Saturday, 30 October 2010

Fake Bomb Plot??? Very suspicious!


I leave you with a thought.

According to Steven Emerson, the "bombs" were found disabled with wires hanging loose. They were found not in the USA - but in Dubai and the UK. In Arabia and England. CNN said the bombs were "operational." I suppose this hype is in concert from instructions from up high. In contrast to terror expert Steve Emerson's opinion.

It was reported that none other than the Saudis notified the Obama Administration about the plot. Natch. The "bombs" had loose wires and were amateurishly constructed. No one knows where the bombs came from. No perps are connected to them other than from allegations from the president. No one took credit for the "bombs." They didn't explode and couldn't explode. No other intel agency is providing information or confirmation of legitimacy to the story. In other words, it seems to be much ado about nothing.

Wherefrom the Saudi Connection?
And why? 

Why now, three days before the elections?


The Jewish Vote and Jewish Money that gets presidents and Democratic congressmen and senators elected.

American Jews have been disappointed by Obama for good reason and have been fleeing the Democratic Party in droves, their numbers dropped from over 80% support in 2008 to below 40% today. It's election time friends. Just a reminder.

Because of Obama's estranging America from Israel to the benefit of the Arabs and no one else - the Saudis to be specific - they are losing the Jewish vote and Jewish funds. Wall Street money for example, supported Obama three to one in 2008. Wall Street today is no longer supporting Obama and "Friends." In fact, among the four major Jewish fund managers who all supported Obama, not one is on his side today. Among those about to lose their seats in Congress are Jewish politicians.

Think of the TIMING for this fabricated "crisis" that began with Saudi notification, the collapsing Israeli-Palestinian "Peace" Talks, the estrangement of Jews from the Democratic Party partially because of Obama's anti-Israeli policies, partially because of his mishandling of the economy and other foreign policy, and the upcoming Tuesday's elections when desperate Democrats will be decimated even as they are about to bus the living-dead to the polls.

NOTE: Nothing was found on the jetliner that was escorted by Canadian and American fighter jets into JFK Airport.


F-15 Fighter just like the two that escorted the Emirates plane into JFK airport.

The news conferences were hastily called to "impress" the public, this accompanied by photographs of the "bombs." Tonight we see reports on CNN showing planes being blown up by bombs. No connection to these non-bombs. This is investigative reporting by innuendo. There is no evidence that these bombs could have done any serious harm, no evidence that they were valid plants by terrorists.

The so-called "targets" were synagogues in Chicago - Obama's home town.

The targets were Jews.

Was this the optimum time for Obama do "do something for the Jews" to deflect criticism and "mend things?"

After all, he stopped Jews from being blown up while worshipping. He "saved": Jewish lives.

I have a bridge to sell you.

You know the answer. I know the answer.  Most of America will eventually find out.

This terrorist plot appears to be a hoax.  A fabrication. It was conveniently timed for the upcoming elections and aimed at America's Jews who vote. If it was a conspiracy, as it may indeed be, I can't prove it, it was a conspiracy between friends. Not friends of America or the Jews.

Speaking only for myself, this scenario appears to be just like the election of 2008. A con job.

Orchestrated. Media supported Hope and Change.

What I see is shameless sensationalism, a staged production, and the media's willful reluctance to not investigate any of it.

There are no questions. Only answers.

What we have here is a government "story" that the mainstream is happily and cluelessly validating and hyping.

It is propaganda.

Take my word: No perps will ever be found. 


Friday, 29 October 2010

DHS swears in an Islamist

DHS swears in an Islamist

Elections have consequences

 On the weekend before the crucial mid-term elections, we bring you the juxtaposition of two recent events.

First, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in three new members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council—one of whom, Mohamed Elibiary, was a speaker at a 2004 event honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini!

When a Dallas Morning News reporter exposed Elibiary, Elibiary threatened him. Incredibly, Elibiary is someone Napolitano believes should now be on the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Second, two weeks ago German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in an obvious reference to the tidal wave of Muslim immigrants to Germany, made the stunning statement that multiculturalism in Germany has “totally failed.”

This is emblematic of the broader pushback against the rising threat of radical Islam that is occurring throughout Europe—except, as celebrated author Melanie Phillips points out, in Great Britain (see story below).

Europe is beginning to understand the threat of radical Islam. More and more of the American people are beginning to understand the threat of radical Islam. Unfortunately, it is clear that much of the Obama administration, as illustrated by Napolitano’s latest blunder, does not.

Elections have consequences. Please remember this when you vote.

October 19, 2010

Britain: Groveling Alone

Melanie Phillips

Angela Merkel has got the point. Multiculturalism has failed, she states flatly, as she surveys western Europe going down under the tide of radical Islam. Rather than liberal society creating the utopia of harmonious cultural pluralism, it is being swallowed whole by the giant predator whose voracious mouth it encourages, in the spirit of tolerance, to open ever wider in the unshakeable belief of western liberals that the jaws about to snap shut around their necks are actually stretched wide in a smile.

All over mainland Europe, a few shoes are belatedly – maybe too late -- starting to drop.

France and Belgium have banned the burqa and other countries are debating doing the same.

Switzerland has banned minarets.

Denmark has imposed ferocious limits on immigration.

In the Netherlands the prosecution in the case against the Dutch politician Geert Wilders for allegedly inciting religious hatred -- through his criticism of Islamic hatred -- has thrown in the towel and asked the judges to acquit him of all charges. See here for an authoritative analysis of the significance of this.

And so what of dear old Blighty, the country which in 1940 stood alone against the threat to democratic life and liberty and the values of western liberalism? Is the shoe of reality starting to drop in the UK too?

A report by Quilliam about City University, central London, states that a hard-line Islamist ideology is being promoted through the leadership of the university’s student Islamic Society, leading to increased religious tensions on campus and to the intimidation and harassment of staff, students and members of minority groups by extremists and increasing the risks of students turning to terrorism.

Ahmadi Muslims in south London have been targeted by Islamists in a hate campaign, and a Muslim woman in Bradford has died after being set on fire (via JihadWatch), underlining the fact that Muslims are themselves front-line victims of Islamic jihadis and sharia law.

And in the Sunday Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan continues to chronicle the remorseless takeover of an entire London borough, Tower Hamlets, by the radicals of the Islamic Forum of Europe using intimidation, infiltration and corruption:

According to one of its own leaflets, the IFE – based at the hardline East London Mosque in Tower Hamlets – wants to change the ‘very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam.’ The group is accused by one of the area’s Labour MPs, Jim Fitzpatrick, of infiltrating and ‘corrupting’ his party in a way similar to the Militant Tendency in the 1980s.

The response of other newspapers to what’s going on in Tower Hamlets? As far as I can make out, deafening silence. And what is the response of the rest of the British thinking classes to this and countless other signs of increasing Islamisation and Islamic radicalisation in Britain?

The hitherto resolutely counter-counter-cultural think-tank Civitas, which in the past has produced some outstanding social and cultural analysis, has just published a set of essays on Women, Islam and Western Liberalism in which one author, Alveena Malik, states that the full-face Islamic veil, or niqab, should be regarded

‘ part of a modern British way of life.’

She continued: ‘The wearing of religious symbols, including the full veil, should be a fundamental human right of an individual in both the public and private sphere. The real test for religious symbols in the public sphere should always be: “Does the wearing of a symbol (such as the kirpan, turban, yarmulke, crucifix and the veil) hinder a citizen’s ability to perform their public civic duties?”’ Britain is in a ‘unique’ position to embrace such a public display of faith because of the role the church plays in the affairs of the state and its ‘multicultural diversity’.

To be fair, the Civitas pamphlet contains other views which profoundly disagree with this. Even so, the idea that advocating as ‘part of the British way of life’ the niqab, which presents such an obvious danger to security as well as intimidating non-radical Muslim women, inciting religious subversion by serving as a symbolic call to arms against western values and destroying the equality inherent in human interaction by virtue of the simple act that we can all see each other’s faces – the idea that this is, as Civitas appears to suggest, a contribution towards liberal diversity, is simply grotesque.

And here’s the thing: the Telegraph also tells us:

Mrs Malik was appointed by last government to a panel of faith advisers for the Department for Communities. She has overseen British Council guidance on ‘intercultural dialogue’.

It looks horribly like, seventy years on, Britain is now once again alone -- this time, though, not standing but grovelling on its knees before those bent upon the extinction of freedom.

U.S. Islamic jurists sanction marital rape

American Muslim jurists 
rule that forcing a wife to
have sex is not rape

Exposing their ignorance, there have been those in the media who have arrogantly dismissed Oklahoma’s proposed amendment that would prohibit its courts from using sharia law in deciding cases.

They assert that there is no threat from sharia to America. We beg to differ.

As our friend and historian Andrew Bostom notes in his column below, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America has ruled that a husband forcing his wife to have sexual relations is not rape. Scroll down to the highlighted segment to read their fatwa on this matter.

As you read it, remember—this is the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of AMERICA—not Iran or Saudi Arabia.

If you would like to help out our efforts to win passage of the ballot initiative in Oklahoma, where we have been running a radio ad statewide for nearly two weeks and doing hundreds of thousands of automated calls, please click here.

Sharia-Sanctioned Marital Rape in Britain—And North America

Posted By Andrew Bostom On October 14, 2010


Britain’s Sharia Council Avatars of Islamic Misogyny

(Maulana Abu Sayeed being seated second, going from right to left)

As reported in the UK Independent [2] (10/14/10), president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, has reiterated alarming comments made during a March, 2010 interview [3], sanctioning marital rape.

Sheikh Sayeed was in fact responding to an inchoate effort at modernizing the contracts which govern Muslim marriages in Britain. The good Sheikh, representing Britain’s main Islamic Sharia court, the Islamic Sharia Council [4], promptly published a rebuttal of the contract, which included a statement on sexual abuse (page 6 here [5]). He opined [3] in the March interview:

Clearly there cannot be any “rape” within the marriage. Maybe “aggression”, maybe “indecent activity.”

He further rejected both the characterization of non-consensual marital sex as rape, and the prosecution of such offenders as “not Islamic.” Sheikh Sayeed, who came to Britain from Bangladesh in 1977, also brazenly expressed his Sharia-supremacism and accompanying disdain for Western, i.e., British Law, stating

…to make it exactly as the Western culture demands is as if we are compromising Islamic religion with secular non-Islamic values.

Sayeed re-affirmed these sentiments to The UK Independent [2]:

In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape.

Crowing with pride during his March 2010 interview [3], Sheikh Sayeed maintained,

No other sharia council can claim they are so diverse as ours because other sharia councils, they are following one school of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence]. Ours is diverse –we are hanafi, shafi’i, hanbali.we have Bangladeshi…we have Pakistani, we have Indian, we have Palestinian, we have Somali scholars on our board.

At present there are 16 main sharia courts around Britain, located in Birmingham, Bradford, and Ealing in West London. These institutions are “complemented” by more informal sharia-based tribunals—the think tank Civitas asserting that up to 85 tribunals currently exist [6] in Britain.

But for those who naively—and smugly—proclaim such phenomena are absent within the Muslim communities of North America, consider AMJA, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America [7]. AMJA’s mission statement claims the organization was, “…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities.”

In response to the specific query, “Is there a such thing as Marital Rape?,” the AMJA issued fatwa #2982 [8]:

In the name of Allah, all praise is for Allah, and may peace and blessing be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. To proceed:

For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.

An ocean apart from Britain—now a recognized Western hotbed for “Islamic fundamentalism”—the same Sharia-sanctioned misogynistic bigotry prevails in a North American clerical organization openly advising US and Canadian Muslims.

NPR, tax funding, and sharia law

Time to stop taxpayer funding of NPR 

Sign our Open Letter to Congress today!

Nearly 9,000 have signed so far

 Regardless of whether one listens to NPR or not, or likes NPR or not, there’s one thing we should all be able to agree on: NPR’s sacking last week of Juan Williams was an egregious offense to our First Amendment. It was all the more egregious because NPR receives a portion of its funding from us—the taxpayers.

This isn’t about liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. As we noted in our Friday email, NPR’s action goes beyond the “usual” political correctness. It is in effect a capitulation to the demands of sharia law that no critique or criticism of Islam or Mohammed be allowed.

NPR’s claim that it doesn’t allow the expression of “opinions” by its commentators rings hollow. Of course it does—so long as they toe a certain politically correct line.

Several Members of Congress have publicly proclaimed that it’s time to stop the taxpayer funding of NPR. We agree. Therefore, we are urging you to click here to read our one-page “Open Letter to Congress,” calling for an end to taxpayer funding of NPR.

Please sign this letter today and forward this email to everyone you know. If NPR wants to kowtow to sharia’s suppression of speech, it should do so without any taxpayer funding.

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

NPR, Juan Williams, and sharia

NPR, Juan Williams, and
sharia law

Contact NPR today!

 Our email yesterday focused on how sharia law’s prohibition against any critique or criticism of Islam or Mohammed is negatively impacting our nation’s ability to publicly discuss and debate the issue of radical Islam.

Almost as if on cue, National Public Radio sacked commentator Juan Williams because of remarks he made on The O’Reilly Factor Monday.

This goes beyond political correctness. This is a media company, partially financed with our tax dollars, in effect doing the bidding of sharia law. American newspapers that refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons did the same thing.

With these actions they betrayed the first amendment while capitulating to the demands of sharia law.

Particularly disturbing is that there is the appearance that NPR was kowtowing to CAIR, the Council-on American Islamic Relations, which quickly organized a public relations effort demanding NPR “address” Juan Williams’ remarks. (To see the CAIR media release, click here.)

CAIR is the organization whose co-founder, Omar Ahmad, is on record declaring “the Qur’an should be the highest authority in America,” and whose chief spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, has said he would like the government of America to be Islamic sometime in the future.

We urge you to contact NPR and express your outrage, in a firm but civil tone, at this politically correct assault on freedom of speech.

     •   NPR “Listener Care” phone number: 202.513.3232.

     •   Or, click here to send an email.

Let NPR know the American people will not sit idly by while a taxpayer-funded media company runs roughshod over the First Amendment.

And watch for our email on Monday, when we will announce our next action step!

What is Muslim Free Speech?

Why Islamists suppress
free speech

Recent forum and debate expose this Achilles heel

DAny critique or expose’ of Islam is usually met with name-calling (e.g., “Islamophobia”) from Islamists and their enablers, rather than rational or factual responses and rebuttals.

There are at least two reasons for this.

First, sharia law does not provide for nor protect free speech. Criticism of Islam, Allah or Mohammed is a criminal offense. When Muslims attempt to suppress free speech critiques of Islam they are abiding by sharia law, and insisting that we non-Muslims bow before sharia law as well. They frequently get furious when we refuse to do so.

Second, as two examples below will attest, public discourse and debates about radical Islam reveal the truth that Islamists don’t want Americans to see. Hence, they rant, rave, and name call in the hopes of demonizing those who dare to expose the truth so as to keep the truth from the American people.

Two recent events reveal why Islamists and their enablers avoid genuine debate.

  • A recent event held in Des Moines, Iowa, entitled “A Forum on Being An American Muslim,” produced a very illuminating exchange, where ACT! for America chapter leader Steve Kirby’s question about sharia law and free speech was completely ignored by the Muslim moderator. The moderator went so far as to prevent Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a reformist Muslim, from answering the question by taking the microphone from him! To read Steve’s short summary of this incident, please click here. (You will need Adobe Acrobat to open the PDF).

  • A recent debate was held in New York, debating the motion “Is Islam a religion of peace?” To view this fascinating debate, please click here.

    Prior to the debate, the audience members were polled as to their position on the motion.

    41% were for the motion
    25% were against the motion
    34% were undecided

    After the debate, the audience was polled again. Check out these eye-popping results!

    36% were for the motion (a decrease of 5 percentage points)
    55% were against the motion (an increase of 30 percentage points)
    9% were undecided

    In other words, after seeing only one debate, most of the undecideds and some of those who initially agreed that “Islam is a religion of peace” changed their positions to opposing the motion.


Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Believe it, new FILM, Barack Obama meets Ronald Reagan and they have a chat!




Subject: IN THEATERS NOW: "I Want Your Money" - A Movie You CAN'T Afford to Miss

The Nation Magazine

The Nation: Can't Workers of the World Unite?

Today, I WANT YOUR MONEY – the highly anticipated, hilarious Obama exposé that everyone is talking about - opens in movie theaters nationwide. If you’re tired of Obama’s big-government-tax-and-spend policies, YOU WILL LOVE THIS MOVIE!

Stephen Moore of the Wall St. Journal called it,
“A must see for Americans!”

MovieGuide called it,
"Hilarious, highly informative and inspiring!"
Former Attorney General Ed Meese called it
a “great film; entertaining and very clever!”

And you don't have to be Christian to enjoy this. You can be a Muslim or a Jew, A Buddhist or Hindu, or believe in nothing and actually learn something! If you're a "liberal" you'll probably sober up without a 12 step program and learn everything you never knew!

Click here to find a theater near you:

Click here to view the trailer:
(over 3.5 million people have watched the trailer so far!)


I WANT YOUR MONEY is a controversial new film about the competing economic visions championed by Presidents Reagan and Obama –  a duel of speeches, wit, animation and narrative that leaves audiences laughing, cheering, yelling... and engages them in the national conversation about the mounting national debt, and why it matters.  After all, IT’S YOUR MONEY THEY ARE SPENDING.

Including insightful interviews with Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, Ed Meese, Mike Huckabee, John Stossel, Michael Reagan, Congressmen Tom McClintock, Thad McCotter and former California governor Pete Wilson, among many others, EXPLAINING CLEARLY WHY OBAMA’S PLAN HAS FAILED, AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO RECOVER.


“This is not your usual (boring) political documentary. It’s engaging and funny, even as it conveys a serious message about economics and politics.”
- Hans A. von Spakovsky, National Review

“This film will make all American taxpayers laugh, think and, I hope, act to save our jobs, our economy and our future.”
- Grover G. Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform

“A Tea Party party!”
- Kara Swisher, Wall Street Journal

“Barack Obama meets Ronald Reagan, in the Oval Office!”
- Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner

"Ray Griggs' I WANT YOUR MONEY has achieved the impossible: making the federal government's insatiable appetite for the fruits of your labor both enlightening and entertaining."
- U.S. Rep. Thad McCotter, Republican House Policy Com mittee Chairman

“Why don’t politicians think like us when it comes to money? Watch I WANT YOUR MONEY to find out -- and do it before the next election.”
- Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women For America

"I WANT YOUR MONEY exposes the venality of the Obama economic plan, but does so in a playful, lighthearted way. The result is that its humor is as devastating as its factual revelations."
- Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring

“A sobering yet humorous look at the damage we are doing to our country by shirking our moral responsibility on fiscal discipline."
- FRC Action President Tony Perkins

“Where's the lefty documentarian Michael Moore? A young conservative Moore wannabe is out with new movie, I WANT YOUR MONEY - pretty good, too!”
- Michael Medved, radio talk show host

"I WANT YOUR MONEY is brilliant, entertaining and very funny.  Responsible citizens of voting age should view I WANT YOUR MONEY as required viewing."
- Pete Wilson, former Governor of California, US Senator

“Visually inspiring, spiritually uplifting, bravely accurate and at times hysterically funny.“
- Kerri Houston Toloczko, Institute for Liberty

“A concise, viewable history of how America got into its economic mess and what policies will free our country's citizens to prosper once again.”
- David A Keene, President, American Conservative Union

“Educational yet fresh and entertaining."
-  Darla Dawald, National Director of

Sent with permission by:
Christian Media Updates/BuzzPlant
709 W. Main St.
Franklin, TN 37064

March 29, 2005

Workers of the World Unite!!!

 Workers of the World Unite

A friend of mine, with whom I often debate the merits of private accounts within Social Security, was recently offended by this portion of a Gregory Mankiw article in The New Republic:
The second reason the left hates personal accounts is that, over the long term, they could destroy one of its favorite battle cries: the alleged conflict between evil capitalists and oppressed workers. (“Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”) No ambitious political figure today would be stupid enough to quote Marx, but let’s face it, much of the left’s rhetoric is a less elegant paraphrase of his worldview.
Social Security reform could put a stake through the heart of this populism once and for all. After workers develop an equity stake in corporate America, they will start watching CNBC and the “Nightly Business Report.” Their view of how they relate to the economy will fundamentally change. Bush understands this, and it is one reason he talks about an “ownership society.” Democratic leaders understand it as well.Their biggest fear is that a nation of stockholders could easily morph into a nation of Republicans.
The association between Marx and the modern-day left he felt was a cheap shot, and in many ways I agree. It was an easy way for Mankiw to label the opponents of partial privatization, making them guilty by association before any facts were presented.

While I do agree with Mankiw that the flawed ideas of Marx (and Adam Smith for that matter) have had a profound effect on current political philosophies, I believe the case for voluntary personal accounts can stand on its own two feet.

Let's keep the debate to the facts (ala the second paragraph quoted above and the many more good points in the article) and I have no doubt that Americans will be convinced of the benefits of PSAs.

But given the context of the discussion above, I had to laugh when I saw the cover of The Nation as I passed an airport newsstand this weekend:

The Nation: Can't Workers of the World Unite?

Do you think The Nation, like Mankiw, would be taken more seriously if they stopped the references to Marx?

October 17: Iraqi PM al Maliki said that Iranian intervention, interference and enabling of terrorism is DESTABILIZING Iraq & the Palestinian Territories!

Today on Fareed Zakaria on CNN, broadcast world wide, Iraqi PM al Maliki said that Iranian intervention, interference and enabling of terrorism is DESTABILIZING Iraq and the Palestinian Territories! This is coming DIRECTLY from the mouth of the Iraqi PM, a Shiite (Iranian) branch of Islam and a friend of Iran. In other words, American withdrawal from Iraq is, shall I put it mildly, premature. Draw your own conclusions about snatching defeat out of the mouth of victory.



Al Q'aeda's new English speaking magazine INSPIRE, a professionally-produced magazine for faithful Jihadists like yours truly, cover and pages reproduced below, admitted that for all intents and purposes al Q'aeda has been defeated with the exception of small operations in Afghanistan. From the magazine you can learn how to make bombs in your mom's kitchen.

The violence in Lebanon, Yemen, and the DISPUTED territories in ISRAEL, according to Iraqi PM al Malaki and every sane person, is promoted by Iran - not al Q'aeda. Al Q'aeda's American spokesman recommends their international cells to give up spectacular operations such as blowing up entire cities, after all they have all failed, and get real: shootings in cafeterias and the use of kitchen knives with which they should go on stabbing sprees. I'm reminded daily why Americans say: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. It should get really interesting as fifteen Americans with .50 Desert Eagles blow away the towel head as he runs about screaming Allahu Akhbar!



Now the only question remaining is, WHO exactly defeated al Q'aeda? Was he this man?:

Or....May I suggest a clue for "liberals" and libertarians who actually believe their own drivel:

LESSON: Never pick up a liberal.
He will either curse you or cry when
the truth is told him!
One Less Bush Supporter

NEXT: You may have not heard, but before America invaded the Muslim World, there never was war. Muslims never slaughtered Christians or Jews for 1400 years before America was Founded two hundred years ago. And here is TRUTH for ya: Every war America fought for was over lithium batteries for your iPods. Betcha didn't know that!
Two Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy Theories about War: America Wants Control of the World and AA Batteries
2010 October 16
Lisa Richards
by Lisa Richards

Whether it’s Salon,, or the phony has-been wrestler Jesse Ventura, anti-war left-wingers insist America invented every war in existence, because America seeks world dominance and battery power.
These leftists are 9/11 truthers, birthers, and anti-Semites.  They are adored by white supremacists, and include every radical fringe element hiding in their mother’s basement.

Here are examples of  extremism by two leftists: Glenn Greenwald and Jesse Ventura.

1. War and Terror Never Existed Until George W. Bush
Bush Invented 9/11, Islamic Terror, and War

Radical Libertarian Lew Rockwell published Glenn Greenwald’s latest column, “They Hate Us For Our Occupations,” claiming America created violence in the Muslim world by being a war-mongering occupier.

Rockwell advertised the anti-war piece as “What is Wrong with Muslims?” But Rockwell and Salon never discuss the fact that Islam has consistently attacked the West for 1,400 years, attempting world domination and extermination of Jews and Christians; rather, the two spew anti-American hate, calling America an imperialist conqueror justifying illegal wars by using Islamic terrorism as an excuse.

The column starts by rehashing Greenwald’s 2009 Salon piece, “A Rumsfeld-Era Reminder About What Causes Terrorism,”:
The primary rationale for remaining—and escalating [the war]—in Afghanistan is the same all-purpose justification offered for virtually everything the U.S. has done since 2001: Terrorism.  Apparently, the way to solve the Terrorist threat is by sending 60,000 more American troops into a Muslim country and committing to at least five more years of war there.  That, so the pro-escalation reasoning goes, will make us safer.
Leftists claim it’s anti-American to retaliate against threats and attacks, contending that George W. Bush invented Islamic violence in 2001.  Greenwald needs to re-read history. America has been attacked by Islam for 40 years: from the late 1960’s to 9/11, with attacks still continuing.  Before 9/11, America negotiated, arrested, and imprisoned as if terrorism is a misdemeanor.

Now we provide terrorists the U.S. court system so they can sue after attacking us.

The Iraq War is considered illegal Bush/Cheney/Obama war-mongering and mass murder, despite Saddam’s decades of mass murdering.  No matter, he was never a threat; Saddam pretended to gas, torture, imprison, and bury humans in mass graves.  Civilians never died in war until 2001.  America is the threat.

Greenwald claims Rumsfeld’s Commission report proves America created Islamic violence:
In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to review the impact …the administration’s policies—specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism.   They issued a report in September, 2004…it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive… worsening the terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.  The Task Force…[said] the ’underlying sources of threats to America’s national security…’ [are]  the ‘negative attitudes’ towards the U.S. in the Muslim world and ‘the conditions that create them…’ what most exacerbates anti-American sentiment, and…the threat of Terrorism?  ‘American direct intervention in the Muslim world’ –through our ‘one sided support in favor of Israel…’ and… ‘the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan…
The Task Force took sides with Islam over Israel, giving Islamic violence justification as American government officials apologized, yet again, for America fighting evil to save the world.

Typical leftists, be they radical libertarians or Democrats, do not support the prevention of terrorism: to do so is mass murder.  Radical libertarians only love America when they fight to lower taxes, end the Fed, and eliminate government excess. Other than that, they are fundamentally anti-American left-wingers.

Greenwald followed up the rant with his latest published in and  He writes:
[A] new, comprehensive study from Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, substantiates what is…already bleedingly obvious and…known to the U.S. Government for many years:  namely, that the prime cause of suicide bombings is not Hatred of Our Freedoms or Inherent Violence in Islamic Culture or a Desire for Worldwide Sharia Rule by Caliphate, but rather…foreign military occupations.
So Mohammad was a peaceful warmonger who lovingly slaughtered Jews?
Greenwald says Pape proves Islamic attacks against America are America’s fault:
We have lots of evidence…when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns, … and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign, further saying Obama has made suicide bombings increase with additional troop presence.
Obama increased suicide bombings?  No matter who is president, Islam has always attacked non-Muslims, and consistently bombs Israel for conquer. 

American Middle East presence does not escalate Islamic terror.  America is not 1,400 years-old.  Pape may want to research further if he wants an honest assessment of who actually started Middle Eastern and worldwide terror and why it continues to this day.
Greenwald snidely disagrees:
Isn’t Muslim culture just so bizarre, primitive, and inscrutable…they actually seem to dislike it when foreign militaries bomb, invade and occupy their countries, and Western powers interfere in their internal affairs by overthrowing and covertly manipulating their governments, imposing sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of Muslim children, and arming their enemies.  Therefore…the solution to Terrorism is…interfere more in their countries …continuing to occupy, bomb, invade, assassinate, lawlessly imprison and control them… that’s the only way we can Stay Safe.  There are people over there…angry at us for what we’re doing in their world…we need …[ more war] to eradicate the anger.  That’s the core logic of the War on Terror.  How is that working out?
Had America retaliated for prior attacks, perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented and America would not be dealing with threats from an Iranian dictator who massacres Muslims protesting in Tehran streets, while preventing Western coverage, because Islam-loving leftists might see what the Muslim world actually does to human beings.

2.  Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory: America Goes to War for Lithium Batteries

Phony wrestler-turned-failed mayor-turned-failed-governor, Jesse Ventura,  can now claim the title Official Leader of Libertarian Tin Foil Capped Conspiracy Theorists.

Ventura’s new theory: war for lithium, and it is by far the looniest.
Ventura knows why America went to war after 9/11: lithium.  Ventura claims the United States planned 9/11 in order to create wars against Afghanistan and Iraq “so we could steal their lithium for our batteries and computers.”

On Thursday October 14, 2010, Fox Business News’ Eric Bolling interviewed Ventura about his crazy theories, which proved nuttier by the minute, as Ventura claimed all wars are concocted, going so far as to claim Mainland China never invaded Japan, or vice versa. Rather, Japan was so desperate for war, they made up Chinese invasions as an excuse to invade America, who created Pearl Harbor for the excuse to enter World War II.

The fact Ventura was elected governor of a state proves this country needs to think twice when standing at the polls.

After decades of attacks on Americans and our military by the Muslim world, and 1,400 years of constant war against the Western world, America went to war against Afghanistan for one reason: America needs lithium to power laptops, cell phones, and mp3 players.  That is America’s excuse for fighting terrorism.

I just want to be clear, we did not go to war to stop terrorism or steal oil (we still have yet to acquire from Iraq); we are at war to save the AA batteries.
Ventura could use a different kind of lithium.

If the lithium theory is true, Afghanistan would be second in wealth to Saudi Arabia, making America crawl and beg for battery power.

Ventura is adamant about his leftist libertarian theories: America created 9/11 and blew up the World Trade Center.  Listening to Ventura rant about 9/11 conspiracies is no different than listening to Rosie O’Donnell’s steel can’t melt theory, which was debunked by scientists, or other Hollywood elitists, who claim the War On Terror was invented for money and world domination.   All leftists, be they Democrat or Radical Libertarian, believe America is the evil empire controlling the world and inventing wars for oil.

Bolling, who witnessed the attacks and lost friends, tried to reason with the nutty Prairie Home Companion to no avail.  Bolling said, “3,000 people died on 9/11,” to which Ventura loudly interjected: “That’s right, and who really killed them; who really killed them; who really killed them!”

Bowling replied: “Who really killed them?  It was radical Muslims who flew planes in the World Trade Center that killed them.”

Ventura angrily disagreed.  Ventura never gave substantial evidence to back up his theories, because none exists; all he did was prove conspiracy theorists are as unhinged as their wild, uneducated conspiracies.

The left-wing, anti-war Ventura needs to remove the tin foil cap and get out of his basement once in a while to see there is a specific group of people on the planet—Muslims— who hate non-Muslims (they murder their own trying to be free of the radical religion).  They have been trying to conquer the West over the last 1,400 years.  Islam does not care about oil or lithium; they live solely for Koran verses and the written demands taught to them by Imams.
America did not create Islamic violence or 9/11, history proves this, but Ventura staunchly disagrees.

To prove the U.S. blew up the World Trade Center and not Islam, Ventura pulled out a photo of the collapsing towers, asking Bolling, “what do you see, a collapsing building or a building being blown up?”  Bolling said he saw what he witnessed in person on 9/11: “buildings collapsing.”  Ventura angrily demanded the buildings “never collapsed, they were blown up by the U.S. government.”

Ventura insists 9/11 was planned: “it was our entrance into Afghanistan, because America needed lithium,” which is apparently abundant in Afghan mines.  We were desperate “to power” our American “batteries and computers,” so “America started a war so we could steal their lithium.”

Now it all makes sense to me.  George W. Bush was furious, because his TV remote went on the blink, so, he started a war just before the 2001 World Series began.  In fact he made sure the first game would be stalled so he could steal enough lithium for TV remotes, that way American men would not lose their minds and be forced to watch Lifetime TV for Women.

Bolling attempted logic with Ventura about the 9/11 attack, terrorism, and wars, but Ventura refused to hear any statistical evidence disproving the theories he needs to promote his new Conspiracy Theory TV show.

Ventura and Greenwald, like all leftists, believe wars are illegal, America invented war, 9/11 is America’s fault, we made it happen, and we are murderers stealing from other nations for super power.

These leftists prefer evil destroy the world they believe is a haven of natural resources America is trying to conquer.  The truth is, the Left needs war to breed Western guilt.  It funds expensive anti-war/anti-American protests, Web sites, and conspiracy theory TV shows used to claim America invented terror and Islamic violence.

Good Judgment: Bad Judgment

Bad judgment is the result of inexperience. Good judgment is the result of experience. One of our leaders has no experience and bad judgment are the results. In that other nation, on top of 4.5% economic growth and a higher ownership of private property, they will tack on another 2% of economic growth for the coming two years. Results cannot be argued.

Here is a plan for America. Just substitute the words, Israeli or Jewish and replace with America and American. Now Obama can use more or less this very same speech and launch America on a new century of prosperity, safety, strength, learning, and morality. We are, as they have always been, EXCEPTIONAL. We Americans are exceptional, and as you can see, we need to apply the very same rules and principles they have outlined for their world, for higher education, control of our borders, uncompromising national security, economic and moral revival, and NO MORE BS! Read on, We Shall be Redeemed as soon as an American Leader learns from the Israeli Leader and STANDS UP FOR AMERICA AS THE ISRAELI HAS. - AGB

Bookmark and Share
PM Netanyahu’s Speech at the Opening of the Knesset Winter Session



Photo by GPO

Enlarged Picture

It is not by chance that the portrait of the State visionary, Benjamin Zeev Herzl, hangs here, on the wall of the Israeli Knesset.  In 1896, Herzl wrote in his book, “The Jewish State”: “The Jews who are seeking a state will have a state.  Finally, we will live as free people on our own land.”

I mentioned these things at the beginning of yesterday’s Cabinet meeting, along with several other key sentences from the history of our country, and because of their importance, I would like to repeat them here at the opening of this session of the Knesset of Israel.

In 1947, 51 years after Herzl, on the eve of the establishment of the State of Israel, David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary: “The state that will be established will be Jewish in its purpose, designation and objective; not a state of those Jews who reside in the country but a state for the Jews, for the Jewish People.”

In 1992, in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the Knesset determined the following: “The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”

Members of Knesset,

The State of Israel is, therefore, both the nation-state of the Jewish people and a democratic country for all its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike, enjoying full equal rights.

There is no country in our region that protects the individual rights of its citizens and the rights of their minorities like Israel’s democracy does.

The Zionist movement established an exemplary democracy and established an exemplary nation-state, a country that balances the national needs of our people with the individual rights of each and every one of Israel’s citizens.

There is no other democracy in the Middle East, and there is no other Jewish state in the world.

The combination of these two values – a Jewish state and a democratic state – expresses the foundation of our existence and the essence of the State of Israel.

I will expand on this point later on.

My fellow Members of Knesset,

During the Knesset Winter Session, we will continue dealing with the great tasks the State of Israel faces.

We intend to pass a second two-year budget in the State of Israel.

We succeeded in returning the economy to the path of growth and stability.  An additional two-year budget will help us continue these trends.

We are moving forward with the transportation revolution, developing a road and train network in the Galilee and the Negev.  You all travel the nation’s roads.  You see this revolution taking shape, the tremendous amount of work being carried out in order to connect the South and the North and to ease traffic jams in the center of the country.

We are beginning to implement the land reform, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of families in Israel will move from leasing their apartments and homes to full ownership of them.

We will continue to advance legislation regarding the planning and construction reform in order to finally alleviate the bureaucratic complications that hinder the increase in the supply of land, and which provide a constant incentive to practice nepotism and corruption.

The land reform, the planning and construction reform and the work being carried out in transportation will provide additional growth of between one and two percent per year, and I believe even more, to the GNP.  This means that we will have the resources to invest in the national needs that rightly interest the members of this house, especially two needs: security and education.

We are launching a program to rehabilitate education, including higher education, in Israel.  Higher education in Israel is in desperate need of resources.  Within six years, we will add NIS 7.5 billion to higher education.

This year, we will establish four centers of excellence at the universities out of the eventual 30 that will be established over the next several years.  These centers will gather together the most brilliant minds in Israel and abroad.  We are dealing with what is called “returning and nurturing minds” in the fields of the future, four in particular that we decided to focus on: finding fuel alternatives; the computer- and cyber-world; brain research; and unlocking the genetic code in order to cure diseases.

We are beginning to adapt the elementary education system to the 21st century.  In the next two years, teleprocessing systems will be introduced into 900 elementary schools in the North and South, with an overall investment of NIS 420 million.

We are not only teaching excellence, but also Zionism.  We are beginning the project to restore 150 heritage sites.  We have already begun work on historic sites in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and on kibbutzim, including: at the cemetery near the Kinneret where the poets Rachel and Naomi Shemer are buried; and in the auditorium where the Declaration of Independence was presented, on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv.

I will visit these two places in the next week.  All Israeli children should visit them.  As always, knowing our past is the key to our future.  However, there is a need to deal with the pressing problems of the present as well.

During the Winter Session, we will begin erecting the land obstacle in the south to prevent the massive infiltration of illegal job-seekers, something that threatens that character and identity of the State of Israel.  This is a necessary step to preventing the country from being flooded by parties that undermine our economy, as well as the unique structure we have built here.

In the coming months, we will begin implementing the urban policing plan in order to promote law and order in all areas of the country, first and foremost in Lod.

Last week, I visited Lod.  I heard the Jewish and the Arab residents beg for protection from crime families and from violence.  They want to send their children to school without fear; they want to go out in the evening without fear for their lives.

They’re right.  Every Israeli citizen – Jew and non-Jew – deserves to enjoy personal safety.

Soon the Government will hold a special meeting in Lod.

We already decided to set up a web of cameras there and make it the pilot in the City Without Violence Project.  We did these two things in nearby Ramla, and vandalism and violence was reduced by approximately 50%. 

At the same time, we will begin investing in developing infrastructure in the non-Jewish sector, investing an overall amount of NIS 800 million.  We will invest an additional NIS 250 million in order to create special programs encouraging the non-Jewish sector to acquire higher educations.

As we promised, we are making significant changes to the economy, society, infrastructure, education and domestic safety.

We will, of course, continue to do so and we will continue in our efforts to return our kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit, to his family and to his people.

Now, Members of Knesset, I will move on to the political arena.

From the first day of the Government’s tenure, I called on the leaders of the Palestinian Authority to enter into direct peace talks with us without preconditions.

In my speech at Bar-Ilan University, I outlined the principles for a peace agreement with the Palestinians: a demilitarized Palestinian state which recognizes the state of the Jewish people and lives beside it in peace.

I believe that under the right conditions, the establishment of a Palestinian state could bring about peace, but if it is done in an irresponsible manner, the establishment of a Palestinian state could also be the cause for a worsening of the conflict and an increase in terror.

In order for the compromise to lead to peace and not war, it must be accompanied by two fundamental components: recognition and security arrangements.

When I say recognition, I mean Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.  This is not just stubbornness.  This is the root of the conflict and therefore a central foundation for resolving it.

For 100 years, the Palestinians have taught entire generations to believe that there is no Jewish people, that this land is their homeland alone.

The refusal to recognize the rights of the Jewish people and its historic connection to its land is the root of the conflict, and without dealing with it, there will be no end to the conflict.

As to security, any peace agreement between the Palestinians and us must be based on strong security arrangements in the field.

We left Lebanon and Gaza without such security arrangements, and we suffered thousands of rockets fired at the Negev and the Galilee.

I am not willing to make do with peace on paper.  The citizens of Israel are also not willing to make do with that.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 from the end of the Second Lebanon War, withdrawal from the Philadelphi Route after the Disengagement, the positioning of international forces in the North and the South – none of these things prevented the firing of thousands of missiles at Israel, and the smuggling of tens of thousands of additional missiles by Iran into hostile territory surrounding us.

I will not allow Iranian missiles to be positioned 500 meters from Kfar Saba, or scant kilometers from Ben-Gurion Airport.

We live in a small country – very small.  Our small dimensions pose existential security problems – problems that are unique to Israel.

We must not take these security problems too lightly, and we must not allow ourselves to be tempted by the illusion that a peace agreement, in and of itself, will resolve them.

We once had peaceful, normal relations, relations which included exchanges of delegations, contact between leaders, trade relations, especially of petroleum, with an important country.  That country is called Iran.

We also had wonderful, friendly relations with another country, with military cooperation, with full diplomatic relations, with visits by heads of state, with 400,000 Israeli visitors to that country.  That country is called Turkey. 

I still we can rehabilitate and restore those relations, which have deteriorated against our will.  Things have changed in Iran, and unfortunately in other places as well, almost overnight, and no one can promise us that, despite our desire, a similar thing won’t happen after the establishment of a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Therefore we must insist on strong security arrangements in the field, with determination and without fear, in order to ensure that the peace will be upheld in practice, and also in order to defend our existence in the unfortunate but possible case that the peace is violated.

Peace and security are interwoven, and they are the principles which guide me.  I firmly insist on the need for both of them, and I see that an understanding of our security needs has finally begun to penetrate international debate, beyond general statements.  I speak of our specific needs.  I believe, Members of Knesset, that if we stand together on this front, united around these principles, I am convinced it will help us achieve a peace agreement.

I believe that the unity surrounding these principles, which are so basic, so important and so real, can greatly advance our ability to achieve a peace agreement.

Although the Palestinians did not answer my call to begin direct negotiations for over a year, we took action. 

We removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints.  We encouraged impressive growth in the Palestinian economy – impressive by any standards, especially given the fact that at the same time the entire world was mired in recession and economic crisis.

And as you know, we also suspended new construction in the Jewish settlements for ten months.   We did so with a heavy heart.

We knew that this step would weigh heavily on our brothers and sisters, good and loyal Israeli citizens, taxpayers, participants in the Reserves, law-abiding citizens.  As the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated, it was an unprecedented move that no other government in Israel had taken before.

But we said we would do it and we did it.  We enforced the moratorium with determination and without compromise.  For ten months.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians wasted those ten months as well.

Now they demand that we continue the moratorium as a condition to continuing the talks.  I hope they are not doing so to avoid   making the real decisions necessary for a peace agreement.

Because they too will have to make difficult decisions.  I don’t belittle that.  I know what kind of decisions we will have to make, but I also know what kind of decisions they will have to make.  The only way to reach a peace agreement is to try, through direct talks, to bridge the gaps and make decisions. 

However, as Prime Minister of Israel, I am committed and want to advance towards an agreement, one that will bring an end to the conflict and achieve peace between us and our Palestinian neighbors.

I know, Members of Knesset, that one can argue a great deal as to the path to achieving peace – but there is no argument that we will not achieve peace if we do not try.

During the past several weeks, I have explored every path to ensuring the continuation of the talks.  I asked myself – what could convince the government and, more so, the citizens of Israel, that the Palestinians are truly ready to live with us in peace?  What would show that there has been a genuine change on the Palestinian side – something that would demonstrate to us, the majority of the public, that they are not only demanding concessions by Israel, not only issuing dictates, but that they are ready to take a meaningful step towards us.

There is one thing.  I transmitted the message through quiet channels during the past month, and I am now saying it here, publicly: if the Palestinian leadership will unequivocally say to its people that it recognizes Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, I will be ready to convene my government and ask for another suspension of construction for a fixed period.

Because the Palestinians expect us to recognize the Palestinian state as their nation-state, we can expect them to recognize the Jewish state as our nation-state.

I am not insisting that this recognition serve as a precondition for talks.  We will continue the negotiations in any event, without any conditions.

However, there is no doubt that such a move by the Palestinian Authority would serve as a trust-building step, one that would open up a new horizon of hope and trust among broad sections of the Israel public who, in light of the events of the past decade, have lost their confidence in the Palestinian’s desire to end the conflict.

Unfortunately, so far the Palestinians have not answered this call, and the United States is attempting other means to ensure that the talks take place.

The United States has made various suggestions, and we are seriously and responsibly considering them, in accordance with Israel’s national interests, first and foremost security.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We do not lack for difficulties and challenges, but I am convinced that we will overcome them.  We must only think of the obstacles we have overcome since Herzl expressed his vision.

The ancient Jewish people, so experienced in suffering, returned to its historic homeland at the turn of the previous century and found it destroyed, neglected and desolate, full of swamps and malaria.

For over one hundred years, we built it through sweat and blood, and we established a magnificent country.

Those reverberating words of the Declaration of Independence, read by David Ben-Gurion, still touch our souls today: “We hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel to be known as the State of Israel.”

This is the secret to our national existence, and recognition of this has always been and will always be the true foundation for peace.

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.


Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

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

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams


Obama learned his lesson well

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama


War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us

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

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

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

Deciphering Obama in Cairo

Deciphering Obama in Cairo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

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

See original article here.


or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

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

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

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

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

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

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


Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong



OBAMA Comment by

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

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

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

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

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

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


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

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


This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

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

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at

Page Printed from: at March 30, 2008 - 11:06:16 PM EDT

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

[excerpted from]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

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


This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2


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