Act. We will no longer have a voice to be heard. Conservative talk shows both professional and BTR will cease to exist. Conservative bloggers and Conservative outlets will vanish.

Czarbama mentioned at one time his presidency would be for 8 to 10 years. So much for the 22nd Amendment and kiss the United States Constitution goodbye because once we are turned over to the One World United Nations Consortium and World Court, the Conservative Voice is history. Remember the List of 45? Have you read it? Have you memorized it? Are you armed? Do you give a damn? If not, why then, did we fight for you? Do you give a damn? If not, why then, should we fight for you again?

Previous posts in regards to the Enemy of The State running for President of the USA:
AUDIO OF BARACK'S VERSION OF THE OBAMA YOOTS OF AMERIKA.
We Live In Upside Down LandThe Obama Youth: What's Next?Barack's Civilian Army Just Keeps Getting More and More Interesting
Obama Youth: The Lame Stream Deafly Silent
The Obama Youth: The Saga ContinuesObama Youth: The Gift That Keeps On Taking
Barack's Storm Troopers - The Obama Youth CorpsThe Aspirants To The Presidency Say A Lot Of Things, But...Obama's Brown Shirts Faux Pas Gains More ScrutinyOp-Ed: Sith Lord Obama and His Civilian National Security ForceWhat Does Barack Obama Intend? (video snippet) (You Tube)Pat Dollard: Pissed Off And Wants BloodBaracks' Civilian National Security Force - Continuing Saga UnfoldingSith Lord Obama: Another Gaffe?Obama: The Subtleties of A Dictatorial TyrantBarack Obama To Be Protected By Terror GroupWhen A Duck Wadddles, Does It Look Like A Barack?And All The People Said?Nobama's Civilian National Security Forces Explained?Czarbama and the Civilian National Security ForcesNational Service Act: Czarbama's CNSF?National Service Act: Amerika's Newest Conscript Nation.

Thank you Snooper for your service.

Thank you Lew for your service
Louis Waters, US Army Senior Air Crewmember Vietnam 1969-1971

Thank you Mike for your service
LCDR Mike Thayer - DOS: 12 June 1964 to 31 August 1994 - USS New Jersey

Thank you Len for your service
Len Peracchio - Sept 14, 1960- Sept 21, 1965. Semper Fi

Thank you Dean for your service.
Brown Water Navy - Vietnam
1966-1968, home port Danang.

Thank you Pastor Ed Boston (Cyber Pastor) for your service.

Thank you Gary Fouse (The Fouse Report) for your service.

Thank you "Stormin" Norman Hooben for your service.

Thank you Katie (Findalis) for your service.

Thank you Shawmut for your service.

Thank you KG of Crusader Rabbit for your service.

And finally, thank you to any of those fine men and women who I may have inadvertantly left off this small list. We honor your gifts.

Immigration Policy in America: What do Americans Think?

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 03:29 PM CDT

The current Immigration Policy of the United States has put the country in danger of a future as a possible third world nation. Americans who are vastly pro-immigrant, are worried about the influx of Immigrants and the stability of America.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me
I lift my light beside the golden door!

These words entered onto America's own Colossus lovingly know as the Statue of Liberty can be found in any debate on immigration, be it legal or illegal. The argument that America was founded on immigration and should continue along that same path is supported by the snippet of a poem by Emma Lazarus. These words and others, usually volatile and accusing, have become a bane to the real issue facing America. This issue is not whether or not Americans like immigrants, or want immigrants, it is if the country can afford more immigrants and sustain a culture and society at the current levels.

Most Americans would agree that immigrants are an essential and welcome part of the American culture and society. If you ask an American about their cultural heritage most will pour through 5 - 10 different nationalities from Europe, Africa, Russia, Asia, South American and Native American. Many will proudly proclaim that they are a descendant of someone on the May Flower, or that their originating ancestor has their name at Ellis Island. Immigration is a proud part of the heritage of the nation. However, Americans today are faced with a new downside of the proud beginnings of America.

The history of immigration is important to understand before discussing immigration today. Before 1965 the average number of immigrants coming into America averaged 255,000 a year. A quarter of a million people kept new blood into America and fueled our economy making America one of the richest nations on earth. The large landmass of America had no problem accommodating immigrants, who came with their immediate families.

After 1965 Congress restructured immigration allowing extended families beyond the "nuclear families" to enter the United States. This meant that not only did we have mothers, fathers, and children coming over as a family unit, but also grandparents, in-laws, cousins, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces. The average amount of immigrants coming to America surged to 1 million a year, 2 million a year if you add illegal immigrants to the mix. What this means is that immigrants are arriving in America faster than new jobs can be created, land can be developed, and schools can be built. The numbers are causing a sharp rise in population that is becoming more difficult for America to sustain, and these are just the legal numbers. If illegal immigrants are added to the mix one can expect the American bubble to burst.

Immigration invokes large amounts of competition for land and resources such as jobs and homes; not only are citizens competing with immigrants, but the immigrants are competing with each other. The high number of immigrants has created a crisis specifically in the job force. Usually healthy competition is a good sign in an economy run by capitalism, but there have been more reports of hundreds of people applying for one position. Illegal immigrants tend to take low-skilled jobs that go to people who are undereducated or only proficient in a specific trade skill. People are calling for the mass deportation of illegals, but in reality deporting 10-12% of the workforce would cause even more of an economic collapse than America is experiencing right now. The current amount of deportations from area to area seem to be more logical, but is a gradual draw down of all types of immigration seems to be the prefered action.

The fix for the problem offered by Roy Beck, is the return to pre 1965 levels of immigration that were not only sustainable but beneficial to America. He is supported by a majority of Americans in this sentiment, but as he explains in his popular immigration video, Americans are reluctant to talk about it because many have immigrant friends who they love dearly and do not wish to see any harm come to them. That is the reason why the numbers do not reflect that actions taken.

The Numbers of Immigration:

¨ Over one million immigrants enter the United States every year. (Immigration and Naturalization Service) ¨ Immigration has accounted for 70% of U.S. population growth this decade. (Center for Immigration Studies)

¨ If mass immigration continues, the population of the United States is projected to exceed 500 million by 2050. (Census Bureau)¨ Population growth causes per capita municipality taxes to rise. Per capita taxes in municipalities of any given size average 25% higher than those in municipalities of half the size. (Professor Albert Bartlett, University of Colorado, Boulder)

¨ An estimated 1.88 million U.S. workers have been displaced from their jobs because of immigration, including many "discouraged" workers who have dropped out of the employment market. (Dr. Donald Huddle, Rice University)¨ 44% of the decline in the real wages of high school dropouts from 1980-1994 was due to mass immigration of less-skilled immigrants. (National Research Council 5/97)

¨ Over 1 million acres of land are lost annually to urban, transportation, and industrial expansion. Another 2 million acres of farmland are lost annually to erosion, salinization, and unsustainable agricultural practices. In sum, we lose about 3 million acres a year. Thus given U.S. population growth of about 3 million a year, for each person added to our population, 1 acre of open land is lost. (Dr. David Pimentel, Cornell University)

¨ The United States' ability to support a population within its carrying capacity is already being strained because of continued population growth. Fifty percent of our original wetlands have been drained to accommodate growth. (Environmental Protection Agency) Ninety-five percent of all U.S. old growth forests have been cut down. (Save America's Forests)

¨ Increasing traffic congestion, school overcrowding and increasing costs, and pollution are among the many negative consequences of immigration-generated population growth. (Population-Environment Balance)

The Numbers of Immigration Opinion:

• 41% of Republicans and 45% of Democrats support stopping legal immigration altogether. (Gallup poll, October 2000)

• 84% of Americans support tighter restrictions on immigration. (McPheters & Company and Beta Research, November 2001

• Six in ten Americans support reducing legal immigration levels. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, October 2001)

• A Roper poll in January 1996 found that 83% of Americans favor a lower immigration level. 70% favor restricting immigration to less than 300,000 new immigrants a year (including 70% of Republicans, 73% of African-Americans, and 52% of Hispanics). Most want even larger cuts: 54% favor an immigration level of below 100,000 a year. 20% support no immigration at all.

This is one article in a series on immigration reform for this election season. For the rest of the series visit my blog Daughter of America.

Ludacris Releases Song about Barack Obama- Obama Campaign Calls It Offensive

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 02:37 PM CDT



YouTube URL for the video above found here.

Ludacris is three-time Grammy Award-winning American rapper who has released a song about Barack Obama and calling Hillary Clinton a bitch. Both the Obama campaign and a former Clinton aide have denounced the song.
In one verse of the song Ludacris says that "Hillary hated on you, so that bitch is irrelevant" and in other lyrics it encourages blacks to "get off their ass" and vote for Obama.

Immediately former Clinton national finance co-chair, Yashar Hedayat spoke out and told Huffington Post, "I hope Senator Obama has the presence of mind to denounce and distance himself from Ludacris. In May, when Father Pfleger made those horrible remarks about Senator Clinton at Trinity United, Senator Obama didn't do much to defend her and John McCain was the first to rush to her defense."

The Obama campaign weighed in after the news of the song release, via campaign spokesman Bill Burton calling the song offensive and saying that Ludacris should be ashamed of the lyrics.

Burton's full statement was, "As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images that he doesn't want his daughters or any children exposed to. This song is not only outrageously offensive to Senator Clinton, Reverend Jackson, Senator McCain, and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics."

The complete lyrics of the rap song by Ludacris can be found at Liveleak.

Lyrics:

I'm back on it like I just signed my record deal
Yeah the best is here, the Bentley Coup paint is dripping wet, it got sex appeal
Never should have hated
You never should've doubted him
With a slot in the president's iPod Obama shattered 'em

Said I handled his biz and I'm one of his favorite rappers
Well give Luda a special pardon if I'm ever in the slammer
Better yet put him in office, make me your vice president
Hillary hated on you, so that bitch is irrelevant

Jesse talking slick and apologizing for what?
If you said it then you meant it how you want it have a gut!
And all you other politicians trying to hate on my man,
watch us win a majority vote in every state on my man

You can't stop what's bout to happen, we bout to make history
The first black president is destined and it's meant to be
The threats ain't fazing us, the nooses or the jokes
So get off your ass, black people, it's time to get out and vote!

Paint the White House black and I'm sure that's got 'em terrified
McCain don't belong in any chair unless he's paralyzed
Yeah I said it cause Bush is mentally handicapped
Ball up all of his speeches and I throw 'em like candy wrap
'cause what you talking I hear nothing even relevant
and you the worst of all 43 presidents

Get out and vote or the end will be near
The world is ready for change because Obama is here!
'cause Obama is here
The world is ready for change because Obama is here!

McCain's New Ad Debut's While His Older One Is Shown Far More Than The Ad Buy

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 01:26 PM CDT

The new ad found at YouTube: (H/T Redstate diary)



The media is full of criticism today about the older ad, where the McCain campaign takes issue with Obama's refusal to honor his commitment to visiting the troops in Germany, which has run far more than the original ad buy accounted for by news shows running it hundreds of times.

The number of times Senator John McCain's new advertisement attacking Senator Barack Obama for canceling a visit with wounded troops in Germany last week has been shown fully or partly on local, national and cable newscasts: well into the hundreds.

The number of times that spot actually, truly ran as a paid commercial: roughly a dozen.

Result for Mr. McCain: a public relations coup that allowed him to show his toughest campaign advertisement of the year — one widely panned as misleading — to millions of people, largely free, through television news media hungry for political news with arresting visual imagery.

Political campaigns have for years sought to broadcast their ads free by making them intriguing enough to draw wide coverage from news outlets.


You always know when an ad is being effective and doing the job it was intended to do when the opposing political party pundits start howling at the moon.

The best saved for last of course is the hysterical concept of the NYT daring speak of the "low road", to which Ed Morrisey over at Hot Air takes them to woodshed while offering some visual reminders of how the NYT and the Obama campaign have stayed on the low road and are now whining about John McCain fighting back.

Hysterical...go read Ed's piece.

Finally the John McCain campaign is making it clear they are in the fight and have stopped taking punches without landing a few hard hitting ones of their own.

The next couple months will be popcorn worthy so make sure you are stocked up!

.

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

Family Of Nine Loses Savings Because Of Craigslist Rental Scam

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 01:03 PM CDT

The Reeves family consists of nine members and they lost their savings after falling for an elaborate rental scam listed on Craigslist.
The Reeves family was new to the Arizona Valley area and they thought they had found the perfect home to rent, listed in Craigslist.

Matthew Reeves and his wife met a man and his wife, Jim and Jaime Williams, that they thought were the owners of the house, painters were painting, but other work needed to be done to make the house ready for occupants. They made arrangements to do the carpets, maintenance and get the locks changed in return for a discount on their deposit. They signed the lease and got their receipt for $1,500.

Then they went home to celebrate.

The next day they went and started cleaning the home and then on Saturday, they started the move but when they got there Pam Dambley, the actual owner of the house was there.

She recounts her conversation with the Reeves':

"I said, 'Excuse me, you live here?' And he says, 'We just rented it,' and I said, 'From who?'


Matthew Reeves says he and his wife just cried.

The $1,500 they had given to the fake owners was all they had.

The Dambley's, showing compassion that not many would, felt for the Reeves family and allowed them stay and gave them August for free since they had lost all their money.

The Reeves refer to her as their angel.

Peoria Arizona police are asking for the public's help in looking for the scam artists responsible. They are described as "a short heavyset woman and a man with crooked teeth and a heart tattooed on one hand. They were last seen driving a white Chevy Blazer."

The advice the police give to people looking to buy or rent a home is to check with the County Assessors Office to see who the actual homeowner is.

You can also go to companies like www.Titlesearches.com or other companies that provide the same type of service, and do a title search, it cost a relatively low amount of money, but they provide information about the current owner, the mortgage, tax information about how much taxes are paid for the home in question, and they also provide a copy of the warranty deed.

Scams like the one the Reeves' family became victims of was a rental scam, but title searches are just as important for those buying a home because one doesn't wish to invest their savings into a home that is about to go into foreclosure just to have the owners leave town with your money.

(Disclaimer- I do not work for Titlesearch.com, it is just an example given because their services were used for the home I live in and I was able to reference the paperwork to show what type of information they provided)
.

Bloggasm, LA Times Blog Editor, National Enquirer and John Edwards

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 11:27 AM CDT

Quick rundown..

The National Enquirer claimed that it had caught John Edwards in a secret meeting with his Mistress, Fox News confirmed a portion of the story which said that John Edwards hid from National Enquirer reporters in the restroom at the Beverly Hilton and that security escorted him out. Fox confirmed it by speaking with hotel security.

Then a story came out about the LA Times blog editor requesting, via email, that bloggers do not write about the story.

One LA Times blogger told me at that time that he hadn't been asked to refrain from reporting about it and offered a report that was done on the topic as evidence.

Now we are caught up...

Today, Simon from Bloggasm, reports that he spoke with Tony Pierce, the LA Times blog editor to ask him about that email.

I spoke to Pierce for a few minutes on the phone today. He said the decision to send the email came after several senior editors at the Times met that day.

"The Opinion LA blog had already written about the rumors from the National Enquirer," he explained. "We knew some of the other blogs wanted to write about it or were thinking about writing about it. And at that point we were like, 'you know, we already have our metro desk working on a story and before we just kind of write a whole bunch of stuff about the National Enquirer article, why don't we give our metro desk a chance to see what they can find.' That's when they said, 'OK Tony, why don't you write this letter to your bloggers."

When I brought up the argument made by many that they were trying to bury the story, Pierce pointed out that one of the blogs had already written about it. The editors simply wanted to give the metro reporters a chance to dig into it and see if they could find any new information, he said, rather than just having the Times website create a bunch of noise.



Read the rest over at Bloggasm, but one specific paragraph following the excerpts I show, caught my attention:

I asked Pierce if the metro desk had the chance to follow up on the story, and if so, would he send out another post allowing his bloggers to write about it. He said that to his knowledge the LA Times reporters hadn't found any additional information and expressed some skepticism of the National Enquirer story's authenticity.


Considering Fox managed to get a hotel security guard to speak to them and confirm a portion of the story, does this mean the LA Times research crew didn't really try or were incapable of doing what Fox had no problem doing?

Pierce did admit he could have phrased his email better, but it still doesn't explain how as new information comes up, that doesn't mean that LA Times bloggers shouldn't be able to follow up on it.

Next is today's story which again many expect the MSM to continue to ignore, about the National Enquirer now claiming that John Edwards has been paying $15,000 a month in a coverup scheme to over the Rielle Hunter/Love child mess.

The money is being funneled to Hunter by a wealthy colleague who was closely tied to the Edwards' campaign. This same man is also shoveling cash to Edwards' pal and former aide Andrew Young – who tried to take the heat off the ex-Senator by claiming he is the father of Rielle's baby.


I guess we will see if the MSM continues to enforce their news blackout on these allegations or if they will actually try to do their job and research, question and report on their findings.

.

U.S. Senator Jim Webb Aide Found Dead From Apparent Gunshot Wound

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 10:47 AM CDT

Frederick W. Hutchins Jr, 26 years-old and an aide to U.S. Senator Jim Webb, was found dead outside of a vehicle which was parked on a highway shoulder, in Virginia.
Hutchins' body was found on a small embankment beside the road along southbound U.S. 220, by a Botetourt County deputy who stopped to check on the vehicle yesterday.

According to Sheriff Ronnie Sprinkle, Hutchins had been shot in the head and the gun was found underneath of him. The official cause of death will be determined by the medial examiner.

It is believed the time of death was between 4:30 am when an officer passed that area and saw no vehicle and 7:08 am when the officer stopped to check the parked vehicle and found the body.

Senator Jim Webb issued a statement today saying, "I am terribly saddened by the tragic and sudden death of Fred Hutchins, who diligently managed our Roanoke Senate office. Freddie was one of the most honorable and friendly individuals I have had the pleasure of knowing. He was a mainstay in the Roanoke community and a friend to all who knew him. My condolences go out to his mother, Karen, and the rest of his family and friends. He will be greatly missed."

RIP

.

The Media Starting To Worry About Obama's Messiah Complex

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 10:02 AM CDT

The Trail reports that Barack Obama has started buying in to his own Messiah hype by describing a meeting he had with his peasants (House Democrats) where he makes a couple statements that shows his ego and obsession with himself seems to be getting out of control.

He tells his peasants "this is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for."

He further states "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

The Washington Post also seems to be a tad worried about the presumptuousness of Obama as well as noticing that he has started angering reporters...the ones that actually gave him encouragement to start buying his own hype, are now noticing the arrogance.

In the latest issue of the New Republic, Gabriel Sherman found reporters complaining that Obama's campaign was "acting like the Prom Queen" and being more secretive than Bush. The magazine quoted the New York Times' Adam Nagourney's reaction to the Obama campaign's memo attacking one of his stories: "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others." Then came Obama's overseas trip and the campaign's selection of which news organizations could come aboard. Among those excluded: the New Yorker magazine, which had just published a satirical cover about Obama that offended the campaign.


One bit I found interesting in a New York Times piece which shows his arrogance was this:

I asked him what presents he takes home to his daughters. "Anytime I make a stop, Sasha gets snow globes and Malia gets key chains," he said. "Somebody is assigned to that."

"You have a snow globe aide?" I marveled.

He also admitted that he didn't know exactly what was in those blue boxes with ribbons that his body man, Reggie Love, was toting for world leaders.

"I was not well organized enough to personally think of what presents to give these guys," Obama said. "Hopefully, should I end up being president, I can put my touch on the present thing. But I didn't even know it was a custom to give presents other than state visits."


Obama's attitude which has largely been created by those in the media that now seem to be concerned about, is exactly what Democratic aides recently complained about by calling his campaign insufferable, insular, uncooperative and inattentive.

It looks like the boy wonder's "audacity" is starting to grate on the media's nerves a bit.

.

The Arab Labyrinth

Posted: 29 Jul 2008 09:17 PM CDT


Cross posted from Radarsite
http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/07/arab-labyrinth.html
From an original article in Front Page Mag

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=90A4A1E4-F5D8-4E2D-A67A-32D0AB618240

Obama: Servant of the Jewish Conspiracy
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com Monday, July 28, 2008

Is Barack Obama the pawn of evil Jewish minions? Yes, according to cartoons that appeared in the Palestinian media.


Al-Quds, July 22, 2008
The cartoon's headline: "Learn about Israel…from 'Behind the Fence.'" Below, in Arabic: "Obama's view."


Ar-Risala, June 22, 2008
Headline: "The Wagon [that gets you] to the White House."


Despite his portrayal as an ape, Obama has rewarded his detractors, and Israeli Jews' killers, with a naive indulgence for "peace talks" not seen since the days Bill Clinton helped set the stage for the Palestinian intifada.

"I believe the next U.S. administration should move quickly," Barack Obama told far-Left Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar last Wednesday. "I have had in-depth discussions today with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and encouraged all of them to make as much progress as they can in their negotiations this year."

He added, "The next U.S. administration should...help the parties build on the progress that has been made thus far, and continue to work toward the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security."

Obama was here for a lightning one-day tour of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In the latter, of course, he met with Mahmoud Abbas, who a few days earlier sent his tidings to a brutal murderer of a four-year-old girl.

Eldar, writing in the left-wing daily Haaretz, says "associates" of Obama told him that, if elected, Obama "has no intention of wasting time on consolidating an 'Obama peace plan.' He would rather dive in and promote the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of existing American initiatives."

Eldar also says "one of Obama's senior consultants on the Middle East" told him that "Obama would attempt to deepen U.S. involvement in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians" and "what would change…is the U.S. distanced position, as the consultant put it, in which Washington monitors developments but generally prefers to refrain from a more hands-on policy."

First, considering that Obama's Middle East advisers include the likes of former Carter and Clinton administration dove Anthony Lake (instrumental in dumping the Shah and catapulting the Ayatollah Khomeini to power), former Carter adviser and sharp Israel-foe Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Iraq Study Group co-chair (with James Baker) Lee Hamilton, Eldar's words are more than plausible.

Second, those who have noticed (among much else) Condoleezza Rice's obsessive 16 visits to Israel and the Palestinian Authority in three years—all aimed at pushing Israel back to indefensible borders—will be surprised to hear that the U.S. has been maintaining a "distanced position" and can only fearfully imagine what "deepened involvement" would look like.


Meanwhile, also on Wednesday, the Anti-Defamation League reported that "editorial cartoonists in the Arab world are using direct or borderline anti-Semitism in their portrayal of the presumptive U.S. presidential candidates as lackeys of the Jews and Israel…The cartoons ignore the issues of the campaign and instead engage in hate-filled characterizations of Jews and overt racist stereotypes."

ADL national director Abraham H. Foxman noted, "Once again, the Arab media does not miss an opportunity to promote classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of Jewish control over Washington, the media and the democratic process." He added: "Their aim is not to provoke discussion or challenge ideas, but to spread horrific stereotypes of Jews. Some cartoons also use classical racist stereotypes to portray Senator Obama."

Foxman also said the ADL provided copies of the report to the McCain and Obama campaigns.

On this page, the ADL gives samples of the cartoons, beginning with seven cartoons taken from mainstream, official Palestinian Authority newspapers over the last two months. There's one of a grotesque, apish-looking Obama hulking behind Israel's security fence with what look like some small, scheming, nasty Jews; one of a grinning, impish Obama peering from the pants seat of a blue-and-white-clad, Star of David-bearing Jew…and many more such images.

It's undeniable both that the Obama campaign has a report of these hateful images and that no news media report that he has demanded such caricatures stop. Instead, Obama promises to accelerate the demented quest of the current U.S. and Israeli governments to award the bigots with sovereignty over strategic land overlooking Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A note from Radarsite: The study of the dark conspiratorial recesses of the Arab mentality should be categorized under the general academic discipline of speleology (the scientific study of caves and the cave environment).

To explore the depths of its black heart one needs to bring one's own light source, for there is no light to be found in these seemingly endless labyrinthine corridors. It is imperative that the explorer maintain contact with the world above, by way of his umbilical cord, or he may become lost forever in its infinite darkness.

Nurtured by untold generations of inbred hatred and distrust, the vengeful Arab mindset has become a victim of its own conspiracy theories, sinking deeper and deeper into that dark underworld of delusion and myth. And always and forever, lurking in the depths -- the eternal gargantuan Jew-Monster waiting to devour its helpless prey. - rg

.

Political Punch Fact Checks Obama

Posted: 29 Jul 2008 07:41 PM CDT

The question that Jack Tapper fact checks is this, "From the Fact Check Desk: Did Obama Say During the Debate Over the Surge That "There's No Doubt that Additional U.S. Troops Could Temporarily Quell the Violence?"

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on January 10 2007 predicted (watch HERE) that the surge of troops in Iraq would fail. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he told MSNBC. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Four days later he told CBS's Face the Nation, that "we cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

Asked about these predictions on Sunday's Meet the Press, Obama told NBC's Tom Brokaw that "I know that there's that little snippet that you ran," referring to the MSNBC clip, "but there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there's no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence. But unless we saw an underlying change in the politics of the country, unless Sunni, Shia, Kurd made different decisions, then we were going to have a civil war and we could not stop a civil war simply with more troops."

This has become an Obama meme -- that during the debate over the surge he acknowledged that more US troops would mean a temporary reduction in violence.

But is it true?



Want the answer?

Go over and read Tappers piece at ABC's Political Punch.

.

Squirm on, Obama!

Posted: 29 Jul 2008 07:04 PM CDT

By now, everybody has heard about the 'on again, off again' non trip of Senator Obama to Landstuhl to visit our wounded. The internet has been full of differing opinions on what really happened, and Obama and his sycophants have flip flopped in their usual fashion. (He may need to see a doctor for injuries sustained from all the flip flopping before November 4th...just saying..lol)

However, all that aside ;) the truth WILL out. Senator Obama hasn't yet figured out that every time he tries to pull the wool over our eyes, along comes a a real expert who easily debunks his nonsense.

Via Blackfive here comes a link to this statement from an expert:

Former Landstuhl CSM on Non-Visiting Presidential Candidate

Posted By Blackfive

Over at the Tank, the former Command Sergeant Major of Landstuhl Regional Medical Facility has some words about a certain Presidential candidate...

And what does this expert have to say? Follow the link to here, and this is what you have:


Tuesday, July 29, 2008


Former CSM of Landstuhl on Obama [Gregory S. McNeal]

The former Command Sergeant Major of Landstuhl from 2003 to 2005 released this statement today regarding Senator Obama's decision to not visit wounded soldiers in Landstuhl:

Having spent two years as the Command Sergeant Major at Landstuhl Hospital, I am always grateful for the attention that facility receives from members of Congress. There is no more important work done by the United States Army than to care for those who have been wounded in the service [of] our country. While Americans troops remain engaged in two hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a steady stream of casualties to the hospital, and a steady stream of visitors who wish to meet with those troops and thank them for their service.

Senator Obama has explained his decision to cancel a scheduled visit there by blaming the military, which would not allow one of his political advisers to join him in a tour of the facility. Why Senator Obama felt he needed an adviser with him to visit U.S. troops is unclear, but if Senator Obama isn't comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief.

Iraq Fact Check: Responding To Key Myths

Posted: 29 Jul 2008 06:21 PM CDT

MYTH: The security gains seen in Anbar Province and Iraq as a whole are not because of the surge.

  • FACT: The increased number of troops enabled U.S. Commanders on the ground to implement a more comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy based on local population security.
  • FACT: The surge provided a security umbrella and thereby demonstrated American commitment to Iraqis already standing up to terrorists – encouraging expansion of the Anbar Awakening and Sons of Iraq.
  • FACT: The surge allowed Iraqi Security Forces to grow in skill and number. More than 540,000 individuals serve in Iraqi Security Forces–an increase of more than 133,000 soldiers and police over the past 16 months.
  • FACT: Recent operations against Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City and al Qaeda in Mosul highlight improvements in the ability of the Iraqi Security Forces to clear and hold cities.
  • FACT: The Iraqi military recently stated that the number of "terrorist attacks" in June declined 85 percent from the same period one year ago.
  • FACT: Insurgent weapons caches are being found and cleared with increasing frequency as more civilians reassured by the new level of security become emboldened to come forward with information and tips. U.S. and Iraqi Security Forces found 3,146 weapons caches in Anbar last year versus 1,213 in 2006.

MYTH: The Sons of Iraq (SoI) existed prior to the surge.

  • FACT: While there had been some local demonstrations of commitment in places like Ramadi prior to the surge, it was the surge that emboldened Iraqis to stand up nationwide through organizations like the Sons of Iraq.

MYTH: President Bush has changed his position in recent weeks on supporting a timetable for withdrawal:

  • FACT: President Bush has consistently stated U.S. forces will return home based on when Iraq is capable of defending its new democracy based on conditions on the ground.

  • FACT: On July 17, 2008, President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki agreed that improving security conditions should allow for a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals and that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground, not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.
And THEM'S the facts, folks. Sent to me by my pal CJ - of A Soldier's Perspective here - who knows what he 's talking about... because is an active duty soldier AND blogger. Thank YOU, CJ! :)

*Cross-posted at MBVD and Tanker Bros from Assoluta Tranquillita*

Liberal Washington Post Columnist, Richard Cohen, Asks 'What Has Barack Obama Done' That Is Admirable?

Posted: 29 Jul 2008 06:11 PM CDT

Richard Cohen, never known as a conservative or conservative leaning writer is taking some harsh criticisms for asking the question that many of us has asked time and time again.

What has Barack Obama actually done?

"Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.

On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam prisoner of war to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.

But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position -- virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.


He ends by saying, "The question I posed to that prominent Democrat was just my way of thinking out loud. I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it."

You truly need to read everything in between the portions I quoted to get a feel for Cohen's piece, but finally liberal writers, at least one brave one by the name of Richard Cohen, has dared asked the relevant question.

I would certainly hate to be the one opening his emails today because he has liberals howling over the audacity of his question and declaring he has gone to the dark side. Others think Obama's "plans" and rhetoric counts as accomplishments. Never mind that many of his "plans" change on a dime depending on what audience he is talking to or when the issues actually come up for a vote. Never mind that his "plans" haven't come to pass and are just words. To them, his words, his "message" is enough, who needs actual accomplishments????

Pffffft... We don't need no stinking accomplishments to admire Obama!!!

We are Obama Zombies


How dare a writer for the MSM ask about Obama's admirable accomplishments....not speeches, not being against the war when he was a "mere Illinois state senator, representing the (very) liberal Hyde Park area", not his paper ideas, not his biographical books, but instead what true accomplishments has Obama produced for this country?

Worse yet, in the minds of those throwing a hissy fit about Cohen's column, how dare a liberal writer ask that?

Others discussing this:

Sister Toldjah
Soccer Dad
Flopping Aces
Just One Minute

.

Earthquake Hits Los Angeles- Update: 5.8 in Magnitude

Posted: 29 Jul 2008 01:56 PM CDT

Breaking on the news right now it is being announced that Los Angeles has just suffered an earthquake. No aftershocks reported yet, but the news is reporting they are expected. I will link to the stories as they come out but the quakes is reported to have been a major seismic event.

11:48 Pacific time a 5.8 earthquake hit California. It was was felt from Los Angeles to San Diego with slight tremors felt all the way to Las Vegas.

[Update #1] U.S. Geological Survey estimates the quake was a magnitude 5.8, centered 29 miles east-southeast of downtown Los Angeles near Chino Hills in San Bernardino County.

[Update #2] CNN is reporting that the epicenter was 2 miles southwest of Chino Hills and approximately 5 miles southeast of Diamond Bar. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a 5.8 earthquake is considered moderate.

Initial reports show no major damage.

The fire chief is speaking on the news and reporting no injuries or damages as of yet.

Authorities are asking that people avoid using their cell phones unless absolutely necessary.

[Update #3] Initial reports show no major damage.

The fire chief is speaking on the news and reporting no injuries or damages as of yet.

Authorities are asking that people avoid using their cell phones unless absolutely necessary.

[Update #4]
Aftershocks are being reported by Fox News, over the last 20 minutes, multiple smaller shocks have been felt, I will link when I get information on the exact location.

[Update #5] Fox News is showing live video and they report that according to Los Angeles County sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore, the whole building where he was shook as he describes it as "dramatic".

Also some damage to homes is starting to come in.

[Update #6] My Fox Los Angeles is providing live video feed, found here.

[Update #7] Rocking is still being felt in Chino Hills and the magnitude has been downgraded to a 5.4 on the Richter scale according to certain news agencies. Over 20 aftershocks have hit already.

One witness, approximately 20 miles away is calling in to Fox News and describes the feeling as "a garbage truck running into his building"

[Update #8] Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has activated emergency services.

28 aftershocks in 48 minutes according to Shep Smith on Fox News.

Developing.... refresh for updates throughout the day.

.

Sen. Stevens' Indicted by the Department of Justice

Posted: 29 Jul 2008 01:12 PM CDT

The Department of Justice is about to announce indictments against republican Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska. In 2007 Stevens' home was raided for information in connection to Bill Allen an oil field services contractor. Bill Allen was convicted in a state corruptions case back in 2000. Mr. Allen, the CEO of VECO, was contracted to oversee construction on renovations to Stevens' home. Stevens' is currently being investigated for his many earmarks, some of which have benefitted VECO. One of Steven's most famous earmarks is the bridge to nowhere.
More updates to come after the Press Conference.

The Federal Grand Jury charged Senator Stevens with seven felony counts of making false statements. Charges relate to Financial Disclosure forms required to be filed by the Senator on a yearly basis. The indictment alleges that the Senator falsified information on the Financial Disclosure forms. The disclosure monitors and deters conflicts of interest for public officials. The Senator must disclose receipt of gifts from any single source and any liability or debt owed over 10k and who debt was owed too.

While as senator 1999-2006 Sen. Stevens accepted gifts from VECO and CEO Bill Allen. Gifts of material and labor for renovation of private residents includes a new 1st floor and finished full basement. VECO contractors and employees provided most of the labor and design. Other gifts include household goods, furniture, automobile exchange, and other gifts totaling $250,000. During the period of receiving these gifts federal investigators allege that VECO solicited Stevens for certain benefits.

According to FoxNews.com:

Allen and other VECO employees were soliciting Stevens for "multiple official actions .... knowing that Stevens could and did use his official position and his office on behalf of VECO during that same time period." VECO's requests included funding and other aid for the oil services company's projects and partnerships in Pakistan and Russia. It also included federal grants from several agencies — as well as help in building a national gas pipeline in Alaska's North Slope Region, according to the indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.


Senator Stevens is innocent till proven guilty in a court of law. He is expected to turn himself in either in Washington or Alaska.



.

Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

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

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams

THE NEW GAME: POWER CLING !!!

Obama learned his lesson well


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama

WorldNetDaily

War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us


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

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

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

Deciphering Obama in Cairo


Deciphering Obama in Cairo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

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

See original article here.


WHO SAYS A STIMULUS ACTUALLY STIMULATES?

or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-UCLA-

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

LSMS368


AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

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

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

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

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

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

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

NOW LA PRESIDENT SUPPORTS SARAH PALIN

Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong

OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN

WHY IT IS WRONG TO CALL IRAQ A MISTAKE

OBAMA Comment by AltMuslim.com

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

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

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

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

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

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?

(crosstalk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


Comments

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

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


VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

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

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

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

VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2

Truth?

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