During his July trip to Europe and the Middle East, Obama met privately with Palestinian leadership. He quietly endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative.
It means that the land Israel took control of when it's Arab neighbors attacked it in 1967 will be returned to the Arabs. It will establish a new Palestine. Obama asked that they not publicly discuss his assurances until after the election. He had claimed to be a great supporter of Israel during the campaign and wanted the charade to continue until he no longer needed the Jewish vote.
Obama backs the Arab League's Initiative, which defenders of Israel warn would leave the Jewish state with truncated, difficult to defend borders and could threaten Israel's Jewish character by compelling it to accept millions of foreign Arabs.
Obama's team has been meeting with various Arab leaders over the past two weeks, and an official said in most cases it was the Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, that stressed the importance of the plan. He said Obama's advisers expressed a positive attitude toward the plan, but he stopped short of confirming a London Sunday Times article last week that claimed Obama would make the plan a central part of his Mideast policy.
One senior Obama adviser was quoted telling the Times that on a visit to the Middle East last July, Obama said privately to the Palestinian leadership it would be "crazy" for Israel to refuse the Initiative, which Obama purportedly said could "give them peace with the Muslim world."
Although Ross denied Obama would trumpet the Arab plan, Israeli President Shimon Peres told the British media last week that in conversations he held with the president-elect, Obama proclaimed himself "very impressed" with the Arab League's peace plan. Peres was responding to questions about whether he thought Obama would advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in general and the Arab League's plan in particular.
Initiative threatens Jewish state
The Arab Initiative, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive "normal relations" with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, which includes the Temple Mount.
The West Bank contains important Jewish biblical sites and borders central Israeli population centers, while the Golan Heights looks down on Israeli civilian zones and was twice used by Syria to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.
The Arab plan also demands the imposition of a non-binding U.N. resolution that calls for so-called Palestinian refugees who wish to move inside Israel to be permitted to do so at the "earliest practicable date."
Palestinians have long demanded the "right of return" for millions of "refugees," a formula Israeli officials across the political spectrum warn is code for Israel's destruction by flooding the Jewish state with millions of Arabs, thereby changing its demographics.
When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel's borders fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.
While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle those Arabs elsewhere.
There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs; Arabs living full-time in Jordan; and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.
According to Arab sources close to the Arab Initiative, Arab countries are willing to come to an agreement whereby Israel absorbs about 500,000 "refugees" and reaches a compensation deal with the PA for the remaining millions of Palestinians.
Obama advisers back Arab plan
Some top Obama current and former advisers have recently endorsed the Arab Initiative. The Times referenced a partisan group of senior foreign policy advisers who urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory, including Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democratic former national security adviser. Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, also joined in the appeal.
A PA official said that in recent weeks even the Bush White House and State Department has been focused on a drive to reach a series of understandings between Israel and the PA that ultimately seeks to create a Palestinian state in nearly the entire pre-1967 borders, meaning the entire Gaza, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem areas.
"We are confident from this mood of Bush that an Obama administration will be even more willing to embrace the pre-1967 borders as the starting point of further talks," the PA official said.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Bush Betrayal And Globalization
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/
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/
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.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
'Civilian Security Force' Participation To Be Required
While voters blindly threw 52% of their support behind Obama; plans went largely unnoticed for the creation of a civilian security force reminescent of the Hitler Youth Corp. Service will be compulsory from middle school through college.
Ideas abound of neighbor spying on neighbor, and child on parent. Voters enamored with the Obama cult of personality, gravitated to his rhetoric of 'hope and change'. Most people lazilly received their voter information by an overtly biased press in filtered, 30 second sound bites. Very few took the time to research either candidate on their own.
The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.
The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Gateway Pundit called the Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"
Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.
The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.
The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.
Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."
J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'
"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.
Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."
In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."
Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
His call generated intense Internet discussions.
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."
Ideas abound of neighbor spying on neighbor, and child on parent. Voters enamored with the Obama cult of personality, gravitated to his rhetoric of 'hope and change'. Most people lazilly received their voter information by an overtly biased press in filtered, 30 second sound bites. Very few took the time to research either candidate on their own.
The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.
The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Gateway Pundit called the Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"
Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.
The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.
The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.
Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."
J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'
"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.
Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."
In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."
Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
His call generated intense Internet discussions.
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
