Saturday, 25 December 2010

Census Results Empower GOP

Census Results Empower GOP: "Liberal states lose population to Western and Southern states with better business climates."

California Meltdown

Editor: The California LEFT machine will be taking over. Will Californians miss Arnold? Will they reduce the debt?
Check out this article

California Meltdown: "Spending faultline could spill Sunshine State into the Pacific."

Monday, 6 December 2010

Happy Hanukkah



Happy Hanukkah


On behalf of everyone at the ACT! for America family, we extend a warm Happy Hanukkah greeting to our Jewish family, friends and supporters. May the glow of the Hanukkah Menorah keep us ever mindful of the courage and strength of the Maccabees and that goodness does indeed triumph over evil.

Always devoted,


Brigitte Gabriel



New DVD available



DVD from the 2010 National Conference & Legislative Briefing Now Available

Also available: “Always Remember” 9/11 solid pewter ornament






In case you haven’t seen this on our website, we now have available on DVD the five general session presentations from the 2010 National Conference & Legislative Briefing.

If you would like to get a copy of this information-packed DVD for yourself or as a gift this holiday season, simply click here, choose the “Patriot Partner” or “Contributing Member” option, and then select the giving level that says “2010 National Conference DVD.”

This three and one-half hour DVD contains the following presentations:



  • “The threat of radical Islam,” presented by Brigitte Gabriel, President, ACT! for America.

  • “Radical Islam, energy, and our national security,” presented by former CIA Director James Woolsey.

  • “Civilian courts and the war on terrorism,” presented by Andrew McCarthy, lead prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

  • “CAIR’s legacy of lies and terror ties,” presented by Paul Sperry, investigative journalist and co-author of Muslim Mafia.

  • “Asking the right questions. Making the right arguments. Exposing the truth about radical Islam,” presented by Guy Rodgers, Executive Director, ACT! for America.
For those interested in a beautiful, unique keepsake of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, we have available a solid pewter “Always Remember” ornament.
Whether you hang it on your Christmas tree, set it on a mantle, or hang it on the wall, this hand-poured ornament is a poignant reminder that we must never forget what happened on 9/11.

To obtain this one-of-a-kind keepsake, simply click here, choose the “Contributing Member” option, and then select the giving level that says “Pewter 9/11 Memorial Ornament.”



2011 National Conference


Mark this date on your calendar!
ACT! for America’s 2011 National
Conference & Legislative Briefing



We will be holding our next annual National Conference & Legislative Briefing on June 22nd and 23rd, 2011.

The conference will be held at the beautiful Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC.

More details will follow in the next several weeks, but in the meantime, please mark the date on your calendar!

Last year’s conference included briefings by nearly ten Members of Congress and presentations by experts including:



  • Brigitte Gabriel, President, ACT! for America
  • James Woolsey, former CIA Director
  • Andrew McCarthy, lead prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial
  • Paul Sperry, co-author of Muslim Mafia
  • Guy Rodgers, Executive Director, ACT! for America

Rep. King says prosecute WikiLeaks



U.S. Rep. Peter King says prosecute WikiLeaks


 U.S. Rep. Peter King, in line to be the next chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has once again demonstrated he’s the right man for the job.

As the story below notes, Rep. King has publicly called for WikiLeaks to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

In our view Rep. King is correct. The continuing dumps of these classified documents will ultimately damage our ability to successfully prosecute the war on Islamist terrorism, if for no other reason than other countries will feel reluctant to share vital intelligence information with us.

U.S. Rep. King’s determination, his willingness to identify our enemies by name and ideology, and his public criticism of political correctness, deserve our thanks.

If you would like to send Rep. King a short email, thanking him for his efforts to protect our safety and freedoms, please click here. Scroll down to the Action Alerts and click on the top alert titled “Thank you! U.S. Representative Pete King.” That will take you to the text box for the e-mail. Feel free to edit the e-mail as you would like to thank him for his efforts. After you have edited the letter, enter your name and contact information then click send message. Make sure to mention you’re part of ACT! for America!

Please email rather than calling his office. We don’t want to jam his office phone lines with messages of “thank you”!





http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11/29/131664547/wikileaks-is-a-terror-outfit-rep-peter-king


WikiLeaks Is A Terror Outfit: Rep. Peter King

Categories: National Security, White House, Congress

10:01 am

November 29, 2010

Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, said late Sunday that the unauthorized release of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, some with sensitive and embarrassing information related to foreign allies, was worse than a terror or military attack and should be dealt with accordingly.

That's saying something coming from King who many in the media view as one of the nation's leading political voices for a region that was intimately affected by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

King, who represents a Long Island district, is also expected to chair the House Homeland Security Committee when Republicans take over the lower chamber in January which will give him a highly visible perch from which to press his views.

King expressed his opinion on New York City's all-news radio stations Sunday.

An excerpt from an Associated Press/WINS radio report:

“This is worse even than a physical attack on Americans, it’s worse than a military attack,” King said.

King has written letters to both U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking for swift action to be taken against WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

King wants Holder to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act and has also called on Clinton to determine whether WikiLeaks could be designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

“By doing that we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them with any help or contributions or assistance whatsoever,” King said.

“The Attorney General and I don’t always agree on different issues. But I believe on this one, he and I strongly agree that there should be a criminal prosecution,” King told WCBS 880.

King reiterated his views Monday morning on NBC's Today Show.

King's statements indicate the kind of pressure the Obama Administration is likely to come under to use the full extent of executive power against Assange.

Anything short of that could leave the administration open to further charges that it is relatively weak on national security matters. That could allow the administration's critics to build on attacks they made after Obama announced his plans, since frustrated, to close the Guantanamo prison facility and his administration's controversial decision to have civilian trials for some admitted or suspected terrorists.

Both President Obama and Secretary State Hillary Clinton are due to make statements Monday morning to talk about the WikiLeaks release.

Ground Zero Mosque seeks tax dollars!



Ground Zero Mosque seeking tax dollars!


The “bridge builders” behind the Ground Zero Mosque have elevated their insensitivity to the point of sticking their thumb in the eyes of the 9/11 families and the 70% of Americans who oppose building a mosque at Ground Zero.

According to the CNN story below, “…the developer behind the controversial Islamic community center and mosque…has requested federal funding…”

For years St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, destroyed on 9/11, has been trying without success to rebuild. According to various news stories the church has been stymied by New York City bureaucrats. This is a travesty.

It’s bad enough that St. Nicholas continues to struggle to rebuild and that Imam Rauf and his backers continue to push their mosque on an unwilling America. But for the Ground Zero Mosque developer to seek an estimated $5,000,000 from us taxpayers to build it—that’s just over the top.








Islamic community center developer seeks federal funding

By Allan Chernoff, CNN Senior Correspondent

STORY HIGHLIGHTS


New York (CNN) -- The developer behind the controversial Islamic community center and mosque planned for Lower Manhattan has requested federal funding through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to support the project known as Park51.

The funding would come from money the Department of Housing and Urban Development allocated to help rebuild the neighborhood after the 9/11 attacks.

"Park51 has applied for a Lower Manhattan Development Corporation grant," said Sharif El-Gamal, CEO of SOHO Properties, the developer behind the Islamic center. In a statement, El-Gamal said the money would "in part fund social service programs such as domestic violence programs, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural art exhibits and immigration services."

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation received more than 265 applications seeking more than $175 million for community and cultural programs, though the LMDC has only $17 million of federal funding to allocate.

"We are now turning to the challenging but important task of sorting through the applications to identify those that address long-standing community and cultural needs," said Avi Schick, chairman of LMDC.

The grants will range from $100,000 to $1 million, according to Julie Menin, chair of Community Board 1 and a member of the LMDC board. Among the criteria used to judge applications, Menin said, are financial viability, job creation, revitalizing the community and a track record of service in Lower Manhattan.

"We have funded museums, public schools, programs to help small businesses hurt after 9/11," said Menin.

An online report said Park51 had requested $5 million, but neither the developer nor LMDC board members would confirm that amount.


The LMDC plans to decide how to allocate the $17 million "towards the end of the first quarter of next year," said Menin.

Park51 has yet to raise significant funds for the community center located two blocks north of Ground Zero, a project that could cost $100-million.

"Park51 has not launched a formal fundraising program and is currently in the process of expanding its Board of Directors to plan, manage and oversee such efforts," said El-Gamal, adding that the project has not yet applied for federal tax-exempt status, but plans to do so "in the coming weeks."


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/22/new.york.islamic.center/index.html?hpt=T2

Video: Brigitte Gabriel in Lebanon, 1987


Video: Brigitte Gabriel in Lebanon, 1987

“Thirty-five years
ago this month,
my home was
bombed”



Dear Press For,

As we celebrate Thanksgiving in this land of abundance, we reflect back on all the blessings we have in our lives. For me every Thanksgiving has special significance because it was at the end of November, 1975 that my life was changed forever.

Recently, I showed some friends a video that my husband, a journalist I met in Israel, made about my life to introduce me during our wedding ceremony in America in 1987. My friends said: “Brigitte you should show this, so people can see what you talk about in your book.”

This video was done 23 years ago, before I came to America, well before realizing my mission in life and well before starting ACT! for America. In this video, you will see my home, my parents, and scenes of my life during the war, shot with my mother and my cousin depicting my experience in the very bomb shelter I lived in.

When people ask me why I am so passionate about fighting the threat of radical Islam, and why I am so thankful for America, this is why.

Always devoted,


Brigitte Gabriel
President, ACT! for America


They're enemy combatants


“Citizen Appeal to the 112th Congress”

Add your name to this ten-point appeal—
which opposes civilian criminal trials for
enemy combatants


[Editor’s note: Friday’s email included a photo of Guy Rodgers speaking at a podium. The photo should have included this credit: “Courtesy of Jack Kemp, www.ProjectShiningCity.org.” ]

Last week the Obama administration’s attempt to try Ahmed Ghailani in a civilian criminal court proved a failure.

Charged with over 280 counts, he was convicted on only one—thanks in large part to the judge’s exclusion of a key prosecution witness.

The Obama administration appears determined to treat enemy combatants as criminals who deserve more due process rights than a captured enemy soldier would receive under the Geneva Convention.

If you agree with us that trying enemy combatants in civilian courts is foolish and dangerous, add your name to our “Citizen Appeal to the 112th Congress.”

If you saw our email last Friday, the delivery of our 120,000 name Ground Zero Mosque petition to Mayor Michael Bloomberg created quite a stir. 9/11 families at the press conference thanked us profusely for our efforts to successfully arouse public opinion.

We want to deliver just such a strong grassroots message to Congress regarding national security, so they don’t overlook our concerns as they tackle the deficit, taxes, and high unemployment.

It takes so little time to add your name to our “Citizen Appeal.” But it will mean so much. Because when we deliver the petition, Congress will hear us. The more signers of the petition, the better!

Among the ten points in our National Security appeal, we are calling on Congress to…


  • Secure our border and protect us from the increasing flow of terrorists into America.

  • Oppose any accommodation to shariah law.

  • Address the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations in America.

  • Pressure the Obama administration to accurately define our enemy as “jihadists.”

  • Oppose civilian criminal trials for enemy combatants.

  • Amend our humanitarian refugee acts to require that all refugees who enter the United States swear under oath they will not support any theological totalitarian political system, under penalty of deportation.
To read the entire “Citizen Appeal” and to add your name to this grassroots document, click here. Our plan is to deliver this sometime in February, not long after the new Congress is gaveled into session.

And please forward this email to everyone you know. Let your voice be heard!

Media reports delivery of ACT! petition



ACT! for America delivers Ground Zero Mosque petition at news conference

Numerous media outlets, many 9/11 families, and even some protestors attend!



Yesterday, at a news conference held at New York’s City Hall, ACT! for America Executive Director Guy Rodgers delivered our Ground Zero Mosque petition, signed by over 120,000 people, to Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Among the media present were the local Fox television affiliate, Reuters, and WNIS Radio. Click here to read the Reuters report and click here to view pictures included in the report filed by DNAinfo, which covers local Manhattan news. (As of this writing other stories had not yet been posted online).

Rodgers delivered a statement describing why ACT! for America launched this petition, that this was not an election year issue, and that the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque was not going away. Afterwards he answered several questions from the assembled press.

Also making statements to the media were Andy Sullivan, founder of the 9/11 Hard Hat Pledge; Tim Brown, retired New York firefighter and 9/11 survivor; and Rosaleen Tallon, whose brother, a firefighter, died that day.

"The moving stories told by Andy, Tim and Rosaleen brought tears to the eyes of many of those who came to watch this news conference," Rodgers said afterward. "Their pain was a reminder that what ACT! for America launched was a noble and right thing to do."

Spicing up the event were a few protestors who shouted the typical rants we have come to expect.

After the event several 9/11 family members approached Rodgers and Lisa Piraneo, ACT! for America’s Director of Government Relations, to express their thanks for what ACT! for America has done thus far in our opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque.

"You are helping keep the opposition alive," one of them said.

You, the signers of this petition, made this possible. You are helping keep the opposition alive. That message was delivered, loud and clear.

Gabriel speaks out on full-body scanners


In WorldNetDaily interview, Brigitte Gabriel addresses controversy over full-body scanners and pat downs



RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINES

Expert: TSA scans would let al-Qaida duplicate 9/11

Brigitte Gabriel warns unless U.S. starts profiling, nation is vulnerable


Posted: November 18, 2010
12:10 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=229613


Brigitte Gabriel
A terrorism expert says the invasive screening procedures demanded by the Obama-run Transportation Security Administration would do almost nothing to stop a determined terrorist because they already are experimenting with inserting explosives in a body cavity or even surgically implanting the destructive charges.

The comments come from Brigitte Gabriel, who is the founder of Act! For America, a 150,000-strong group that works to warn Americans against the dangers of militant Islam and the Muslims who follow it.

She also is a member of the board of advisers for the Intelligence Summit, and she lectures internationally on global terrorism.

Join more than 17,000 others in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.

The issue has hit a flashpoint in the last few days as newly installed TSA procedures demand that airline passengers submit to a full-body scanning machine that generates an essentially nude image of the passenger for TSA workers to see, or a full-body pat-down that includes what critics have called "groping" of private parts of the body.

"These procedures are not effective at all with terrorists," Gabriel told WND in an interview today. "If a true terrorist wants to go blow up an airplane, these machines will not detect it."

She said like drug dealers already have proven, substances hidden inside body cavities or even embedded surgically remain undetected by any or all of the TSA's procedures.

"If al-Qaida is planning against the U.S. multiple attacks in a day, in multiple airplanes, it could duplicate 9/11," she told WND. "Al-Qaida is testing inserting breast implants, stuffing breast implants with explosives."

She said a woman then could go into an airplane restroom and use a syringe similar to those used by diabetic patients to trigger an explosion that would disintegrate a modern jet.

"This is what al-Qaida is resorting to, and they're exploring surgery for men," she warned. "They want to implant explosives inside the body.

"Terrorists are conditioned and trained to blow themselves up, to become suicide bombers," she said. "They are ready to die to go to heaven to meet Allah."

It was last February that the special intelligence report Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin documented the same circumstances Gabriel described.

At that time, it was revealed in the special report that intelligence agents for Britain's MI5 service found that Muslim doctors trained at some of Britain's leading teaching hospitals had returned to their own countries to fit surgical implants filled with explosives.

The report documented that women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida were known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery. The lethal explosives – usually PETN (pentaerythritol Tetrabitrate) – are inserted during the operation inside the plastic shapes. The breast is then sewn up.

The report said similar surgery has been performed on male suicide bombers. In their cases, the explosives are inserted in the appendix area or in a buttock. Both are parts of the body that diabetics use to inject themselves with their prescribed drugs.

The report at the time quoted Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, saying, "Properly inserted the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines. You would need to subject a suspect to a sophisticated X-ray. Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner."

Experts confirmed in the report that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN when activated would blow "a considerable hole" in a jet airliner, guaranteeing a crash.

Gabriel, who has addressed former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, members of Congress, the Joint Forces Staff College, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the FBI and members of the British Parliament, said the only accurate way to spot terrorists is to use the profiling techniques used in Israel, which despite being a major target for terrorism, has a substantially safe airline industry.

"They know how to profile, ask the right questions. This is what it's going to take," she said. "We need to throw political correctness in the garbage where it belongs. This is the time for the public to rise up and demand public officials to come up with ways to identity the threats by name."

Gabriel, who is author of the New York Times best-seller "Because they hate: A survivor of Islamic terror warns America," and "They Must Be Stopped: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it," was a news anchor for "World News," the Arabic evening news broadcast for Middle East Television seen throughout Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. She covered the Israeli withdrawal from Central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. Her work was international in scope, bringing her in contact with world figures such as Margaret Thatcher, George H. Bush Sr., Itshak Rabin, Shimon Perez and Ariel Sharon.

She moved to the U.S. in 1989 and founded a television production company that worked with "The Today Show," "Oprah," "Dr. Phil" and others.

She told WND in Israel, terror experts are trained to watch for eye movements, breathing rates and other physical indicators that a "passenger" is more than just that.

Even something as simple as a cologne or perfume can be an indicator, she said, because terrorists essentially are preparing themselves to enter heaven.

Those factors can pinpoint a potential terrorist whether they are dark-skinned and named Mohammed or they are six-foot-tall, blue-eyed, blonde holders of American passports, she said.

The current TSA demands "insult our intelligence," she said. "It's nothing more than window dressing. … The American public must come together and revolt against these procedures. The Obama administration has failed in identifying our problem. The administration is not paying attention to terrorism."

She called out Obama even for his decisions to eradicate references such as "Islamic terrorist," "jihad" and "Islamic radicals" from the speech of the government.

"How on earth can we win against the jihadists if we are afraid to identify them by name," she said.

National security appeal to Congress

homelearnactlocal chaptersContact Congress


“Citizen Appeal to the 112th Congress”

Add your name to this ten-point appeal to
safeguard our National Security


Two weeks ago the American people voted for a change of direction in the Congress.

Today we launch our “Citizen Appeal to the 112th Congress.”

Among our ten point National Security appeal, we are calling on Congress to…


  • Secure our border and protect us from the increasing flow of terrorists into America.
  • Oppose any accommodation to shariah law.
  • Address the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations in America.
  • Pressure the Obama administration to accurately define our enemy as “jihadists.”
  • Oppose civilian criminal trials for enemy combatants.
  • Amend our humanitarian refugee acts to require that all refugees who enter the United States swear under oath they will not support any theological totalitarian political system, under penalty of deportation.
To read the entire “Citizen Appeal” and to add your name to this grassroots document, click here.

We understand that foremost on many voters’ minds were the issues of the economy, the national debt, and what became known as “Obamacare.”

But defending our national security and our freedoms, which should be the top priority of our Congress in its fulfillment of the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, must not be overlooked.

The good news is we know there are many Members of Congress who agree with us, and some of them will be assuming key leadership positions in the new Congress.

This grassroots “Citizen Appeal” will let them know we support their efforts. For those Members of Congress who are not paying the attention they should to these issues, our appeal will be a trumpet blast reminding them that failure to safeguard our national security is not acceptable to us.

So please read and add your name to this important document. Our plan is to deliver this sometime in February, not long after the new Congress is gaveled into session.

And please forward this email to everyone you know. Let your voice be heard!

CAIR's latest outrageous demand



CAIR’s latest demand demonstrates once again it wants shariah law in America


 Taking off shoes, belts and jewelry. Removing coats. Taking computers out of their cases. Removing any trace of metal from pockets. Being subjected to pat downs and tests for explosives.

This is the ordeal every passenger flying on a commercial airline in America has to endure, thanks to past terrorist acts and the threat of future acts.

We’re sure you’ll be pleased to learn that in February the Fiqh Council of North America issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners now used at many airports violate shariah law.

According to the report below, CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has endorsed this fatwa and issued a travel warning telling Muslim women that they have the right to object to “enhanced pat downs.”


Remember, it is CAIR’s Oklahoma affiliate director that filed the suit to block Oklahoma’s prohibition of the use of shariah law in courts. It was CAIR’s co-founder, Omar Ahmad, who said in 1998 he wanted the Qur’an to be highest authority in America.

CAIR’s latest action should remove any doubt. CAIR’s real agenda is the imposition of shariah law in America.





http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/muslim-group-advises-women-wearing-hijab


Muslim Group Advises Women Wearing Hijabs to Allow TSA ‘Enhanced Pat Downs’ Only on Head and Neck Area
Friday, November 12, 2010
By Penny Starr


Muslim women wearing hijabs. (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel warning to Muslim airline passengers on U.S. aircraft in response to the Transportation Safety Administration’s "enhanced pat down" policy that went into effect in late October.

CAIR said Muslims who object to full-body scans for religious reasons should know their rights if they are required to undergo a pat-down, including asking for the procedure to be done in a private place. In addition, CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck.

In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it states: “Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.”

It also states: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers per form a chemical swipe of your hands.”

The new TSA pat-downs involving “head-to-toe” screening techniques follow recent airliner bombing attempts. Passengers who reject a full-body scan or who are selected for secondary screening may be searched using the enhanced pat-down.

“Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives,” a TSA statement issued on Oct. 28 stated. “Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.”

Posted on its Web site under “TSA’s Head-to-Toe Screening Policies,” the agency said how people are dressed may lead to closer inspection, including baggy or loose clothing. Those policies also include individuals being searched by a “professional” of the same sex. “It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner,” the policy reads.

In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law.

“It is a violation of clear Islamic teaching that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” the ruling states. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of the faith. The Qu’ran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.”

CAIR endorsed the fatwa, according to a Feb. 21 article in the Detroit Free Press.

Did CAIR help our cause?



Did CAIR Help Our Cause?

Lawsuit against Oklahoma shariah ban will expose America to CAIR’s real agenda and the oppressive nature of shariah law


Last week, after the Oklahoma affiliate of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) sued to block the Oklahoma amendment that passed with 70% support, we sent out a national email asserting that this lawsuit reveals CAIR’s real agenda—the advance of shariah law.

Investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry, co-author of the expose’ on CAIR entitled Muslim Mafia, recently posted an Investors Business Daily commentary (below, highlights added) that sheds more light on this.

Just as the Ground Zero Mosque controversy became a vehicle for a national discussion about Imam Rauf’s advocacy of shariah law, so will CAIR’s lawsuit. What’s more, the American people will get to see that current and former leaders of CAIR want Islamic law (shariah) to rule America.

We are not going to try to predict what judges will decide on this lawsuit as it works its way through the courts. But we do agree with Sperry’s comment below, regarding a national debate about shariah law: “This is not a debate CAIR wants to have.”

But we do.

Thank you, CAIR.




http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/553407/201011101914/Shining-A-Light-On-Shariah-Creep.aspx


IBD EDITORIALS

Shining A Light On Shariah Creep


Posted 07:14 PM ET November 10, 2010

Islamofascism: The Council on American-Islamic Relations may wish it never sued to overturn an Oklahoma ban on Shariah law. Now the entire nation will get to see it and other Islamists' true anti-American colors.

CAIR is thumping its chest over persuading a Clinton-appointed federal judge to temporarily block Oklahoma from enacting a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering Islamic law when deciding cases. Fully 70% of Oklahoma voters passed the landmark measure.

But CAIR has ignited a legal firestorm that will likely rage all the way to the Supreme Court. Thanks to CAIR's latest bit of lawfare, Americans will get to hear a long overdue debate not just about the constitutionality of such bans on Shariah law but about the constitutionality of Shariah law itself.

This is not a debate CAIR wants to have, since it ultimately will have to defend the indefensible. It claims in a press release that Shariah law is "a dynamic legal framework" derived from Islamic scripture "and analytical reasoning." In fact, there's nothing reasoned about it. It's a medieval legal code that administers cruel and unusual punishments such as stonings, amputations and honor killings. Think the Taliban.

Shariah can be seen in action this week with Pakistan's death sentence on a Christian woman for blasphemy. Between 1986 and 2009, at least 974 people have been charged for defiling the Quran or insulting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

CAIR, which thinks free speech is a one-way street, is working with the Organization of the Islamic Conference on an international blasphemy law that would criminalize "Islamophobia," according to the book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America."

Shariah also permits wife-beating, something CAIR also knows about. Its sister organization, the Islamic Society of North America, condones it in its fatwas (or religious rulings) for Muslim Americans. More, CAIR distributes a book, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran," which authorizes men to hit their wives.

CAIR says it's just a "civil rights advocacy group." But the Justice Department says it's a front group for Hamas and its parent, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.

"From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a recent court filing.

U.S. prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel millions to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.

"CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.

Federal courts found "ample evidence" linking CAIR to the conspiracy and are expected to unseal the dossier in coming weeks.

The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it's not a terror front. "Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner," advised Assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

CAIR's leaders don't want a ban on Shariah law, because they have a secret agenda to institutionalize Shariah law in America.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper let it slip out to a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter in 1993, before CAIR was formed.

CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad, wants Shariah law to replace the Constitution. "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. "The Quran should be the highest authority in America."

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is an Islamic supremacist who thinks Muslims should run Washington: "Who better can lead America than Muslims?"

Islamizing America also happens to be the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood the radical, Cairo-based outlaw group the government says CAIR is fronting for. The founding archives of its U.S. branch, seized in an FBI raid and introduced as evidence in the Holy Land trial, reveal a "strategic goal" of "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house ... so that Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions." The Brotherhood calls its plan a "grand jihad." CAIR argues in its suit that "the Shariah ban's purpose is to stigmatize, denigrate and segregate plaintiff's faith in the public's mind as something foreign and to be feared."

No, the goal is to make sure no Oklahoma judge considers Shariah law in rulings on domestic violence, family law, probate, free speech, contracts and other matters, as judges have in other states, to a wider degree in Canada and now on a routine basis in Britain. The ban is to prevent courts from legitimizing a religious legal system antithetical to the U.S. Constitution in the areas of freedom of speech, equality and humane punishment, among other bedrock Western principles.

Thanks to CAIR's lawsuit, all this can now be aired out for the public.

Saluting our veterans



Saluting Our Veterans

By Brigitte Gabriel



Dear Press For,

Words tremble on my lips and emotions swell in my heart in my attempt to humbly thank you for all the things you do to protect America and the world. Words cannot express my depth of gratitude to your service, to your sacrifice, to all that you leave behind to go forth into the world and protect America’s interests around the globe.

With deep gratitude I thank you for the nights you slept freezing in a tent or sweating in the desert, for the lonely days you spent missing your loved ones, for the hours you spent sick in pain and without someone holding your hand, for the moments of sheer fright in the heat of battle, for the wounds you have suffered fighting evil, for the endless days in hospitals undergoing painful surgeries, for the precious occasions you have missed back at home. For all of these sacrifices I thank you on behalf of millions of Americans who are so grateful for you. We truly appreciate these sacrifices.

A special thank-you is in order to your families, to the parents who raised you and made you be the man or woman you are today. I thank your wives, husbands, and your loved ones who stand by you and support you with their love and dedication.

And for those who returned in eternal sleep, may your legacy be honored for generations to come, may the tears shed over your coffins fertilize the fields of patriotism in our nation to raise a new generation built on strength and honor, able and willing to follow in your footsteps when duty calls to defend America. May your blood not have been shed in vain. May we prove worthy of your sacrifice. May we always honor your parents so they will always know that they are the parents of an American hero.

You are our brave ones, our heroes, and our national treasures. You are the pride of our nation, our strength and our foundation. Thanks to you, millions have been freed around the world. Thanks to you, those who criticize our country, burn our precious flag, and speak ill of you, are able to do so because their freedom is built upon your blood and your sacrifice.

It is because of you that we launched Veteran Defenders of America. We know that veterans still want to serve their country and I encourage you, whether you are a veteran or family member of one, to visit the Veteran Defenders of America website to see what you can do to continue making a difference for America.

I salute you one and all. I bow before you in respect and humility. May God bless you and bless America, land of the free and home of the brave, and the dream that became my address.


Brigitte Gabriel
President, ACT! for America

It's all about sharia

NPR & Juan Williams; State Question 755 & CAIR; Imam Rauf & the Ground Zero Mosque—It’s all about sharia



  • Thanks to the national controversy surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque, this year more Americans became aware of a term many had never heard before—sharia law.
  • This past weekend Human Events published a column (see below) co-authored by ACT! for America president Brigitte Gabriel and executive director Guy Rodgers, dealing with the recent sacking of Juan Williams by NPR and what this means regarding sharia law.
  • One week ago ACT! for America efforts helped win overwhelming passage of a constitutional amendment in Oklahoma prohibiting its courts from using sharia law when deciding cases.
  • Two days later, the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma amendment.
These events and more are awakening Americans to the realization that the threat of radical Islam goes beyond the threat of terrorism. Terrorism is but one means to an end, and the ultimate end is the advancement of sharia law around the world, whether through violent jihad or stealth jihad.

When you forward our email alerts, encourage others to sign up for those alerts, make a contribution, or start or join a local chapter, you are helping us continue building the grassroots citizen action network that is effectively pushing back against the threat of radical Islam, both violent and stealth jihad, and its objective—the imposition of sharia law.




http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39797

NPR, Juan Williams, and Sharia Law
by Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers
11/07/2010

NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour. It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.

A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed. Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.

In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world.

Islamists around the world are seeking to impose Sharia’s muzzling of free speech on free societies. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 56 Islamic states, has won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—clearly referring to Islam. After all, does anyone really expect countries like Saudi Arabia to criminalize speech that “defames” Judaism?

Criminalizing speech that is deemed “defamation” of Islam is tantamount to a backdoor enactment of Sharia law. The law may have a different name or description, such as prohibiting “hate speech,” but the effect on speech is the same as if Sharia law were in place.

The Netherlands and Austria are two countries where such de facto “Sharia-compliant” laws are in effect. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently on trial for publicly criticizing Islam. Austrian Parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted of a similar “crime” in early 2009. And just last week we were informed that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who is an ACT! for America member and chapter leader in our expanding international program, will go on trial there for allegedly transgressing the same law.

When newspapers around the world, including most in America, refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons, capitulation to de facto Sharia law occurred. The ostensible reason was to avoid “offending” or “inflaming” the Muslim world. The practical effect was a widespread media self-censorship that was every bit as much a compliance with Sharia law as if Sharia law were the actual law of the land.

Some Muslims and Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argue that such self-censorship is necessary because without it “Islamophobia” will continue to rise. But there is more here than meets the eye.

Immediately after Juan Williams’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, CAIR swung into action and demanded that NPR “address” what Juan Williams said.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program on Fox News to defend CAIR’s actions. Tellingly, he failed to reiterate his comment made in a 1993 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in which he said, “I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad expressed a similar sentiment in 1998 when he was quoted in two California newspapers maintaining that “the Koran should be the highest authority in America.”

In other words, he wants Sharia law, not the Constitution, to be the supreme law of the land.

Contrast Hooper’s statement with one recently made by moderate and reformist Muslim Dr. Tawfik Hamid:

"Organizations like ACT! for America have come into existence because of the very real threat posed to free people everywhere by what some call “radical Islam” or “Islamism.” Sadly, the response I see from too many in the Muslim world is to reflexively label such efforts as “Islamophobic” rather than [to] conduct a serious evaluation of Islam that asks why so many non-Muslims harbor legitimate fears and concerns. I believe [that] the Muslim world needs to provide a peaceful understanding of the religion that unambiguously rejects the current mainstream teachings in Islam that promote hatred, discrimination, and violence. It is the responsibility of Islamic scholars to provide such alternative teaching to Muslims before asking the world to stop engaging in so-called “Islamophobia.”

Hamid’s reference to the harboring of “legitimate fears” by non-Muslims speaks directly to what Juan Williams was expressing. Don’t shut down free speech. Instead, we should encourage more speech that candidly addresses the threat of radical Islam and what that threat means to Americans, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.

It’s clear that NPR decided to make an example of Juan Williams for crossing a line into the Forbidden Zone of political correctness when he spoke out on the “sensitive” issue of Islam. But NPR’s action transcends the boundaries of political correctness. As newspapers did when they self-censored cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed, NPR sent an unmistakable message to Islamists worldwide that Sharia law, even when not formally the law of the land, trumps our First Amendment. 

Ground Zero Mosque event



Ground Zero Mosque petition to be
delivered November 18th

Last chance to add your name to the
over 117,000 who have signed



On November 18, 2010, at 11:00 A.M., ACT! for America will hold a news conference on the steps of New York City Hall to announce the final results of our national petition opposing the Ground Zero Mosque, and to deliver the petition to Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Guy Rodgers, ACT! for America Executive Director, will be making a statement to the media and then answer media questions.

If you haven’t yet signed the petition, there’s still time to do so before we close the petition in preparation for delivering it to Mayor Bloomberg on November 18th.

Also, if you live in the New York City area or plan on being in the area on November 18th, we invite and encourage you to attend the news conference. New York City Hall is located at Broadway and Park Row, and the news conference will be on the City Hall steps.

ACT! for America is proud of the role we played in educating Americans about the Ground Zero Mosque. In addition to our petition and the many emails we put out, Brigitte Gabriel did over 200 radio and television interviews between April and September.

Without question these actions helped created and propel the national groundswell that resulted in 70% of Americans being opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque.

While media coverage of this issue has died down, the opposition isn’t going away.

CAIR sues Oklahoma sharia ban


CAIR sues to block Oklahoma sharia ban

CAIR’s real agenda revealed



“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”

Omar Ahmad, CAIR co-founder, quoted in the San Ramon Valley Herald,
July 4, 1998



 As the National Journal story reports below, the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has filed suit to block implementation of State Question 755, known as the “Save Our State” amendment.

SQ 755 prohibits Oklahoma courts from using sharia law when judging cases. The amendment was overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters, garnering over 70% support.

ACT! for America played a key role in educating the voters about SQ 755, including two weeks of statewide radio advertising, 600,000 automated phone calls with a message recorded by former CIA director James Woolsey, editorials and letters to the editor, and radio interviews.

Prior to the vote CAIR’s Oklahoma director had argued SQ 755 was unnecessary because there was no chance sharia was coming to Oklahoma.

The CAIR lawsuit now confirms what CAIR leaders have said in the past—CAIR’s real agenda is the importation of sharia law to America.

Consider Omar Ahmad’s quote above. What is he actually saying? That sharia law should govern America.

Consider this 1993 quote from Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s current communications director, who told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

What is Hooper saying? That sharia law should govern America.

Not surprisingly, in recent years CAIR has been quiet about this agenda, but now that agenda has been smoked out by SQ 755, a measure which is not discriminatory nor inhibits the practice of religious Islam, but protects non-Muslims and Muslims alike from the tyranny of sharia law.




STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Muslim Group Sues Oklahoma Over Sharia Amendment

By Althea Fung

Friday, November 5, 2010 | 8:06 a.m.

A Muslim advocacy group is suing to stop a measure approved by Oklahoma voters on Tuesday that would ban judges in the state from considering Islamic law in court proceedings.

About 70 percent of voters approved State Question 755, which says “the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.”

Muneer Awad, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations's Oklahoma chapter, filed the suit in U.S. District Court to block officials from certifying the measure. Awad told the Wall Street Journal the measure violates the First Amendment right to practice religion without government intervention.

CAIR legal adviser Gadeir Abbas said SQ755 was "designed to stigmatize Muslims, to turn the Constitution of Oklahoma into a vehicle for oppressing a minority that is currently unpopular."

The "Save Our State Amendment" was proposed by Republican state Sen. Anthony Sykes, who said the amendment isn’t about persecuting Muslims but keeping the Oklahoma judiciary system from “sliding down a slippery slope.”

Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, who worked to get the amendment passed, said on Fox and Friends this morning that it's about not allowing criminals to use religious code to circumvent the system when they're "prosecuted for beating or assaulting their wives or daughters."

“What we really need to do is make sure people can’t void the impact of criminal law by citing their religious beliefs,” he said.

In New Jersey, a judge declined to place a restraining order on a Moroccan man who forced his wife to have sex. The ruling was later overturned.

A hearing is set for Monday.

OK voters say 'no' to sharia law

Oklahoma Voters Overwhelmingly 
Say “NO” to Sharia Law

The “Power of the Gavel” changes in Washington


A Post-Election Analysis by Guy Rodgers,
Executive Director, ACT! for America


Largely unnoticed amid last night’s story of the Republicans winning back the U.S. House and making significant gains in the Senate was the Oklahoma vote on State Question 755.

SQ 755 was a state constitutional amendment that will prohibit Oklahoma courts from using sharia law in deciding cases. It passed overwhelmingly last night with 70% support!

But this outcome was by no means a foregone conclusion. On October 7th, a poll was released with these results on SQ 755: 45% in favor, 25% opposed, 30% undecided.

Two major newspapers editorialized against it. The CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) affiliate in Oklahoma spoke out repeatedly against it in the media with its shop-worn “Islamophobia” propaganda.

We here at ACT! for America surmised that the high undecided percentage reflected voter misunderstanding of the issue AND confusion as to which way to vote on the initiative. And when voters are confused on a ballot initiative like this, they tend to either not vote on it or vote against it.

On October 18th ACT! for America launched a two-week statewide radio ad in support of SQ 755. Then, on October 21st, 26th, and November 1st we dropped a total of 600,000 automated calls to Oklahoma voters with a message urging support of SQ 755 from James Woolsey, former director of the CIA.

Additionally, we placed an editorial in one of the state’s major newspapers, sent multiple emails to our members, and conducted several radio and print media interviews.

The 70% support demonstrates that our efforts to educate the voters and clear up any confusion were immensely successful.

This 70% victory was significant because this was the first time voters had a chance to vote in a statewide election on the issue of sharia law. The overwhelming margin sends an unequivocal message to Islamic organizations and Muslims, such as Ground Zero Mosque Imam Rauf, who advocate sharia law for America—sharia law is not welcome here!

As for the other election results, from the ACT! for America perspective the most important consequence is that “the power of the gavel” will switch in the U.S. House of Representatives.

By this I mean key committees, such as the Homeland Security Committee, will likely be chaired by Members of Congress who truly understand the threat radical Islam poses to our national security and who will have a different list of priorities regarding what bills to consider and hearings to hold.

The legislative calendar, controlled by the Speaker of the House, will also reflect different priorities regarding what bills to bring to a vote before the full House.

This is a MAJOR step forward in our legislative efforts on Capitol Hill. Bills we supported this year that didn’t even get a committee hearing will receive the serious and thoughtful consideration they deserve. Prospects for House passage during the next two years of some of our legislative priorities have improved dramatically as a result of last night’s election results.

Without question, most voters were making their decisions based on concerns about the economy, jobs, federal spending and ballooning deficits, and what became known as “ObamaCare.”

But as exits polls I saw revealed, voter concerns about national security were lurking just beneath the surface. Americans are aware of the increase in homegrown jihadism and there is a growing consciousness about the threat of sharia law.

These election results not only bode well for progress in the Congress on our legislative agenda, they also bode well for increased pressure on the Obama administration to adjust the way it is defining and addressing the threat of radical Islam.


Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

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

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams

THE NEW GAME: POWER CLING !!!

Obama learned his lesson well


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama

WorldNetDaily

War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us


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

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

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

Deciphering Obama in Cairo


Deciphering Obama in Cairo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

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

See original article here.


WHO SAYS A STIMULUS ACTUALLY STIMULATES?

or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-UCLA-

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

LSMS368


AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

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

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

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

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

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

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

NOW LA PRESIDENT SUPPORTS SARAH PALIN

Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong

OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN

WHY IT IS WRONG TO CALL IRAQ A MISTAKE

OBAMA Comment by AltMuslim.com

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

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

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

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

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

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?

(crosstalk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


Comments

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

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


VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

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

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

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

VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2

Truth?

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