I voted for George W. Bush twice. I believed he had America's best interest at heart and viewed him more favorably than his opponents. That is not to say that I have not been very disappointed by him. Most recently is a sense of betrayal.
First disappointment was his leadership and judgement in the execution of the Iraq War. I will not go into the merits of this war. I believe he used too small a force when he initially went in. This needlessly resulted in an increase in cost, in human lives, time spent, and monetary expense. He tried to pull off a war "on the cheap". This policy has proven disastrous.
Our "allies" were not going to be happy with the war; however he conducted it. We know that Europe enjoys the naive belief that all problems can be resolved through diplomacy. We saw that in the lead up to WWII. We saw it in the Balkans. We witnessed it prior to the Iraq War. Most recently we watched their diplomacy fail to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. Europe is a conglomerate of socialist states, far to the left of Americas limited socialism. For them it is much more palpable to capitulate to demands, any demands, than to stand on principle. It is easy to understand, when you realize that for them "principle" is tenuous at best. It is similar to electricity. In their weak state, they are too willing to embrace the "path of least resistance".
In Britain this is seen with the creation of Sharia Law courts right in London itself. It allows Muslims to bypass the British courts and be tried before a Sharia Court, usurping the sovereignty of Britain. We realize those with leftist ideologies tend to be wimps when it comes to putting up a fight. They find comfort in capitulation.
We can see that right here in the U.S. within the Democrats party. They would argue and protest to save a whale before they would defend human life, unless that human life was on death row.
Had we gone into Iraq with an overwhelming force from the beginning and finished the job sooner, we could have been salving the European angst at our unilateralism much sooner.
For me, last Friday came the ultimate Bush betrayal. The G-20 leaders were in Washington, DC attempting to find common solutions to our world financial crisis. It was at this meeting that I believe that President Bush formalized the selling out of America as a economic and military superpower. He has proven himself to be a globalist amongst globalist. While those other leaders hate him, they coyly embraced him.
In a development that attracted the attention of some media, the U.S. agreed at the conference to the establishment of “supervisory colleges” by March 31, 2009, to monitor “all major cross-border financial institutions.” It is the beginning of a new global regulatory body that could eventually impose and collect a currency transactions tax known as the Tobin Tax, named after the late Yale University economist, James Tobin. Such a tax, which could affect stocks, mutual funds, and pensions, could generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
But ignored by most of the media was the fact that buried in the “declaration” endorsed by Bush and other leaders meeting on Saturday was (Point number 14) support for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, “the development assistance commitments we have made,” and a reaffirmation of “the development principles agreed at the 2002 United Nations Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, which emphasized country ownership and mobilizing all sources of financing for development.”
This language may sound vague or confusing. However, to those familiar with the U.N. and its conferences and the Millennium Development Goals, it all makes perfect sense. This is a commitment to devote 0.7 percent of the Gross National Product to official foreign aid, a plan envisaged in President-elect Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. It will cost $845 billion, to be recovered in whole or part through a global tax. The phrase “all sources of financing for development” is U.N.-speak for global taxes.
In addition to his Global Poverty Act, which could pass Congress in a lame duck session or after President Obama takes office, the Jubilee Act is also being pushed for the benefit of other nations of the world. It would cancel as much as $75 billion in debt owed by foreign countries. The total of the two measures is $920 billion. Since the U.S. will have to borrow the money, the figure will go higher when interest is added.
In a conversation with Margaret Lee, my much older sister, I brought up the issue of the Global Poverty Act. Like so many Americans, she had not heard of it and questioned the validity of my claim. Many Americans will be surprised by this development, and share my sense of betrayal.
America's mainstream media are part of the complicity to impose this stealth globalization on our citizenry before they know what is going on. I believe the ball began rolling decades ago at the behest of the Trilateral Commission and more recently under the direction of the Bilderberg Group. This a global effort that is bypassing "voters" worldwide.
It is no coincidence that one of Obama’s personal representatives to the G20 meeting was former Republican Rep. Jim Leach, a left-winger who not only gave a speech backing Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention but is a long-time collaborator of the World Federalist Movement. This is a group that favors global taxes to finance world government.
Leach is clearly hoping for an appointment from Obama as the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, where he could help implement the Millennium Development Goals.
To demonstrate how the media view all of this, Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby on Thursday devoted a column headlined “Supersize the IMF” to the idea that the global financial institution known as the International Monetary Fund should get a massive infusion of American taxpayer dollars as well. He argued that the U.S. and other governments should triple their financial commitments to the IMF.
Mallaby, who doubles as director of the Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, didn’t put a price tag on this. But it was clear that he believes the more money the better. “A bigger IMF should be on its [the Obama Administration’s] agenda, he said.
Meanwhile, now that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has admitted that his $700-billion plan didn’t work out as planned, some in the media are acknowledging that they helped stampede the Congress into passing it.
On his CNN Reliable Sources show, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post asked his colleague Steven Pearlstein, “Wasn’t there a prevailing drumbeat that this package had to pass?” The reply: “I was, I guess, part of that drumbeat. It did have to pass.” Pearlstein added, “You know, the Congress and the government had to do something to get liquidity moving in the financial system. There’s no playbook for how to do this in a situation like this. People are making it up as they go along. And so we really shouldn’t be surprised that they tried something, it doesn’t work. They try something else, maybe it works. They’re throwing a lot of darts at the wall.”
But since it didn’t work and Paulson changed the plan, Kurtz asked, “Where is the journalistic outrage here?” It’s a good question. The only outrage I can find is coming from the taxpayers.
For his part, Pearlstein’s new column, “Toward a New International Capitalism,” includes no apologies over his central role in what has happened. Instead, he hails the arrival of a new era in which America “can no longer expect to dominate the institutions of international finance and will have to share power and influence with rapidly developing countries…”
In other words, America has been cut down to size and the beneficiaries are those who were always jealous of her wealth and power. The result will not only be less U.S economic power but the diminution of American military power. One will inevitably follow the other, especially if more U.S. manufacturing industries go bankrupt.
This is not “international capitalism.” It’s the victory of global socialism.
We are witnessing the leveling of the global playing field. A field where all nations and peoples will be on equal footing, irregardless of personal effort, and lacking any reward.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". - Karl Marx
http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Gay Embarrassment Over California Proposition 8
There is a plague of embarrassment weaving its way through the gay community. Earlier in this decade, California voters had voted against 'gay marriage'. The sympathetic courts ruled it unconstitutional. The court ruled that the voters had violated the states constitution. Voters responded by placing a constitutional amendment on this years ballot. This ballot initiative would bar such marriage with a constitutional ban.
I am not commenting on the issue of gay marriage. My concern lies in the behavior of those who felt victimized by the outcome of the election. The response by the agrieved will not win them support. It will only reinforce every negative opinion of their opponents. They will not move to the 'front of the bus' by kicking out the windows. They will move to the front when they present themselves as normal contributors of society. Gay communities must break out of their gay ghettos and stop trying to fulfill every negative stereotype. Involving themselves in the 'straight world' where people can get to know them in a nonthreatening manner will open the doors. Then acceptance will follow.
In the lead up to the election, the left outspent amendment supporters by a 6-1 margin. The amendments opponents on the left believed that they could buy the favor of voters. They ignored the heartfelt beliefs of gay marriage opponents.
Gay activists continued to try to shove an agenda down the throats of detractors. Just before the election, the activists treated first graders at one California school to a field trip. The field trip was to the gay marriage of their lesbian teacher. A week later, these activists held a surprise national 'Gay Coming Out Day', for children in grades K-8. It was held under the guise of teaching the children to be tolerant and build alliances.
If these activists believed what they were doing was "right", they would have afforded parents the opportunity to decide if it was age appropriate for their children. In the case of the lesbian wedding, they did notify parents. In the case of 'Gay Coming Out Day' they did not let parents know until it was over.
These activists believe they know what is "right" for all children and selfishly usurp parental authority. Most of these activists will never have children and do not identify with the responsibility that goes into parenting. These people are not interested in building "alliances", they are bent on indoctrination. Not indoctrination into the gay lifestyle, but into acceptance of the lifestyle.
California voters voted to ban gay marriage. The Black community voted more than 90%for Obama. They voted to ban gay marriage by 70%. Hispanic and whites also voted for the ban.
Since this defeat, these activists have been on a rampage across the US. They have targeted anyone they think may have voted in favor of this amendment. The activists accuse amendment supporters of bigotry and hatred.
Hate has abounded, not from the corners of Jewish synagogues, Christian churches or Muslim mosques. Those are just the places we've been told "hate" resides.
The "hate" was also not found in any single ethnicity, political party, or geographical demographic.
No the side that has been doing all of the hating since election day in the troubled parts of our nation have been militant activists radicals, who happen to be mostly white, mostly godless.
It is the radical activists roaming the streets, pushing elderly women to the ground, staging obnoxious protests outside places of worship, and in some cases interfering in the midst of worship services that have expressed all of the hatred seen since election day. They have even taken to harassing people on their way to or from the church door and their car.
But these haters are ignorant and as such, many Christians, Muslims, and Jews have shown compassion upon them.
The activists keep marching, screaming and forcing spittle to fly in little old ladies faces, for what end? To change the definition of a word. Prop 8 didn't say that those who are protesting like wild coyotes can't create a contract in which every arrangement in life that they would like can be legally protected and allowed for.
In California, the civil union law is one of the most liberal in the nation. But even if it were not the drawing up of a legally binding document insuring rights is now, and has been available since before the term "gay marriage" was even considered.
The true reason that the radical activists wish Constitutional authority to be undone, is very simple. Those who have been displaying rage and hate at the houses of worship, publishing the names of people on blacklists on the internet and encouraging violence, harassment, and worse against Prop 8 supporters--ironically--is due to their desire to see "hate crimes legislation" not only be passed, but amended to include those they would label "religious bigots."
The activists here are merely mirroring the history in the Scandinavian nations, and Canada in wanting to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
The activists have displayed bigotry in their protests as well. Choosing not to protest churches in--shall we say "economically challenged" neighborhoods like--Compton, they instead of made primarily white voters the victim of their hate-filled tirades. And while it was 1.6 million Barack Obama voters--many black and latino--that really served to make the win the decisive victory for marriage that it turned out to be, they have shied away from the churches attended by these same groups.
The Prop 8 opponents lost for simple reasons, they do not recognize Constitutional authority, they do not respect the disagreement of their opponent, they are dishonest with the facts, and they are far less tolerant than what the majority have ever endured from the most homophobic person they've ever met in person.
just this past week a 69-year-old woman carried a Styrofoam cross in support of traditional marriage into a pro-gay marriage march in Palm Springs and within seconds had the cross ripped from her hands and stomped on, and then the homosexuals began to shove her around and curse her out.
we move to Lansing, Michigan and last Sunday’s protest inside the Mount Hope Church by the rabid gay group Bash Back. These winners entered the church along with worshippers and surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers and condoms at the congregants, pulled the fire alarm, made out in front of the church by the pulpit and shouted slogans such as “Jesus was a homo.” No arrests were made.
Then we come to one Charles Bouley, radical gay activist and talk show host on San Francisco’s (where else) station KGO who on November 1st angrily said on the air that Joe the Plumber was a “G** D*** M-F’er” that he wanted dead!
These radicals want the public to believe they speak for all gays. They do not.
The radical gay activists do not understand why they can not force acceptance. They are a small minority within a small minority. These activists hate God, they hate those who believe in God, and ultimately their argument is with Him and against Him.
Most gays do not condone this thuggish behavior. For many it is an embarrassment. "Mainstream" gays loath the idea of being lumped in with these radical gay activists. The mainstream gays want to continue to live their lives uninterrupted.
I am not commenting on the issue of gay marriage. My concern lies in the behavior of those who felt victimized by the outcome of the election. The response by the agrieved will not win them support. It will only reinforce every negative opinion of their opponents. They will not move to the 'front of the bus' by kicking out the windows. They will move to the front when they present themselves as normal contributors of society. Gay communities must break out of their gay ghettos and stop trying to fulfill every negative stereotype. Involving themselves in the 'straight world' where people can get to know them in a nonthreatening manner will open the doors. Then acceptance will follow.
In the lead up to the election, the left outspent amendment supporters by a 6-1 margin. The amendments opponents on the left believed that they could buy the favor of voters. They ignored the heartfelt beliefs of gay marriage opponents.
Gay activists continued to try to shove an agenda down the throats of detractors. Just before the election, the activists treated first graders at one California school to a field trip. The field trip was to the gay marriage of their lesbian teacher. A week later, these activists held a surprise national 'Gay Coming Out Day', for children in grades K-8. It was held under the guise of teaching the children to be tolerant and build alliances.
If these activists believed what they were doing was "right", they would have afforded parents the opportunity to decide if it was age appropriate for their children. In the case of the lesbian wedding, they did notify parents. In the case of 'Gay Coming Out Day' they did not let parents know until it was over.
These activists believe they know what is "right" for all children and selfishly usurp parental authority. Most of these activists will never have children and do not identify with the responsibility that goes into parenting. These people are not interested in building "alliances", they are bent on indoctrination. Not indoctrination into the gay lifestyle, but into acceptance of the lifestyle.
California voters voted to ban gay marriage. The Black community voted more than 90%for Obama. They voted to ban gay marriage by 70%. Hispanic and whites also voted for the ban.
Since this defeat, these activists have been on a rampage across the US. They have targeted anyone they think may have voted in favor of this amendment. The activists accuse amendment supporters of bigotry and hatred.
Hate has abounded, not from the corners of Jewish synagogues, Christian churches or Muslim mosques. Those are just the places we've been told "hate" resides.
The "hate" was also not found in any single ethnicity, political party, or geographical demographic.
No the side that has been doing all of the hating since election day in the troubled parts of our nation have been militant activists radicals, who happen to be mostly white, mostly godless.
It is the radical activists roaming the streets, pushing elderly women to the ground, staging obnoxious protests outside places of worship, and in some cases interfering in the midst of worship services that have expressed all of the hatred seen since election day. They have even taken to harassing people on their way to or from the church door and their car.
But these haters are ignorant and as such, many Christians, Muslims, and Jews have shown compassion upon them.
The activists keep marching, screaming and forcing spittle to fly in little old ladies faces, for what end? To change the definition of a word. Prop 8 didn't say that those who are protesting like wild coyotes can't create a contract in which every arrangement in life that they would like can be legally protected and allowed for.
In California, the civil union law is one of the most liberal in the nation. But even if it were not the drawing up of a legally binding document insuring rights is now, and has been available since before the term "gay marriage" was even considered.
The true reason that the radical activists wish Constitutional authority to be undone, is very simple. Those who have been displaying rage and hate at the houses of worship, publishing the names of people on blacklists on the internet and encouraging violence, harassment, and worse against Prop 8 supporters--ironically--is due to their desire to see "hate crimes legislation" not only be passed, but amended to include those they would label "religious bigots."
The activists here are merely mirroring the history in the Scandinavian nations, and Canada in wanting to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
The activists have displayed bigotry in their protests as well. Choosing not to protest churches in--shall we say "economically challenged" neighborhoods like--Compton, they instead of made primarily white voters the victim of their hate-filled tirades. And while it was 1.6 million Barack Obama voters--many black and latino--that really served to make the win the decisive victory for marriage that it turned out to be, they have shied away from the churches attended by these same groups.
The Prop 8 opponents lost for simple reasons, they do not recognize Constitutional authority, they do not respect the disagreement of their opponent, they are dishonest with the facts, and they are far less tolerant than what the majority have ever endured from the most homophobic person they've ever met in person.
just this past week a 69-year-old woman carried a Styrofoam cross in support of traditional marriage into a pro-gay marriage march in Palm Springs and within seconds had the cross ripped from her hands and stomped on, and then the homosexuals began to shove her around and curse her out.
we move to Lansing, Michigan and last Sunday’s protest inside the Mount Hope Church by the rabid gay group Bash Back. These winners entered the church along with worshippers and surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers and condoms at the congregants, pulled the fire alarm, made out in front of the church by the pulpit and shouted slogans such as “Jesus was a homo.” No arrests were made.
Then we come to one Charles Bouley, radical gay activist and talk show host on San Francisco’s (where else) station KGO who on November 1st angrily said on the air that Joe the Plumber was a “G** D*** M-F’er” that he wanted dead!
These radicals want the public to believe they speak for all gays. They do not.
The radical gay activists do not understand why they can not force acceptance. They are a small minority within a small minority. These activists hate God, they hate those who believe in God, and ultimately their argument is with Him and against Him.
Most gays do not condone this thuggish behavior. For many it is an embarrassment. "Mainstream" gays loath the idea of being lumped in with these radical gay activists. The mainstream gays want to continue to live their lives uninterrupted.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Valerie Jarrett Named Senior White House Adviser
It figures Obama would name some of his sleazy Chicago cronies to his administration. We are going to be held hostage to these crooks for the next four years. Their brand of thuggery will continue to be embraced by the democrats.
With the naming of Jarrett,the role of "Cruella deVille" has been filled. In Jarrett we can easily look at the vast array of information available on her.
Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by real estate developers and Obama financial backers Rezko and Allison Davis. (Davis is also Obama's former boss.) Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis.
(According to press reports, housing projects operated by Davis and Rezko have been substandard and beset with code violations. The Chicago Sun Times reported that one Rezko-managed housing project was "riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions...lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers.")
As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company Jarrett also managed a controversial housing project located in Obama's former state senate district called Grove Parc Plaza. According to the Boston Globe the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage...In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale -- a score so bad the buildings now face demolition." Ms. Jarrett refused to comment to the Globe on the conditions of the complex.
"Like Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine. And it is no stretch to say that she was a slumlord," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We have real concerns about Jarrett's ethics. Washington already has plenty of corruption. We don't need to import more of it from Chicago." - http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/nov/obama-advisor-valerie-jarrett-linked-real-estate-scandals
I am surprised with Jarrett's questionable background that Obama and his poor judgement did not name her to head HUD. Jarrett and Obama really admire each other. Here is a video of her appearance on ''Meet The Press' declaring that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. I feel so reassured. http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/valerie-jarrett-obama-spokesperson-says-obama-ready-to-rule-on-day-1/
With the naming of Jarrett,the role of "Cruella deVille" has been filled. In Jarrett we can easily look at the vast array of information available on her.
Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by real estate developers and Obama financial backers Rezko and Allison Davis. (Davis is also Obama's former boss.) Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis.
(According to press reports, housing projects operated by Davis and Rezko have been substandard and beset with code violations. The Chicago Sun Times reported that one Rezko-managed housing project was "riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions...lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers.")
As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company Jarrett also managed a controversial housing project located in Obama's former state senate district called Grove Parc Plaza. According to the Boston Globe the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage...In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale -- a score so bad the buildings now face demolition." Ms. Jarrett refused to comment to the Globe on the conditions of the complex.
"Like Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine. And it is no stretch to say that she was a slumlord," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We have real concerns about Jarrett's ethics. Washington already has plenty of corruption. We don't need to import more of it from Chicago." - http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/nov/obama-advisor-valerie-jarrett-linked-real-estate-scandals
I am surprised with Jarrett's questionable background that Obama and his poor judgement did not name her to head HUD. Jarrett and Obama really admire each other. Here is a video of her appearance on ''Meet The Press' declaring that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. I feel so reassured. http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/valerie-jarrett-obama-spokesperson-says-obama-ready-to-rule-on-day-1/
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The End Of Free & Independent Media
For several years our media (both print and telecast) have increasingly cast aside any pretense of being free and independent. They have allowed their personal bias to shine through in every aspect of their "coverage".
When you think back through our recent history it is evident. They did all they could to destroy the Republican brand with the GOP'S own missteps and outright lies. During this same period they have done everything in their power to ignore or cover any missteps by the Democrats.
Upon election of Bush they set out to destroy him and the GOP through a constant barrage of ridicule. The late night talk shows and special programs designed for this purpose, such as "Li'l Bush" were bent on this destruction. Newscasts are consistent in their tilted coverage. At the end of the campaign SNL even added an extra night to drive home their derision.
They hold the two parties to a different set of standards. They will bash the GOP and conservatism for something that they would give a pass to if it were the Democrats and liberals.
MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER (MRC) President Brent Bozell summarized the Obama campaign news media travesty this way: "Everyone should be forced to admit that the publicists formerly known as the 'news' media have worked themselves to the bone this year to elect Barack Obama." The MRC has carefully documented news media bias for over 20 years now, and offers a wealth of information and commentary at its website. The quotes and statistics cited below come from that source.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE recognize what is going on. A survey by the liberal Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that "by a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain win on Nov. 4." Even 62% of Democrats recognized the media favoritism for Obama. Another Pew poll found that only 30% of the public believes all or most of what CNN reports, with 24% for NBC and 22% for CBS. A Rasmussen poll found that by a margin of 10-1, the public believes that reporters were trying to hurt Sarah Palin politically through their coverage.
These views are well grounded in reality. A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that since the conventions news reports about Obama were two-thirds positive and one-third negative. For McCain it was just the opposite. The Center also found that late night comics targeted 7 times as many jokes at the Obama ticket as compared to the McCain ticket. Even the liberal Project for Excellence in Journalism found that during the fall campaign, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by more than 3 to 1. But the MRC found that the networks produced 7 times as many positive reports about Obama as negative ones.
CNN, Special Correspondent Frank Sesno labeled Rep. Rahm Emanuel, announced as President-elect Obama's chief of staff, as "center to center-right." But the American Conservative Union gave Emanuel's voting record a score of 13% conservative in 2003, 4% in 2006, and 0% in 2007. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action, by contrast, gave Emanuel's record a score of 95% liberal in 2003, a perfect 100% liberal in 2004 and 2005, 90% in 2006, and 95% in 2007.
The model for a free and independent press is, in fact, the much maligned (by liberal left extremists) Fox News. If you examine its broadcasts closely, you will find that its policy is to include 50% liberals and 50% conservatives. Along with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly (whom many conservatives consider too moderate), Fox News features liberals Geraldo Rivera and Alan Colmes, and Democrat Greta van Sustern. Regular contributors include liberal Democrats Juan Williams, Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, and Morton Kondracke, Democrat pollsters and strategists Bob Beckel, Pat Caddell, and Dick Morris, and liberal academics. Check out the guests who are interviewed on all of their shows. They are evenly balanced liberal and conservative.
By contrast, if you look at the liberal controlled mainstream media, you rarely see any conservatives at all. Their ruling mantra is obviously to broadcast or print the liberal left party line, and to exclude conservatives and their views, which they openly deride instead. So all the yelling and screaming we hear about Fox News, dear conservatives, are really objections against having you included to any significant degree. It is a demand that you be muzzled as socially unacceptable.
Here is some early tough reporting on Barack Obama from Joe Klein of Time magazine,
"Obama's personal appeal is made manifest when he steps down from the podium and is swarmed by well-wishers of all ages and hues…. Obama seemed the political equivalent of a rainbow -- a sudden, preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy…. He transcends the racial divide so effortlessly that it seems reasonable to expect that he can bridge all the other divisions -- and answer all the impossible questions -- plaguing American public life."
NBC reporter Lee Cowan admits, "It's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger."
Then there is MSNBC co-anchor Chris Mathews, who is as objective about Obama as Juliet was about Romeo, saying, "He's come from a white family and a black family, and he's married to a black woman, and they're cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they're great looking, and they're cool and they're young."
Mathews later went on to describe how Obama sent a "tingling" sensation up his leg.
While on the subject of MSNBC, Keith Olberman, a man described by many to be in need of intense therapy for his neurosis, is on a nightly rant against anything other than the Democrats party line. As part of a group of letter writers that set out to overwhelm MSNBC's email during the GOP convention, I found solace that both Olberman and Mathews were removed from reporting. It was just as well, because they were unable to report. Olberman in his obsession, had derided the GOP for paying tribute to the 9-11 victims, and 'apologised' to viewers for airing it.
Associated Press writer Charles Babington offered this tough political reporting on the Obama campaign last May, "Presidential campaigns have destroyed many bright and capable politicians. But there's ample evidence that Obama is something special, a man who makes difficult tasks look easy, who seems to touch millions of diverse people with a message of hope that somehow doesn't sound Pollyannish."
When John McCain visited Iraq in March to check on how his ultimately victorious surge strategy was working, he got all of 10 seconds of coverage on the CBS Evening News, and two minutes on the ABC evening news broadcast. But when Obama went to the Middle East in July for the first time ever, the anchors from each of the three major networks went along with him, and gave their broadcasts from overseas with the Obama campaign. MRC's monthly newsletter The Watchdog accurately summarized this coverage with the headline, "Liberal Media Are Nearly Worshipping Obama."
Mark Phillips of CBS News reported on Obama's Berlin speech during that trip:
"There is a bit of a morning-after feeling here in Berlin after what they're calling the 'Obama show.' But if the intent of this trip was to raise Barack Obama's foreign profile, it could hardly have been raised any higher…. The stage could not have been bigger. The 200,000-plus crowd confirmed his rock star status, and his more cooperative sounding rhetoric was what the crowd wanted to hear."
Phillips did not mention that the crowd and the rock star status may have had something to do with the actual rock concert and free beer offered before Obama spoke.
Yet, when McCain later went on an out of country trip, Robin Roberts of ABC News reported, "Why is Senator McCain abroad when Americans are focused on the economy here at home and losing jobs, more and more jobs."
We are no longer dealing with media bias here. It has gone well beyond that, to outright partisanship and political activism. The so-called mainstream media, ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others, are no longer journalistic enterprises. They are political activist groups posing as journalistic enterprises. The American people consequently no longer enjoy the benefits of a free and independent press. They suffer with a party-controlled press.
The one area the Democrats have failed is talk radio. They tried to offer an alternative with their 'Air-America'. Like MSNBC, nobody listened and they failed. Frustrated by this, and not satisfied by controlling all other forms of the media, they have decided to impose the "Fairness Doctrine". Of course it will only be imposed on talk radio. No mention to impose it on print or televised news outlets.
The Democrats thuggish attempts to stifle any dissent will wake the American public's curiosity. The public will see the left's unAmerican agenda and methods of censorship.
The internet will be a battlefield over the next four years. Many people of reason will set about to repay the left in kind for it's efforts. We will play up any missteps of the left or any attempts to mirror the European/Soviet model of governance.
When you think back through our recent history it is evident. They did all they could to destroy the Republican brand with the GOP'S own missteps and outright lies. During this same period they have done everything in their power to ignore or cover any missteps by the Democrats.
Upon election of Bush they set out to destroy him and the GOP through a constant barrage of ridicule. The late night talk shows and special programs designed for this purpose, such as "Li'l Bush" were bent on this destruction. Newscasts are consistent in their tilted coverage. At the end of the campaign SNL even added an extra night to drive home their derision.
They hold the two parties to a different set of standards. They will bash the GOP and conservatism for something that they would give a pass to if it were the Democrats and liberals.
MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER (MRC) President Brent Bozell summarized the Obama campaign news media travesty this way: "Everyone should be forced to admit that the publicists formerly known as the 'news' media have worked themselves to the bone this year to elect Barack Obama." The MRC has carefully documented news media bias for over 20 years now, and offers a wealth of information and commentary at its website. The quotes and statistics cited below come from that source.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE recognize what is going on. A survey by the liberal Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that "by a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain win on Nov. 4." Even 62% of Democrats recognized the media favoritism for Obama. Another Pew poll found that only 30% of the public believes all or most of what CNN reports, with 24% for NBC and 22% for CBS. A Rasmussen poll found that by a margin of 10-1, the public believes that reporters were trying to hurt Sarah Palin politically through their coverage.
These views are well grounded in reality. A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that since the conventions news reports about Obama were two-thirds positive and one-third negative. For McCain it was just the opposite. The Center also found that late night comics targeted 7 times as many jokes at the Obama ticket as compared to the McCain ticket. Even the liberal Project for Excellence in Journalism found that during the fall campaign, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by more than 3 to 1. But the MRC found that the networks produced 7 times as many positive reports about Obama as negative ones.
CNN, Special Correspondent Frank Sesno labeled Rep. Rahm Emanuel, announced as President-elect Obama's chief of staff, as "center to center-right." But the American Conservative Union gave Emanuel's voting record a score of 13% conservative in 2003, 4% in 2006, and 0% in 2007. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action, by contrast, gave Emanuel's record a score of 95% liberal in 2003, a perfect 100% liberal in 2004 and 2005, 90% in 2006, and 95% in 2007.
The model for a free and independent press is, in fact, the much maligned (by liberal left extremists) Fox News. If you examine its broadcasts closely, you will find that its policy is to include 50% liberals and 50% conservatives. Along with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly (whom many conservatives consider too moderate), Fox News features liberals Geraldo Rivera and Alan Colmes, and Democrat Greta van Sustern. Regular contributors include liberal Democrats Juan Williams, Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, and Morton Kondracke, Democrat pollsters and strategists Bob Beckel, Pat Caddell, and Dick Morris, and liberal academics. Check out the guests who are interviewed on all of their shows. They are evenly balanced liberal and conservative.
By contrast, if you look at the liberal controlled mainstream media, you rarely see any conservatives at all. Their ruling mantra is obviously to broadcast or print the liberal left party line, and to exclude conservatives and their views, which they openly deride instead. So all the yelling and screaming we hear about Fox News, dear conservatives, are really objections against having you included to any significant degree. It is a demand that you be muzzled as socially unacceptable.
Here is some early tough reporting on Barack Obama from Joe Klein of Time magazine,
"Obama's personal appeal is made manifest when he steps down from the podium and is swarmed by well-wishers of all ages and hues…. Obama seemed the political equivalent of a rainbow -- a sudden, preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy…. He transcends the racial divide so effortlessly that it seems reasonable to expect that he can bridge all the other divisions -- and answer all the impossible questions -- plaguing American public life."
NBC reporter Lee Cowan admits, "It's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger."
Then there is MSNBC co-anchor Chris Mathews, who is as objective about Obama as Juliet was about Romeo, saying, "He's come from a white family and a black family, and he's married to a black woman, and they're cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they're great looking, and they're cool and they're young."
Mathews later went on to describe how Obama sent a "tingling" sensation up his leg.
While on the subject of MSNBC, Keith Olberman, a man described by many to be in need of intense therapy for his neurosis, is on a nightly rant against anything other than the Democrats party line. As part of a group of letter writers that set out to overwhelm MSNBC's email during the GOP convention, I found solace that both Olberman and Mathews were removed from reporting. It was just as well, because they were unable to report. Olberman in his obsession, had derided the GOP for paying tribute to the 9-11 victims, and 'apologised' to viewers for airing it.
Associated Press writer Charles Babington offered this tough political reporting on the Obama campaign last May, "Presidential campaigns have destroyed many bright and capable politicians. But there's ample evidence that Obama is something special, a man who makes difficult tasks look easy, who seems to touch millions of diverse people with a message of hope that somehow doesn't sound Pollyannish."
When John McCain visited Iraq in March to check on how his ultimately victorious surge strategy was working, he got all of 10 seconds of coverage on the CBS Evening News, and two minutes on the ABC evening news broadcast. But when Obama went to the Middle East in July for the first time ever, the anchors from each of the three major networks went along with him, and gave their broadcasts from overseas with the Obama campaign. MRC's monthly newsletter The Watchdog accurately summarized this coverage with the headline, "Liberal Media Are Nearly Worshipping Obama."
Mark Phillips of CBS News reported on Obama's Berlin speech during that trip:
"There is a bit of a morning-after feeling here in Berlin after what they're calling the 'Obama show.' But if the intent of this trip was to raise Barack Obama's foreign profile, it could hardly have been raised any higher…. The stage could not have been bigger. The 200,000-plus crowd confirmed his rock star status, and his more cooperative sounding rhetoric was what the crowd wanted to hear."
Phillips did not mention that the crowd and the rock star status may have had something to do with the actual rock concert and free beer offered before Obama spoke.
Yet, when McCain later went on an out of country trip, Robin Roberts of ABC News reported, "Why is Senator McCain abroad when Americans are focused on the economy here at home and losing jobs, more and more jobs."
We are no longer dealing with media bias here. It has gone well beyond that, to outright partisanship and political activism. The so-called mainstream media, ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others, are no longer journalistic enterprises. They are political activist groups posing as journalistic enterprises. The American people consequently no longer enjoy the benefits of a free and independent press. They suffer with a party-controlled press.
The one area the Democrats have failed is talk radio. They tried to offer an alternative with their 'Air-America'. Like MSNBC, nobody listened and they failed. Frustrated by this, and not satisfied by controlling all other forms of the media, they have decided to impose the "Fairness Doctrine". Of course it will only be imposed on talk radio. No mention to impose it on print or televised news outlets.
The Democrats thuggish attempts to stifle any dissent will wake the American public's curiosity. The public will see the left's unAmerican agenda and methods of censorship.
The internet will be a battlefield over the next four years. Many people of reason will set about to repay the left in kind for it's efforts. We will play up any missteps of the left or any attempts to mirror the European/Soviet model of governance.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Globalization Leading To One World Government
In an earlier article, Obama's 'Global Poverty Act' was discussed. Concern was expressed at the prospect of ceding American sovereignty to the United Nations. The specter of the world approaching a new global alignment is welcome by some and derided by others.
Many believe the process started in the 80's with what President Bush Sr, called a new world order. For the most part it can be traced back to the creation of the United Nations itself. It accelerated under the UN's Millennium Project. Senator Obama laid a major building block with his 'Global Poverty Act'. The purpose of this legislation was to support the Millennium Project.
Obama is set to be a major player on the world stage as a globalization promoter. He is set to 'rule' from day one with use of executive orders. He was not just elected on November 4th. He was anointed long ago.
Obama is calling for a 'draft' for national service. His website previously called service a 'requirement'. Upon protest from bloggers, the language was softened. Still expected but reworded. As part of his stealth effort for ambiguous change, his website has removed his agenda.
The Millennium Project was hailed around the world for it's lofty goals by globalist. Here in the states it was barley mentioned in our media. The UN. is not as popular here as it is elsewhere, and the media was providing cover to the globalists stealth agenda. The media throughout this recent election played down any mention of values. They knew it was not Obama's strong suit.
Instead they focused their energy on creating the perception that Obama's election was inevitable. They sought to destroy anyone speaking out against him. Subtly supported his campaign's misdeeds of illegal fundraising, and illegal voter registration drives.
A person can not hold Obama's world view and defend American sovereignty. He has little intention of doing so. His administration will implement policies that are choreographed with other nations to promote globalization. The ultimate goal will be the culmination of one world government.
We heard this most recently from avowed globalist British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.
"Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed," Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.
"...And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society."
Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces.
These are: terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy; the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict; and meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease.
Brown will also identify five stages for tackling the economy, starting with recapitalizing banks so they can resume lending to families and businesses, and better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy.
He also wants immediate action to stop the spread of the financial crisis to middle-income countries, with a new facility for the International Monetary Fund, and agreement on a global trade deal, as well as reform of the global financial system.
"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on governments around the world to coordinate tax and spending policies to shore up a slowing world economy.
Next year, Britain's economy may shrink 1.3 percent, the most in the Group of Seven nations, according to the International Monetary Fund. The Washington-based lender expects a contraction of 0.7 percent in the U.S., 0.5 percent in the nations sharing the euro and 0.2 percent in Japan.
There are already signs that other countries are ready to heed Brown's call. China, the world's fourth-largest economy, announced a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus plan yesterday, saying the funds will be used by the end of 2010 as part of a ``proactive fiscal policy.''
A similar message came yesterday from Sao Paulo, where finance ministers from the Group of 20 nations met over the weekend to lay the groundwork for the heads-of-state summit in Washington. Ministers agreed to act ``urgently'' to bolster growth as the world's leading industrialized economies battle recession, according to the G-20 statement.
Efforts Overseas
Japanese lawmakers approved a 1.8 trillion-yen supplementary budget as part of a stimulus package on Oct. 16, and Prime Minister Taro Aso on Oct. 30 promised to pump an additional 5 trillion yen into the economy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Nov. 5 announced a 50 billion-euro ($65 billion) stimulus package to spur economic growth.
In the U.S., Democrat lawmakers are considering passing two stimulus measures, one during a so-called lame duck session this month and another after President-elect Barack Obama and the larger Democratic majority in Congress take office in January.
``Further fiscal stimulus designed to bridge the gap until monetary policy becomes fully effective can be expected'' around the world, said Holger Schmieding, chief European economist at Bank of America Corp. in London.
In Britain, Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling will set out tax and spending plans this month or next. Brown has said he's ready to increase borrowing to ward off recession and that he will bring forward some spending.
"We must use the power of multilateralism to establish a global consensus on a new, decisive and systemic approach to strengthening the global economy,"
Opposition to these goals will be silenced and not tolerated. Censorship is on the rise around the world. Everywhere censorship is slowly being introduced in an effort to keep it unnoticed. This is similar to cooking a frog. Put him in the pot and raise the temperature slowly. He will be 'content' and does not notice the increasing temperature. If you drop the frog into an already boiling pot, he will jump out.
In Britain, security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.
The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.
The ISC holds huge clout within Whitehall. It receives secret briefings from MI5, MI6and GCHQ and is highly influential in forming government policy. Kim Howells, a respected former Foreign Office minister, was recently appointed its chairman. Under the existing voluntary code of conduct, known as the DA-Notice system, the Government can request that the media does not report a story. However, the committee's members are particularly worried about leaks, which, they believe, could derail investigations and the reporting of which needs to be banned by legislation.
Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.
Australia is poised to join N. Korea, Iran, and China in its' imposition of censoring the internet. We have seen other forms recently right here in the US. Through the media, commentary or questions that dared to challenge Obama were downplayed or ignored. Ask 'Joe the plumber'. Efforts were made to destroy that man.
John McCain dared to name a lady to the Republican ticket who was not in favor of abortion as a means of convenience. Sarah Palin was maligned by the press and left wing bloggers with some of the most scurrilous accusations. Not only was she anti-abortion, but she dared raise the issue of Obama's program and past associations. Palin was sliced and diced for her positions, while Obama was given a pass by the globalist'.
The efforts to point out the Obama shortcomings are met with demonization. This is to stop anything from impeding globalization and the ensuing one world government. The global playing field will be made equal and everyone will be goose stepping to the same song. We can see this slow process unfolding before our eyes. Even when the globalist' in our midst implore that we do not believe our lying eyes. It is there.
Many believe the process started in the 80's with what President Bush Sr, called a new world order. For the most part it can be traced back to the creation of the United Nations itself. It accelerated under the UN's Millennium Project. Senator Obama laid a major building block with his 'Global Poverty Act'. The purpose of this legislation was to support the Millennium Project.
Obama is set to be a major player on the world stage as a globalization promoter. He is set to 'rule' from day one with use of executive orders. He was not just elected on November 4th. He was anointed long ago.
Obama is calling for a 'draft' for national service. His website previously called service a 'requirement'. Upon protest from bloggers, the language was softened. Still expected but reworded. As part of his stealth effort for ambiguous change, his website has removed his agenda.
The Millennium Project was hailed around the world for it's lofty goals by globalist. Here in the states it was barley mentioned in our media. The UN. is not as popular here as it is elsewhere, and the media was providing cover to the globalists stealth agenda. The media throughout this recent election played down any mention of values. They knew it was not Obama's strong suit.
Instead they focused their energy on creating the perception that Obama's election was inevitable. They sought to destroy anyone speaking out against him. Subtly supported his campaign's misdeeds of illegal fundraising, and illegal voter registration drives.
A person can not hold Obama's world view and defend American sovereignty. He has little intention of doing so. His administration will implement policies that are choreographed with other nations to promote globalization. The ultimate goal will be the culmination of one world government.
We heard this most recently from avowed globalist British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.
"Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed," Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.
"...And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society."
Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces.
These are: terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy; the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict; and meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease.
Brown will also identify five stages for tackling the economy, starting with recapitalizing banks so they can resume lending to families and businesses, and better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy.
He also wants immediate action to stop the spread of the financial crisis to middle-income countries, with a new facility for the International Monetary Fund, and agreement on a global trade deal, as well as reform of the global financial system.
"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on governments around the world to coordinate tax and spending policies to shore up a slowing world economy.
Next year, Britain's economy may shrink 1.3 percent, the most in the Group of Seven nations, according to the International Monetary Fund. The Washington-based lender expects a contraction of 0.7 percent in the U.S., 0.5 percent in the nations sharing the euro and 0.2 percent in Japan.
There are already signs that other countries are ready to heed Brown's call. China, the world's fourth-largest economy, announced a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus plan yesterday, saying the funds will be used by the end of 2010 as part of a ``proactive fiscal policy.''
A similar message came yesterday from Sao Paulo, where finance ministers from the Group of 20 nations met over the weekend to lay the groundwork for the heads-of-state summit in Washington. Ministers agreed to act ``urgently'' to bolster growth as the world's leading industrialized economies battle recession, according to the G-20 statement.
Efforts Overseas
Japanese lawmakers approved a 1.8 trillion-yen supplementary budget as part of a stimulus package on Oct. 16, and Prime Minister Taro Aso on Oct. 30 promised to pump an additional 5 trillion yen into the economy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Nov. 5 announced a 50 billion-euro ($65 billion) stimulus package to spur economic growth.
In the U.S., Democrat lawmakers are considering passing two stimulus measures, one during a so-called lame duck session this month and another after President-elect Barack Obama and the larger Democratic majority in Congress take office in January.
``Further fiscal stimulus designed to bridge the gap until monetary policy becomes fully effective can be expected'' around the world, said Holger Schmieding, chief European economist at Bank of America Corp. in London.
In Britain, Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling will set out tax and spending plans this month or next. Brown has said he's ready to increase borrowing to ward off recession and that he will bring forward some spending.
"We must use the power of multilateralism to establish a global consensus on a new, decisive and systemic approach to strengthening the global economy,"
Opposition to these goals will be silenced and not tolerated. Censorship is on the rise around the world. Everywhere censorship is slowly being introduced in an effort to keep it unnoticed. This is similar to cooking a frog. Put him in the pot and raise the temperature slowly. He will be 'content' and does not notice the increasing temperature. If you drop the frog into an already boiling pot, he will jump out.
In Britain, security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.
The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.
The ISC holds huge clout within Whitehall. It receives secret briefings from MI5, MI6and GCHQ and is highly influential in forming government policy. Kim Howells, a respected former Foreign Office minister, was recently appointed its chairman. Under the existing voluntary code of conduct, known as the DA-Notice system, the Government can request that the media does not report a story. However, the committee's members are particularly worried about leaks, which, they believe, could derail investigations and the reporting of which needs to be banned by legislation.
Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.
Australia is poised to join N. Korea, Iran, and China in its' imposition of censoring the internet. We have seen other forms recently right here in the US. Through the media, commentary or questions that dared to challenge Obama were downplayed or ignored. Ask 'Joe the plumber'. Efforts were made to destroy that man.
John McCain dared to name a lady to the Republican ticket who was not in favor of abortion as a means of convenience. Sarah Palin was maligned by the press and left wing bloggers with some of the most scurrilous accusations. Not only was she anti-abortion, but she dared raise the issue of Obama's program and past associations. Palin was sliced and diced for her positions, while Obama was given a pass by the globalist'.
The efforts to point out the Obama shortcomings are met with demonization. This is to stop anything from impeding globalization and the ensuing one world government. The global playing field will be made equal and everyone will be goose stepping to the same song. We can see this slow process unfolding before our eyes. Even when the globalist' in our midst implore that we do not believe our lying eyes. It is there.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Recruiting Suicide Bombers To Attack U.S.
Joe Biden warned us a few weeks ago that Obama will be tested. His demonstrated naivety has been noted and exploited by those he sought to open Presidential level dialogue with. Stay alert in public venues. The article excerpt follows with a link to the full article.
Iranian group recruits young 'martyrs' to fight 'global arrogance'
A terrorist group is distributing flyers in Iran calling for young volunteers to join the Lebanese Hezbollah to carry out suicide operations against the "Global Arrogance" – also known as the United States.
The leaflets promise young recruits that they will join "fighters in the worldwide front against the Global Arrogance," the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, reported. The term is used by some Iranian officials in reference to the U.S.
On Nov. 1, Tabnak, an Iranian news website identified with Expediency Discernment Council Secretary and former Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezai, announced a group has been actively recruiting members in Tehran and large Iranian provinces for Lebanon's Hezbollah. The flyers are labeled "Registration for Membership in the Lebanese Hezbollah " and "Registration for Martyrdom Operations." Each form requires addresses and additional information so recruits may be contacted for the cause.
Tabnak reports a Tehran phone number and address is located on the registration forms. However, the website reported "validity [of the address] could not be confirmed." Martyrdom registration forms reportedly include the name of an organization known to be active in the region, though Tabnak does not reveal its name.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79982
Iranian group recruits young 'martyrs' to fight 'global arrogance'
A terrorist group is distributing flyers in Iran calling for young volunteers to join the Lebanese Hezbollah to carry out suicide operations against the "Global Arrogance" – also known as the United States.
The leaflets promise young recruits that they will join "fighters in the worldwide front against the Global Arrogance," the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, reported. The term is used by some Iranian officials in reference to the U.S.
On Nov. 1, Tabnak, an Iranian news website identified with Expediency Discernment Council Secretary and former Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezai, announced a group has been actively recruiting members in Tehran and large Iranian provinces for Lebanon's Hezbollah. The flyers are labeled "Registration for Membership in the Lebanese Hezbollah " and "Registration for Martyrdom Operations." Each form requires addresses and additional information so recruits may be contacted for the cause.
Tabnak reports a Tehran phone number and address is located on the registration forms. However, the website reported "validity [of the address] could not be confirmed." Martyrdom registration forms reportedly include the name of an organization known to be active in the region, though Tabnak does not reveal its name.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79982
Will The US. Supreme Court Once Again Decide Our Presidency?
The extent to which the mainstream media have done all they can to protect the brand Obama is amazing. Had this been George Bush, it would have been front page in all the newspapers and the lead story on the nightly news until resolved. How many readers are aware this has been going on behind the scenes?
Apparently the Obama team has been thrown a wrench that they thought they had put behind them. A solid date has finally been issued by the US. Supreme Court for Obama to prove his Birth Certificate. At the bottom I am including a video link that has his paternal grandmother and family members in Kenya stating that Barack Obama was in fact born in Kenya and the birth certificate on file in Hawaii is a filed copy merely documenting his Kenyan birth. The Governor of Hawaii had the Hawaii copy sealed just two weeks ago when access was requested.
If Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, why not release it and put this to rest? Last month his legal team responded to the suit in the Federal Court in Philadelphia that the party bringing suit did not have 'standing' before the court, and asked for dismissal. He won the 'standing' issue but failed to end the speculation. The case is now quietly before the US Supreme Court and he has been ordered to provide proof by December 1, 2008. The Electoral College meets in December for the official election of our President.
The United States could be headed for a Constitutional crisis not provided for in the constitution. Meaning there is no precedent or constitutional instruct on how to proceed if Obama is found ineligible to serve.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter has rejected an emergency appeal for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the office, according to an attorney who brought the action that challenges the Illinois senator's standing in the race.
However, the issue isn't going away, at least for now, since Souter set a schedule for a response from Obama to the challenge from attorney Philip J. Berg.
Berg brought his claims to the Supreme Court after a federal judge dismissed his lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because he possibly was born in Kenya.
The judge concluded Berg lacks standing to bring the action.
In a statement today, Berg said he was told by a clerk for Souter that his application for an injunction to stay the election was denied. But he also said the defendants "are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari" by Dec. 1.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor's office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin. Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born.
But a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya. <<<< VIDEO LINK HERE. Just click on word Kenya. There are several other related videos in the right hand side-bar of Youtube.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Apparently the Obama team has been thrown a wrench that they thought they had put behind them. A solid date has finally been issued by the US. Supreme Court for Obama to prove his Birth Certificate. At the bottom I am including a video link that has his paternal grandmother and family members in Kenya stating that Barack Obama was in fact born in Kenya and the birth certificate on file in Hawaii is a filed copy merely documenting his Kenyan birth. The Governor of Hawaii had the Hawaii copy sealed just two weeks ago when access was requested.
If Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, why not release it and put this to rest? Last month his legal team responded to the suit in the Federal Court in Philadelphia that the party bringing suit did not have 'standing' before the court, and asked for dismissal. He won the 'standing' issue but failed to end the speculation. The case is now quietly before the US Supreme Court and he has been ordered to provide proof by December 1, 2008. The Electoral College meets in December for the official election of our President.
The United States could be headed for a Constitutional crisis not provided for in the constitution. Meaning there is no precedent or constitutional instruct on how to proceed if Obama is found ineligible to serve.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter has rejected an emergency appeal for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the office, according to an attorney who brought the action that challenges the Illinois senator's standing in the race.
However, the issue isn't going away, at least for now, since Souter set a schedule for a response from Obama to the challenge from attorney Philip J. Berg.
Berg brought his claims to the Supreme Court after a federal judge dismissed his lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because he possibly was born in Kenya.
The judge concluded Berg lacks standing to bring the action.
In a statement today, Berg said he was told by a clerk for Souter that his application for an injunction to stay the election was denied. But he also said the defendants "are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari" by Dec. 1.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor's office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin. Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born.
But a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya. <<<< VIDEO LINK HERE. Just click on word Kenya. There are several other related videos in the right hand side-bar of Youtube.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Hillary Clintons Words Haunt Obama Campaign
I read this article revisiting the primary campaign battle between Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama. Hillary's words ring as true today as they did back then.
Like long-lost companions, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama kissed, embraced, and waved to an adoring throng of 40,000 supporters during their joint appearance Oct. 20 in Orlando.
Attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan
“And this campaign, just like every other thing that happens in the United States, is looked at and followed with very great interest. And, you know, Pakistan is on a knife's edge. It is easily, unfortunately, a target for the jihadists. And, therefore, you've got to be very careful about what it is you say with respect to Pakistan.” — Democratic Primary debate, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 19, 2007.
“And on a number of other issues, I just believe that, you know, as Senator Obama said, yes, last summer he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take.” — Democratic Primary debate, Cleveland, Ohio, Feb. 26, 2008.
Campaign Tactics
“Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton.” — Clinton campaign e-mail, Oct. 22, 2007.
“Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you.” — Campaign rally, Cincinnati, Ohio, Feb. 23, 2008.
Driver’s Licenses for Illegals
“I do not think that it is either appropriate to give a driver's license to someone who's here undocumented, putting them frankly at risk, because that is clear evidence that they are not here legally.” — Democratic primary debate, Los Angeles, Calif., Jan. 31, 2008.
Flip-Flopping
“You know, Senator Obama, as The Associated Press described it, could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago he was for single-payer healthcare. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal healthcare; then he proposed a healthcare plan that doesn't cover everybody.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008
“Well, you've changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate and now you have changed. You know, you said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war; you came to the Senate and you voted for $300 billion of it. — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
Guns and Religion
“I don't believe that my grandfather or my father, or the many people whom I have had the privilege of knowing and meeting across Pennsylvania over many years, cling to religion when Washington is not listening to them. I think that is a fundamental, sort of, misunderstanding of the role of religion and faith in times that are good and times that are bad.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
“And I similarly don't think that people cling to their traditions, like hunting and guns, either when they are frustrated with the government. I just don't believe that's how people live their lives. Now, that doesn't mean that people are not frustrated with the government. We have every reason to be frustrated, particularly with this administration. But I can see why people would be taken aback and offended by the remarks. — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
Diplomacy Sans Preconditions
“I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse.” — Democratic primary debate, Charleston S.C., July 23, 2007.
“I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive.” — Quad City Times, Iowa, July 24, 2007.
“So I think that, when you've got that big an agenda facing you, you should not telegraph to our adversaries that you're willing to meet with them without preconditions during the first year in office.” — Democratic primary debate, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 19, 2007.
“And I disagree with his continuing to say that he would meet with some of the worst dictators in the world without preconditions and without the real, you know, understanding of what we would get from it.” — Democratic Primary debate, Cleveland, Ohio, Feb. 26, 2008.
“I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
Louis Farrakhan
“It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks, but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas to put a message in. You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
National Security
“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” Clinton “red phone” ad, February 2008.
Obama’s Nuclear Stance
“Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse.” — Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2007.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright
“He would not have been my pastor. You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” — Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 25, 2008.
“But I have to say that, you know, for Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been intolerable for me. And therefore I would have not been able to stay in the church, and maybe it's, you know, just, again, a personal reflection that regardless of whatever good is going on — and I have no reason to doubt that a lot of good things were happening in that church — you get to choose your pastor. You don't choose your family, but you get to choose your pastor. And when asked a direct question, I said I would not have stayed in the church.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
Obama’s Rhetoric
“Words are not action and as beautifully presented and as passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we’ve got to do is translate talk into action, and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
“So, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
“Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.” — Campaign rally, Providence, R.I., Feb. 25, 2008.
Obama and Special Interests
“When it comes to lobbyists, you know, Senator Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies. So I think it's important that all of us be held to the same standards, that we're all held accountable.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
“You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
Obama and William Ayers
“I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
Like long-lost companions, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama kissed, embraced, and waved to an adoring throng of 40,000 supporters during their joint appearance Oct. 20 in Orlando.
Attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan
“And this campaign, just like every other thing that happens in the United States, is looked at and followed with very great interest. And, you know, Pakistan is on a knife's edge. It is easily, unfortunately, a target for the jihadists. And, therefore, you've got to be very careful about what it is you say with respect to Pakistan.” — Democratic Primary debate, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 19, 2007.
“And on a number of other issues, I just believe that, you know, as Senator Obama said, yes, last summer he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take.” — Democratic Primary debate, Cleveland, Ohio, Feb. 26, 2008.
Campaign Tactics
“Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton.” — Clinton campaign e-mail, Oct. 22, 2007.
“Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you.” — Campaign rally, Cincinnati, Ohio, Feb. 23, 2008.
Driver’s Licenses for Illegals
“I do not think that it is either appropriate to give a driver's license to someone who's here undocumented, putting them frankly at risk, because that is clear evidence that they are not here legally.” — Democratic primary debate, Los Angeles, Calif., Jan. 31, 2008.
Flip-Flopping
“You know, Senator Obama, as The Associated Press described it, could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago he was for single-payer healthcare. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal healthcare; then he proposed a healthcare plan that doesn't cover everybody.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008
“Well, you've changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate and now you have changed. You know, you said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war; you came to the Senate and you voted for $300 billion of it. — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
Guns and Religion
“I don't believe that my grandfather or my father, or the many people whom I have had the privilege of knowing and meeting across Pennsylvania over many years, cling to religion when Washington is not listening to them. I think that is a fundamental, sort of, misunderstanding of the role of religion and faith in times that are good and times that are bad.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
“And I similarly don't think that people cling to their traditions, like hunting and guns, either when they are frustrated with the government. I just don't believe that's how people live their lives. Now, that doesn't mean that people are not frustrated with the government. We have every reason to be frustrated, particularly with this administration. But I can see why people would be taken aback and offended by the remarks. — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
Diplomacy Sans Preconditions
“I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse.” — Democratic primary debate, Charleston S.C., July 23, 2007.
“I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive.” — Quad City Times, Iowa, July 24, 2007.
“So I think that, when you've got that big an agenda facing you, you should not telegraph to our adversaries that you're willing to meet with them without preconditions during the first year in office.” — Democratic primary debate, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 19, 2007.
“And I disagree with his continuing to say that he would meet with some of the worst dictators in the world without preconditions and without the real, you know, understanding of what we would get from it.” — Democratic Primary debate, Cleveland, Ohio, Feb. 26, 2008.
“I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
Louis Farrakhan
“It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks, but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas to put a message in. You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
National Security
“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” Clinton “red phone” ad, February 2008.
Obama’s Nuclear Stance
“Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse.” — Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2007.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright
“He would not have been my pastor. You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” — Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 25, 2008.
“But I have to say that, you know, for Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been intolerable for me. And therefore I would have not been able to stay in the church, and maybe it's, you know, just, again, a personal reflection that regardless of whatever good is going on — and I have no reason to doubt that a lot of good things were happening in that church — you get to choose your pastor. You don't choose your family, but you get to choose your pastor. And when asked a direct question, I said I would not have stayed in the church.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
Obama’s Rhetoric
“Words are not action and as beautifully presented and as passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we’ve got to do is translate talk into action, and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
“So, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
“Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.” — Campaign rally, Providence, R.I., Feb. 25, 2008.
Obama and Special Interests
“When it comes to lobbyists, you know, Senator Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies. So I think it's important that all of us be held to the same standards, that we're all held accountable.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
“You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare.” — Democratic primary debate, Manchester, N.H., Jan. 5, 2008.
Obama and William Ayers
“I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died.” — Democratic primary debate, Philadelphia, Pa., April 16, 2008.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama And The Democrats Overplay The 'Race Card'
America has been in the throes of an very competitive campaign for almost two years. For the first time in history an African American is leading a major party. Throughout the campaign Obama's supporters have tried to quash any legitimate questioning of their candidate. Anyone who raises real concerns about Obama's positions is pounced on with charges of racism. The offender is called a racist and their character called into question, while Obama's defenders gloss over the issue.
Obama has led this sham. Perhaps he is paranoid. He started off saying that Republicans would say he was 'different', and did not look like the other presidents on the dollars bills. He did this in an well choreographed way. Obama raised the race card, much the way people spray on "Off" prior to going outside in the summer.
The left has played the race card like a teenager plays a new CD. 'Joe the plumber' asks a question. The Democrats and the media set out to destroy him and call him a racist. Palin points out Obama's association with "white" domestic terrorist Ayers. She is an racist. I question his racist church and its racist theology, pointing out that he attended there twenty years, and I get called a racist.
America is used to Jack Murtha's moronic manner. Last week in an interview with the Post-Gazette's editorial board, "There's no question that Western Pennsylvania is a racist area." Barack Obama would win, he predicted, but not in a "runaway," due to racism.
After Mr. Murtha's brash set-up, Mr. Patrick's appeal to vote-as-racial-atonement was delivered Friday via the unnamed overseas visitors he meets regularly. They range from foreign businessmen and heads of state, and they are "very, very interested in Barack Obama's candidacy," he said in a Post-Gazette story. "Once, I asked one why, and his response was so beautiful. He said, 'We are watching to see if America is who she says she is.' " - Ruth Ann Dailey
The American ideal is to vote for racial identity rather than political ideas? And that's beautiful? That sounds like typical left-wing .
Which foreign nations are these, anxious to judge the American voters? The ones in Europe that keep their, Muslim minorities as second-class citizens in out of sight suburban ghettos? The ones whose leaders openly make outrageous anti-Semitic remarks? The ones who themselves have even fewer minorities in positions of power?The countries whose economies have been mired for years in the stagnation of cradle-to-grave socialism?
Other countries views of Americas political process is a moot point. The fact that we have an African American nominated in itself puts us ahead of them.
The best thing that could happen on Nov. 4 is for like-minded people to give him their votes, regardless of their race or his, and for people who embrace free-market, limited-government principles to vote for his opponent, regardless of their race or his.
That said, to some unknowable extent, Mr. Murtha's accusation is both true and lamentable. There are still racists living in the United States, and some of them even live in Western Pennsylvania, which happens to be a Democratic stronghold.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter, made the same claim about the entire state back in February. Also while chatting with the Post-Gazette editorial board, he said, "You've got conservative whites here ... who are not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." (Note the tiresome Democratic smear of equating racism with conservatism.)
Mr. Rendell's comments came two months before the primary, but Mr. Obama's remarks about bitter small-town voters clinging to their guns and religion exploded into public debate 10 days before the primary. Mrs. Clinton won Pennsylvania by a margin of 10 percent.
Were the Democrats who voted for her motivated by racism, or were they turned off by Mr. Obama's disdain for their lives and values? "Were they clinging to their guns and religion"? Or did they just prefer her prescription for the country's future?
The same questions will still apply on Election Day. Republicans have won nine of the 15 presidential races since the end of World War II. Candidates of either party usually win by very slim margins. That's a strong enough pattern to assert that Americans are pretty evenly divided ideologically, are in general a little more conservative than the Democratic Party and like to invigorate the body politic regularly with a tonic of something completely different.-Ruth Ann Dailey
The Democrats have hidden behind the race card so many times throughout the campaign, that they have devalued and exploited the term. It has been rendered as nothing more than background noise.
Obama has led this sham. Perhaps he is paranoid. He started off saying that Republicans would say he was 'different', and did not look like the other presidents on the dollars bills. He did this in an well choreographed way. Obama raised the race card, much the way people spray on "Off" prior to going outside in the summer.
The left has played the race card like a teenager plays a new CD. 'Joe the plumber' asks a question. The Democrats and the media set out to destroy him and call him a racist. Palin points out Obama's association with "white" domestic terrorist Ayers. She is an racist. I question his racist church and its racist theology, pointing out that he attended there twenty years, and I get called a racist.
America is used to Jack Murtha's moronic manner. Last week in an interview with the Post-Gazette's editorial board, "There's no question that Western Pennsylvania is a racist area." Barack Obama would win, he predicted, but not in a "runaway," due to racism.
After Mr. Murtha's brash set-up, Mr. Patrick's appeal to vote-as-racial-atonement was delivered Friday via the unnamed overseas visitors he meets regularly. They range from foreign businessmen and heads of state, and they are "very, very interested in Barack Obama's candidacy," he said in a Post-Gazette story. "Once, I asked one why, and his response was so beautiful. He said, 'We are watching to see if America is who she says she is.' " - Ruth Ann Dailey
The American ideal is to vote for racial identity rather than political ideas? And that's beautiful? That sounds like typical left-wing .
Which foreign nations are these, anxious to judge the American voters? The ones in Europe that keep their, Muslim minorities as second-class citizens in out of sight suburban ghettos? The ones whose leaders openly make outrageous anti-Semitic remarks? The ones who themselves have even fewer minorities in positions of power?The countries whose economies have been mired for years in the stagnation of cradle-to-grave socialism?
Other countries views of Americas political process is a moot point. The fact that we have an African American nominated in itself puts us ahead of them.
The best thing that could happen on Nov. 4 is for like-minded people to give him their votes, regardless of their race or his, and for people who embrace free-market, limited-government principles to vote for his opponent, regardless of their race or his.
That said, to some unknowable extent, Mr. Murtha's accusation is both true and lamentable. There are still racists living in the United States, and some of them even live in Western Pennsylvania, which happens to be a Democratic stronghold.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter, made the same claim about the entire state back in February. Also while chatting with the Post-Gazette editorial board, he said, "You've got conservative whites here ... who are not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." (Note the tiresome Democratic smear of equating racism with conservatism.)
Mr. Rendell's comments came two months before the primary, but Mr. Obama's remarks about bitter small-town voters clinging to their guns and religion exploded into public debate 10 days before the primary. Mrs. Clinton won Pennsylvania by a margin of 10 percent.
Were the Democrats who voted for her motivated by racism, or were they turned off by Mr. Obama's disdain for their lives and values? "Were they clinging to their guns and religion"? Or did they just prefer her prescription for the country's future?
The same questions will still apply on Election Day. Republicans have won nine of the 15 presidential races since the end of World War II. Candidates of either party usually win by very slim margins. That's a strong enough pattern to assert that Americans are pretty evenly divided ideologically, are in general a little more conservative than the Democratic Party and like to invigorate the body politic regularly with a tonic of something completely different.-Ruth Ann Dailey
The Democrats have hidden behind the race card so many times throughout the campaign, that they have devalued and exploited the term. It has been rendered as nothing more than background noise.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Obama Favors Drivers Licenses For Illegals
As America approaches the crossroads of an election, we are reminded once again of the stark contrast of our candidates.
Senator Obama believes we should award illegal aliens with the coveted American Drivers License. If people come here illegally, why would Obama reward this illegal behavior? Obama knows these people would have an opportunity to register to vote. As we have seen with the debacle of ACORN's voter registration scam, this offers yet another means for the Democrats to expand their voter base. The Wall Street Journal reported that eight of the 9/11 terrorists were registered to vote. Senator McCain's experience affords him the judgement to oppose such an misguided proposal.
An ad is now airing, that goes after Obama on this exercise in poor judgement. It correctly points out that of the nineteen terrorists on Sept. 11th, “thirteen get driver’s licenses. The 9/11 plot depended on easy-to-get licenses,” a women narrator reveals as images of a burning World Trade Center are juxtaposed with a mock up of Mohammed Atta’s Florida driver’s license. Atta was fingered as the ringleader of the 9/11 terror attacks.
“Obama is the most radical liberal ever to be nominated by the Democratic Party,” Scott Wheeler, executive director of the NRTrust, told Newsmax. “The driver’s license is just one of many issues that proves it.”
His Web site [www.nationalrepublicantrust.com] cites a 2007 Rasmussen poll showing that 77 percent of voters oppose granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.
A recent Zogby poll on the question found that 46 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Obama if he backed the idea of driver’s licenses for illegals. (Thirty-eight percent of voters said they were “much less” likely to vote for him under those circumstances.)
The Zogby data suggests the issue could hurt Obama across party lines. Almost 20 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents said they would be less likely to vote for him if he backed such a license plan.
Though white voters strongly opposed Obama’s plan (50 percent), core Democratic groups also were negative on the issue, with 29 percent of Hispanics and 42 percent of blacks saying they would be less likely to vote for him with such a plan.
Wheeler’s group quotes political strategist Dick Morris as praising NRTrust as “a very effective organization” and saying the driver’s license issue could “make a huge difference on Election Day."
Wheeler says his group has raised $500,000 and has close to 10,000 donors. His organization said it is rolling its first ad in key swing states this weekend.
Obama is willing to cast our country's safety aside for electoral gain. He believes additional voters are worth the risk of American lives. Obama's lack of experience is the only plausible reason that could lead to such fallible judgement.
“I think that it is the right idea,” Obama declared, adding that licensing and insuring illegals is “a public safety concern.”
“We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer,” he said. “That doesn’t negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.”
In the days that followed the Drexel debate, critics blasted Spitzer’s proposal. Polls showed that the issue was sinking Spitzer’s approval ratings even in heavily Democratic New York.
Critics warned that giving illegal immigrants licenses would be a security nightmare, allowing terrorists to travel on planes, rent trucks and vans, and move about the country with ease, and without detection or scrutiny.
In October 2007, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called former New York Governor Spitzer to voice concerns that New York’s initiative could undermine federal plans to enhance security and improve documentation.
In the aftermath of 9/11, authorities reported that the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks had obtained 13 driver’s licenses, plus 21 federal or state-issued ID cards.
During the November Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, moderator Wolf Blitzer raised the issue again, asking Obama whether he supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
Obama began by recounting that he had vigorously promoted the concept in the Illinois State Senate, where he said he voted to train, license, and insure illegals to operate motor vehicles, to “protect public safety.”
Wheeler argues that Obama’s position in support of licenses to help public safety is ludicrous.
“Imagine if a potential terrorist enters the U.S. but has no history of previous terror activity or has changed their identity,” Wheeler says, adding, “How does Obama weed such dangerous people out before giving them a driver’s license? You can’t.”
Sen. John McCain has stated he opposes driver’s licenses for illegals. He also has stated his opposition to any benefits for those who “have come here illegally and broke our law.”
In a February 2007 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, McCain said, “It would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.”
http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/
Senator Obama believes we should award illegal aliens with the coveted American Drivers License. If people come here illegally, why would Obama reward this illegal behavior? Obama knows these people would have an opportunity to register to vote. As we have seen with the debacle of ACORN's voter registration scam, this offers yet another means for the Democrats to expand their voter base. The Wall Street Journal reported that eight of the 9/11 terrorists were registered to vote. Senator McCain's experience affords him the judgement to oppose such an misguided proposal.
An ad is now airing, that goes after Obama on this exercise in poor judgement. It correctly points out that of the nineteen terrorists on Sept. 11th, “thirteen get driver’s licenses. The 9/11 plot depended on easy-to-get licenses,” a women narrator reveals as images of a burning World Trade Center are juxtaposed with a mock up of Mohammed Atta’s Florida driver’s license. Atta was fingered as the ringleader of the 9/11 terror attacks.
“Obama is the most radical liberal ever to be nominated by the Democratic Party,” Scott Wheeler, executive director of the NRTrust, told Newsmax. “The driver’s license is just one of many issues that proves it.”
His Web site [www.nationalrepublicantrust.com] cites a 2007 Rasmussen poll showing that 77 percent of voters oppose granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.
A recent Zogby poll on the question found that 46 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Obama if he backed the idea of driver’s licenses for illegals. (Thirty-eight percent of voters said they were “much less” likely to vote for him under those circumstances.)
The Zogby data suggests the issue could hurt Obama across party lines. Almost 20 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents said they would be less likely to vote for him if he backed such a license plan.
Though white voters strongly opposed Obama’s plan (50 percent), core Democratic groups also were negative on the issue, with 29 percent of Hispanics and 42 percent of blacks saying they would be less likely to vote for him with such a plan.
Wheeler’s group quotes political strategist Dick Morris as praising NRTrust as “a very effective organization” and saying the driver’s license issue could “make a huge difference on Election Day."
Wheeler says his group has raised $500,000 and has close to 10,000 donors. His organization said it is rolling its first ad in key swing states this weekend.
Obama is willing to cast our country's safety aside for electoral gain. He believes additional voters are worth the risk of American lives. Obama's lack of experience is the only plausible reason that could lead to such fallible judgement.
“I think that it is the right idea,” Obama declared, adding that licensing and insuring illegals is “a public safety concern.”
“We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer,” he said. “That doesn’t negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.”
In the days that followed the Drexel debate, critics blasted Spitzer’s proposal. Polls showed that the issue was sinking Spitzer’s approval ratings even in heavily Democratic New York.
Critics warned that giving illegal immigrants licenses would be a security nightmare, allowing terrorists to travel on planes, rent trucks and vans, and move about the country with ease, and without detection or scrutiny.
In October 2007, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called former New York Governor Spitzer to voice concerns that New York’s initiative could undermine federal plans to enhance security and improve documentation.
In the aftermath of 9/11, authorities reported that the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks had obtained 13 driver’s licenses, plus 21 federal or state-issued ID cards.
During the November Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, moderator Wolf Blitzer raised the issue again, asking Obama whether he supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
Obama began by recounting that he had vigorously promoted the concept in the Illinois State Senate, where he said he voted to train, license, and insure illegals to operate motor vehicles, to “protect public safety.”
Wheeler argues that Obama’s position in support of licenses to help public safety is ludicrous.
“Imagine if a potential terrorist enters the U.S. but has no history of previous terror activity or has changed their identity,” Wheeler says, adding, “How does Obama weed such dangerous people out before giving them a driver’s license? You can’t.”
Sen. John McCain has stated he opposes driver’s licenses for illegals. He also has stated his opposition to any benefits for those who “have come here illegally and broke our law.”
In a February 2007 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, McCain said, “It would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.”
http://washingtonroundup.blogspot.com/
Friday, October 17, 2008
Unions, Democrats And The Secret Ballot
America goes to the polls on November 4th. We vote using a secret ballot. That is a way to allow us to exercise our right to enfranchisement as citizens. We are able to vote according to our own conscience, without sharing our choice, if we so choose.
The Unions and Democrats are pushing to remove the secret ballot as an means for those deciding whether to form a union. They have come up with the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. It is a misleading name at best. At worst it is downright cynical.
Currently, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.
Under the 'Employee Free Choice Act' being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot.
The measure passed the US House in 2007 after the Democrats took control. The Democrats still need more votes to pass it in the Senate. They also need a President who will sign it. This coming election may provide them the Senate votes and that President. Obama supports it, McCain does not. Even former Democratic nominee George McGovern has come out against it.
The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome. Who wants a union organizer standing at their work space with a card and pen in hand, asking them to sign; while their coworkers all stare?
Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, argue's that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.
The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.
Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. More members, more members dues.
The Democrats have a vested interest in ensuring passage. The unions have long been big donors to Democratic candidates. If the unions have declining membership and related dues, then there is less to give to the Democrats. If the Democrats get thispassed and signed into law, the union officials and Democrats win. Unfortunately, the workers lose. This undermining of Democratic ideals is a poor deal for America's workers.
The Unions and Democrats are pushing to remove the secret ballot as an means for those deciding whether to form a union. They have come up with the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. It is a misleading name at best. At worst it is downright cynical.
Currently, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.
Under the 'Employee Free Choice Act' being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot.
The measure passed the US House in 2007 after the Democrats took control. The Democrats still need more votes to pass it in the Senate. They also need a President who will sign it. This coming election may provide them the Senate votes and that President. Obama supports it, McCain does not. Even former Democratic nominee George McGovern has come out against it.
The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome. Who wants a union organizer standing at their work space with a card and pen in hand, asking them to sign; while their coworkers all stare?
Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, argue's that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.
The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.
Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. More members, more members dues.
The Democrats have a vested interest in ensuring passage. The unions have long been big donors to Democratic candidates. If the unions have declining membership and related dues, then there is less to give to the Democrats. If the Democrats get thispassed and signed into law, the union officials and Democrats win. Unfortunately, the workers lose. This undermining of Democratic ideals is a poor deal for America's workers.
Acorn Has Received $31 Million From Our Taxes
We all know how the political gamesmanship works in Washington, DC. If you want someone to support your legislation, you have to give them something in return. Irregardless of whether it is an Emergency Funding bill or roads projects.
The Democrats play the game quite well. They have managed to insert funding into various bills over the past ten years, giving ACORN $31 million of our tax dollars. It is not lost on Democratic strategist, that ACORN targets low income people to register to vote. Therefore, the Democrats directly benefit from ACORN's efforts.
We all know by now that ACORN has been involved in forcing banks to give otherwise unqualified low income people, home loans. Adding to the crisis in our finacial markets. ACORN has been in the news during this election cycle for their voter registration fraud.
They have problems with their registration activities every election cycle. Every election cycle, they apologise and claim they will improve the "next time". This time they have pulled out all the stops in an attempt to help one of their own.
ACORN claims they have registered 1.3 million new voters this cycle. In Ohio, there are 600,000 new registrations. Of this, Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner has refused to make the known 200,000 questionable registrations available to county election officials. Federal law requires new registrations to be cross checked against Drivers License and Social Security numbers. Ohio's Secretary of State is making a naked attempt to steal Ohio's electoral vote and deliver them to Obama. Perhaps she is making a high profile bid for a position in an Obama administration.
ACORN is being investigated by the FBI, to see if they have an goal of disrupting the electoral process through nefarious means.
In Seattle, ACORN turned in one batch of registrations. Of the 1,800 registrations, investigators discovered only "6" were legitimate. During questioning, ACORN's employee's admitted they had gone to the public library downtown and made them up.
Obama worked for the Chicago chapter after completing law school. He was brought in to train their executive team on 'tactics'. As an adolescent, he was 'mentored' by Frank Davis, a self described communist. Obama wrote about him in his autobiography. Obama had also learned tactics from domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers.
Many people on the left ask us to ignore the 500# gorilla in the room (ACORN). They implore Americans to not believe their 'lying eyes'. Well folks, if it walks and quacks like a Duck. It is a Duck!
America is laying witness to the usurping of our electoral process.
The Democrats play the game quite well. They have managed to insert funding into various bills over the past ten years, giving ACORN $31 million of our tax dollars. It is not lost on Democratic strategist, that ACORN targets low income people to register to vote. Therefore, the Democrats directly benefit from ACORN's efforts.
We all know by now that ACORN has been involved in forcing banks to give otherwise unqualified low income people, home loans. Adding to the crisis in our finacial markets. ACORN has been in the news during this election cycle for their voter registration fraud.
They have problems with their registration activities every election cycle. Every election cycle, they apologise and claim they will improve the "next time". This time they have pulled out all the stops in an attempt to help one of their own.
ACORN claims they have registered 1.3 million new voters this cycle. In Ohio, there are 600,000 new registrations. Of this, Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner has refused to make the known 200,000 questionable registrations available to county election officials. Federal law requires new registrations to be cross checked against Drivers License and Social Security numbers. Ohio's Secretary of State is making a naked attempt to steal Ohio's electoral vote and deliver them to Obama. Perhaps she is making a high profile bid for a position in an Obama administration.
ACORN is being investigated by the FBI, to see if they have an goal of disrupting the electoral process through nefarious means.
In Seattle, ACORN turned in one batch of registrations. Of the 1,800 registrations, investigators discovered only "6" were legitimate. During questioning, ACORN's employee's admitted they had gone to the public library downtown and made them up.
Obama worked for the Chicago chapter after completing law school. He was brought in to train their executive team on 'tactics'. As an adolescent, he was 'mentored' by Frank Davis, a self described communist. Obama wrote about him in his autobiography. Obama had also learned tactics from domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers.
Many people on the left ask us to ignore the 500# gorilla in the room (ACORN). They implore Americans to not believe their 'lying eyes'. Well folks, if it walks and quacks like a Duck. It is a Duck!
America is laying witness to the usurping of our electoral process.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
On The Precipice Of Pakistans Overthrow
America's semi-reliable ally, Pakistan, is on the precipice of overthrow. The political climate there has ripened into a disaster in the making. Benazir Bhutto's husband is now in office, but only tenuously. They are having energy and food shortages. Al-Qaeda has taken control of two regions. The military command is dicey. Terrorists have longed for an opportunity to gain control of nuclear weapons, and may have found their mark. If the government there falls to radical Islamists, then the western world will be fighting for it's own survival. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal.
This is the picture being outlined in a soon-to-be released U.S. Intelligence Assessment.
A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."
The first official summarized the estimates conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "no money, no energy, no government."
Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment - seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan - is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.
"Can it get that bad in Pakistan? The Pakistanis themselves now say that two vital regions - Swat and the area around Peshawar - are already in al-Qaeda's hands. The whole government is rotten to the core so it won't take much to push it over.
Then what? Same thing that happened in Afghanistan. A coalition of conservative fundamentalist parties take over and we have the nightmare scenario come true.
I want to say I'm confident Obama would do something if worse came to worse, but we just don't know, do we?" - Rick Moran
This is not the same world we lived in prior to 9/11. These radicals hate everything about the western culture. They want to destroy it. A member of Hamas was quoted as saying about our negotiations:"There is nothing to negotiate. We do not want anything from you. We want to destroy you."
I see people in the middle east supporting Obama. I hope they do so out of respect for him. However, I believe that he is viewed as the weaker Presidential candidate, naive and inexperienced. He would be easier to walk over. He might also be more hesitant to react. The radicals know what to expect from McCain and it gives them pause. Not so, with a perceived weaker Obama.
This is the picture being outlined in a soon-to-be released U.S. Intelligence Assessment.
A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."
The first official summarized the estimates conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "no money, no energy, no government."
Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment - seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan - is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.
"Can it get that bad in Pakistan? The Pakistanis themselves now say that two vital regions - Swat and the area around Peshawar - are already in al-Qaeda's hands. The whole government is rotten to the core so it won't take much to push it over.
Then what? Same thing that happened in Afghanistan. A coalition of conservative fundamentalist parties take over and we have the nightmare scenario come true.
I want to say I'm confident Obama would do something if worse came to worse, but we just don't know, do we?" - Rick Moran
This is not the same world we lived in prior to 9/11. These radicals hate everything about the western culture. They want to destroy it. A member of Hamas was quoted as saying about our negotiations:"There is nothing to negotiate. We do not want anything from you. We want to destroy you."
I see people in the middle east supporting Obama. I hope they do so out of respect for him. However, I believe that he is viewed as the weaker Presidential candidate, naive and inexperienced. He would be easier to walk over. He might also be more hesitant to react. The radicals know what to expect from McCain and it gives them pause. Not so, with a perceived weaker Obama.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Obama Sponsored 'Global Poverty Act'
The United States Senate may vote any day on the stealth imposition of what could amount to an $845 BILLION United Nations style global tax on American citizens.
It's called the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and it is being sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama.
According to some conservative sources, this disastrous legislation could eventually force U.S. taxpayers to fork over as much as 0.7 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product -- or $845,000,000,000-- on welfare to third-world countries.
Here's what Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist and founder of Eagle Forum, recently wrote: "Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts..." Time is of the essence because Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just issued a report on the Global Poverty Act and it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on Thursday the 24th.
Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are watching and you will not tolerate massive United Nations style giveaways that are passed in the dark of night -- or in broad daylight for that matter.
Tell them that putting us on the road to give billions to petty tyrants and dictators is NOT a solution to poverty. The Senate Shell Game...Advocates of the Global Poverty Act are claiming that it does not really commit the United States to anything... that it won't really cost anything... that it simply requires the President -- in conjunction with the Secretary of State -- to "develop" strategies to alleviate world poverty.
In fact, Biden's report incredulously states, "implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year..."Technically he's correct... after all, it doesn't really cost that much to develop and formulate strategies...But such a cleverly worded contention begs the question: Why formulate or develop a strategy if there is no intention to follow through on that strategy?
And what would it cost to actually follow through on a strategy to alleviate world poverty?
The Global Poverty Act intentionally gives no specific figures but it does contain clues, and those clues are stated repeatedly in the legislation's reliance on the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.
WorldNetDaily.com quotes Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media as saying: "The bill defines the term 'Millennium Development Goals' as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration..."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
As for specific figures... WorldNetDaily.com reports: "Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims."
"[T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years... would amount to $845 billion 'over and above what the U.S. already spends.'"
"The plan passed the House in 2007 'because most members didn't realize what was in it.' Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."
And, how would the United States pay for this $845 BILLION commitment? According to Kincaid, who published a report on the legislation; "A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money." And that $845 BILLION global tax is in addition to our nation's current Foreign Aid programs, which, in 2006, cost American taxpayers about $300 BILLION!
It Gets Worse! Here are some of the additional provisions of the Millennium Development Goal:a "currency transfer tax," that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency; a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources"; a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection -- oil, natural gas, coal"; "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels." a "standing peace force," meaning a standing United Nations army that might, in time, be large enough to force us to bend to its will; a "UN arms register of all small arms and light weapons," the beginning of the end of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the "eradication of poverty" by the "redistribution [of] wealth and land"
How do you suppose the United Nations expects to "redistribute" the land and the wealth? And what country do you think the third-world majority will go after first? cancellation of "the debts of developing countries," "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." and "political control of the global economy."
In other words, it's a blueprint for a world government, owned and operated by the United Nations. One thing is clear: the Millennium Development Goal is a dagger aimed at the heart of America. While the Global Poverty Act, as presently championed by its Senate supporters, embraces certain aspects of the Millennium Development Goal, one should wonder if some of our legislators also support land and wealth "redistribution." We must stop this bill dead in its tracks. We must stop this subversion NOW! Don't let Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act sneak through the Senate.
Other Appropriate Entities...Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs -- a Columbia University economist -- is monitoring the Millennium Development Goal for the United Nations. In his 2005 report to Kofi Annan -- based on the research of 265 "poverty specialists" -- Sachs criticized the United States for giving only a mere $16.3 billion a year to alleviate global poverty. He argued that we should spend at least an additional $30 billion a year. And Sachs has decreed that the only way to force the United States to commit that much money is to IMPOSE A GLOBAL TAX. Has Senator Obama
-- along with the other Senate co-sponsors -- introduced the Global Policy Act at least in partial obedience to Sachs' wishes?
Joe Farah, publisher of WorldNetDaily.com said of this treacherous bill:"Now comes an even grander proposal by Barack Obama. It's called the Global Poverty Act, that would, in the next decade, transfer at least $845 billion of U.S. taxpayer money overseas. Think of Johnson's failed war on poverty going international -- directed not by Americans but by the United Nations."
And yes, just in case you think the massive amounts of your tax dollars that were wasted under the United Nation's Oil for Food program were an aberration, and that such a thing could not eventually happen on a more massive scale were the Global Poverty Act to sneak through the Senate, Doug Powers, writing for WorldNetDaily.com made this observation: "Not long ago, Nigeria's 'anti-corruption commission' -- runner-up in the 'oxymoron of the year' competition, second only to 'U.S. Senate Intelligence' -- found that past rulers of Nigeria have stolen or misused billions of dollars."
"The commission discovered that the amount of money 'missing' adds up to all the Western aid given to Africa in four decades. Obama, Hagel and Cantwell want to throw more at them. Apparently they won't be happy until there are trillions of our tax dollars stolen by crooke leaders and warlords."
It's called the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and it is being sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama.
According to some conservative sources, this disastrous legislation could eventually force U.S. taxpayers to fork over as much as 0.7 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product -- or $845,000,000,000-- on welfare to third-world countries.
Here's what Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist and founder of Eagle Forum, recently wrote: "Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts..." Time is of the essence because Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just issued a report on the Global Poverty Act and it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on Thursday the 24th.
Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are watching and you will not tolerate massive United Nations style giveaways that are passed in the dark of night -- or in broad daylight for that matter.
Tell them that putting us on the road to give billions to petty tyrants and dictators is NOT a solution to poverty. The Senate Shell Game...Advocates of the Global Poverty Act are claiming that it does not really commit the United States to anything... that it won't really cost anything... that it simply requires the President -- in conjunction with the Secretary of State -- to "develop" strategies to alleviate world poverty.
In fact, Biden's report incredulously states, "implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year..."Technically he's correct... after all, it doesn't really cost that much to develop and formulate strategies...But such a cleverly worded contention begs the question: Why formulate or develop a strategy if there is no intention to follow through on that strategy?
And what would it cost to actually follow through on a strategy to alleviate world poverty?
The Global Poverty Act intentionally gives no specific figures but it does contain clues, and those clues are stated repeatedly in the legislation's reliance on the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.
WorldNetDaily.com quotes Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media as saying: "The bill defines the term 'Millennium Development Goals' as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration..."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
As for specific figures... WorldNetDaily.com reports: "Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims."
"[T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years... would amount to $845 billion 'over and above what the U.S. already spends.'"
"The plan passed the House in 2007 'because most members didn't realize what was in it.' Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."
And, how would the United States pay for this $845 BILLION commitment? According to Kincaid, who published a report on the legislation; "A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money." And that $845 BILLION global tax is in addition to our nation's current Foreign Aid programs, which, in 2006, cost American taxpayers about $300 BILLION!
It Gets Worse! Here are some of the additional provisions of the Millennium Development Goal:a "currency transfer tax," that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency; a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources"; a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection -- oil, natural gas, coal"; "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels." a "standing peace force," meaning a standing United Nations army that might, in time, be large enough to force us to bend to its will; a "UN arms register of all small arms and light weapons," the beginning of the end of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the "eradication of poverty" by the "redistribution [of] wealth and land"
How do you suppose the United Nations expects to "redistribute" the land and the wealth? And what country do you think the third-world majority will go after first? cancellation of "the debts of developing countries," "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." and "political control of the global economy."
In other words, it's a blueprint for a world government, owned and operated by the United Nations. One thing is clear: the Millennium Development Goal is a dagger aimed at the heart of America. While the Global Poverty Act, as presently championed by its Senate supporters, embraces certain aspects of the Millennium Development Goal, one should wonder if some of our legislators also support land and wealth "redistribution." We must stop this bill dead in its tracks. We must stop this subversion NOW! Don't let Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act sneak through the Senate.
Other Appropriate Entities...Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs -- a Columbia University economist -- is monitoring the Millennium Development Goal for the United Nations. In his 2005 report to Kofi Annan -- based on the research of 265 "poverty specialists" -- Sachs criticized the United States for giving only a mere $16.3 billion a year to alleviate global poverty. He argued that we should spend at least an additional $30 billion a year. And Sachs has decreed that the only way to force the United States to commit that much money is to IMPOSE A GLOBAL TAX. Has Senator Obama
-- along with the other Senate co-sponsors -- introduced the Global Policy Act at least in partial obedience to Sachs' wishes?
Joe Farah, publisher of WorldNetDaily.com said of this treacherous bill:"Now comes an even grander proposal by Barack Obama. It's called the Global Poverty Act, that would, in the next decade, transfer at least $845 billion of U.S. taxpayer money overseas. Think of Johnson's failed war on poverty going international -- directed not by Americans but by the United Nations."
And yes, just in case you think the massive amounts of your tax dollars that were wasted under the United Nation's Oil for Food program were an aberration, and that such a thing could not eventually happen on a more massive scale were the Global Poverty Act to sneak through the Senate, Doug Powers, writing for WorldNetDaily.com made this observation: "Not long ago, Nigeria's 'anti-corruption commission' -- runner-up in the 'oxymoron of the year' competition, second only to 'U.S. Senate Intelligence' -- found that past rulers of Nigeria have stolen or misused billions of dollars."
"The commission discovered that the amount of money 'missing' adds up to all the Western aid given to Africa in four decades. Obama, Hagel and Cantwell want to throw more at them. Apparently they won't be happy until there are trillions of our tax dollars stolen by crooke leaders and warlords."
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Left Wing: Whales Trump National Security
I am in favor of conserving the environment and protecting the Whales. Most Americans recognize the need to do so. However, there needs to be proportionality in our approach. Our friends on the left have overwhelmingly thrown their support behind the Democrats. They do so, because the Democrats grant them more influence, even at the peril of old fashioned ‘common sense’. When I see the environmentalist putting their cause ahead of my family’s safety, I object. This article that I have provided excerpts from, highlights this short sided fallacy. A link is provided at the bottom.
It’s a dangerous world out there. Iranian mullahs push forward their missile and nuke development programs while musing about a world without Israel ... or America. Russia rattles its saber, invades Georgia, plants its flag in the Arctic and dismisses the United States as a has-been superpower. Islamists wage a “holy war” against “the Great Satan” with firefights in Afghanistan, bombings in the Middle East and plots around the world.
Perilous times, indeed. And while America is at war, environmental extremists are on a mission, too. Just not necessarily on our side.
Case in point: The Navy has a whale of a problem. It uses sonar to detect underwater dangers and to navigate its own submarines. But sonar may adversely affect the navigational ability of whales and other sea creatures. In five different cases, environmental groups have sued the Navy to restrict testing low- and medium-range sonar frequency arrays.
For example, when naval ships detect sea mammals within 200 yards during training exercises, they shut down the sonar immediately. Scientific experiments by the Navy determined that a 200-yard buffer minimizes the risk that whales will become disoriented by military sonar.
But instead of deferring to the service’s scientifically-based buffer zone, a U.S. District judge decided the Navy must turned off its sonar at a range of 2,200 yards. The new buffer zone - more than a mile-and-a-quarter radius - appears based on nothing but the whim of the court. The Navy called the restrictions “crippling.”
As a result of this decision, the commander of the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group recently had to slash sonar training. Meanwhile, China continues to build its super-quiet diesel submarines that are harder and harder to find - even with sonar up and running.
The Navy is not the only service losing “lawfare” battles to the enviros. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge ruled the Pentagon violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by failing to evaluate how a new air base, the Futenma Replacement Facility, might affect the Japanese dugong.
Since NHPA is intended to apply to historical property, not animals, the court’s decision is as strange as the unusual mammal it purports to protect.
More than odd, the ruling undermines security. A joint statement by U.S. and Japanese officials “reaffirmed that completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility ... by the target date of 2014, is the key to ... the overall realignment plan for Okinawa,” including relocation of a Marine Expeditionary Unit to Guam. The actions of an activist judge have now all but ensured this vital process will not be complete by the deadline.
Worse, the dugong decision may create a new opening for environmental activists to target other U.S. bases around the world, re-labeling arcane animals as historic relics that must take precedence under the NHPA.
Judges gone wild is a symptom of a bigger problem. In the end, the greatest threat to American security may be constituent politics that puts narrow self-interest above the common good.
“Lawfare” advocates a constituent concern regardless of the cost. As long as stakeholders advance their agenda, nothing else matters. This problem can get out of control when judges cultivate a culture of litigation and creative interpretation of law.
The activists can rightly argue they are just doing their job, lobbying for their thing. Government, however, is supposed to be about more than just the sum of constituent politics.
Lawmakers have an obligation to give us laws that will keep us all free, safe and prosperous. Courts are obliged to protect us from those who would violate or abuse the law.
But when activists hijack the judiciary and advance one goal at the expense of another, justice is perverted. And when government’s fundamental obligation to “provide for the common defense” falls victim to perverse court rulings, the nation’s future is at risk.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed100608d.cfm
It’s a dangerous world out there. Iranian mullahs push forward their missile and nuke development programs while musing about a world without Israel ... or America. Russia rattles its saber, invades Georgia, plants its flag in the Arctic and dismisses the United States as a has-been superpower. Islamists wage a “holy war” against “the Great Satan” with firefights in Afghanistan, bombings in the Middle East and plots around the world.
Perilous times, indeed. And while America is at war, environmental extremists are on a mission, too. Just not necessarily on our side.
Case in point: The Navy has a whale of a problem. It uses sonar to detect underwater dangers and to navigate its own submarines. But sonar may adversely affect the navigational ability of whales and other sea creatures. In five different cases, environmental groups have sued the Navy to restrict testing low- and medium-range sonar frequency arrays.
For example, when naval ships detect sea mammals within 200 yards during training exercises, they shut down the sonar immediately. Scientific experiments by the Navy determined that a 200-yard buffer minimizes the risk that whales will become disoriented by military sonar.
But instead of deferring to the service’s scientifically-based buffer zone, a U.S. District judge decided the Navy must turned off its sonar at a range of 2,200 yards. The new buffer zone - more than a mile-and-a-quarter radius - appears based on nothing but the whim of the court. The Navy called the restrictions “crippling.”
As a result of this decision, the commander of the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group recently had to slash sonar training. Meanwhile, China continues to build its super-quiet diesel submarines that are harder and harder to find - even with sonar up and running.
The Navy is not the only service losing “lawfare” battles to the enviros. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge ruled the Pentagon violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by failing to evaluate how a new air base, the Futenma Replacement Facility, might affect the Japanese dugong.
Since NHPA is intended to apply to historical property, not animals, the court’s decision is as strange as the unusual mammal it purports to protect.
More than odd, the ruling undermines security. A joint statement by U.S. and Japanese officials “reaffirmed that completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility ... by the target date of 2014, is the key to ... the overall realignment plan for Okinawa,” including relocation of a Marine Expeditionary Unit to Guam. The actions of an activist judge have now all but ensured this vital process will not be complete by the deadline.
Worse, the dugong decision may create a new opening for environmental activists to target other U.S. bases around the world, re-labeling arcane animals as historic relics that must take precedence under the NHPA.
Judges gone wild is a symptom of a bigger problem. In the end, the greatest threat to American security may be constituent politics that puts narrow self-interest above the common good.
“Lawfare” advocates a constituent concern regardless of the cost. As long as stakeholders advance their agenda, nothing else matters. This problem can get out of control when judges cultivate a culture of litigation and creative interpretation of law.
The activists can rightly argue they are just doing their job, lobbying for their thing. Government, however, is supposed to be about more than just the sum of constituent politics.
Lawmakers have an obligation to give us laws that will keep us all free, safe and prosperous. Courts are obliged to protect us from those who would violate or abuse the law.
But when activists hijack the judiciary and advance one goal at the expense of another, justice is perverted. And when government’s fundamental obligation to “provide for the common defense” falls victim to perverse court rulings, the nation’s future is at risk.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed100608d.cfm
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
I Am Voting For John McCain
I am voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
The US. faces some trying times ahead. We need a team with integrity, judgement, character, and experience. McCain has proven himself over the years to embody all the above. Obama is lacking in all the above.
On Energy, McCain recognizes our national security depends on energy independence. He has proposed an energy plan akin to the one put forth by T. Boone Pickens. It involves Clean Coal technology, Nuclear Power (which is much safer today than in previous years), Wind, Solar, Hydro, Natural Gas, and increased Domestic drilling. Our national security is tied to our self sufficiency.
On the Economy, McCain has proposed a corporate tax cut, just as Obama said. Think about it for a moment. Obama wants to increase the corporate tax rate. Folks, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world! Companies are in business to make a profit, and their stockholders demand it, investing accordingly. If we increase the corporate tax rate, we will only drive more of these companies to overseas locations where the tax rates & labor costs are lower. This will cost us the loss of more jobs. Lower tax rates will help keep those companies and jobs in the US. The bailout bill has addressed corporate greed and executive compensation. So that should be more fair. Americans can not be so naive as to believe that companies that stay in the US. will just eat the tax increase. Obamas corporate tax rate increase will hit the American consumer, just as if it was a direct income tax increase. The companies remaining in the US. are going to pass the increase onto all of us. This will hit us in the form of higher prices, and increased inflation. You think that a gallon of milk is expensive now? Just wait. This is a poorly thought out plan, and goes directly to Obama’s judgement.
National Security, Veterans & Military, Listening to the debates has exposed Obama’s naivety. He speaks well, but has nothing beyond a handful of memorized lines. His idea of holding ‘Presidential Level’ talks with Iran, is dangerous. It is no secret Iran wants a Nuclear arsenal. They have the missles to carry them to Israel. They have said they want to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Eventually Iran will have missles that can reach Europe, and then finally the US. Radical Muslims have all said they want to kill all westerners. Obama claimed that Henry Kissinger agreed with him on Presidential Level talks with Iran.
Kissinger came right out and said Obama had mischaracterized Kissinger's statement. Kissinger had said direct talks would be fine at the Secretary level, not at the Presidential level. The reason we do not want to talk at the Presidential level without preconditions, is to do so, will lend the Iranian leader equal gravitas. This would allow Ahmadinejad to show up, make a statement, and walk out claiming he had stood up to the ‘Great Satan’. It would undermine our American leadership. McCain would not hold direct talks, to do otherwise is poor judgement, arising from a lack of experience.
McCain, at the beginning of the Iraq War, disagreed with the strategy Bush chose to follow. McCain wanted to go in with a stronger, more prepared force. He finally got his way 3 1/2 years later in the form of the ‘Surge’. Had we followed his advice in the beginning, we could have saved many lives, and money.
Obama says he would fight Pakistan unilaterally if he thought we could get members of Al Qaeda. McCain correctly pointed out that it is not wise to “announce” this in advance, as we need cooperation from the Pakistanis’. Both men agree we will have to send more troops into Afghanistan. I trust McCain’s judgement and experience to lead this endeavor. Americas security depends on its success. McCain worked to increase pay scales for servicemen and women during both the Persian Gulf War and the current War on Terror and to increase enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for reservists and guardsmen. He also sponsored bills to give special tax relief to deployed service members and to set up overseas savings programs for the men and women fighting in the Gulf War.
McCain has supported legislation to expand retirement benefits for reservists, supported provisions to expand eligibility for health care benefits for reservists and their families, and sponsored legislation to grant survivor benefit payments to the spouses of reservists who die during or as the result of training. He is committed to ensuring that veterans’ health care programs receive the funding necessary to provide the quality health care our veterans need and deserve. He has worked to ensure that the Veteran’s Affairs provides care for all eligible veterans, no matter where they live or what they need. In addition, John McCain has fought to ensure that retired servicemen and women have meaningful access to affordable health care.
McCain strongly believes that it is our duty as a nation to provide our veterans, who dedicated their careers, risked their personal safety, and sometimes sacrificed their lives in order to protect us, with the benefits that we have promised them and that they have earned. John McCain has voted consistently to increase funding for veterans’ benefits, recognizing that the people who serve our country should get priority over the disgraceful amounts of spending on corporate subsidies and wasteful pork barrel spending. He also pushed for various initiatives to ensure that veterans who are eligible for benefits know what they are entitled to and have the resources to obtain their benefits.
I am old fashioned and do believe character counts. I believe McCain is the man with better character. Obama made a conscious decision to surround himself with Slumlord felon Tony Rezko, and Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers, and racist Rev. Wright. Obama sat in that church 20 yrs! Google; ‘Black Liberation Theology’.
As a State Senator, Obama directed tax dollars to Tony Rezko's company to maintain low income housing in Chicago. Rezko took the money, but did not fulfill his obligation. The Federal Government had to step in, and seize the properties. Many of the buildings were in such disrepair that they had to be razed. Rezko upon receiving the tax money, suddenly was able to donate over $150,000 to Obama's campaign coffers. To me it looks like Rezko simply took his cut, and "donated" Obamas cut to his campaign.
Obama held his first campaign meeting when starting out in the living room of Domestic Terrorist, Bill Ayers. How could Obama not know of Ayers radical past. They were both on the board of the Woods Fund, and The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In addition to this they were neighbors. Obama directed funding to Ayers. Ayers wanted the funding to push his radical education initiatives. The education initiative failed, and over $100 million dollars were gone.
As for Reverend Wright. Here is a man who holds the white population in disdain. How could Obama sit in a church that many years and not hear the sermon. What if he wins and does not hear that emergency 3am. call? This church has an education unit within the church that follows Black Liberation Theology. Again, I ask that everyone take a moment and google that. Obama is not a "post-racial" candidate, but embodies some deep seeded suspicions of whites. I come to this conclusion from Obamas own words:
” I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”
“The emotion between the races could never be pure….. the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”
“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
"never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself..".
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Obama has defended these remarks. He said they were taken out of context. The people at "factcheck.org", stepped in on his behalf. Basically factcheck.org implored readers, "Don't believe your lying eyes."
After Law School, he worked as an executive trainer for an organization that has been in the news lately. He trained on 'tactics'. It's name is ACORN. ACORN is being investigated throughout several states for voter registration fraud. The ACORN volunteers have been indicted and convicted in several cases. It is a naked attempt to steal this election. The real kicker is that the Democrats tried to put funding for ACORN into the financial bailout package that was just passed and signed into law. The House Republicans voted down the first package, and the wording was removed.
No one can say these things about McCain. His biggest "scandal" was the Keating 5 back in the '80's. The Democrats lead investigator, Robert Bennett, recommended that John McCain and John Glenn should have been exonerated. According to Bennett, the Democrats did not want to exonerate McCain, as it would leave only Democratic Senators in trouble.
Sarah Palin, is a lady I can relate to. She connects with Middle America. She is one of us. She knows what it is to shop in WalMart, to have her family's health care cut off, and the need to adhere to a tight family budget. She does not merely 'talk the talk', she 'walks the walk'.
She does not interview well, as we have all watched. She is not a Washington insider that has spent a lifetime doing daily interviews. We have seen her do great at speaking and debating.
As a Mayor and Governor she has taken on "the good old boys network", and won. She had the chutzpah to take on the incumbant Republican Governor and knocked him off in the Alaska GOP primary. Palin has built a reputation for reforming the Wasilla and Alaska government. She ended personal property taxes, and took on big oil.
McCain and Palin are the Mavericks in this election that will bring the governmental change needed at this time.
I must confess. McCain was not my first choice. However, we have only two choices. With the research I have done, I have concluded that McCain is the best choice.
The US. faces some trying times ahead. We need a team with integrity, judgement, character, and experience. McCain has proven himself over the years to embody all the above. Obama is lacking in all the above.
On Energy, McCain recognizes our national security depends on energy independence. He has proposed an energy plan akin to the one put forth by T. Boone Pickens. It involves Clean Coal technology, Nuclear Power (which is much safer today than in previous years), Wind, Solar, Hydro, Natural Gas, and increased Domestic drilling. Our national security is tied to our self sufficiency.
On the Economy, McCain has proposed a corporate tax cut, just as Obama said. Think about it for a moment. Obama wants to increase the corporate tax rate. Folks, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world! Companies are in business to make a profit, and their stockholders demand it, investing accordingly. If we increase the corporate tax rate, we will only drive more of these companies to overseas locations where the tax rates & labor costs are lower. This will cost us the loss of more jobs. Lower tax rates will help keep those companies and jobs in the US. The bailout bill has addressed corporate greed and executive compensation. So that should be more fair. Americans can not be so naive as to believe that companies that stay in the US. will just eat the tax increase. Obamas corporate tax rate increase will hit the American consumer, just as if it was a direct income tax increase. The companies remaining in the US. are going to pass the increase onto all of us. This will hit us in the form of higher prices, and increased inflation. You think that a gallon of milk is expensive now? Just wait. This is a poorly thought out plan, and goes directly to Obama’s judgement.
National Security, Veterans & Military, Listening to the debates has exposed Obama’s naivety. He speaks well, but has nothing beyond a handful of memorized lines. His idea of holding ‘Presidential Level’ talks with Iran, is dangerous. It is no secret Iran wants a Nuclear arsenal. They have the missles to carry them to Israel. They have said they want to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Eventually Iran will have missles that can reach Europe, and then finally the US. Radical Muslims have all said they want to kill all westerners. Obama claimed that Henry Kissinger agreed with him on Presidential Level talks with Iran.
Kissinger came right out and said Obama had mischaracterized Kissinger's statement. Kissinger had said direct talks would be fine at the Secretary level, not at the Presidential level. The reason we do not want to talk at the Presidential level without preconditions, is to do so, will lend the Iranian leader equal gravitas. This would allow Ahmadinejad to show up, make a statement, and walk out claiming he had stood up to the ‘Great Satan’. It would undermine our American leadership. McCain would not hold direct talks, to do otherwise is poor judgement, arising from a lack of experience.
McCain, at the beginning of the Iraq War, disagreed with the strategy Bush chose to follow. McCain wanted to go in with a stronger, more prepared force. He finally got his way 3 1/2 years later in the form of the ‘Surge’. Had we followed his advice in the beginning, we could have saved many lives, and money.
Obama says he would fight Pakistan unilaterally if he thought we could get members of Al Qaeda. McCain correctly pointed out that it is not wise to “announce” this in advance, as we need cooperation from the Pakistanis’. Both men agree we will have to send more troops into Afghanistan. I trust McCain’s judgement and experience to lead this endeavor. Americas security depends on its success. McCain worked to increase pay scales for servicemen and women during both the Persian Gulf War and the current War on Terror and to increase enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for reservists and guardsmen. He also sponsored bills to give special tax relief to deployed service members and to set up overseas savings programs for the men and women fighting in the Gulf War.
McCain has supported legislation to expand retirement benefits for reservists, supported provisions to expand eligibility for health care benefits for reservists and their families, and sponsored legislation to grant survivor benefit payments to the spouses of reservists who die during or as the result of training. He is committed to ensuring that veterans’ health care programs receive the funding necessary to provide the quality health care our veterans need and deserve. He has worked to ensure that the Veteran’s Affairs provides care for all eligible veterans, no matter where they live or what they need. In addition, John McCain has fought to ensure that retired servicemen and women have meaningful access to affordable health care.
McCain strongly believes that it is our duty as a nation to provide our veterans, who dedicated their careers, risked their personal safety, and sometimes sacrificed their lives in order to protect us, with the benefits that we have promised them and that they have earned. John McCain has voted consistently to increase funding for veterans’ benefits, recognizing that the people who serve our country should get priority over the disgraceful amounts of spending on corporate subsidies and wasteful pork barrel spending. He also pushed for various initiatives to ensure that veterans who are eligible for benefits know what they are entitled to and have the resources to obtain their benefits.
I am old fashioned and do believe character counts. I believe McCain is the man with better character. Obama made a conscious decision to surround himself with Slumlord felon Tony Rezko, and Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers, and racist Rev. Wright. Obama sat in that church 20 yrs! Google; ‘Black Liberation Theology’.
As a State Senator, Obama directed tax dollars to Tony Rezko's company to maintain low income housing in Chicago. Rezko took the money, but did not fulfill his obligation. The Federal Government had to step in, and seize the properties. Many of the buildings were in such disrepair that they had to be razed. Rezko upon receiving the tax money, suddenly was able to donate over $150,000 to Obama's campaign coffers. To me it looks like Rezko simply took his cut, and "donated" Obamas cut to his campaign.
Obama held his first campaign meeting when starting out in the living room of Domestic Terrorist, Bill Ayers. How could Obama not know of Ayers radical past. They were both on the board of the Woods Fund, and The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In addition to this they were neighbors. Obama directed funding to Ayers. Ayers wanted the funding to push his radical education initiatives. The education initiative failed, and over $100 million dollars were gone.
As for Reverend Wright. Here is a man who holds the white population in disdain. How could Obama sit in a church that many years and not hear the sermon. What if he wins and does not hear that emergency 3am. call? This church has an education unit within the church that follows Black Liberation Theology. Again, I ask that everyone take a moment and google that. Obama is not a "post-racial" candidate, but embodies some deep seeded suspicions of whites. I come to this conclusion from Obamas own words:
” I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”
“The emotion between the races could never be pure….. the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”
“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
"never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself..".
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Obama has defended these remarks. He said they were taken out of context. The people at "factcheck.org", stepped in on his behalf. Basically factcheck.org implored readers, "Don't believe your lying eyes."
After Law School, he worked as an executive trainer for an organization that has been in the news lately. He trained on 'tactics'. It's name is ACORN. ACORN is being investigated throughout several states for voter registration fraud. The ACORN volunteers have been indicted and convicted in several cases. It is a naked attempt to steal this election. The real kicker is that the Democrats tried to put funding for ACORN into the financial bailout package that was just passed and signed into law. The House Republicans voted down the first package, and the wording was removed.
No one can say these things about McCain. His biggest "scandal" was the Keating 5 back in the '80's. The Democrats lead investigator, Robert Bennett, recommended that John McCain and John Glenn should have been exonerated. According to Bennett, the Democrats did not want to exonerate McCain, as it would leave only Democratic Senators in trouble.
Sarah Palin, is a lady I can relate to. She connects with Middle America. She is one of us. She knows what it is to shop in WalMart, to have her family's health care cut off, and the need to adhere to a tight family budget. She does not merely 'talk the talk', she 'walks the walk'.
She does not interview well, as we have all watched. She is not a Washington insider that has spent a lifetime doing daily interviews. We have seen her do great at speaking and debating.
As a Mayor and Governor she has taken on "the good old boys network", and won. She had the chutzpah to take on the incumbant Republican Governor and knocked him off in the Alaska GOP primary. Palin has built a reputation for reforming the Wasilla and Alaska government. She ended personal property taxes, and took on big oil.
McCain and Palin are the Mavericks in this election that will bring the governmental change needed at this time.
I must confess. McCain was not my first choice. However, we have only two choices. With the research I have done, I have concluded that McCain is the best choice.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Illegal Middle East Donations Flowing Into Obama Campaign
I understand many Europeans favoring Obama, as they are largely from Socialist countires. I am not certain why the middle east people would be actively campaigning for him. Working the phones from poverty stricken Gaza has to be cost prohibitive. Yet many are working those phones and have set up phone banks. I am including a link at the bottom of the page showing one of these Palestinian phone banks in action, and an interview with the groups leader. If you are not satisfied with the link, just go to youtube and look it up for yourself.
Of the $450 million dollars donated to the Obama campaign, more than $200 million of that; the donors have not been identified nor disclosed.
It is in the media today that there are several donations from the middle east illegally flowing into the Obama campaign. Obama's campaign has said they have returned part of the money. Two brothers in Gaza reportedly have donated over $30,000. Not bad for a family that lives in a refugee camp! Obama said his campaign returned the money, but the brothers say no money was returned. When the Obama campaign receives donations from people with odd names such as "Doodad", and "Good Will", a reasonable person expects red flags to go up. Not so with the Obama campaign. Money is money. The end justifies the means. Win at any cost.
"No, we did not receive any money back from the Obama campaign at any time," said Monir Edwan.
Last week, the blog Atlas Shrugs outlined the series of donations made last year by Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan, totaling $29,521.54. A third brother, Osama, reportedly gave the campaign about $4,000.
A WND investigation tracked down the Edwans in the Tal Esaltan neighborhood of Rafah, a large refugee camp in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. The Edwans are a large clan that include top Hamas supporters.
The brothers denied their financial transactions were actual donations to Obama's campaign, claiming they purchased about $30,000 in Obama T-shirts from the presidential candidate's online store – a contention that did not hold up during a interview, when they changed their story several times.
"My brother Hosam and I knew that Obama will be a big hit even before he became a candidate. We knew the guy would be a celebrity in Gaza so we decided to invest the amount of $29,000 to buy Obama T-shirts from his website and sell them in Gaza," Monir Edwan told WND, speaking by cell phone from Gaza.
Asked how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the time Israel imposed a tight closure, Edwan maintained the packages were sent to him by the U.S. Postal Service.
Monir Edwan said he wants Obama to be president.
"Not just the people in Gaza but people from all over the world are rooting for this great man," Edwan said.
I am not comfortable with illegal foreign money flowing into a candidates campaign. I wonder what they were promised in exchange.
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/05/14/palestinians-phonebank-for-obama/
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/izoneguy/2...-behalf-of-pal/
Of the $450 million dollars donated to the Obama campaign, more than $200 million of that; the donors have not been identified nor disclosed.
It is in the media today that there are several donations from the middle east illegally flowing into the Obama campaign. Obama's campaign has said they have returned part of the money. Two brothers in Gaza reportedly have donated over $30,000. Not bad for a family that lives in a refugee camp! Obama said his campaign returned the money, but the brothers say no money was returned. When the Obama campaign receives donations from people with odd names such as "Doodad", and "Good Will", a reasonable person expects red flags to go up. Not so with the Obama campaign. Money is money. The end justifies the means. Win at any cost.
"No, we did not receive any money back from the Obama campaign at any time," said Monir Edwan.
Last week, the blog Atlas Shrugs outlined the series of donations made last year by Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan, totaling $29,521.54. A third brother, Osama, reportedly gave the campaign about $4,000.
A WND investigation tracked down the Edwans in the Tal Esaltan neighborhood of Rafah, a large refugee camp in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. The Edwans are a large clan that include top Hamas supporters.
The brothers denied their financial transactions were actual donations to Obama's campaign, claiming they purchased about $30,000 in Obama T-shirts from the presidential candidate's online store – a contention that did not hold up during a interview, when they changed their story several times.
"My brother Hosam and I knew that Obama will be a big hit even before he became a candidate. We knew the guy would be a celebrity in Gaza so we decided to invest the amount of $29,000 to buy Obama T-shirts from his website and sell them in Gaza," Monir Edwan told WND, speaking by cell phone from Gaza.
Asked how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the time Israel imposed a tight closure, Edwan maintained the packages were sent to him by the U.S. Postal Service.
Monir Edwan said he wants Obama to be president.
"Not just the people in Gaza but people from all over the world are rooting for this great man," Edwan said.
I am not comfortable with illegal foreign money flowing into a candidates campaign. I wonder what they were promised in exchange.
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/05/14/palestinians-phonebank-for-obama/
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/izoneguy/2...-behalf-of-pal/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
