Fred Martinez's Monitor

Discovering the Meaning of Love and Life Chapter 1 and INTRODUCTION

2009-06-26T13:20:00.000-07:00

Discovering the Meaning of Love and Life Chapter 1 THE BOY

Discovering the Meaning of Love and Life

Chapter 1

THE BOY

The boy watched the clock. It ticked to the moment he waited for all day. The moment he would play baseball.

School meant only two things to the boy: recess and after school.

He remembered kicking the ball. It hit his female teacher in the head. Next thing he knew he was in class with the teacher walking up to his desk. She wrote a big red F on the top of the his paper. He put a line though the front of the F, which made it look like a A. She turned red in the face. After that the boy got only bad grades.

Figuring if he was dumb a least he would have fun. He daydreamed of making a fantastic catch like Willie Mays. He felt in his blood the bravado of Juan Marichal whose pitching delivery started with his foot kicking above his head. He wanted to be like Willie McCovey who kept playing despite terrible knee injuries. Willie Mc would run around the bases even though he could hardly walk.

The ballplayers loved what they did. He wanted to be like them using every bit of talent to achieve heroics. After school, the boy was happy playing baseball and daydreaming. This was his last year of elementary school.

After a long walk he walked by the sign the middle school. He didn’t notice the sign. His mind was occupied. He had just walk through the middle of the gangs.

The whites were on one side of the street and on the other side were the Chicanos. For the first time he saw what gangs. Inside the school everything was cliquish. Few of the kids from elementary school went to Fischer. His baseball playing afternoons were over.

Becoming a paperboy and he threw his energy into the paper route. Hating school his only ambition was to get out.

The next year there were still to gangs, but now they were Chicano and Black. The neighborhood was changing and so was the world.

Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered. The neighboring highschool rioted so all the Blacks were let out of Fischer. The world was turning ugly.

Then Robert Kennedy ran for president. The boy said “He is such a good man. We hope he’ll make everything right.”

Discovering the Meaning of Love and Life INTRODUCTION

Discovering the Meaning of Love and Life

INTRODUCTION

This essays will touch the two levels of knowing: personal and objective.

Chapter one will be personal. The beginning of chapters two through nine will give episodes in the boys life.

The rest of each chapter will deal with exploration of these episodes. Exploration vehicles will be history, philosophy, literature and science. We will attempt a voyage to discover the meaning of love and life.

Does Letterman have an Perverted, Child-molester Bent?

2009-06-12T10:08:00.000-07:00

TomRoeser.com ::

By Tom Roeser

TV Hosts Drop the Façade.

Time was when TV hosts were cynically witty, sometimes sardonic and often clever. Some still are-but David Letterman is one who panders to evil insinuations to get his youngish, leftish, hooting, jeering, near-demonic sacrilegious audience to chortle. Last night's presentation was the worst I ever heard. He is a vicious character assassin and does not mind going after more than politicians-but their children, including minor-age children. He is a disgusting guttersnipe.

Last night he began his monologue by saying that Sarah Palin was in New York. He rambled on for a few minutes and then with tongue-not-far-in-cheek implied that her daughter-not Bristol by the way-but 14-year-old Willow... was impregnated by Alex Rodriguez and that Eliot Spitzer was interested in contacting Willow. A flurry of insults which left the raucous crowd screaming with the obscene implications: Willow was raped and is also a prostitute.

The reason for this degrading muck-huckster's disgusting slur is clear: Because Palin decided to have a Down Syndrome baby rather than abort it... which has caused some liberal females to hate her out of clenched-fist guilt... which this despicable twisted offender-monster tries to capitalize on in order to hype his ratings. He is truly the symbol of this decadent age, a disgusting, 62-year-old with a perverted, child-molester bent who should be scooped up in a net by CBS and tossed in the garbage (which he would taint) for insulting and mocking a child. A few nights earlier he said that Palin herself is a slut because she dresses like a seductive airline stewardess.

What ought to happen is that someone should join the studio audience and toss a bag of excrement at him to match his perverted non-humor.

Coming Next Year: Obama’s Inflation

2009-03-06T09:03:00.000-08:00

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Obama_stimulus_inflation/2009/03/05/188690.html

Thursday, March 5, 2009 9:03 AM

By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Article Font Size

During the past five months, the money supply in the United States has almost tripled, increasing by 271 percent, according to the Federal Reserve Board.

Have car sales tripled? Home purchases? Consumer spending? Corporate investment? Not only have they not tripled, but they have all declined more sharply than they have since at least the recession of 1981-82, and perhaps since the Great Depression.

So where is the money? If it isn't being spent, where is it?

It is being parked, squirreled away. Consumers are using it to pay down their credit-card balances, pay off their mortgages, reduce their student loans, make the payments on the car sitting in the driveway — not the one in the dealer's lot. Businesspeople are buying T-bills, investing the money and saving it. They aren't spending, either.

But one day, this recession, despite Obama's best efforts, will end and things will begin to look up again. Then we can expect all of this money to come out of its parking space and get back on the highway of commerce. All at once. The inevitable result will be double-digit hyperinflation.

Since the spending and borrowing splurge is not confined to Washington but is being mimicked all over the world, the inflation will not strike just one country but will be global in scope.

The first global inflation in our history (except, perhaps, right after World Wars I and II), it will confront our policymakers with yet another unprecedented challenge and send them back, once more, to their economics texts. There, they will find that the only remedy for global inflation is global recession, a la Paul Volker.

Having just emerged from a ruinous depression, nobody will be in the mood for more unemployment, but that is just what will have to happen to cool off the inflation and break the inflationary psychology that is likely to set in.

The point of this gloom and doom is that all this pain is entirely preventable. It will be caused by Obama's excessive spending and trillion-dollar-plus deficits. This spending, of questionable utility in overcoming this recession/depression, is so far out of line with what the economy can handle that it will do more harm than good when the inflation hits.

Proof that Obama spending will have little impact on the depression is the vast increase in money supply with no commensurate improvement in the economy. Providing money, via spending hikes or tax cuts, does not guarantee that the money will be spent. Tax cuts can be saved and spending increases, while surely spent once (on the initial project), can lose their multiplier effect rapidly as wage-earners on the government payroll bank their money just like those who get tax cuts will do.

Getting out of this economic mess depends on consumer and business confidence, a faith that Obama is eroding with his looming tax increases as rapidly as he tries to kindle it with his excessive spending.

None of this should come as any news to Obama. He probably knows all this. But he is determined to pass his agenda of bigger government, nationalized healthcare and vastly greater spending even at the price of inflation and subsequent recession. He puts ideology first and the economy a distant second.

The stock market has figured out his priorities and is responding accordingly. One can only hope that voters also eventually realize what is going on.

© 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved

Obama: $1 trillion Tax Increase in the Midst of Recession

2009-03-06T08:53:00.000-08:00

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/paul_ryan_interview/2009/03/05/188837.html

GOP's Ryan: 'Gusher of Spending' Worsens Recession

Thursday, March 5, 2009 1:42 PM

By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size

Rep. Paul Ryan, the highest ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, tells Newsmax it’s “just incredible” that President Barack Obama and the Democrats are seeking to raise taxes by more than $1 trillion in the midst of a recession.

The Wisconsin legislator also said the so-called stimulus bill is really an attempt to pander to special interest groups that support the Democrats.

Newsmax’s Ashley Martella asked Rep. Ryan for his thoughts on the huge budget proposed by the Obama administration.

“It’s the biggest government budget I have ever seen. I could just leave it at that, but let me give you a few points,” Ryan said.

[Editor's Note: Watch Paul Ryan discuss Obama’s dangerous economic strategy - Go Here Now]

“This budget in its first year proposes to take the size of our government to the largest it’s been since 1945. It doubles our national debt within eight years. In fact, for all the criticism of the Bush administration and their increase in the debt, this budget surpasses eight years of debt increases in the Bush administration within two years of the Obama administration.

“And during a recession they’re trying to impose a $1.4 trillion tax increase on the economy, on work, on income, on saving, on investing, on energy, on manufacturing. It strikes me as just incredible that in the middle of a recession, of all times, they would bring a budget that seeks to impose a gusher of new spending and all of these new taxes.

“And even with the high tax increase they’re talking about, they will never get to a balanced budget. They don’t even propose to try to get to a balanced budget. In fact, under this budget they’re proposing, our deficits are the highest that they’ve ever been.”

Martella asked Rep. Ryan if the stimulus package is going to work.

“I don’t think so, and that’s one of the reasons I voted against it,” Ryan responded.

“The whole notion that you can borrow and spend your way to prosperity has been refuted by economic evidence. It didn’t work when we tried the same policies in the ‘30s. It didn’t work when the Japanese tried the same policies in the ‘90s.

“It balloons our borrowing. It makes our borrowing costs go up. It puts bad pressure on the Federal Reserve.

“But even if you are committed to this economic doctrine of borrowing and spending to get the economy moving, most of the spending doesn’t occur for a couple of more years, and so it doesn’t even occur during the time when they say the spending should occur to get this economy going again.

“It’s more of a plan to put in place a very large government and it’s a down payment on this big budget they put in place…

“I think what they ended up doing was putting in the stimulus bill the things they’ve always wanted to do, to set aside the pent-up demand from their special interest spending lobby groups and then call it stimulus.”

Martella noted that Ryan is one of the leaders of an effort to institute a line item veto that would force legislators to vote on individual appropriations.

“The president ought to be able to take the pork out of these bills he signs and send it back to Congress and force Congress to take a clean up or down vote on these ridiculous spending items,” Ryan explained.

“Just last Wednesday the House passed a bloated spending bill with 9,000 earmarks in it — $250,000 to renovate the old DuPont family tugboat, a couple of hundred thousand dollars for advertising expenses for two convenience store owners in Louisville, Kentucky, money for swine odor research. On and on and on the list goes.

“What happens is the president has to sign this huge [budget] bill or veto the huge bill. Let’s give the president the ability to embarrass some of this pork out of the budget send it back and make us vote on it individually.”

If tax and spend plans don’t rejuvenate the economy, Martella asked, are Republicans prepared to make an issue of it in 2010?

“Absolutely,” Ryan declared. “We’re making an issue of it right now by saying we don’t think this is the right direction.”

[Editor's Note: Watch Paul Ryan discuss Obama’s dangerous economic strategy - Go Here Now]

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama Enemies List: Cramer "Used to make “Six Figure” Donations to Democrats"

2009-03-06T08:45:00.000-08:00

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/cramer_obama_panic/2009/03/05/188944.html

Jim Cramer: Obama Created an Atmosphere Of Panic

Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:52 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size

CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer says if he’s on the administration’s enemies list he’s in good company because President Obama’s agenda “is crushing nest eggs around the country.”

Cramer, who says he used to make “six figure” donations to Democrats before his media contract prohibited it, described talk host Rush Limbaugh as “a genius of the medium.”

On Wednesday, Limbaugh said he and Cramer were on the White House enemies list, and predicted the administration “was going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he’ll go down with a fight.”

Limbaugh, Cramer says, was “dead right.”

“I was on my hackles when I heard White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president,” Cramer wrote in a column posted Thursday on Mainstreet.com.

Cramer has been a strong critic of Obama’s, suggesting his budgetary problems have been destroying wealth by hurting the stock market.

On Wednesday, Gibbs said: “I’m not entirely sure what he’s pointing to, to make some of the statements. And you can go back and look at any number of statements he’s made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too.”

Cramer’s response to the blatant slam on Thursday: “Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope.”

Cramer said he personally agrees with Obama’s agenda, but says that in the current economic circumstances it is “radical,” and should be put on hold until the business climate improves.

“If that makes me an enemy of the White House,” Cramer wrote, “then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists -- tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and who get poorer by the day.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama's Enemies List brings back Nixon-era Dirty Tricks

2009-03-06T08:39:00.000-08:00

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_rush_debate/2009/03/05/188824.html

Rush Vs. Obama: Limbaugh Challenges President to Debate

Thursday, March 5, 2009 1:15 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size

Seizing the offensive in his ongoing war of words with the Obama administration, radio giant Rush Limbaugh is challenging President Barack Obama to appear on his program “without a teleprompter” for a straightforward debate on issues important to the American people.

Limbaugh told his audience Wednesday that attacks against him are being orchestrated by Obama “flunkies” who are “feasting on their own arrogance.”

“But I have an idea,” Limbaugh said, “if these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. . . They're claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let's have the debate!

“I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues. Let's talk about free markets versus government control. Let's talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business. Let's talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let's talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let's talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let's talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders.”

Limbaugh suggested additional topics as well.

“Let's talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let's talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let's talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let's talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let's talk about your stock market,” he said.

The talk show host added he would send his private jet to pick up Obama, and would pay for all expenses so taxpayers would bear none of the cost.

Referring to news reports that he is trying to marginalize the Republican Party and expose its dearth of leadership, Limbaugh compared the strategy to Nixon-era dirty tricks. And he listed others who he said are being targeted by the Obama administration.

“Your flunkies are targeting a private citizen with an enemies list that so far has three or four names on it: mine; Rick Santelli; Jim Cramer at CNBC; and let's not forget Joe the Plumber, who your allies in Ohio also tried to destroy,” Limbaugh said. “The difference is that Joe the Plumber does not have his own microphone every day. They're shutting Santelli up at CNBC. They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight. That isn't going to happen here, to me. I'm calling. I'm ready. I'll do everything I can to facilitate it. You're a very courageous man, Mr. President. I am, after all, just The Last Man Standing. If you take me out, if you can wipe me out in a debate and prove to the rest of America that what I say is senseless and wrong, do you realize you will own the United States of America? You will have no opposition. You have America's media in your back pocket.”

Republicans are coming to Limbaugh’s defense en masse. Karl Rove, commentator and former adviser to George W. Bush, charged Wednesday on Fox News that the Obama administration is practicing “misdirection” in its attacks against Limbaugh to divert attention from a $410 billion spending bill laden with special-interest earmarks.

Rove described the tactic as “old-style politics” that fall short of Obama’s campaign pledge to elevate the nation’s political dialog. And he questioned the administration’s priorities.

“The idea that the White House is devoting all this time and energy and effort when we’ve got all these myriad problems facing the country, that they’ve got senior aides in the White House gaming out how they can make Rush Limbaugh the headline in the evening news seems to me to be a little petty, small, and really inappropriate,” Rove said.

Also jumping to Limbaugh’s defense was the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. In an e-mail to Republicans, Cornyn termed Obama’s anti-Limbaugh campaign an “outrage,” adding it amounted to “a coordinated and cynical political attack game – the very diversion and manipulation then-candidate Obama attacked the McCain campaign for last year.”

In an op-ed in Thursday’s Washington Post, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, charged Obama is trying to make Limbaugh the issue to distract voters from GOP proposals on fixing the economy.

“This diversionary tactic will not create a single job or help a single family struggling in today's economic crisis. And that is where our focus should be,” Boehner wrote.

There was no immediate response from the White House regarding Limbaugh’s offer to debate the president.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama Policies Feed Market Panic

2009-03-06T08:29:00.000-08:00

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_selloff_dow_crash/2009/03/05/188936.html?s=al&promo_code=7B9D-1

Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:40 PM

By: Greg Brown Article Font Size

All week, negative headlines have competed with the slumping market ticker, including early news Thursday that General Motors might well go bankrupt despite billions in taxpayer loans. (Newsmax graphic)

Since Barack Obama was sworn in as president on Jan. 20, stocks have tumbled to record lows — with investors losing an estimated $2.5 trillion in market value.

The trend continued Thursday, with the Dow closing down 281 points, a 4.1 percent drop for the day. Since Inauguration Day, the Dow has fallen 20.4 percent.

All week, negative headlines have competed with the slumping market ticker, including early news Thursday that General Motors might well go bankrupt despite billions in taxpayer loans.

As selling sped up, Citigroup traded at one point under $1 a share, General Electric dipped under $7, and international financial names like Barclays saw declines of nearly 30 percent on the day.

"Everybody is so bearish right now that you would expect to be in the midst of a counter-trend rally," Steven Goldman, market strategist at Weeden & Co, told CNNMoney.

"But the implosion in the banking and insurance sectors is just overwhelming."

Obama has moved aggressively on economic and fiscal policies. But investors — if the market is any indication — are giving his initiatives a chilly response.

On Feb. 17, Obama signed a stimulus bill worth $787 billion — the largest spending bill in history. But the Congressional Budget Office indicates only 20 percent of the funds will be spent this year, and the nonpartisan group suggests that the package could do more economic harm than good.

Obama also gave the green light to an omnibus $431 billion House Democratic spending bill laden with close to 9,000 pork-barrel spending items.

Plus, Obama revealed that he plans increase marginal tax rates on those earning more than $250,000.

The new taxes will yield more than $1 trillion in government revenues, but some economists believe the news of increased taxation will suck the wind out of any economic recovery.

In the middle of the market meltdown Thursday, Obama spent the day talking about a massive increase in healthcare spending, including a proposal in his budget that sets aside $634 billion in a 10-year reserve fund to pay for expanded care.

The drumbeat of bad news was too much for stocks, including:

• U.S. bankruptcy filings surging 31 percent in 2008.

• More than 600,000 Americans filing claims for jobless benefits for a fifth straight week, the worst performance since 1982.

• U.S. factory orders falling for a sixth straight month in January, official data showed.

• One in every eight U.S. households with mortgages ended 2008 behind on payments or in foreclosure, reported the Mortgage Bankers Association.

"The auto industry is effectively being wiped out or nationalized, however you want to think about it," Rick Campagna, portfolio manager at Provident Investment Council in Pasadena, Calif., told Reuters.

"Now you're talking about a good portion, if not all, of the banking sector being wiped out. It's just getting relatively dire."

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Coming Economic Collapse?

2009-03-05T20:31:00.000-08:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff

"In his January 14, 2009 radio show, [Peter]Schiff discussed moving out of cities in anticipation of rising crime rates, food shortages, fuel shortages, and rolling blackouts. He also mentioned the need for families to stock up on guns and ammunition as a part of what he expects. This quasi-survivalist stance demonstrates how serious he expects the unfolding economic downturn will be.[15]

[edit] Writings
Schiff is the author of two books:

Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse, 2007, ISBN 978-0470043608
The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Market, 2008, ISBN 978-0470383780

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Predictions
This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (February 2009)

Not all of Schiff's predictions made in Crash Proof or in publicly available transcripts and statements before July 2007 have held out to be true as of January 2009.

Schiff's prediction that the US Dollar would collapse along with the housing bubble has so far not come to pass, with the US Dollar Index rising from 80 points in July 2007 to 83 points in January 2009, a climb which actually accelerated as the US financial crisis became more acute in September 2008.

Similarly, Schiff's prediction that the US financial crisis would cause a greater fall in US equity prices than in non-US equity prices has so far been inaccurate as in 2007-2008 most international equity markets fell further than the US markets. Using the broadest available measures, the MSCI US Broad Market Index was down 34.83% in 2008, while the MSCI All Country Ex-US Index was down 42.86%. [16].

Gold and precious metals during this period have performed significantly better than equity prices, with gold losing only 3.77% and silver 5.38% of their USD values in 2008. Yet with gold under $1,000 per oz, and silver under $20 per oz, precious metal prices have not seen the dramatic run up Schiff has been predicting.

Schiff acknowledges the short-term failure of these particular predictions, but says that the US financial crisis is just beginning to unfold and it is merely a matter of time before the global economy rebalances and his further predictions take form.

On October 28 2008, Schiff stated in an interview on Bloomberg TV[citation needed] that the investment strategies outlined in both books currently "are not working" due to the collapse of foreign currencies, foreign stocks and the failure of gold prices to go up significantly as most of the world entered an economic recession and foreign investors flee to cash. However, he maintained that this was a very temporary phenomenon, "due to deleveraging", and that he expects gold to shoot up to $2,000 per ounce as the dollar soon "drops like a stone." Overall, Schiff remained optimistic on his theories and stated this was a good opportunity to buy foreign stocks trading at yearly lows.

In January 2009 financial blogger Mike Shedlock claimed that Peter Schiff's investment strategies have resulted in some of his Euro Pacific Capital account holders losing 60% to 70% of their value in 2008[17]. Peter Schiff responded to this claim by stating, "to examine the effectiveness of my investment strategy immediately following a major correction by looking only at those accounts who adopted the strategy at the previous peak is unfair and distortive" and claims that losses were most heavily felt by recent clients and not by his long time investors[18].

In an interview on Yahoo Tech Ticker on February 6th, Schiff conceded that the value of his investors' portfolios had dropped as much as 50%, while avoiding the interviewer's question about how much the value of his own accounts had fallen. These returns stood in sharp contrast to the 2008 returns of other investors who shared his views including George Soros (up 10% in 2008) and Nassim Nicholas Taleb (up between 55% and 110% in 2008)."

Born Peter David Schiff

Residence Darien, Connecticut
Occupation Stock broker, investment adviser, author, economist.
Employer Euro Pacific Capital
Website
www.europac.net
Peter Schiff (born 1964)[1] is an American economic commentator, author and licensed stock broker who currently serves as president of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a fully accredited brokerage firm based in Darien, Connecticut.[2]

Schiff is best known for his bearish views on the United States economy and he claims to have predicted the economic crisis of 2008.[3] He has risen to media prominence following the publication of his book Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse.

Aside from his writings, Schiff maintains a significant media presence, often appearing on US financial news programs on networks such as CNBC, CNN, CNN International, Fox News, Bloomberg TV and Fox Business where he is generally booked to provide a bearish counterpoint to more bullish commentators.

Schiff also hosts a live Internet/shortwave radio show called "Wall Street Unspun, which is available in podcast format."[4]

Schiff is a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute[5], and was an economic adviser for Ron Paul's campaign in the 2008 Republican Party primaries, through which Schiff also expressed support for sound money, limited government, and free market capitalism.

Contents [hide]
1 Personal life
2 Career
3 Economic views
4 Writings
5 Criticism
5.1 Predictions
6 Political activity
7 Footnotes
8 External links

[edit] Personal life
Peter Schiff was born in New Haven, Connecticut and was raised in Manhattan and Miami. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley in 1987 with a degree in finance and accounting.[6] During a discussion in his radio show 'Wall Street Unspun' on January 14, 2009 Peter commented that he had a six year old son and was divorced from his wife.[7]

His father is the well-known tax protester Irwin Schiff.

[edit] Career
Schiff began his career in financial consulting with Shearson Lehman Brothers.[8] He launched Euro Pacific Capital in 1996 when he bought a broker-dealer in Florida without clients or revenues and then reincorporated the business in California. In 2005, Schiff relocated to Darien, Connecticut in order to find brokers "who think like him" according to an article in The Advocate of Stamford, Connecticut. The New York Metropolitan Area, he said, has the biggest concentration of brokers in the country, making it easier to recruit them.[4]

The company retains an office in Newport Beach, California as well as in Phoenix and Medford, Oregon. Schiff said in August 2006 that he planned to open offices eventually in Manhattan and somewhere in the Midwest.[4]

Euro Pacific Capital typically recommends an investment strategy which accords with Schiff's pessimistic view of the US economy, focusing heavily on non-US stocks and precious metals.

Euro Pacific Capital holds the exclusive rights to broker certain Perth Mint products in the United States.

[edit] Economic views
In an August 2006 interview Schiff generated much controversy when he repeated his long-held investment thesis: "The United States economy is like the Titanic and I am here with the lifeboat trying to get people to leave the ship ...I see a real financial crisis coming for the United States." On May 16, 2006 in debate on Fox News, Schiff accurately forecast that the U.S. housing market was a bubble that would soon burst.[9] On December 13, 2007 in a Bloomberg interview on the show Open Exchange, Schiff further added that he felt that the crisis would extend to the credit card lending industry.[10] Following this observation, it was soon reported on December 23, 2007 by the Associated Press that "The value of credit card accounts at least 30 days late jumped 26 percent to $17.3 billion in October from a year earlier at 17 large credit card trusts examined by the AP... At the same time, defaults -- when lenders essentially give up hope of ever being repaid and write off the debt -- rose 18 percent to almost $961 million in October, according to filings made by the trusts with the Securities and Exchange Commission."[11]

Schiff also discusses the role of the US consumer in the world, saying that the US consumer thinks he's doing the world a favor by consuming what the rest of the world produces. He is quick to point out that this relationship will come to an end, in his view, much sooner than people imagine, and with negative consequences for the US. Schiff has been quoted as saying: "Consumption is its own reward for Production"—meaning that without production, the US cannot indefinitely sustain its ongoing consumption. Schiff, and other adherents of Austrian economics, promote savings and production as "the engine of economic growth -- not consumption".[citation needed]

Schiff has said on numerous occasions that the current economic crisis is not the problem; it is the solution. According to him, the transition from borrowing and spending to saving and producing cannot be accomplished without a severe recession, given the current imbalances of the US economy. But according to him, that transition needs to happen. He also thinks the government is doing no one a favor by trying to "ease the pain" with stimulus packages, bailouts and such. Schiff believes these actions will only make the situation worse and possibly result in hyperinflation if the government continues to "replace legitimate savings with a printing press."[12]

Schiff is a firm believer in reducing government regulation of the economy. Schiff worries that Barack Obama will increase such regulation.[13]

Schiff points to the low savings rate of the United States as its worst malady, citing the transformation from being the world's largest creditor nation in the 1970s to the largest debtor nation by the year 2000. His extremely bearish views on the U.S. Dollar, the United States stock market, bond market and the United States economy have earned him the nickname "Dr. Doom." [14]

In his January 14, 2009 radio show, Schiff discussed moving out of cities in anticipation of rising crime rates, food shortages, fuel shortages, and rolling blackouts. He also mentioned the need for families to stock up on guns and ammunition as a part of what he expects. This quasi-survivalist stance demonstrates how serious he expects the unfolding economic downturn will be.[15]

[edit] Writings
Schiff is the author of two books:

Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse, 2007, ISBN 978-0470043608
The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Market, 2008, ISBN 978-0470383780

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Predictions
This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (February 2009)

Not all of Schiff's predictions made in Crash Proof or in publicly available transcripts and statements before July 2007 have held out to be true as of January 2009.

Schiff's prediction that the US Dollar would collapse along with the housing bubble has so far not come to pass, with the US Dollar Index rising from 80 points in July 2007 to 83 points in January 2009, a climb which actually accelerated as the US financial crisis became more acute in September 2008.

Similarly, Schiff's prediction that the US financial crisis would cause a greater fall in US equity prices than in non-US equity prices has so far been inaccurate as in 2007-2008 most international equity markets fell further than the US markets. Using the broadest available measures, the MSCI US Broad Market Index was down 34.83% in 2008, while the MSCI All Country Ex-US Index was down 42.86%. [16].

Gold and precious metals during this period have performed significantly better than equity prices, with gold losing only 3.77% and silver 5.38% of their USD values in 2008. Yet with gold under $1,000 per oz, and silver under $20 per oz, precious metal prices have not seen the dramatic run up Schiff has been predicting.

Schiff acknowledges the short-term failure of these particular predictions, but says that the US financial crisis is just beginning to unfold and it is merely a matter of time before the global economy rebalances and his further predictions take form.

On October 28 2008, Schiff stated in an interview on Bloomberg TV[citation needed] that the investment strategies outlined in both books currently "are not working" due to the collapse of foreign currencies, foreign stocks and the failure of gold prices to go up significantly as most of the world entered an economic recession and foreign investors flee to cash. However, he maintained that this was a very temporary phenomenon, "due to deleveraging", and that he expects gold to shoot up to $2,000 per ounce as the dollar soon "drops like a stone." Overall, Schiff remained optimistic on his theories and stated this was a good opportunity to buy foreign stocks trading at yearly lows.

In January 2009 financial blogger Mike Shedlock claimed that Peter Schiff's investment strategies have resulted in some of his Euro Pacific Capital account holders losing 60% to 70% of their value in 2008[17]. Peter Schiff responded to this claim by stating, "to examine the effectiveness of my investment strategy immediately following a major correction by looking only at those accounts who adopted the strategy at the previous peak is unfair and distortive" and claims that losses were most heavily felt by recent clients and not by his long time investors[18].

In an interview on Yahoo Tech Ticker on February 6th, Schiff conceded that the value of his investors' portfolios had dropped as much as 50%, while avoiding the interviewer's question about how much the value of his own accounts had fallen. These returns stood in sharp contrast to the 2008 returns of other investors who shared his views including George Soros (up 10% in 2008) and Nassim Nicholas Taleb (up between 55% and 110% in 2008).

On February 13th, 2009, nationally syndicated newspaper columnist Eric Tyson analyzed Schiff's recommendations from a U.S. News & World Report magazine interview from May, 2008 as well as other Schiff recommendations[19]. The piece, which also include an interview of Schiff, also assessed how Schiff came to hold his economic views.

[edit] Political activity
Schiff was an economic adviser to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. Schiff made the following statement concerning Paul's economic revitalization plan.
"We need a plan that stimulates savings and production not more of the reckless borrowing and consumption that got us into this mess in the first place. Ron Paul's plan is the only one that amounts to a step in the right direction. If you want meaningful change - for the better that is - Ron Paul is the only candidate capable of delivering it."[20]

Schiff also endorsed Murray Sabrin for the US Senate seat in New Jersey.[21]

In December 2008, some fans of Schiff put up a website to encourage Schiff to challenge incumbent Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.[22] On January 23, 2009, yet another group of Schiff fans registered a domain, starting a new site with a new logo, to inspire Schiff for a possible run against Dodd. [23]

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Government/SavingAmerica.htm

How to Save America

Richard Salbato

Today I read that 61% of Americans believe that America’s government will fail. That means that we will come to a point that the government will not be able to pay its bills and will not be able to borrow money. At that point all government employees, even the Military will not be paid. This almost happened in California this month and might still happen in the next two years. Twelve countries are on the brink of this right now, but no one ever thought this might happen to America.

However, I have done the math and if all the spending plans that have passed in the past 30 days and will pass in the next 30 days are not abolished in the next two years, we will not be able to pay the Federal Government bills.

The Stock Market has dropped by six trillion dollars in this last 30 days, because these people have lost faith in the future and these people look years out ahead to invest.

This is an abomination. Oh! I mean Obama-nation.

Almost everyday Obama talks to the nation, and he always says the right thing. No one can disagree with what he says, but his actions are always the opposite of what he says.

He said that we must create four million dollars and this is how he sold an almost trillion dollar “stimulus” package, but where are these jobs. Small business accounts for 70% of all jobs and 92% of all new jobs, but not one cent of this plan goes towards small business. In fact it will not create more than 400,000 temporary jobs that will pay an average $40.000 per year at a cost of $540,000 per job.

The health care proposal will cost three quarters of a trillion dollars and the budget for just the next 7 months will cost half trillion dollars. Next years budget is expected to be two and a half trillion dollars. Not to count the 3 trillion into banks, AIG and GM.

Add to that the trillion debt that President Bush left and we have a budget deficit that cannot be paid back, not now, not ever. (Fox News said this will go to $17 Trillion Dollar debt) Divide that into the two hundred million households and see what you get per family.

Obama-nation’s idea is to tax the top 2% a great deal, the top 4% more, and all people through higher gas prices, higher utility bills and higher food bills. However, these taxes will bring in less tax revenue, not more.

Add to the above debt, the fact that the baby boomers are about to retire in the next two years and instead of paying taxes will be taking money from the government in SSI. This is about 20% of the working public.

OK! You get my point, unless we impeach this President and kick out everyone in congress so that we can reverse these programs, this country will cease to exist in just a few years. You and I know that will not happen because of all the new Pauls.

One thing that has always been known by Socialists is rob Peter to pay Paul, and when there are more Pauls than Peters, you have guaranteed that you will always be re-elected.

Not counting the really disabled, who are these Pauls? I don’t know for sure, but I can guess. The military says that only 20% of Americans can qualify for the military because 80% have a criminal record, have not graduated from High School, or cannot pass a basic knowledge test.

These people have not even tried to take care of their future but only want without working for it. These are the Pauls that those who worked hard in school and hard at jobs will have to pay for under Obama-nation. These are the young people who would rather have a few beers everyday than pay for Health Insurance. They are happy that the government will now become their mommy.

If all the above is true,

What Can You Do?

Assuming that this could happen, you should prepare the same way that people in California prepare for earthquakes; people in the Mid-West prepare for hurricanes; people in the South-Coast prepare for floods, and people in the North prepare for major snow falls. These people assume that they might loose electric power, gas, and even their food supply. Most store up at least one month in emergency supplies.

However, in a complete collapse of the government, is a month supply enough? I would guess, two years at least. Not only that but you should get all your family and extended family to work together and have a plan. Maybe get even your entire neighborhood to work together or at least your friends. I would prefer that Parishes had a plan, but I don’t expect that because they simply will not believe this possibility and half these priests and Catholics voted for this Obama-nation.

Don’t forget all the non-food items that you will not be able to do without. If you can, convert most of your yard to vegetable gardens, hot houses and fruit trees. Don’t forget a method to protect yourself from gangs of people who have not prepared for this possibility.

Will America Survive?

Yes! But we may have to use the Second Amendment to save it. That is what the Second Amendment is all about. We do have some free press, and maybe there will be enough outcries from the public in time to cause Public Officials to step down and admit they failed. If not, we will have to throw them out and clean up this mess. The military will always stand with the people and not the government because they are commanded to read the constitution at least once a year.

In the end the only way to get out of this mess is to reduce the size of State and Federal Governments by at least 60% to 75%. This can be done by the Feds giving up programs to the States, and States giving up programs to the Cities, and Cities giving up programs to the Charities.

Will Our Lady of America Help America

If it was not for all the people who harmed the devotion to Our Lady of America over the past 10 years, we would not have voted for the most satanic government in history. You can read about these demons, what they have done to harm the devotion and what they continue to do on the web site: - http://ourladyofamerica.blogspot.com/ .

Although I am not directly involved with anyone at the true center of this devotion, I know that in the end only a few things have to be accomplished for Our Lady to do what She promised: - to convert America and then use it to lead the rest of the world into a period of peace.

One of these things that still needs to be done I tried to do myself, without even letting Sister Joseph Therese know I was working on it. Just like everyone else over the past 40 years, I failed.

Now, it is not too late, but it is too late to save America from at least part of the Chastisement coming to the world.

I now believe that Our Lady will not come to our aid until we have gone at least two years through this Chastisement.

In the end something She said to Sister Neuzil will come to pass, the people will rise up and demand of the bishops to do what She asked of us.

The most important thing to do is to: 1 Make a statue of Our Lady of America as seen and instructed by Sister Neuzil. 2. Then have a life size version of this made in Marble and made by an American artist. 3. Then have this statue placed in the National Shrine of Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC by the bishops.

At that point, Our Lady will come to our aid and save America, so that it can lead the world to a period of peace.

Thanks to all the demonic attacks up to now, this will not happen until we are on the brink of national failure. At that point people will wake up and go into action demanding this statue be made and demanding that the bishops of America march it into the National Shrine.

During the period of peace to follow the Chastisement, America will shine forth as the leader of the world in freedom and in the purity of its people. It will take this Chastisement to change us into people who have humble and pure hearts, but it will happen through suffering and the prayers of Our Lady.

If you can help Sister Joseph Therese in the production of this statue, which will take a long time, send a small donation to her at:

Our Lady of America Center

P.O.Box 445

Fostorina, Ohio 44830

For the statue of Our Lady of America

If you cannot send any money, do all the devotions to Our Lady that you can do for the next few years we have left. One of my best friends is doing retreats all over his state on the True Devotion by Louis DeMontfort and I cannot think of anything better than that. See my web site: www.unitypublishing.com and go to the section

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Secret-of-Mary.htm

to learn how to do this devotion.

Work and pray. Work as if the survival of your family depends on you, and pray is if the survival of you and your family depends on God. Charity, logic, the Church and modern economics say to: Take care of yourself and the group, not yourself only, not the group only but both.

I will work and pray for myself, my family, by friends and my beloved Nation.

Rick Salbato

The Sex Abuse Lobby, the Bishops and VOTF

2009-03-02T08:18:00.000-08:00

By Fred Martinez

The Washington Times reported that the U.S. Catholic Bishops' sex abuse advisers are "people who have covered up ... sex between men and children." Moreover, these advisers have had close association with "experts" who "defended sex between men and children."

"The bishops recently chose Dr. Paul McHugh, former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, as chief behavioral scientist for their new clergy sex crimes review board," the Reisman-Jarrard report in the Times said.

"Yet Dr. McHugh once said Johns Hopkins' Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them."

McHugh's subordinate, Johns Hopkins clinic head Fred Berlin, according to the report, "admitted he had covered for the sex criminals, angering legislators, child-advocacy groups and state officials. But his actions were not surprising, because 'at least eight men have been convicted of sexually abusing Maryland children while under [Berlin's] treatment there.'"

Dr. Judith Reisman and Dennis Jarrard, who wrote the report, are experts in the field of sex abuse and obscenity. Jarrard served as an adviser to the Los Angeles County Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, while Reisman is an internationally known expert on Alfred Kinsey and sex abuse.

Reisman is president of The Institute for Media Education and has been a consultant to three U.S. Department of Justice administrations and the U.S. Department of Education, as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Money Is Berlin's Mentor

The Reisman-Jarrard report said Berlin has been the U.S. Catholic bishops' "chief adviser on child sexual abuse." Yet, according to Reisman, "Dr. Berlin described [pedophilia supporter] Dr. [John] Money as 'one of his most important mentors.'"

The Washington Times report said, "Dr. Money once gave an interview to PAIDIKA the Journal of Paedophilia, an 'academic' publication that advocates adult sex with children alongside ads for the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and other pro-pedophilia groups. He told PAIDIKA that a 'relationship' that is 'totally mutual' between a boy of 10 or 11 and an adult male 'would not [be] pathological in any way.'"

On May 30, The Wanderer, a national Catholic weekly, said that the Money-Berlin advice to the bishops began when "the founder of St. Luke's Institute, Rev. Michael R. Peterson, M.D. [who later died of AIDS], urges the Church to rely on Berlin and Money in a 1985 paper."

Money Is a Disciple of Kinsey

Reisman, quoted in The Wanderer article, said that "Dr. Berlin and John Money, Ph.D., co-founded a celebrated sexual training and treatment center, The Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic. Dr. Money, as it turns out, was a dedicated Kinsey disciple, the mentor for June Reinisch [the third Kinsey Institute director] and on the advisory board of the Kinsey Institute."

The Wanderer piece, titled "The Real Experts Advise Bishops: Sue your Experts," claims much of the Church's "recent difficulties" have come about because "many of the Church's key sexuality advisors are associated with" the agenda created by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University.

Reisman in the article urges the U.S. Bishops to sue their Kinsey experts for malpractice:

"To me, this is a case of massive medical malpractice by those in the human sexuality field, as well as consumer fraud, as well as a broad spectrum of other things for the lawyers to sort out. ...[T] hese so-called 'human sexuality educators' have been teaching behaviors that cause dysfunction, that are anti-authority and anti-Church."

The May 20 article, by Paul Likoudis, said that "Kinsey and his colleagues were the driving force behind the legalization of fornication, adultery, bestiality, pedophilia and other immoral, harmful behaviors."

Fraudulent Scientific Data Eliminates Penalties for Sexual Offenses

Kinsey, because of the worldwide influence of his fraudulent scientific data, has been called the father of the homosexual movement by homosexuals, and the father of the sexual revolution as well as the pornography industry and, some say, the sex abuse lobby.

James H. Jones, an Indiana University scholar and Kinsey Institute insider, in an expos‚ biography titled "Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life," shows the motivation behind the Kinseyan "pan-sexualism" agenda.

In the document "How Junk Sex Science Created a Paradigm Shift in Society, Legislation and the Judiciary," Reisman said:

"Jones' data confirms other reports that Kinsey was a sexist, racist and atheist who excluded women, Jews, blacks, and moral traditionalists from his staff and hired only homosexuals and bisexuals [with one short-term exception]. Kinsey only hired sexual deviants on whom he could rely to keep his secrets including his [scientific] fraud, his 'uncommon desires,' and the child molesters he used to conduct child sex experiments. Jones also reported that Kinsey: coerced his wife into participating in acts of adultery and sodomy with his staff and co-authors [which were filmed], seduced male students at Indiana University [and bullied their wives into participating], filmed sex with his male co-workers [who were rewarded by promotion to co-authorship], and filmed himself participating in sado-masochistic sex rituals."

In this report Reisman also said, "Based on his [fraudulent scientific] data, Kinsey claimed that children enjoyed sex and the real harm of adult-child sex stemmed from 'hysterical' parents, teachers and professionals who reacted with anger and horror to children's disclosures. Based on his findings, many legislatures lightened or eliminated penalties for sexual offenses ... toward children as 'victims' in cases of incest and child molestation."

In 1991, the widely respected British medical journal The Lancet verified Reisman's research when it demanded that the Kinsey Institute be investigated, writing:

"The Kinsey reports [one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later] claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life ... and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, 'Anything goes'. In 'Kinsey, Sex and Fraud,' Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two [Kinsey] reports."

The Bishops, the "Sex Experts' and the Media's Cover-up

Many believe that the Kinseyan experts and the homosexual network within the Church protected the gay sex abuser at the Dallas meeting. As the National Review's Rod Dreher pointed out on June 13, "the need to avoid the 'elephant in the sacristy [the fact that the vast majority of priest sexual abusers are homosexuals],' in Mary Eberstadt's memorable phrase, is perhaps the only point on which the bishops and the media agree."

To this end, the bishops running the Dallas meeting, according to the June 13 National Review article, had staged "briefings for the media on various aspects of the abuse scandal" by Kinseyan psychiatric panelists such as Fred Berlin, Fr. Stephen Rossetti, Fr. Candice Connors and others with a pro-homosexual agenda.

National Review's Dreher said, "The Rev. Stephen Rossetti, current president of St. Luke's, is believed by some psychiatrists associated with the Catholic Medical Association to have been a big part of the problem, owing to the advice he's been giving bishops. Rossetti has most recently been downplaying the role homosexuality plays in the scandal."

The bishops, the sex experts and the mass media's suppression of the widely known fact that the vast majority of sexual abusers in the Church scandal are homosexuals was even contradicted earlier in the year by a liberal national magazine.

U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo reported that studies have shown that 5 percent or less of priests fit the pedophile description. He said, "Most sexual victims of priests are teenage boys [abused in homosexual acts], according to one estimate. A study of Chicago's 2,200 priests identified 40 sexual abusers, only one of whom was a pedophile."

Also, according to the News Agency's "The World Seen From Rome," Hastings Wyman, syndicated homosexual columnist, wrote: "[T]he pattern of sexual abuse among Catholic clergy does suggest a gay problem 90 percent of the cases of sex with adolescents that have come to light in the Church involved teenage boys, not girls. Do the math." (Between the Lines, May 22, 2002)

During the Dallas bishops meetings on June 15, the homosexual spin group Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) through its network in the Church reported news that the mass media censored. Homosexual activist Cathy Renna, writing for GLAAD's Web site, said that liberal bishops within the church protected the gay sex abuser at the Dallas meeting.

"We also learned more late last night about the anti-gay proposal offered by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb. Bruskewitz's 'Amendment 27' would have stated that because the 'current homosexual culture' was the root cause of the sex-abuse crisis, the bishops would be required to force strict conformity with all church doctrines on sexuality. His proposal was soundly rejected on a voice vote, with a source inside the meeting telling me that it received only perhaps a half-dozen votes of support."

During a victory get-together, Renna said she met with "a number of familiar media faces" and Anne Barrett Doyle of the Coalition of Concerned Catholics who is a member of the steering committee for the lay reform movement Voice of the Faithful.

According to Renna, "Anne was one of the first people I spoke with back in March when we were cultivating resources and contacts to offer media outlets. ... Seeing Anne at the cathedral brought to mind how far we've come in the past months."

During those months, the mass media outlets, under the sway of gay activists like Renna and her friend Doyle of Voice of the Faithful, had censored George Will, Pope John Paul II's spokesman Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, and the almost-all-conservative representatives in Dallas who attempted to report the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse by priests, which U.S. News & World Report detailed before the media cover-up.

VOTF and the Doyle-Peterson-Mouton Report

Activist Anne Barrett Doyle and her organization Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) have also taken part in the cover-up of the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse by priests. In fact, VOTF has been promoting the 1985 report by Fr. Michael R. Peterson, which brought the Kinsey experts and pan-sexualism's non-"judgmentalism" into the Church.

As stated earlier, The Wanderer said that the Kinseyan advice to the bishops began when Peterson, who founded the St. Luke Institute (which the Dallas panelists Connors and Rossetti later ran), urged "the Church to rely on Berlin and Money in a 1985 paper" and on his "pan-sexualism" St. Luke Institute.

Even the pro-gay National Catholic Reporter on May 17 admitted that "[t]he [church's highest court, the Vatican] Signatura's brief, later published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, stated: "St. Luke Institute, a clinic founded by a priest [Fr Michael Peterson] who is openly homosexual and based on a mixed doctrine of Freudian pan-sexualism and behaviorism, is surely not a suitable institution apt to judge rightly about the beliefs and the lifestyle of a Catholic priest."

The liberal bishops continued to rely on Peterson for advice despite the Vatican's warning, as shown in the pro-gay National Catholic Reporter's May 17 article:

"By the time of Peterson's death [of AIDS], Cardinal James Hickey of Washington had come to rely on Peterson, along with a number of bishops, for advice in handling sex-offending members of the clergy. During the Mass, Hickey praised Peterson's work at St. Luke Institute, calling him a 'brilliant and hard-working priest.'"

According to the May 30 The Wanderer article "The Homosexual Network and the 1985 Clergy Sex Abuse Report," Peterson was a "disciple" of John Money and a homosexual who once owned and operated his own "sex-change clinic" in San Francisco.

The 1985 Peterson report, which VOTF has been promoting, said:

"We have been hampered in our profession by extreme moral judgmentalism, if I may use the phrase, and it is only in very few medical schools in this country that the issue is treated or even addressed properly. The Johns Hopkins Hospital Sexual Disorders Clinic run by Dr. John Money [who became a pedophilia supporter] and Dr. Fred Berlin [who later covered up for the sex criminals] is probably the 'authority' scientific community. I know personally both of these highly respected scientists and I am very appreciative of their efforts to bring this psychiatric disorder out of the shadows and into the 'scientific daylight' so that we can begin to see the disorder as a psychiatric disease and not a moral weakness [alterboys.tripod.com/moutonreport/pag e_1x.html]."

The VOTF Web site said that the winner of its first VOTF Priest of Integrity Award, the Rev. Thomas Doyle, "[joined] with Rev. Michael Peterson, a priest/psychiatrist who founded a treatment center for clergy, and Ray Mouton, a Louisiana lawyer, [to write] a comprehensive report in 1985, and sent it to every bishop, identifying sexual abuse as a compulsive, lifelong psychosexual disorder, not a moral weakness."

In a report found on the Survivors' Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) Web site called "A Short History of the Manual," Doyle said that Money's disciple Peterson "was a friend and collaborator." The "Short History" report said the manual was an "instrument about how to deal with cases of priest-pedophilia."

However, the manual failed to bring out the homosexual sex abuse of teenage boys as the overwhelming component of the problem, which then as now is 90 percent or more of the sex abuse scandal. Also in the case of the pedophilia abuse, the vast majority are boys.

Even the Doyle-Peterson-Mouton manual said, "In my experience, most of the pedophiliac clerics I have seen and my colleagues have dealt with are homosexual pedophiles and not heterosexual pedophiles; this is surprising since the greater percentage in the general population is the opposite."

But instead of bringing out the homosexual abuse problem as the main portion of the scandal, the manual calls it a "Compulsive Heterosexual/Homosexual Acting Out," "Pedophilia or Sexual Molestation of Minors" and "Exhibitionism" problem.

The Doyle-Peterson-Mouton manual said and Bill Clinton would appreciate this that "exposing the genitals" to unfamiliar persons "represents one of the 'victimless crimes.'" But the main problem is that the manual uses the standard gay activist spin that VOTF's Anne Barrett Doyle, GLAAD and the media used to censored conservatives in Dallas who attempted to report the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse by priests.

The tactic, as Peterson used for the most part in the Executive Summary of the manual, is to say that the scandal is about pedophilia and then claim that pedophilia is not associated with homosexuality, but is a heterosexual problem or at most a heterosexual/homosexual problem.

The gay activist expert and psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, who wrote the book "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth," which the Congressional Record of May 1996 called the "best book on homosexuality written in our times," states this is a standard spin. He writes:

"Activists are aware of the adverse effect on the gay-rights movement that could result if people perceived any degree of routine association between homosexuality and pedophilia. ... They have denied this association by focusing on the (true) fact that in absolute numbers heterosexuals commit more child molestation than homosexuals.

"But careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals."

From the information that Kinsey expert Reisman has documented, Peterson was only following the Kinseyan advice of his mentors Money and Berlin, until his death of AIDS in 1987. Also, Peterson, who was homosexual as with the gay Kinsey in his data probably felt a need to cover up the gay connection to the scandal in order to protect his gay subculture.

Doyle and VOTF Have No Excuse

But Doyle and VOTF, which is the mass media's favorite "Catholic" lay organization to cure the Catholic Church of its sex-abuse scandal, have no excuse.

Every knowledgeable person without an agenda knows the fact that at least 90 percent of the problem is homosexuals "acting out" on teenage boys. VOTF and Doyle have failed to bring out this fact in their many media opportunities.

In fact, in the 1996 Doyle-Demarest memo, Doyle uses the gay activist spin:

"In the past it was common to refer to priests who had sexually abused male children as homosexuals when in fact "pedophiles" would have been the correct term. ... I am convinced that the use of the term "homosexual" when referring to actions with young boys actually meant pedophilia or at least pedophilic acts [www.thelinkup.com/execsum.html]."

Some orthodox Catholics wonder why VOTF, if it really wants to end the sex abuse scandal, gave the Priest of Integrity Award to Doyle instead of the Latino Fr. Enrique Rueda, who in 1982 wrote "The Homosexual Network."

In the book Rueda documented how disgraced homosexual Archbishop Rembert Weakland and other church leaders brought gay activists into the heart of the church. Connie Marshner of the Free Congress Foundation in a March report "We Were Warned" said:

"The name of the fair city of Boston appears frequently in Fr. Rueda's pages, giving it the dubious distinction of being the birthplace of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association [an interesting coincidence in light of subsequent developments]. Also interesting to note is that one [now infamous mass pedophile] Fr. Paul Shanley attended the NAMBLA convention in Boston, supposedly on behalf of the then-Catholic Archbishop, Medeiros."

"In the early days of 'gay liberation,' 1972, a National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a "Gay Rights Platform." This list of demands included one to repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent a matter of some obvious concern to pederasts."

For his efforts to end the scandal Reuda, according to the March 30 The Wanderer article, was "exiled by his bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester, NY, refused incardination by every other American bishop, and is today, an official 'nonperson' in the American church."

If VOTF and the liberal bishops really want to end the church scandal, then they have to stop covering up the gay part of 90 percent of the scandal. If VOTF and Doyle really want to end the pedophilia part of the scandal, then they have to expose the fraudulent scientific data eliminating penalties for sexual abusers and the Kinseyan "experts" who are advising the bishops.

If not, then VOTF needs to take the advice that Doyle recently gave in Canada:

"Any institution that enables the cover-up, protects the abusers or the authorities that hide them, doesn't deserve to exist."

posted by Fred Martinez @ 9:33 AM

2 Comments:
tpdoyle said...
I recall reading this article in 2002 and am amazed that it has re-surfaced. As one directly involved with the issues referred to and mentioned in the article I can only say that it is a jumbled up amalgamation of paranoid fantasy, delusional fiction and plain old untruths. The author would have done well to consult with experts rather than fellow loonies such as Judith Reisman and the writers for the Wanderer.

9:49 AM
Fred Martinez said...
Dear tpdoyle,

Name calling is not a way to truth.

If you think the article has "paranoid fantasy, delusional fiction and plain old untruths,"
then state them.

Otherwise I will assume you follow the Nietzschean or Nazi school of thought on truth.

Mary Kearns, in an address to the Catholic Head Teachers Association of Scotland, spoke of the Nietzschean ideas now being taught in Catholic schools in the name of "scientific" psychology. Kearns said:
The methods are based on "the group therapy technique" first developed in America in the 1970's by two psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. They described how emotional conditioning should be carried out by a group "facilitator". The facilitator does not impart knowledge like the old fashioned teacher. Instead he/she initiates discussions encouraging children to reveal their personal views and feelings. The facilitator's approach is "value free". There is no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question. Each person discloses what is right or wrong for them. All choices are equally valid even if they are opposites. Everything depends on feelings or emotions. Reason and conscience are discouraged. If anyone attempts objective evaluation, they are to be treated as an "outsider" and there will be a strong emotional reaction against such "judgemental intolerance".
If it is true that Catholic education now uses these techniques in "teaching religious and moral education," then the Catholic education system has entered into the Nietzschean insanity. If these are the techniques being used in education and in the seminaries, then sexual misconduct charges against priests are a symptom of "scientific" paganism replacing Christianity.

Santa Rosa priest Don Kimball, who is charged with sexual misconduct, is an example of someone whose "approach" was "value free" — that is, there was "no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question."

In 1996, Karyn Wolfe and Mark Spaulding of Pacific Church News said, "THE WEDGE! You can't do youth ministry (any ministry for that matter) without it. ... Basing his theory on psychologist Abraham Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs', the Rev. Don Kimball developed this model for the growth and maturity process of a group."

Another example of the value-free approach is Thomas Zanzig, a major leader in the Catholic Church for youth ministry, plus an editor and writer of Catholic textbooks.

According to Marks S. Winward, Zanzig, in a book on youth ministry, "bases his 'Wedge Model' on a similar model developed by Fr. Don Kimble." Homeschool leader Marianna Bartold said, "Sharing the Christian Message by Thomas Zanzig has students come up with as many slang or street words as possible for the male and female reproductive organs in three or four minutes."

Now, many might say these are only isolated cases of misuses of Maslow and Adler until one reads the original text. According to William Coulson, a former collaborator of Carl Rogers,
Maslow was always a revolutionary. ... In 1965, working a radical idea about children and adult sex into his book about management, "In Eupsychian Management: A Journal," [Maslow said]: "I remember talking with Alfred Adler about this in a kind of joking way, but then we both got quite serious about it, and Adler thought that this sexual therapy at various ages was certainly a very fine thing. As we both played with the thought, we envisioned a kind of social worker ... as a psychotherapist in giving therapy literally on the couch."
As one can see, the basic therapeutic assumption leads to certain results in the real world. These thinkers don't believe in the basic Christian assumption that there is a need for forgiveness from God. Instead, they believe there is no sin, only selves needing to reach the fullness of themselves.

It is understandable that atheists such as Nietzsche, Maslow and Adler could hold these basic assumptions, but that Christians and priests hold these assumptions is a disgrace. The denial of original sin and personal sin is, in large part, behind the headlines of the Boston catastrophe and other dioceses.

The failure of these Catholic bishops is a failure to teach the faith and moral teachings of Jesus Christ. Getting rid of a few priests will not solve the problem if these basic assumptions stay, because more — only cleverer — sex abusers will rise up to take their place.

I feel sorry for these bishops and other Church leaders if they don't take a look at themselves and repent of these basic assumptions in their dioceses. They must eventually come face to face with the Living God. He is the Father of these little ones who have been scandalized and abused.

I will pray for you.

9:52 AM

Obama's Disconnect with the Grim Realities of Everyday American Life

2009-03-01T10:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1&hp

Sharper Downturn Clouds Obama Spending Plans
By PETER S. GOODMAN
Published: February 27, 2009
The economy is spiraling down at an accelerating pace, threatening to undermine the Obama administration’s spending plans, which anticipate vigorous rates of growth in years to come.
A sense of disconnect between the projections by the White House and the grim realities of everyday American life was enhanced on Friday, as the Commerce Department gave a harsher assessment for the last three months of 2008. In place of an initial estimate that the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 3.8 percent — already abysmal — the government said that the pace of decline was actually 6.2 percent, making it the worst quarter since 1982.

The fortunes of the American economy have grown so alarming and the pace of the decline so swift that economists are now straining to describe where events are headed, dusting off a word that has not been invoked since the 1940s: depression.
Obama's Disconnect with the Grim Realities of Everyday American Life
Economists are not making comparisons with the Great Depression of the 1930s, when the unemployment rate reached 25 percent. Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent, though many experts assert this downturn is on track to be significantly worse.

Rather, economists are using the word depression — a subjective term with no academic definition — to describe a condition of broad and extreme economic distress that remains stubbornly in place for much longer than a typical downturn.

This is more than a matter of semantics. As the government determines its spending plans, readying another infusion of cash for troubled banks while contemplating an additional bailout for the auto industry, the magnitude of those needs will hinge on the extent of the damage.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, now places the odds of “a mild depression” at 25 percent, up from 15 percent three months ago. In that view, the unemployment rate would reach 10.5 percent by the end of 2011 — up from 7.6 percent at the end of January — average home prices would fall 20 percent on top of the 27 percent they have plunged already, and losses in the financial system would more than triple, to $3.7 trillion.

Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics, sees a 20 percent chance of “a depressionlike possibility,” up from 15 percent a week ago.

“In the housing market, the financial system and the stock market, we’re already there,” Mr. Sinai said. “It is a depression.”

Yet, in drawing up the budget, the White House assumed the economy would expand by a robust 3.2 percent in 2010, with growth accelerating to 4 percent over the next three years.

“It’s a hope, a wing and a prayer,” Mr. Sinai said. “It’s a return to a sanguine view of the economy that is simply not justified.”

If, as is widely anticipated, the economy grows more slowly than the White House assumes, revenue will be lower, forcing the government to cut spending, raise taxes or run larger deficits.

Economists also criticized as unrealistically hopeful the assumptions by the Federal Reserve as it began so-called stress tests to gauge the health of the nation’s largest banks. In testimony, Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, said that the nation’s unemployment rate would most likely reach 8.8 percent next year.

“That forecast just doesn’t seem realistic,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, “and I don’t think it helps the Fed’s credibility to make these sorts of forecasts right now.”

As federal regulators estimate potential losses at banks, the harshest assumptions they are testing entails the unemployment rate topping out at 10.3 percent — the highest level since 1983, but hardly the worst case.

By Mr. Baker’s reckoning, the unemployment rate may exceed 12 percent — the highest level since tracking began in 1948.

“We continue to see across-the-board numbers coming in worse than we expected,” Mr. Baker said.

By Mr. Zandi’s estimation, in the most likely case, the unemployment rate will reach 9.3 percent next year. The distress in the financial system, the job market and real estate have become inextricably intertwined.

As troubled banks remain hesitant to lend, even healthy companies are laying off workers. As more Americans lose jobs, they are cutting spending, depriving businesses of revenue, and falling behind on house, car and credit card payments, multiplying losses in the financial system. As more homes land in foreclosure and would-be buyers fail to secure mortgages, housing prices fall further, adding to the losses of the banks — a downward spiral.

Many economists expect that the labor data to be released next Friday will show that as many as 700,000 jobs disappeared in February, lifting the unemployment rate near 8 percent and pushing total job losses to more than four million since the recession began in December 2007.

Given the brutal forces at play, some experts question the administration’s decision to publicize the bank stress tests, as opposed to conducting them quietly.

“It invited the interpretation that this was the beginning of triage for the banks, that we were going to start lining them up and shooting them,” said Alan S. Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve and a professor at Princeton. “There are some things in the bank supervisor role that you just keep secret.”

Others argue that the tests could sow needed assurance. “The stress test could create transparency,” said Alan D. Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price in Baltimore.

As the gruesome data accumulates, this much is already clear: Transparency is not for the squeamish.

Mr. Levenson noted that the weakening economy was destroying demand for goods and services even faster than the $787 billion stimulus program could replace it.

Obama's Tactics

2009-03-01T09:49:00.000-08:00

http://eagleforum.org/psr/2009/feb09/psrfeb09.html
How a Community Organizer Became President
Community Organizing Continues

VOL. 42, NO. 7 P.O. BOX 618, ALTON, ILLINOIS 62002 FEBRUARY 2009

How a Community Organizer Became President

On August 31, 2008, right after the Democratic National Convention in Colorado, the Boston Globe published a letter from L. David Alinsky boasting about how Barack Obama had made enormously effective use of his training in the methods of David’s late father, the famous Chicago radical, Saul D. Alinsky.

David Alinsky gloated: "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."

Confirming that Obama was trained in Chicago by the Alinsky apparatus, David Alinsky wrote: "It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well."

Describing how the Democratic National Convention was a "perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style," David Alinsky wrote: "All the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd's chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people."

Indeed, the son has reason to boast that his father's organizing techniques were so effectively used by a longshot candidate to climb the path to America's highest office. The most significant part of Barack Obama's education was not at Columbia University or Harvard Law School, but the years he spent being trained in the Saul Alinsky system for community organizing and then practicing what he learned.

Obama was trained by the Alinsky organization called Industrial Areas Foundation (founded by Alinsky in 1940), after which Obama taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Obama learned how to put together a new style presidential campaign that decisively defeated the Clinton machine plus the Republican Party in a dramatic one-two punch never before seen in politics.

Alinsky's organization was based in Chicago, nestled under the protective wing of the Democratic political machine, but his reach extended all over the country from New York to California. Hillary Clinton wrote her Wellesley thesis on Alinsky, who then offered her a job (which she turned down to enroll in Yale Law School).

Americans who care about our nation and its future should study Saul Alinsky and what is known today as "the Alinsky ideology and Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power." These were the lessons he taught his eager students. He died in 1972, but he left behind a cadre of community organizers who had been trained how to carry out the political strategies described in Alinsky's frank and elegantly written book called Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (originally published by Random House in 1971).

The tone of this book and its obvious determination to change America are made clear by this dedication printed at the very beginning:

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

Saul Alinsky's worldview was that the United States is an oppressive and racist society where most people (the Have-Nots) are the victims of economic injustice with a future of despair. He wanted a radical change of America's social and economic structure, and he planned to achieve that through creating public discontent and moral confusion. His goal was not to arrive at compromise or peaceful solution; his goal was to crush the Haves and transform society.

Alinsky developed concepts to achieve power through mass organization. Organizing was his word for revolution. His 1946 book, Reville for Radicals, had already made clear that he wanted to move the United States from capitalism to socialism, where the means of production would be owned by all the people (i.e., the government). A believer in economic determinism, he viewed unemployment, disease, crime and bigotry as byproducts of capitalism. So he called for massive change.

To achieve this, he sought local community organizers who projected confidence, vision and change. Barack Obama fit the profile. Alinsky didn't want just talkers; he wanted radicals who were prepared to take bold action to organize the discontented, precipitate crises, grab power, and thereby transform society. He taught these radicals how to infiltrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties, gain influence in them, and then introduce change.

Chapter 1 of Rules for Radicals called The Purpose makes Alinsky's goal very clear. His worldview is that mankind is divided into three parts: "the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores." His purpose is to teach the Have-Nots how to take power and money away from the Haves. "We are concerned," he said, "with how to create mass organizations to seize power. . . . We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world. . . . This means revolution."

"Change" is Alinsky's favorite word, used on page after page. "I will argue," he writes, "that man's hopes lie in the acceptance of the great law of change." Alinsky uses what he calls "general concepts of change" to move us toward "a science of revolution." What he calls "change" means massive change in our socio-economic structure. What he calls "organizing" means pursuing confrontational political tactics. Alinsky teaches the Have-Nots to "hate the establishment of the Haves" because they have "power, money, food, security, and luxury. They suffocate in their surpluses while the Have-Nots starve." He claims that "justice, morality, law, and order, are mere words used by the Haves to justify and secure their status quo." He proclaims that his aim is to teach the Have-Nots "how to organize for power: how to get it and to use it."

Alinsky's second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his "tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends" is: "you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments."

He doesn't ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that "Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means." He reminds his trainees that "All effective actions require the passport of morality."

Alinsky certainly doesn't mean that all actions must be moral. He means that you decide what you want or need to do and then cloak your actions with the language of morality. Phrase your goals in "general terms like 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,' 'Of the Common Welfare,' 'Pursuit of Happiness,' or 'Bread and Peace.'" He reminds us that the Communists used words like "democracy" and "equality," but they had no relation whatsoever to what Americans understand by those terms.

At the same time, Alinsky admonishes his organizers that they are conducting war, so there are no rules of fair play and there can be no compromise.

Recognizing the importance of words, Alinsky demands that his organizers use the word "power," which he calls a word of force, vigor and simplicity. Power is what he wants — and he doesn't want to be bothered with those who shrink from using this powerful word. He advises his followers not "to pander to those who have no stomach for straight language."

In the chapter called The Education of an Organizer, Alinsky explains that he conducted "a special training school for organizers with a full-time, fifteen-month program." It wasn't an easy regimen, Alinsky warned; it "requires frequent long conferences on organizational problems, analysis of power patterns, communication, conflict tactics, the education and development of community leaders, and the methods of introduction of new issues."

The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were ego ("reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God"), curiosity (raising "questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern"), irreverence ("nothing is sacred"; the organizer "detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality"), imagination ("the fuel for the force that keeps an organizer organizing"), a sense of humor ("the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule"), and an organized personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only "as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved."

In the chapter on Communication, Alinsky teaches his organizers how to direct the thinking of his people while letting them think they are making their own decisions. The organizer should develop skills in the manipulative technique of asking "loaded questions designed to elicit particular responses and to steer the organization's decision-making process in the direction which the organizer prefers."

The chapter called In the Beginning describes how to train the community organizer in how to make himself acceptable to the Have-Nots in the local community. "From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues."

The organizer's "biggest job is to give the people the feeling that they can do something." The organizer's job is "to build confidence and hope in the idea of organization and thus in the people themselves: to win limited victories, each of which will build confidence." The organizer will learn that "Change comes from power, and power comes from organization."

"The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems," and "organizations must be based on many issues." The organizer "must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent." He can provoke class resentment by painting Wall Street as villains.

The organizer "begins his 'trouble making' by stirring up these angers, frustrations, and resentments, and highlighting specific issues or grievances that heighten controversy." The organizer must remember that "Organizations need action as an individual needs oxygen. The cessation of action brings death to the organization."

At the same time, "The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a 'dangerous enemy.'" Alinsky reminds his organizers that "To attempt to operate on a good-will rather than on a power basis would be to attempt something that the world has not yet experienced."

Alinsky's book is full of examples of issues and organizational victories from the decade of the 1960s (such as the Vietnam War, civil rights litigation, urban renewal, and campus riots) which are not meaningful to younger Americans today. However they emphasize his strategy that organizers must use current issues and "must be aware of the tremendous importance of understanding the part played by rationalization on a mass basis."

In the chapter called Tactics, Alinsky reminds his trainees that power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." He lists some of his recommended tactics:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

"Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions." "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." "Multiple issues mean constant action and life" for the cause. (Obama never harps on one issue as Hillary did with health care. His platform is packed with grievances from "economic justice" to "reproductive justice" to "environmental justice.")

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Alinsky's advice was to "laugh at the enemy" to provoke "irrational anger." (Obama used the ridicule tactic on John McCain at a rally in Las Vegas. Attacking McCain's chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee, Obama sarcastically said, "Well, all I can say to Senator McCain is 'Nice job. Nice job.'")

"A mass impression can be lasting and intimidating." (Obama moved his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention to a football stadium and bused in 55,000 supporters.)

"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules." "You can club them to death with their 'book' of rules and regulations." That means, taunt them every time they appear to violate their own principles, which Alinsky believes everybody does frequently.

A leader may struggle toward a decision and weigh the merits and demerits of a situation, but he must convince the people that "their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil," even though that is a lie because there is "really only a 10 percent difference." Alinsky justifies this lie to achieve the transfer of power.

Alinsky describes some of his successful mass demonstrations:

Buying 100 tickets to a Rochester symphony concert for 100 blacks, feeding them lots of baked beans beforehand so that they had to get up and go to the restroom during the first musical selection. This created "a combination not only of noise but also of odor, what you might call natural stink bombs." He reminded his readers that there is nothing illegal about needing to rush to the restroom.
Tying up all the restrooms at O'Hare Airport by having his demonstrators lock themselves in the toilet booths equipped with a book to read, and then staying there all day.
Dropping wads of chewing gum all over the walks on a college campus.
Paralyzing a bank by having 100 people show up at once with $5 or $10 to open a savings account (which they would then come back to close the following day). There is nothing illegal about this, but it created chaos for the bank. Alinsky called this "a middle-class guerrilla attack."
Engaging in proxy fights with corporations.
Alinsky reveals his total contempt for the Haves and their devotion to self interest. He says, "I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday."

When Alinsky approached the end of his Rules for Radicals and projected future strategies in the chapter entitled The Way Ahead, he laid out his plan to go after "America's white middle class. That is where the power is." They are the "Have-a-Little, Want Mores."

Alinsky boasts that, "With rare exceptions, our activists and radicals are products of and rebels against our middle-class society. . .. . Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class."

Here is where Alinsky's hypocrisy and duplicity become obvious. He had trained his community organizers to adopt a "middle-class identity" and familiarity with their "values and problems" in order to organize his "own people." Now, realizing "the priceless value of his middle-class experience," they will "begin to dissect and examine that way of life as he never has before." "Everything now has a different meaning and purpose."

Alinsky instructs his trainees to "return to the suburban scene of your middle class with its variety of organizations from PTAs to League of Women Voters, consumer groups, churches, and clubs. The job is to search out the leaders in these various activities, identify their major issues, find areas of common agreement, and excite their imagination with tactics that can introduce drama and adventure into the tedium of middle class life."

And a word of Alinsky caution: "Start them easy, don't scare them off." When Alinsky's community organizer moves from organizing the "poor" to organizing the "middle class," he "discards the rhetoric that always says 'pig.' . . . He will view with strategic sensitivity the nature of middle-class behavior with its hangups over rudeness or aggressive, insulting, profane actions. All this and more must be grasped and used to radicalize parts of the middle class." (Obama never talks like an angry radical. He usually wears a coat and tie, and he speaks in calm, measured tones.)

Community Organizing Continues

Will the Alinsky strategies that nominated and elected Barack Obama President of the United States be put on the back burner for four years, lying dormant until they are needed to reelect him in 2012? Not likely. Those strategies are available right now to push through the radical legislation and gigantic spending programs that he promised his followers.

The pro-Obama New York Times laid out the plan on its January 26 front page under the headline "Retooling a Grass-Roots Network To Serve a YouTube Presidency." Obama's staff has already started "transforming the YouTubing-Facebooking-Texting-Twittering grass-roots organization that put Mr. Obama in the White House into an instrument of government. That is something that Mr. Obama, who began his career as a community organizer, told aides was a top priority, even before he was elected."

President Obama's staff has created a group, headquartered in the offices of the Democratic National Committee, called "Organizing for America." Its mission is to "redirect the campaign machinery into the service of broad changes in health care, environmental and fiscal policy. They envision an army of supporters talking, sending e-mail messages and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion." Three days after Obama was sworn in as President, an announcement video was sent to 13 million people.

The Obama team understands very well that traditional methods of communicating with voters are being replaced by new channels built around social networking. In the 2008 campaign, liberals dominated conservatives by more than 10-to-1 on the Internet, and the Obama campaign exploited that advantage fully and profitably. This massive Internet advantage enabled Obama and leftists to raise ten times more money than conservatives over the Internet, and to create a climate of extreme bias in the media against conservative candidates. Sarah Palin was savaged on liberal blogs with little resistance from conservatives.

This 21st Century use of Internet technology and new-media communication was reflected in Obama's truly incredible record of money-raising. He raised nearly $750 million for his presidential campaign. By contrast, in 2004, George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry together collected less than $650 million. For the general election, Obama had more than three times what John McCain had at his disposal, and Obama still had $30 million in the bank after the election.

Obama's technology/Internet superiority continues. DailyKos.com, a liberal blog site, ranks 3,631 in daily traffic out of many millions of internet websites. This is far higher, often by a factor of 100, than conservative sites. Many other liberal websites also outrank conservative sites, such as Moveon.org, a website started a decade ago in defense of Clinton during his scandals.

Previous Presidents recorded and released a radio speech every Saturday morning, but Obama instead records a video speech, then posts it on the White House website and YouTube where it can be picked up and forwarded to millions of followers who weren't listening to radio on Saturday mornings. His first speech was a sales talk for his $825 billion economic so-called stimulus package. By Sunday afternoon, more then 600,000 people had viewed it on YouTube.

It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win when he is outspent 10-to-1 by the other side. It is essential that conservatives assert themselves on the Internet in order to regain competitiveness in both ideas and in money.

Example of Obama Tactics

http://www.truthout.org/030109Y

Obama's War with the Right (& Media)
Saturday 28 February 2009

»
by: Robert Parry, Consortium News

President Barack Obama. (Photo: AP)

In a startling ambitious budget message, President Barack Obama has thrown down the gauntlet to the American Right not only by tying the current economic crisis to the recklessness of the past eight years under George W. Bush but by tracing it back further to the anti-regulatory, anti-labor and anti-government policies of Ronald Reagan.

"For the better part of three decades, a disproportionate share of the nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy," the 142-page budget message states. "Technological advances and growing global competition, while transforming whole industries - and birthing new ones - has accentuated the trend toward rising inequality."

Though Obama lays the bulk of what he calls "a legacy of mismanagement and misplaced priorities" at the feet of the Bush administration, there is no mistaking his larger message - that the problems which were "exacerbated" by Bush's tax cuts and other pro-rich policies have been building since Reagan's 1981 inaugural declaration that "government is the problem."

Obama even made a glancing reference to that formulation in his preamble to the budget message. "We need to put tired ideologies aside, and ask not whether our government is too big or too small, or whether it is the problem or the solution, but whether it is working for the American people," Obama said.

To the American Right, those are fighting words, and leading right-wingers have already trotted out their curious charge of "class warfare," an ironic message given the fact that the growing disparity in American wealth reveals that "class warfare" has long been at the heart of Reagan-Bush policies - and the rich are winning.

Yet, while it may be audacious for the young President to take on the well-entrenched forces of reaction in Washington, there is another reason for Obama and his supporters to worry. The national news media remains largely enthralled by the pro-Republican rules of the past three decades.

In both right-wing and mainstream news organizations, stories continue to be structured as faulting Obama and largely absolving Bush (not to mention the iconic Reagan).

Look for example at the lead stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post on Saturday. Both describe the stomach-turning 6.2 percent drop in the gross domestic product during the last quarter of 2008. Though that was the last economic quarter of the Bush administration, the stories instead were framed around Obama's failures.

The New York Times cites "a sense of disconnect between the projections of the [Obama] White House and the grim realities of everyday American life." The Washington Post says "the worse-than-expected data fueled doubts about whether the Obama administration had adequately sized up the challenges it faces."

What is remarkable about the two stories - and similar ones at other leading newspapers - is that the name "Bush" is nowhere to be found. Instead of a negative slant against Obama, the stories might reasonably have read that George W. Bush left behind an even worse economic mess than previously understood.

The newspapers could have explained how Bush's policy prescriptions - such as large tax cuts for the wealthy, a neglect of regulation and the declining living standards of the middle class - had pushed the United States to the brink of economic catastrophe. There might have been at least one reference to how Bush contributed to "the grim realities of everyday American life."

Or some of the commentators who have been criticizing Obama's dire warnings about the state of the U.S. economy - accusing him of "talking down" the economy - might have extended an apology, admitting that the President was more correct than they were. They might even have noted that Bush actually had "taken down" the economy.

But that would require a break from the media paradigm of the past few decades - and there is no sign that the powerful right-wing news media has any intention of changing its ideological ways, nor that the mainstream news media will stop its endless attempts to prove it's not "liberal."

The only times Bush gets mentioned these days, it seems to be in the most favorable light.

For instance, while forgetting to mention that the fourth quarter of 2008 fell during Bush's presidency, the U.S. news media gave Bush lots of credit for Obama's announcement that he will withdraw all U.S. combat forces by Aug. 31, 2010. CNN and other news outlets cited Bush's Iraq War "surge" as the reason Obama could pull out troops.

In other words, Bush gets credit for Obama ending an unnecessary war that Bush launched almost six years ago, while Obama is faulted for the 6.2 percent drop in the GDP under Bush.

As Obama sets off on a hazardous political journey - seeking national health insurance, a "greener" economy, educational and infrastructure investments, and higher taxes on the rich - he can expect continued hostility from most of the American news media, both on the right and in the mainstream.

That may be a structural problem that could prove fatal for the President's goals.

-------

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

Poll: Obama Popularity Lags Bush After First Month

2009-02-27T08:57:00.000-08:00

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_popularity_bush/2009/02/26/186061.html

Poll: Obama Popularity Lags Bush After First Month

Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:32 PM

By: Dave Eberhart Article Font Size

The media may be smitten with President Barack Obama, but recent Gallup poll results show Americans giving the new president lower marks after one month in the White House than former President George W. Bush earned at the same point in his administration.

Heading into this week’s address to Congress, the Gallup figures showed 59 percent of Americans approved of Obama’s efforts so far, while 25 percent disapproved, and 16 percent had no opinion. According to PollingReport.com, President Bush had a 62 percent approval rating one month into his first term, with 21 percent disapproving, and 17 percent having no opinion.

“For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama’s presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president,” the Gallup report reads. The drop below 60 percent approval was fueled largely by a drop in satisfaction among independents, Gallup pollsters added.

Late last week, polls showed 62 percent of independents approved of Obama, compared with 54 percent in the last three days, according to NewsBusters. Obama’s approval rating among Democrats has dipped slightly, while approval among Republicans has not changed significantly.

While it may be difficult to tell from the glowing media accounts of his fledgling administration, even Obama’s highest approval numbers were never all that special. Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News reports that Obama’s early ratings are in line with the one-month of George H. W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, and even Jimmy Carter.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

How to Pray

2009-01-19T08:28:00.000-08:00

How to Pray

"Yet everything depends on this ability to stand still and to be present with full inner awareness."

"The basic meaning of the word 'collected' is to be gathered together, united.
A glance at our life will show how much we lack this aptitude. We should have a fixed centre which, like the hub of a wheel, governs our movements and from which all our actions go out and to which they return; a standard, also, or a code by which we distinguish the important from the unimportant, the end from the means and which puts actions and experiences into their proper order; something stable, unaffected by change and yet capable of development, which makes it clear to us who we are and how matters stand with us. We lack this; we, the men of today, lack it more than did those who lived in earlier ages.

"This becomes evident in our attempts to pray. Spiritual teachers speak of 'distraction' as that state in which man lacks poise and unity, that state in which thoughts flit from object to object, in which feelings are vague and unfocused and the will ineffective. Man in this state is not really a person who speaks or who can be spoken to, but merely an unco-ordinated bundle of thoughts, feelings and sensations.

"Collectedness means that he who prays gathers himself together, directs his attention on to what he is doing, draws in all thought—a painstaking task—so as to dedicate himself to prayer as a unified whole. This is the state in which he may, when the call comes to him, answer in the words of Moses, 'Here am I (Exod. 3:4).[page 19]

"In it awakens not only the religious consciousness but a new and higher consciousness, which we might call the spiritual heart of the child of God.

"On this holy ground the reality of God becomes manifest. It may happen that man experiences it suddenly and is overcome by its grandeur and flooded by its proximity. If this happens, he knows that he is receiving the great and intimate mystery of prayer. He must receive it with reverence and guard it well. But such an event is rare indeed and more often than not nothing happens. The God of whom the worshipper had said, 'He is here,' remains silent and hidden. Then the prayer, supported by faith alone, must go out into this silent darkness and maintain itself there.

"In collectedness the worshipper says, 'God is here and here also am I.'" [Page 23]

[Romano Guardini, Prayer in Practice, Page 18, 23]

Stay in Peace in God's Presence

2008-11-05T06:40:00.000-08:00

It is now the hour to stay in peace in God's presence.

We must pray and do penance (big or little). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is in control.

I'll most likely be closing all my blogs except the Catholic Monitor and maybe this one. God is our refuge and we all must be and get closer to Him in this hour.

Fred

Fox News Poll: McCain Tied in Key States

2008-11-03T23:17:00.000-08:00

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/fox_poll_mccain_obama/2008/11/03/147165.html

Fox News Poll: McCain Tied in Key States

Monday, November 3, 2008 3:02 PM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size

A just-released Fox News poll of 1,000 voters in each of six key states shows Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain making major last minutes strides to pull even with Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama.

While Obama leads in two of the battlegrounds states, the candidates are now tied, or within 1 point of each other, in four others, according to the Rasmussen Reports survey.

In Ohio, one of the states that McCain’s supporters believe they have to win, McCain has pulled dead even. Obama and McCain are now tied in Ohio, at 49 percent apiece.

Here are the results from the Fox News poll:

Colorado

Obama 51

McCain 47

Florida

McCain 50

Obama 49

Missouri

Obama 49

McCain 49

N. Carolina

McCain 50

Obama 49

Ohio

Obama 49

McCain 49

Virginia

Obama 51

McCain 47

The poll has a plus or minus margin of error of 3 percent.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

The Race is Tied in almost ALL of the Battleground States

2008-11-03T05:36:00.000-08:00

From: "Newsmax.com" Add sender to Contacts To: "fredmart94086@yahoo.com"

An urgent message from our sponsor,
The Republican National Trust PAC

Dear Newsmax Reader:

With so many polls showing Obama "ahead" you may be wondering why we should fight.

Here's why.

When you strip away the national polls and look down deep into each of the battleground states, you find that this is NOT a runaway election for Barack Obama.

In fact, the race is tied in almost ALL of the battleground states.

The Mason Dixon poll for Fla. and Virginia not only has Obama and McCain statistically tied, but up to 9% of voters in each state are still undecided.

We see the same trends in Ohio and Missouri.

For the past several weeks the media have been trumpeting every poll showing Obama ahead. Polls showing McCain-Palin's strength get shoved to the bottom of the page.

The media wants to create a "feeling" of Obama's imminent victory. It is nothing less than psychological warfare to drain you of your enthusiasm.

Don't buy into this nonsense.

We can win this!

I have been told that ever since we began airing our Obama and Rev. Wright ad in Ohio, McCain's decline stopped and he began to see a turnaround.

Right now we are pumping millions into both battleground states and into national TV ads.

Dick Morris says undecideds will swing in a big way behind McCain. But they need to be reminded how radical and risky Obama is.

We are doing that!

On Monday my ad buyer is on stand by. I will give him final instructions on buying ads Monday night and Tuesday morning.

I need your help to continue our final push.

You can help by Going Here Now.

You can see our powerful TV ads — Go Here Now.

We are making a huge difference.

Thank you for standing up for our great country.

Yours for America,

Scott Wheeler
Executive Director

P.S. Dick Morris said on Fox News last night that our TV ad exposing the Obama-Wright connection is the most powerful weapon John McCain now has. I can still place millions in new ads Monday night and Tuesday morning. Help me do this! To donate Go Here Now or call our donor hotline at 1-866-957-1467.

Obama promises to bankrupt the coal industry!

2008-11-03T05:25:00.000-08:00

-ATTENTION VOTERS in CO, OH, VA, PA, WV, IN

-So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” Obama said. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

http://lgstarr.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-promises-to-bankrupt-coal.html

Obama promises to bankrupt the coal industry!
ATTENTION VOTERS in CO, OH, VA, PA, WV, IN: - MUST WATCH THIS!

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/11/shocking_audio_obama_promises.php

UPDATE: From Washington Wire (WSJ) -- Palin Attacks Obama On Coal Production.
Obama said that under his proposal to cap greenhouse gases, energy suppliers would get incentives to develop technologies to reduce pollution and to use cleaner sources of power. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” Obama said. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

O'Brien: Obama "[U]shering in the Time of Great Trial for the Church"

2008-11-02T09:03:00.000-08:00

-I also believe that he is a carrier of a deadly moral virus, indeed a kind of anti-apostle spreading concepts and agendas that are not only anti-Christ but anti-human as well. In this sense he is of the spirit of Antichrist (perhaps without knowing it), and probably is one of several key figures in the world who (knowingly or unknowingly) will be instrumental in ushering in the time of great trial for the Church under its last and worst persecution, amidst the numerous other tribulations prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation, and letters of St Paul, St. John, and St. Peter.

StudiObrien newsletter, The U.S. ElectionSaturday, November 1, 2008 1:20 PM
From: "studiObrien" Add sender to Contacts To: undisclosed-recipients

All Saints Day, 1 November 2008

Dear Friends,

From just north of the border, we Canadians, like other people throughout the world, are observing and praying for the coming federal election in the United States of America. I would prefer to keep private my counsel about political choices, because it is not my country. However, I am receiving letters from American subscribers and visitors to my studio website asking me some rather surprising questions about Barack Obama, related to one of my novels.

During the past year I have read a number of his pronouncements, and saw the smoke and mirrors beneath the rhetoric, but couldn't understand why everyone south of the border (the other south of the border, the 49th parallel) was getting so excited about him, both pro and con. Then a few weeks ago a German friend called me immediately after Obama's speech in Berlin, to say that the presidential candidate had mesmerized the crowds, and that a commentator on German television had said: "We have just heard the next President of the United States...and the future President of the World." My friend felt that Obama bore an uncanny resemblance to the fictional character of the President in my novel Father Elijah. I have received several other letters saying the same thing and asking what I thought about it.

From my own reading of Obama's declarations and stated positions, I knew he was an ultra-liberal, a social revolutionary with visionary pretensions. But the Antichrist? No, not possible, I thought. I felt that he was too shallow a man to be the Son of Perdition, the Man of Sin, the Beast of the Book of Revelation. And I still think so. Obama is a crowd-pleaser with just the right ethos of idealistic crusader. That the crusade and the banners under which it marches are evil does not automatically prove that he is the Antichrist.

But now that I have seen the video of the Berlin speech I think there is more here than meets the eye. He is indeed a powerful manipulator of crowds, even as he appears ever so humble and wholesomely charming. I doubt that he is the long-prophesied ruler of the world, but I also believe that he is a carrier of a deadly moral virus, indeed a kind of anti-apostle spreading concepts and agendas that are not only anti-Christ but anti-human as well. In this sense he is of the spirit of Antichrist (perhaps without knowing it), and probably is one of several key figures in the world who (knowingly or unknowingly) will be instrumental in ushering in the time of great trial for the Church under its last and worst persecution, amidst the numerous other tribulations prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation, and letters of St Paul, St. John, and St. Peter.

Of course the mystique that has grown up around him is endlessly reinforced by the liberal media, which presents him to us as a high-minded humanist, a kind of secular messiah (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 675). Yet when all the rhetoric is boiled down to its substance, the man is advocating unlimited state-sanctioned murder, and compounds it by indulging in habitual falsehood. He is well accustomed to playing loose with the truth whenever it is expedient for him to do so; or else he is the victim of the largest memory lapses in recorded history; or perhaps he is just not careful about how he expresses things—a blurring or selectivity regarding facts for the purpose of aggrandizing his public image. There is a controversy currently raging in the (admittedly unreliable) forum of the internet, prompted by an African-American talk show host in Los Angeles who listed 39 significant details that Barack Obama claimed were facts about himself, but on fu! rther investigation were proved to be simply untrue. There has been some wild-fire debunking of the debunking, and then more counter-debunking, but it remains obvious that forthrightness and clarity are not major concerns in the Obama camp.

What are we to make of a man who has appeared out of semi-obscurity and become, nearly overnight, so very much an idol of the popular imagination? That he intends to become the most effective advocate of murder of the unborn ever seen in America should give us pause. Murder and lies are as old as the lands east of Eden, of course, but when they are charmingly packaged, proposed as reasonable and just policies (with a smile, a resonant voice, and an appealing flash of the eyes), one begins to wonder just what is afoot in the modern age. It brings to mind a passage from the first Act of Shakespeare's Hamlet:

“That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain...”

The line is from a scene where prince Hamlet has just encountered the ghost of his father, who informs his son that he was poisoned by his own brother Claudius (the "smiling, damned villain"), who after murdering him, seized the king's crown and his queen.

Barack Obama is an image-maker, creating his own myth as he goes along. This would be a sad defect in any human being, but it takes on ominous proportions in a person who may become, after November 4th, one of the most powerful figures in the world. How is it possible that such a tragic turn of events may come about, if indeed a majority of Americans choose to believe the smile and the myth? Why is it that so many people have come to believe that a mirage is reality, even destiny? Do pro-Obama voters hanker for a world figure who would heal old divisions between races and religions, thus heralding a new age for mankind? During this time of near intolerable tensions, does he appear to be the one who can reconcile Islam and Christianity, Africa and America, occident and orient, black and white, rich and poor? Do they see his racial origins as a symbolic victory over the history of racial oppression? Do they see in him the good-hearted "under-dog", the gutsy street fi! ghter who agitates for the rights of the "little guy," whose meteoric rise to a position of maximum influence represents themselves enthroned at last in the high seat of power? Is this why they ignore his every grave fault and hungrily consume his vague idealist platitudes as if these were a kind of new gospel for the third millennium? Our hero. Our visionary. Our Great Friend and spokesman in the forum of the world?

Clearly, contemporary man needs heroes. But why not choose a genuine one, why not look a little deeper and work a little harder to find a man of courage and principle, and if it helps in the historical healing process, why not a very different kind of black man, say a person like Alan Keyes, a scholar, former ambassador, experienced in different levels of government, and (it might be added) an African-American married to a woman from India. Moreover, he is a devout Catholic who believes in moral absolutes and has amply proved that he will stand firm to defend them regardless of the cost to his own career. He knows that kings and presidents cannot usurp the natural law, the moral order of the universe, without bringing down judgment upon their nations. But it need not be Keyes. It might be any number of other men and women of clear thought and clear principle. Surely there are "Ten Just Men" still out there somewhere in America. So why Obama? And why does he ! rise and rise as his mouth smiles and smiles, exuding sincerity as he speaks lies and death?

And why, most horribly, most shamefully, are so many Christians of malformed or unformed conscience supporting him? Is it because they have never been clearly instructed in the truth, never understood the foundation upon which the moral cosmos is built? Is morality for them merely another system of abstract "values" in a crowded playing field of such systems, from which one may pick and choose? In the case of Catholics, for example, have they been blinded by a diet of theological nuances and deadly little loopholes offered to them by the committees of national episcopal conferences — committees that have absolutely no authority over Catholics, yet which are widely revered as a kind of alternative Magisterium? Have they been deadened by a habitual dismissing or dissembling of the solid teaching given to them by the universal Church under Peter? Have they grown accustomed to listening to opinion shapers who tell them that certain excellent apostolic Bishops in ! America who teach the truth without compromise are merely hidebound reactionaries, moralistic extremists, contemporary manifestations of those old boogymen who still haunt the American psyche — the Chillingworths and Dimmesdales and the judges in The Scarlet Letter? And so it goes, this over-reaction to Puritanism played out over centuries, an over-reaction that breeds tragedies a thousand times worse than Salem’s. Lies compounding on lies, and it all floats on an ocean of spilled innocent blood. And who can gaze at that ocean (or be splashed by it) without coming to a radical choice: One either turns away into a deeper state of denial, or one turns heart and mind toward the splendor of Truth, and changes one's life accordingly.

Is this why many of our Catholic people have become impulse-driven impressionists? Of course, the blindness is not due to the failure of pastors alone. The Ministry of Disinformation (by which I mean most modern media) has played a major role. There is also the erosion of truth in the education systems, combined with the gradual confusion and weakening of conscience through our addiction to the "soma" drugs supplied by the entertainment industry. Other factors may be the war in Iraq, or Republican economics, or the Bush administration, or the structure of Capitalism itself, or any number of prudential questions in the sociopolitical order, all of which are presently tangled nests of moral dilemma. But why do they not see that these questions are secondary to the fundamental issue of life itself? Why would they replace one reigning oligarchy with another kind of oligarchy — moreover, one that would kill vast numbers of its own citizens?

"I call on heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life or death, blessing or curse. Choose life, then, so that you and your descendants may live...." (Deuteronomy 30:19)

May God bless and guide you,
in Jesus our Saviour,

with prayers and fasting,

Michael O'Brien

PS: For those interested in a concise examination of the moral parameters of voting in the forthcoming election, I urge you to read an excellent article by Dr. Mark Miravalle, professor of Theology at Franciscan University, Steubenville, available at the following link:

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1531

Netflix alternative

2008-11-02T08:23:00.000-08:00

http://heliotropium.blogspot.com/2008/01/netflix-alternative.html

Netflix alternative

We have had Netflix now for quite a while, and love it for its variety of films, but it is still lacking in many things that we would like to see, and has plenty of filth that we don't ever even want to browse through. There are plenty of religion-based films, but that can still be frustrating for Catholics, since many have an atheistic agenda. I've rented more than one movie from them thinking it would be great entertainment, or a supplement to our homeschool curriculum, only to have to return it with disappointment.

Now there is an alternative, called Faith and Family Flix. They work the same way as Netflix, with your DVDs arriving in the mail with no late fees. They are still small, but they are growing. I received my first DVD, "Jesus and the Shroud of Turin," today. This is what FFF has to say on their About Us page:

Faith and Family Flix (FFF) was founded by families like you who are extremely concerned about what Hollywood and the entertainment industry are putting in front of our children. Family life is the foundational element on which our society is built. If families continue to disintegrate, so will our society. FFF has vowed to do what we can to help protect and nurture the family. Just like men and women in the military everyday put their lives at risk to protect our physical well-being, shouldn’t we put as much effort into protecting our spiritual/moral well-being? Our call to you is to be proactive. By supporting FFF and not companies like Netflix or Blockbuster, who support movie genres that are inconsistent with our Judeo-Christian beliefs, you are sending a strong message to the entertainment industry. Presently, FFF has one distribution facility, centrally located in the Chicagoland area. As business develops, we will be opening other distribution centers. We appreciate your patience and understanding. We know that you could perhaps get a better "deal" and maybe get the movies a day or two earlier by going with Netflix or Blockbuster. The real question is: as people of faith, what is the right thing to do? If you don't believe in supporting certain lifestyles or if you will never rent soft-core pornography, why support a company who offers it?
I'll be downgrading my membership with Netflix, and renting as many movies from FFF as I can.

How can Factcheck.org Lie to the American People?

2008-11-02T08:18:00.000-08:00

-Easy, they are in Barack Obamas' back pocket

http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/10/cnn-is-defrauded-by-annenbergfactcheck.html

How can Factcheck.org Lie to the American People?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

CNN is defrauded by Annenberg/FactCheck.org lies

Andy Martin humiliates the mainstream media, again. Why do the mainstream media lie to the American people about Barack Obama's birth certificate? And why does Obama lie? Martin exposes FactCheck.org's lies.

Andy Martin's new bombshell embarrasses mainstream media, again
Why is Barack Obama hiding access to his original birth certificate?

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin exposes CNN and as a victim of lies posted by Factcheck.org

Andy says mainstream media are dupes (no surprise there) of Barack Obama's LIES

How can Factcheck.org lie to the American people? Easy, they are in Barack Obamas' back pocket

"Debunk this column," says Andy Martin, issuing a challenge to CNN and every other mainstream media

Why does ContrarianCommentary.com get it right all the time, and the mainstream media get it wrong?

(NEW YORK)(October 28, 2008) CNN and mainstream media have been deceived by Barack Obama, again. If he will lie to his media megaphones, it is no surprise Obama is lying to the American people. Factcheck.org is another Obama "front" that is publishing self-serving lies about the candidate.

Here are the facts; here is the truth. Debunk this! We challenge any mainstream media to prove this column wrong.

CNN recently did a report on my anti-Obama activity.

http://www.youtube.com/v/mxrDlugBj4o

In the course of the report, CNN relied on a web site known as "Factcheck.org," which should be really known as "ObamaLies.org"

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

In this column we definitively expose Factcheck.org as an Obama propaganda front and—since CNN's report about me was generally fair—poke fun at CNN for having been suckered by Obama's hired liars. John Roberts, come in please.

Is it any wonder that the American people are disgusted with the mainstream media? When will Grandpa McCain and Sister Sarah wake up and start attacking the biggest liar in American political history, Barack Frank Marshall Davis Obama? McCain's failure to confront Obama, and to wage effective war against Obama's blitzkrieg of lies, has denied the American people a competent, focused election campaign.

Here are the facts:

1. Factcheck.org says they have "seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." Wrong. They claim "We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as 'supporting documents' to this article." Wrong again.

2. Barack Obama was born in 1961. At that time, birth records (Hawai'i calls them a "Certificate of Live Birth" or "COLB") were maintained in either handwritten or typewritten form. Honolulu appears to have used typewriters. Some people have referred to the original certificate held by a local authority as a "vault" certificate. I have literally walked into the City Clerk's vault in my hometown, and seen a bound book with my handwritten birth certificate in it. That is a "vault" certificate, or, more particularly, an original copy maintained in the vault of a public official.

3. Someone else has posted what they claim is a copy of their COLB, issued some years later but still apparently based on a photocopy of the original. Look at this apparent 1963 template: http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521

We have been promised another COLB from the same period and we are awaiting receipt.

Does the 1963 version look anything like Obama's computerized COLB? Of course not.

4. The FactCheck.org "document" is not a "copy" of an "original" 1961 typewritten COLB. Rather, the Obamagoths handed Factcheck.org a copy of a current, computer-printed COLB that was generated from a database, instead of from a 1961 typewritten original. Factcheck.org's "Joe Miller" falsely claims to be holding "The Obama birth certificate." What he is actually holding is a computer-generated document containing some of the original information.

5. Factcheck.org also posts the back of the document, dated July 6, 2007 (issued long before it was posted over a year later). On the back you can clearly read, even on the Internet, "True copy ("of?") abstract of the record on ("file in?") The Hawaii State Department of Health." Go the Factcheck.org site and see if I am lying.

6. Thus, the document Factcheck.org purports to be a copy of an "original," is nothing of the sort. Rather the document is a "copy of an abstract" of the record. I suspect that the "abstract of the record" means they held double records, the original COLB's and possibly a ledger-style book "abstracting" the same information. (In legal terms, an abstract usually implies something other than the original, usually a compendium compiled from an original, as in an abstract of title for real property.)

7. I don’t want to blame ordinary American for being fooled by Factcheck.org and the lying Obamagoths. Joe the Plumber is not expected to have legal skill. But, given all of the hubbub and hullabaloo over the Obama birth record wouldn't you expect more from CNN, or even from Factcheck.org? Why are they fooled so easily? Or were they not "fooled" at all, and merely willing dupes in a massive public fraud orchestrated by Barack Obama and the Obama gang?

8. Clearly, Barack Obama has contempt for the American people. He has lied, lied and lied about the location of and contents of his original, typewritten COLB. And he has persuaded CNN and Factcheck.org to lie for him, falsely portraying a "copy of an abstract" as a copy of an original typewritten 1961 document. For shame.

9. Now you know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the trust about Barack Obama's birth certificate charade. I defy anyone to prove me wrong, including the jerks that write for the Chicago Sun-Times. Once again, the mainstream media have egg (or worse) on their faces. They have been caught lying to their audiences.

10. My last question: where are John McCain and Sarah Palin in this veritable forest of forgery being foisted on the voting public by the Obamagoths? Isn't it time they started to fight back against Obama's river of lies?

11. Obama loves to play lawyer games and use lawyer-like evasion with media and the public. Is the piece of paper posted at Factcheck.org a "legal" document? Yes it is. Today we accept all kinds of computerized facsimiles or printouts as legal documents. But, remember, there were no computers in 1961. What the Factcheck.org document obviously is not is a copy of the 1961 typewritten original. What is most galling is that every one of us has a "birth certificate." Many of us born a few years back know that the original documents were either handwritten (my case) or typewritten. But a computerized "copy of an abstract" is not a copy of the original handwritten or typewritten document filed with the local authority when we were born. Obama is lying, Factcheck.org is lying and they have lied to the American people. That is an American tragedy.

-----------------------------------
We are pursuing a lawsuit in Honolulu to force disclosure of Obama's original, typewritten 1961 COLB. If you would like to contribute to the costs of this effort, you can contribute at:
http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

Here is our letter to the judge concerning scheduling the next hearing:

CONTRARIANCOMMENTARY.COM
New York-London-Washington-Chicago-San Francisco-Palm Beach

Headquarters mail:
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Tel. (866) 706-2639
Fax (866) 707-2639
Web: ContrarianCommentary.com
E-mail: andymart20@aol.com

Andy Martin, J. D.
Professor of Law (Adj.)
Executive Editor

October 28, 2008

Hon. Bert I. Ayabe
Circuit Court
777 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813-5093

and

Hon. Mark Bennett
Attorney General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
via fax (808) 586-1239

Re: Martin v. Lingle
Circuit Court No. 08-1-2147-10-BIA

Dear Judge Ayabe
and General Bennett:

I spoke with the court's judicial assistant on Monday, and today I am FedExing the original Order to Show Cause back to the court so I can obtain a new date.

The court has indicated it will not hear me by phone on November 7th, so I must purchase airline tickets and clear several days to make a personal trip to Honolulu. That is a complicated process, particularly given the approaching holiday season.

If I am assigned a new hearing date on October 29th (Wednesday), I can arrange to appear in person at a hearing in Honolulu on November 11th-14th (later in the week, Thursday or Friday, is better for me). I am also available November 18-21.

This lawsuit raises important issues of statutory construction of Hawai'i law, as well as significant public interest and constitutional questions. I have read published reports (though I have no personal knowledge) that Governor Lingle has ordered the original documents I am seeking impounded and placed under high security. I hope that is in fact the case. I would ask General Bennett to ensure that is in fact the case, so no one can tamper with or destroy or remove those documents (the original, typewritten 1961 Certificate of Life Birth of Barack H. Obama and any supporting materials).

I can be reached by toll-free phone or fax, as well as e-mail (test only).

I would be deeply appreciative of any courtesy that is extended to me.

Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN

W/encl.
----------------------------------------------

TUESDAY (later today): Questions the Mainstream Media will not ask Barack Obama, The Cover-up: Part One (first in a series)

----------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
FULL DISCLOSURE: I recently decided to oppose Barack Obama's election and became Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, http://StopObamaCoalition.com. By default, I became the national leader of the anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. I am not a member of any political organization. The views expressed are entirely independent. I am acting as an American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are going to run a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. I will continue to write my news and opinion columns for ContrarianCommentary.com. /s/ Andy Martin
----------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to fight Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American."
The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised more than a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. We can't just sit back and expect John McCain to do the job all alone. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Ex-Farrakhan Aide:Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close

2008-11-02T07:59:00.000-08:00

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/farrakhan_obama_islam/2008/11/01/146685.html

Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says

Saturday, November 1, 2008 2:59 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size

A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had “an open line between them” to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.

“Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn’t, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago,” said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam.

White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

White said Obama was “part of the Chicago scene” where Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and radicals would go to each other’s events and support each other’s causes.

“Even though Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, within the black community, the political and militant nationalist community is very small. So it wouldn’t be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other,” White told Newsmax.

The Anti-Defamation League has denounced Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam as a “hate group.”

Farrakhan has called Jews “bloodsuckers,” “satanic” and accused them of running the slave trade. He has labeled gays as “degenerates.” In a 2006 speech, the ADL again condemned Farrakhan when he said: “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It's the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!"

Obama was careful to “denounce” Farrakhan’s comments – but not the man -- during the Democratic primary season earlier this year, but only after Hillary Clinton called him out for benefiting from Farrakhan’s support.

Farrakhan endorsed Obama in a videotaped speech to his followers at Mosque Miryam in Chicago in February. “You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth,” Farrakhan said.

He told the crowd that Obama was the new “messiah.” See Video: Farrakhan Endorses Obama, Calls Him Messiah.

Once the news media and the Clinton campaign got hold of those comments from Farrakhan, demands mounted from all sides that Obama “renounce” Farrakhan.

But as he has done repeatedly throughout this campaign, Obama was careful to parse his words.

“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments,” he said during one appearance on “Meet the Press.” “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.”

Obama hastened to point out that Farrakhan had been praising him as “an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”

But Obama, once again, was less than candid.

In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.”

At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago’s South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.

The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama’s then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright.

Obama spoke at length with the Chicago Reader upon his return from the Million Man March. “What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said.

“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress,” Obama said.

“Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."

“Black nationalism” is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father.”

Obama further parsed his words in a Feb. 25, 2008, presentation to a Jewish community meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, where he insisted that Wright “does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.”

And yet, just months earlier, Wright’s Trumpet magazine gave Farrakhan its Lifetime Achievement Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”

That award was the fruit of a long and deep relationship between the two men, White told Newsmax. In 1984, Wright accompanied Farrakhan on his much-criticized trip to meet Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, at a time when Gadhafi was considered an enemy of the United States.

Wright also accompanied Farrakhan and Jackson to Syria in 1986, where they successfully negotiated with Syrian strongman for the release of downed American pilot Robert O. Goodman.

Obama’s Speaking Style

In addition to the ideological affinity Obama expressed for the black nationalist movement, White believes that Obama owes much of his success as a public orator to speaking techniques that Farrakhan developed over the years, and exploited for years to great success.

“If you listen to the rhetoric and you take away Obama’s political jargon, you hear a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like,” White said.

Any American who has listened to early radio or television interviews of Obama can hear how dramatically Obama’s speaking style has changed since he became a United States senator.

In clips dating from 2001 and even early 2004, Obama speaks haltingly and in long, rambling sentences packed with legalese and dense pseudo-academic rhetoric. But not today.

“As a former minister of the Nation of Islam, I know how they speak,” White told Newsmax. “I don’t know who was training Obama. But that style is not a ministerial style like in the Christian church. It’s a Nation of Islam style.”

White began in the late 1970s as a foot soldier in the Fruit of Islam, the military branch of Farrakhan’s Black Muslim group, then rose to become a minister of the Nation of Islam and a top deputy to Farrakhan himself.

Known initially as Brother Vibert L.X., and later as Minister V.L. Muhammad, he parted ways with Farrakhan not long after the Million Man March, after nearly 25 years within the organization.

White’s 2002 book “Inside the Nation of Islam” prompted death threats by Farrakhan loyalists, so he left Illinois and moved to Florida to teach at the University of Central Florida.

He told Newsmax that Obama’s remarkable speaking style, even his manner of standing at a podium to appear larger than life, is directly copied from Farrakhan.

“If the Nation of Islam can’t do anything else, it can train people how to speak. And nobody can outspeak a Muslim minister,” he said.

Earlier this year, a pro-Clinton blog run by former CIA officer Larry Johnson unearthed a 2004 photograph showing Michelle Obama and Farrakahn’s wife, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, at an event hosted by Jackson’s Citizenship Education Foundation.

Newsmax queried Obama’s U.S. Senate office, his Chicago office and his campaign press office about his ties to Farrakhan, but did not receive a reply.

Ever since he appeared before the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama has attempted to convince the Jewish community that he is pro-Israel.

But his longstanding ties to Farrakhan, Wright and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi, among others, have disturbed many Jewish community leaders.

Sen. John McCain publicly chastised The Los Angeles Times on Thursday for not releasing a videotape the newspaper said it possessed of a 2003 dinner for Khalidi, where Obama reportedly accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide” against the Palestinians.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved

Morris:If Obama [Smiles] Wins, One Thing is Certain...Jimmy Carter Stagflation

2008-11-01T08:47:00.000-07:00

If Obama Wins, One Thing is Certain --
For Your Investments...

Dear Fellow American,

If Barack Obama wins this election, one thing is certain... he will preside over the largest expansion of the government's role in the economy since the 1930s.
This "New New Deal," as some Democrats are already calling it, may well have the same result as the original one: to turn a sharp, painful recession into a long Depression.

Will that set the stage for a GOP president in 2012 -- the way '70s stagflation under Jimmy Carter set the stage for Ronald Reagan? I doubt it. More likely, Obama will be able to parlay the hard economic times into a second term.

How? The same way FDR did… by blaming everything that happens on his watch on his predecessors. The worse things get, the more the Obamacrats will blame it on "eight years of Republican deregulation, tax cuts and greed," calling for even more government intervention as the solution.

And the media, of course, will back them up.

But believe it or not, I'm not writing to you today to warn of the dangers of an Obama presidency -- I suspect you know them all too well. What I am writing to you about is how to protect your own financial well-being during the hard times to come.

It's crucial to understand: Hard times for America does not necessarily mean hard times for you. As a very wise investment expert of my acquaintance, Nicholas Vardy, likes to say, "No matter what the state of financial markets, there is always a strategy out there that can make you money."

The key, Vardy explains, is to recognize opportunities wherever they may be and, more importantly, detach yourself from old themes that are no longer working.

Vardy himself, an American based in London, is a master at crafting such cutting-edge investment strategies -- which he then passes on to subscribers to his Global Stock Investor investment newsletter.

So, for instance, back in mid-2007 Vardy was months ahead of the curve in spotting the coming boom in "soft" (agricultural) commodities -- recommending stocks like Canadian fertilizer giant Potash, which shot up quickly in price before coming back down to earth, by which time his subscribers had safely banked profits of 82% in just over three months time.

And that's nothing compared to the magic Vardy performed for his subscribers during the week of October 6-10, now on record as the worst in Wall Street history.

Consider this: During that five-day trading period, which wiped out some $2.4 trillion in shareholder wealth, Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio finished the week in the black.

Compared to the -17% decline in the Dow, that's incredible.

How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine. But I'm sure those countless hours he spends sharing investment ideas with Europe's top money managers has something to do with it -- not to mention his graduate degrees from Stanford and Harvard.

Don't get me wrong: Nicholas Vardy is no elitist snob. Though he makes his "real" money managing money for a few wealthy clients, he also likes to "spread the wealth" -- not through higher taxes (sorry, Obama), but by helping people like you and me make profitable investments.

Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service. Nicholas' advice is rock solid. You'll thank me later.

Let's face it, the next few years will be tough ones for America, no matter who wins the presidency. But, to repeat, they don't have to be tough ones for you -- if you follow the brilliant investment strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. I urge you to give it a try.

Click here to learn more.

Sincerely,
Dick Morris

P.S. Right now, for a limited time, you can get a full year of Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor for about the cost of a mid-priced dinner for two. Of course, with all the great investment tips you'll be getting, you'll be able to afford lots of dinners -- high-priced ones at that. Click here to learn more.

Human Events | One Massachusetts Ave., N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Murdoch: Obama Win Could Worsen Econ. Crisis

2008-11-01T08:39:00.001-07:00

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/murdoch_obama_economy/2008/11/01/146610.html

Murdoch: Obama Win Could Worsen Econ. Crisis

Saturday, November 1, 2008 8:48 AM

Article Font Size

Global media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has warned that a win by Democratic hopeful Barack Obama in next week's US election could worsen the world financial crisis, a report said Saturday.

In an interview with The Weekend Australian, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, the newsman said if the Democrats implemented protectionist policies it would be "a real setback for globalization."

Murdoch said he did not know whether an Obama administration would deliver on all the Democrats' stated policies, saying "presidents don't often behave exactly as the campaign might have suggested."

But he warned that an increase in protectionism in the US as suggested by some Democrats in Congress, would risk retaliation from China and could threaten world trade.

"For the past three or four years, some Democrats have been threatening to do things like put on extra tariffs (against Chinese imports) if they don't change their currency," Murdoch said.

"If it happened, it could set off retaliatory action which would certainly damage the world economy seriously."

The Australian-born mogul, who controls media interests around the world, also criticised Obama's proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.

"Forty percent (of the US population) don't pay taxes, so how can he give them a tax cut?" he said.

"But you can give them a welfare cheque which he has promised -- a grant of 500 dollars -- which will disappear very fast. It's not going to turn the economy around at all."

Murdoch, who is in Australia to deliver a series of lectures, rejected the suggestion that the ousting of a Republican administration in the US would be a circuit breaker which automatically boosted financial markets.

"To some extent it is beyond the power of politicians," he said of the current crisis.

"You are going to find that the politicians are very limited in what they can do: they can make it worse but they can't stop it."

Murdoch said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had been "sure-footed" in handling the crisis, deflecting criticism that the centre-left Labor leader had been too quick to offer a blanket guarantee on bank deposits.

But Murdoch said all politicians should be careful not to worsen the situation by "alarming people more than they should be alarmed."

Copyright 2008 AFP. All rights reserved.

Doublespeak: Obama Is For ‘Gay Marriage’ even as He’s Against It

2008-11-01T08:34:00.000-07:00

http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/10/30/obama-is-for-%E2%80%98gay-marriage%E2%80%99-even-as-
he%E2%80%99s-against-it/

Obama Is For ‘Gay Marriage’ even as He’s Against It
Democratic deception has worked: most ignorant about Obama’s radical anti-DOMA agenda
By Peter LaBarbera

As a social conservative, one of the most troubling aspects of this presidential campaign has been the media’s (and John McCain’s) failure to flesh out Barack Obama’s “audacious” doublespeak on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”

Here’s the question Obama was lucky enough to have never been asked in this campaign: What does it mean to say you support traditional marriage (one man, one woman) – when you do so much to advance the pro-“gay marriage” cause, including denouncing state marriage-protection amendments like Prop 8 in California as “discriminatory and divisive”?

Did you know that Obama has promised homosexual activists that he will work to fully repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act? DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996 and protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages.” It was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, 85-14, with Sen. Biden joining 28 other Democrats in voting yes. How liberal is Obama’s anti-DOMA scheme? Hillary Clinton, a trusted gay ally, pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.

Neither McCain nor Gov. Palin has made an issue of Obama’s extreme anti-DOMA sop to the homosexual crowd even though they had a clear opening. (One 2007 Quinnipiac poll revealed that a homosexual group’s endorsement of a candidate would be a net electoral loser among voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.) The result is that Obama’s DOMA Destruction Plan never surfaced in the debates and barely in the major media.

The Democratic spin on marriage has fooled a lot of voters. If you watched the presidential debates, including the Saddleback Church event with Pastor Rick Warren, you may have concluded that Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, pretty much agree with McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin on same-sex “marriage.”

That is a precisely what the slick strategists at the Obama/Biden campaign want you to think, as they strive to hide their candidates’ radical pro-gay agenda and portray themselves as reasonable moderates on this wedge issue. Truth is, the gulf between the tickets is the difference between saying you support marriage and actually doing something to protect it – and NOT favoring policies like repealing DOMA that are completely in line with the homosexual activists’ goal of radically redefining this sacred institution.

McCain is a strong DOMA supporter who will embrace a Federal Marriage Amendment if he sees activist judges forcing “gay marriage” on the states. Obama, on the other hand, went from supporting DOMA in 2004 to calling it “abhorrent” as part of his radical promise to homosexual groups to overturn it. Obama is setting the stage for nationalizing “same-sex “marriage” (perhaps under the guise of “civil unions”), while reporters dutifully provide him cover by repeating his alleged opposition to same.

If only one major media reporter would ask Sen. Obama: how can you say you support traditional marriage and yet “abhor” a popular law (DOMA) that helps states to preserve it? Alas, we mere mortals have to choose sides – and most politicians flip and then flop — but apparently Obama, The One, is allowed to embrace both sides of an issue simultaneously and get away with it.

Consider the following Obama policies and rhetoric and ask yourself if this sounds like a man who supports traditional marriage:

Obama congratulated homosexual activists for “getting married” at a San Francisco Democratic gay event;
Though Obama says he “personally” opposes “gay marriage,” he creates a distinction without a difference by supporting federal “civil unions.” Obama told the nation’s leading homoseuxal lobby group: “I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license.” Interestingly, this stance has led Obama to support a bill to allow homosexual partners to immigrate to the United States just like married spouses;
Obama promises gay activists that he will use the bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption of children. Thus Americans may have to endure the absurd spectacle of a President Obama using the prestige of the White House to defend placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design;
Obama said he “respects” the California supreme court’s 4-3 decision earlier this year forcing “gay marriage” on that state, even though it wiped out a previous statewide ballot vote by Californians to preserve marriage as between a man and a woman;
Obama denounced the Federal Marriage Amendment as a mere “political ploy”;
Obama dismisses a key passage in the New Testament Book of Romans and distorts Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount to justify his pro-homosexuality agenda.
Considering the above, is it asking too much of the media to stop repeating the distortion that Obama and Biden support traditional marriage?

Appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres show, Sen. Biden eagerly told Ellen, a “gay-marriage” activist, that if he were a California voter he would vote “no” on Prop 8 in California. How strange, since Prop 8 does nothing but reinstate the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. (It does not affect same-sex “domestic partners,” who already receive the same benefits as married couples under California law.) Of course, earlier, in the vice-presidential debate, Biden claimed to oppose gay “marriage” — creating the false impression that he and Palin essentially agree on the same-sex-”marriage” question.

John McCain blew it by not calling out his opponents on their “gay marriage” deception and their plans to do in DOMA. All he needed to say was that the Illinois Senator doesn’t have the guts to tell the truth — that Obama’s “personal” opposition to “gay marriage” is meaningless because his pro-gay pledges would greatly advance the spread of homosexual “marriage” across the land. With friends like Obama and Biden, McCain could have said, the beleaguered institution of marriage really doesn’t need enemies.
_________________________________

Peter LaBarbera is founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org) and president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (for identification purposes only).

If Barack Obama is not a Socialist, he does the best Imitation of one I've ever seen

2008-11-01T08:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29302

Comrade Obama?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

10/31/2008

If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I've ever seen.
Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks.

If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor.

"Spread the wealth," Barack admonished Joe the Plumber.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief.

West: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Biden's better defense, however, might have be the "Tu quoque!" retort: "You, too!" -- the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy.

Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor?

Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system?

Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms.

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared.

Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born?

In his 1938 essay "The Revolution Was," Garet Garrett wrote:

"There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it -- to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed." And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama's words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about "redistributive change" in society, of the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the "political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the "Marxist professors" Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger.

Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

ZOGBY: MCCAIN MOVES INTO LEAD 48-47 IN ONE DAY POLLING

2008-11-01T08:27:00.001-07:00

http://www.drudgereport.com/

'Governator' Schwarzenegger mocks 'skinny' Obama...

ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain has pulled back within the margin of error... The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day, polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HITWISE SHOCK: DRUDGE TOPS NYTIMES IN WEB TRAFFIC; CNN OVER MSNBC...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas floats plan to house Ike victims aboard ship...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil Set for Record Monthly Decline...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILD WILD WEST: California Cities Cut Police Budgets...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US deaths in Iraq plunge to wartime low in October...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boat runs aground near Miami Beach; 3 killed...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+6.4

FOXNEWS: OBAMA +3...

How McCain Can Pull a Truman Win with Sarah's Help

2008-10-31T23:22:00.000-07:00

Palin Press Conference Exposing Obama’s Corruption

The media is filtering McCain's Obama message. The only media event they will allow to get through the filter is a Palin press conference.

They think she is dumb and they can destroy her.

She showed in the Biden debate that she is more than a match for them if McCain lets her be herself.

McCain's redistrubutionist Obama taxing taxpayers theme is starting to get through, but he needs a jump start to get it through with only four days left.

Sarah Palin’s huge viewer numbers at the convention, debate and the mock press conference on Saturday Night Live proves a live press conference is a chance to turn the election around with an unfiltered message.

Sarah exposes Obama’s corruption especially on taxes. (Below are a few short examples under Dick Morris' How McCain Can Pull a Truman)

Fred

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/mccain_truman_morris/2008/10/26/144298.html

How McCain Can Pull a Truman

Sunday, October 26, 2008 8:11 PM

By: Dick Morris Article Font Size

The most reliable surveys put McCain five to seven points behind Obama as we enter the last week of this interminable campaign. But in a race that will be famous for years afterwards for its volatility, it is not too late for the Republican to pull out a victory.

For Harry Truman in 1948, the presidential race shifted dramatically in the final week, and it's happened three more times in the past 30 years. In 1980, Reagan came from eight points behind to a solid victory by winning his sole debate with Carter in the last week of October. In 1992, Clinton, who had fallen behind in the polls because of the pounding he was taking over his liberalism and propensity to raise taxes, surged ahead of Bush when Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh announced that he was indicting Defense Secretary Casper (Cap) Weinberger, an indication of Bush's possible complicity in the Iran-Contra scandal. And in 2000, Bush's three-to-four point lead in the polls was erased over the final weekend when reports surfaced that he had been cited for DWI 20 years before and had not revealed the fact to the public. Bush still won the election, of course, but Gore won the popular vote by half a point.

What does McCain have to do to pull off a similar shift this time?

1. Use the stock market crash to highlight the tax issue. With the Dow Jones dropping each day by hundreds of points, this election is being held against a backdrop of economic fear unlike any since the Depression. Almost every reputable economist agrees that it would be catastrophic to add to the economy's woes by raising the capital gains tax. But Obama is on record as favoring an increase from 15% to 20% and suggested during the primaries that he would consider hitting 28%.

McCain should jump on the issue and challenge Obama to agree to a two-year moratorium on increases in the capital gains tax. If Obama agrees, McCain will score points for leadership. If Obama refuses, or ignores the challenge, McCain can attribute much of the drop in the market to the fear of increased capital gains taxation once Obama takes over. After all, its pretty obvious that if you keep 85% of your capital profits right now but stand only to keep 80% or 72% once Obama takes over, it's prudent to unload now. This pressure to sell is exactly what the markets do not need, and McCain can hammer the point home.

McCain can say that Obama's refusal to join in supporting a moratorium on capital gains taxation increases shows his commitment to class warfare - and that big government exceeds any concern he might have for stock market stability or the value of 401Ks or retirement pension funds.

McCain has already scored mightily with his invocation of Joe the Plumber and, polls show, he won the third debate by using the issue of taxes and small businesses. By early this coming week, his advertising will have achieved sufficient levels of frequency to have an impact on the polling.

2. Bring back Rev. Jeremiah Wright. For reasons that are beyond me, John McCain has vowed not to make an issue out of Rev. Wright's extreme anti-American statements. But that should not stop independent expenditure and 527 groups from raising the issue.

A good advertisement would alternate footage of Wright saying "God damn America" and 9/11 was just the "chickens coming home to roost" with an announcer explaining the relationship between the two men. The narrator might remind voters that it was Rev. Wright who married Barack and Michelle Obama and that Obama himself sat in the pews at Wright's church for 20 years as sermons like these were being given. It should point out that Obama only distanced himself from Wright a month after his remarks scandalized all Americans and cost him his momentum in the polls.

McCain is likely fearful that the establishment media would condemn him for running the ads. Their very effectiveness would ensure that the liberal media would fall all over themselves to denounce the tactic. But independent groups who want to prevent a leftist takeover of the government should not let liberal organs dictate their campaign tactics or their message.

3. Warn voters of impending socialism in America. The recent bailout legislation puts the United States government inside the ownership, management and direction of many of our major companies and financial institutions. The bureaucrats have entered as firefighters, trying to extinguish the blazes that threaten to consume these companies. But once the flames are put out, will the firefighters go home or will they set up shop and give the United States a socialist economy akin to that of Western European nations? Will the bureaucrats relinquish the power they are being given in a time of crisis?

McCain needs to point out that bureaucrats never let go of power unless they have to. He should say that with an Obama Administration and a highly Democratic Congress, we could face a long and perhaps permanent period during which entrepreneurial, private-sector capitalism disappears and loan applicants must win government approval for their financing.

Many people have become concerned with the growing power of foreign sovereign wealth funds in major American businesses. Will these funds use their influence and power to alter the financial policies and lending practices of America's leading banks and investment houses? But now the danger comes not just from abroad but from government intervention at home. The sovereign wealth fund that might be most influential in distorting our private capitalist system is the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board.

Under conservative, pro-capitalist Republican management, we can, presumably, trust these institutions to exercise their power benignly and to turn control over to the private sector as soon as possible. We can count on their taking a hands-off policy toward the investment of the banks and financial firms in which they acquire an equity position. Except to control abuses like subprime mortgages and making marginal loans, we can expect that these federal institutions will act in our interest.

But if Obama's appointments take over the Treasury and the Fed, can we be as sure? McCain needs to point out that it was political meddling by liberals that led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage subprime mortgage loans in the first place. Were it not for the pressure in the Clinton Administration to expand home ownership to poor people and minorities, Freddie and Fannie would not have relaxed their down payment policies and would not have been willing to guarantee mortgages without proof that the borrowers had sufficient income to repay the debts.

McCain needs to point out that it is precisely this sort of liberal pressure which led to the disaster and to warn that the power the bailout legislation gives the next president is so potent that it could destroy our concept of a private economy.

If the Dow continues to terrify investors and distract voters from the election, it will continue to bolster Obama's candidacy and his lead. But if there is some stability in the final week before the election, there is every chance that voters will take another look at Obama and decide that he is too risky. By stressing the tax issue and the potential of an Obama regime to subvert our free enterprise system, McCain can harness the crisis and warn voters of the impact of a decision to elect the most radical candidate for president in our nation's history.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama’s Corruption from ACORN to Taxes

Obama's Lie on Taxes

During the first Debate:
JOHN MCCAIN: "But again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year."

BARACK OBAMA: "That's not true, John. That's not true."

Record

Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution That Would Raise Taxes On Those Making Just $42,000 A Year. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· In March 2008, Obama Hailed His Vote For The Budget As Making "Significant Progress In Getting Our Nation's Priorities Back On Track." Obama: "The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation's priorities back on track. ... We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Obama Statement On The Senate's Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget," Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 3/14/08)

FactCheck.org: Barack Obama Did Vote For Higher Taxes On People Making $42,000 Despite Saying The Opposite. "Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on 'people' making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers." ("FactChecking Debate No. 1," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 9/27/08)

· "Yes, As We’ve Said Before, Obama Did In Fact Vote For A Budget Resolution That Called For Higher Federal Income Tax Rates On A Single, Non-Homeowner Who Earned As Little As $42,000 Per Year." ("FactChecking Debate No. 1," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 9/27/08)

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:r2GD__EUSckJ:ncgop.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-fact-check-on-tax-increases.html+obama+voting+record+on+taxes+%2442,000+per+year.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Obama's Lie on ACORN

In third Debate Obama said:“The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department.”

Obama's Website: Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee. Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive[http://fightthesmears.com/articles/20/acornrumor] Barack ran in 1992.

Record

Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader wrote:

Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992...Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them)...

Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. [Actually, the congressional race was in 2000, SK] By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTNiN2YwMmQ4Njc2MzE4ZDUxYWVlYTA1NzZlMmY3YmM=

Obama's Lie on Same-Sex Marriage

Obama said:

-Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jsCGxB36hzEJ:www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html+obama+prop+8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Record

Obama record:

-Perhaps, it’s because in his first Illinois senate race, Obama is listed by a Chicago gay-lesbian publication as “supports same sex marriage”. Obama’s stand on same sex marriage was one reason he got the endorsement of Outlines, a Chicago-based gay paper that merged with the Windy City Times in 2000.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:_cYvgDcUsqYJ:deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/obama-same-sex-marriage-obama-supported-same-sex-marriage-as-ill-state-senator/+obama+I+will+tell+you+that+I+don%27t+believe+in+gay+marriage,+but+I+do+think+that+people&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

-"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts [Proposition 8] to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jsCGxB36hzEJ:www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html+obama+prop+8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Obama's Lie on Abortion

In the third debate Obama said:

-Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true.[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08101601.html]

Record

Obama in the Illinois Senate said:

-"I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

-Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."

-For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/10/the_obama_debat.html

Obama's biggest Lie on hailing himself as the champion of the the middle class

Record

Obama's Church Tenet: "Disavowal of the Pursuit of 'Middleclassness'”
-8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

- But the tenets of that church during Obama's attendance are well documented. They were on the church website earlier this year and served as the church's tenets for the entirety of the time Obama worshiped there. As they are part of the "Black Value System", they were as follows:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

http://thebigfeed.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-obama-really-thinks-of-middle.html

WHAT OBAMA REALLY THINKS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS: WHAT EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO KNOW
This is a repost.

Barack Obama is spending much of time hailing himself as the champion of the the middle class. He has made his promise of help for the middle class the center of his campaign. But how does he really feel about the middle class?

Truth be told, Barack Obama has spent much of his adult life worshiping in a church that had as one of its basic tenets the "disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness". What does that mean? Well, If I have to tell you what "middle class" means, please, spend your time at CNN.com. As for the term "disavowal"...It means (and this is solely for your benefit because I have a big brain and already know what it means) "to disclaim knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with". It should be clear to you now what Obama's church meant by "disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness".

Here is the point that I would normally direct you to Obama's church's website and let you view its basic tenets for yourself. Just so you can see that I'm not BSing you. Alas, that web page listing those tenets has been removed (The work of Obama's "truth squad"?). But the tenets of that church during Obama's attendance are well documented. They were on the church website earlier this year and served as the church's tenets for the entirety of the time Obama worshiped there. As they are part of the "Black Value System", they were as follows:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Number 8, the one at issue, is no longer one of the stated tenets of the church. It has been removed. But it did exist. Again, it served as one of the points of the church for the entire time Obama worshiped under Jerimiah Right, his spiritual mentor. Here's proof. And here's even better proof.

Now, if you take Obama's worship at a church that has as one of its basic points the "disavowal of the pursuit of 'middleclassness'", and you throw it in a pot with the thoughts of his communist mentor Frank Davis and his and his socialist associate Saul Alinsky, and then you add a dash of resentment and condescension for bitter, bible clinging, gun toting types, you really start to get a better picture of exactly what Obama thinks about the middle class. Which is, that he doesn't believe it should exist.

America! Here is a man who is running around the country telling anyone who will listen that HE is the one who is fighting for the middle class. Which, given the above, comes as quite a surprise. After all, he had 20 years to get point 8 removed from his own church's tenets. He did nothing. He had 20 years to tell his congregation that killing the middle class is not such a good idea. Instead, he showed up to church on Sundays and said nothing. And we're now supposed to believe he is our greatest defender? Wolf...sheep's clothing. Y'all know the story. Don't get eaten.

Same-Sex Marriage Obama's Letter Opposing Proposition 8

2008-10-31T23:10:00.000-07:00

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MN8J11I731.DTL

Obama's letter opposing same-sex marriage ban
The text of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco:

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Obama Taxes:$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $120,000 $42,000

2008-10-31T20:10:00.001-07:00

Obama Taxes:$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $120,000 $42,000

-Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/]

-Last week Biden identified the level as $150,000. This is interesting since both had no problem taxing folks who earned $42,000. So, what is the real amount going to be? Who exactly can expect a tax increase??

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1996353&referrerid=93883

$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $42,000

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

Which is it? Obama keeps talking about anyone whose income falls below a certain level will not see a tax rise, but the level keeps changing. First it was $250,000 and below, yesterday in his 30 minute commercial it was $200,000 (guess he thought no one would notice the extra $50,000), and last week Biden identified the level as $150,000. This is interesting since both had no problem taxing folks who earned $42,000. So, what is the real amount going to be? Who exactly can expect a tax increase??

Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/

How Low Can It Go? Richardson Pegs Middle Class as Those Making Under $120,000
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class.

FOXNews.com

Friday, 2008-31-305

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.
Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
Click here to listen to Richardson talk about Obama's tax plan.

"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.

There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase. Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview.

But Sarah Palin accused Obama of shifting the threshold Friday afternoon at a rally in York, Pa.

"So now we're down to less than half of the original income level," she said, citing Richardson's interview. "We can't let this happen."

And the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."

"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.

Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."

John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies

Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"

2008-10-31T20:01:00.000-07:00

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/

How Low Can It Go? Richardson Pegs Middle Class as Those Making Under $120,000
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class.

FOXNews.com

Friday, 2008-31-305

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.
Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
Click here to listen to Richardson talk about Obama's tax plan.

"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.

There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase. Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview.

But Sarah Palin accused Obama of shifting the threshold Friday afternoon at a rally in York, Pa.

"So now we're down to less than half of the original income level," she said, citing Richardson's interview. "We can't let this happen."

And the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."

"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.

Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."

John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies.

McCain Surges Among Young Voters

2008-10-31T19:50:00.001-07:00

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/morris_obama_mccain/2008/10/31/146501.html

McCain Surges Among Young Voters

Friday, October 31, 2008 5:23 PM

By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Article Font Size

A massive shift in younger and older voters is roiling the presidential race, according to new data from the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll concluded October 28-29. Younger voters — under 45 — once Barack Obama's base, now are evenly divided between the two candidates. But voters over 65 have shifted sharply to the Democrat in the past week.

Voters under 45 supported Obama by 52-38 in the Fox News poll of October 21-22. But this week's survey indicates that they now break evenly with 45% supporting Obama and 46% backing John McCain. On the other hand, voters 65 and over, who had backed Obama by 46-42 last week have now shifted decisively in his favor and he now leads McCain among seniors by 54-39. Middle aged voters — aged 45-64 — are largely unchanged in their views. Last week they backed Obama by 48-40 and this week they still support him by 48-43.

[Help the GOPTrust PAC Expose Obama And Rev. Wright In Key Swing States -- Watch The Ad That Will Run In Battleground States -- Go here now.]

Overall, the Fox News survey shows McCain narrowing Obama's lead from 49-40 (9 points) to 47-44 (3 points) over the past week.

The shift in the attitudes of young people may be directly related to the tax issue, brought home by a McCain advertisement featuring Joe the Plumber. Younger voters, trying to make their way in their careers, are more sensitive to changes in taxes than older people, many of whom has retired from the labor force. By attacking Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth around", the McCain camp seems to have struck a nerve among those who are entering the most productive years of their employment history.

On the other hand, seniors may be more comfortable with Obama than they have been previously and might be more accepting of his candidacy. Obama's attacks on McCain over Social Security, always a sensitive topic for the elderly may also be hitting home driving seniors into the Democratic column.

The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics survey was conducted on October 28-29 and surveyed 924 likely voters nationwide. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

2.9M Hispanic Voters get Anti-Obama Email from Hispanic Bishop (English Version)

2008-10-31T19:40:00.000-07:00

-A Catholic cannot say that he/she voted in this election in good conscience if he/she votes for a candidate in favor of abortion.

Barak Hussein Obama is a candidate in favor of abortion."

WASHINGTON, October 31 /Christian Newswire/ -- Randall Terry and William Greene are available to comment on this project and the recent drop in Catholic support for Obama.

Randall Terry says: "Bishop Gracida's radio ad is causing a massive uproar and major defection from Obama in the Catholic Community. This may be the first time in American history that an election is determined by Hispanics and a Catholic Bishop."

The letter was sent in Spanish. The following text and audio clip From Catholic Bishop Rene H. Gracida was sent this morning (Friday, October 31) to 2.9 Million Hispanic Voters via email.

Bishop Gracida's ad is running on radio and TV in swing states. Here is the English Translation of the Spanish text that was sent to 2.9 million Hispanic voters.

Dear Friends:

We only have days left before a critical election to elect a new president. In this moment, like no other moment in history, Hispanic votes will decide the future of the United States. That means that we have a great weight of responsibility.

During this election, there are many Catholics who have told the Catholic people that it is ok to vote for Obama for president.

That is simply not true. Unfortunately, it is a lie.

Please, read the words of a beloved Hispanic bishop, Bishop Rene H. Gracida, who has faithfully served the Hispanic Catholics of Florida and Texas.

"I am Bishop Rene A. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they need to vote in these elections with an informed conscience.

A Catholic cannot say that he/she voted in this election in good conscience if he/she votes for a candidate in favor of abortion.

Barak Hussein Obama is a candidate in favor of abortion."

This magnificent message of our dear Bishop is available as a radio ad that can be aired on Hispanic radio stations. Click here to listen to this ad. (Haga clic aquí para escuchar este anuncio.) If you are interested in spreading this message to other Hispanic voters and if you want to give us a donation so that other Catholics can listen to Bishop Gracida, please give what you can as soon as possible. Click here to contribute to our cause. (Haga clic aquí para contribuir a nuestra causa.)

When we enter the voting booth, we must not forget that Obama supports the killing of unborn babies even until the day they are to be born. This, in the eyes of God, is murder.

We must not help someone who has the intention of killing babies - especially Hispanic babies. It is a fact that Obama has used our tax dollars to place abortion clinics in Hispanic neighborhoods.

Remember that our loyalty to our Lord Jesus Christ is much more important than any political party.

It is your decision for whom you want to vote. There are many candidates that are against the culture of death, who support life and who love the United States and our people, but as Bishop Gracida said - We cannot vote for Obama with a clear conscience.

Again we ask you to give a gift if you can so that more people can listen to Bishop Gracida’s ad, and we also ask for your prayers for this cause in defense of life.

And we ask you to send this message to your friends and your family.

As Catholics, we understand that we owe everything to our God and our Mother, the Virgin of Guadalupe.

May God bless you and whatever happens, remember the words of Bishop Gracida when you enter the voting booth this Tuesday.

Sincerely,

Norma Nelly Vielma

Paid for by the RightMarch.com PAC. Not endorsed by any candidate or campaign committee. Contributions are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Christian Newswire

Obama Taxes:$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $120,000 $42,000

2008-10-31T10:21:00.000-07:00

-Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/]

-Last week Biden identified the level as $150,000. This is interesting since both had no problem taxing folks who earned $42,000. So, what is the real amount going to be? Who exactly can expect a tax increase??

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1996353&referrerid=93883

$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $42,000

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

Which is it? Obama keeps talking about anyone whose income falls below a certain level will not see a tax rise, but the level keeps changing. First it was $250,000 and below, yesterday in his 30 minute commercial it was $200,000 (guess he thought no one would notice the extra $50,000), and last week Biden identified the level as $150,000. This is interesting since both had no problem taxing folks who earned $42,000. So, what is the real amount going to be? Who exactly can expect a tax increase??

Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/

How Low Can It Go? Richardson Pegs Middle Class as Those Making Under $120,000
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class.

FOXNews.com

Friday, 2008-31-305

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.
Gov. Richardson:"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the Middle Class"
Click here to listen to Richardson talk about Obama's tax plan.

"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.

There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase. Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview.

But Sarah Palin accused Obama of shifting the threshold Friday afternoon at a rally in York, Pa.

"So now we're down to less than half of the original income level," she said, citing Richardson's interview. "We can't let this happen."

And the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."

"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.

Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."

John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies

Obama Purge:SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE

2008-10-31T10:07:00.000-07:00

http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/the-big-purge-skeptical-reporters-tossed-off-obama-plane/

THE BIG PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
October 31, 2008 — budsimmons

PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET

NY POST, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, WASHINGTON TIMES TOLD TO GET OUT… ALL 3 ENDORSED MCCAIN

**Exclusive**

The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states — and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!

The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs — and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters — and possibly others — will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama’s historic campaign to become the first black American president.

MORE

Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES’ Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain’s Straight Talk Express airplane.

After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.

Developing…

Why does Obama Lie, and Lie, and Lie...

2008-10-31T09:56:00.000-07:00

Obama’s Jekyll Rhetoric and Hyde Record from ACORN to Taxes

Obama: Jekyll's Rhetoric and Hyde's Record on Raising Taxes

Rhetoric

During the first Debate:
JOHN MCCAIN: "But again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year."

BARACK OBAMA: "That's not true, John. That's not true."

Record

Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution That Would Raise Taxes On Those Making Just $42,000 A Year. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· In March 2008, Obama Hailed His Vote For The Budget As Making "Significant Progress In Getting Our Nation's Priorities Back On Track." Obama: "The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation's priorities back on track. ... We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Obama Statement On The Senate's Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget," Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 3/14/08)

Even Obama's FactCheck.org: Barack Obama Did Vote For Higher Taxes On People Making $42,000 Despite Saying The Opposite. "Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on 'people' making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers." ("FactChecking Debate No. 1," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 9/27/08)

· "Yes, As We’ve Said Before, Obama Did In Fact Vote For A Budget Resolution That Called For Higher Federal Income Tax Rates On A Single, Non-Homeowner Who Earned As Little As $42,000 Per Year." ("FactChecking Debate No. 1," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 9/27/08)

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:r2GD__EUSckJ:ncgop.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-fact-check-on-tax-increases.html+obama+voting+record+on+taxes+%2442,000+per+year.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Obama: Jekyll's Rhetoric and Hyde's Record on ACORN

Rhetoric

In third Debate Obama said:“The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department.”

Obama's Website: Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee. Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive[http://fightthesmears.com/articles/20/acornrumor] Barack ran in 1992.

Record

Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader wrote:

Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992...Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them)...

Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. [Actually, the congressional race was in 2000, SK] By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTNiN2YwMmQ4Njc2MzE4ZDUxYWVlYTA1NzZlMmY3YmM=

Obama: Jekyll's Rhetoric and Hyde's Record on Same-Sex Marriage

Rhetoric

Obama said:

-Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jsCGxB36hzEJ:www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html+obama+prop+8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Record

Obama record:

-Perhaps, it’s because in his first Illinois senate race, Obama is listed by a Chicago gay-lesbian publication as “supports same sex marriage”. Obama’s stand on same sex marriage was one reason he got the endorsement of Outlines, a Chicago-based gay paper that merged with the Windy City Times in 2000.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:_cYvgDcUsqYJ:deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/obama-same-sex-marriage-obama-supported-same-sex-marriage-as-ill-state-senator/+obama+I+will+tell+you+that+I+don%27t+believe+in+gay+marriage,+but+I+do+think+that+people&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

-"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts [Proposition 8] to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:jsCGxB36hzEJ:www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html+obama+prop+8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Obama: Jekyll's Rhetoric and Hyde's Record on Abortion

Rhetoric

In the third debate Obama said:

-Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true.[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08101601.html]

Record

Obama in the Illinois Senate said:

-"I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

-Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."

-For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.
[http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/10/the_obama_debat.html]

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Government/America'sHitler.htm

What is Narcissism?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) describes narcissism as a personality disorder that “revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements and will accept, and often demand, praise and admiration despite worthy achievements.”

The third and fourth editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of 1980 and 1994 and the European ICD-10 describe NPD in similar language:

An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:

Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
Is firmly convinced that he is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special, unique, or high-status people (or institutions)
Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, or failing that, wishes to be feared and notorious (narcissistic supply)
Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his expectations
Is “interpersonally exploitative” i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends
Is devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others
Is constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her
Is arrogant, has haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted

Obama inebriated with the fantasy of unlimited success.

Pathological narcissism, is not akin to typical narcissism—someone with a hedonistic or self-centered sense of self —but rather someone with a very weak sense of self. Obama’s narcissism is pathological.

Narcissists seek power. That is the whole purpose of their existence. Power for them is the elixir of life. Those who know about NPD can’t help but notice it in Obama’s posture, the tone of his voice, his demeanor and particularly his grandiose claims and unscripted adlibs.

Narcissim has degrees. When it is extreme it shows in the posture and the way the narcissist walks and talks. Obama's posture, exudes haughtiness. He is all puffery. Compare his posture to those of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam.

According to Vaknin, Obama displays the following behaviors, which are among the hallmarks of pathological narcissism:

- Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and "ideals" (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, refuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy.

- Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking. Obama already sees himself as president because he is firmly convinced that his dreams, thoughts, and wishes affect reality. Additionally, he denies the gap between his fantasies and his modest or limited real-life achievements (for instance, in 12 years of academic career, he didn't publish a single scholarly paper or book).

- Feels that he is above the law.

- Talks about himself in the 3rd person singluar or uses the regal "we" and craves to be the exclusive center of attention, even adulation

- Has a messianic-cosmic vision of himself and his life and his "mission".

- Sets ever more complex rules in a convoluted world of grandiose fantasies with its own language (jargon)

- Displays false modesty and unctuous "folksiness" but is unable to sustain these behaviors (the persona, or mask) for long. It slips and the true Obama is revealed: haughty, aloof, distant, and disdainful of simple folk and their lives.

- Sublimates aggression and holds grudges.

- Behaves as an eternal adolescent (e.g., his choice of language, youthful image he projects, demands indulgence and feels entitled to special treatment, even though his objective accomplishments do not justify it).

Obama sublimates aggression. Can he be trusted as the leader of the free world?

Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers’ souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it it too late.

One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. “Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,” says Vaknin. “Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia: a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.”

In Vaknin’s words, “Pathological narcissism is a reaction to prolonged abuse and trauma in early childhood or early adolescence. The source of the abuse or trauma is immaterial: the perpetrators could be dysfunctional or absent parents, teachers, other adults, or peers.”

The pathological narcissist has a very weak sense of self. He compensates his devalued and injured self with pomposity and by projecting a false image of majesty and authority. He retreats into a bubble universe of fantasy, in which he is loved, respected and omnipotent. All children create such a world. Narcissists simply don’t leave it. They carry this world of pretence into their adulthood. With the passage of time, this world becomes to them as real as the real world, to the point that they can’t tell the difference. When Obama acts presidential, he is simply acting out his childhood fantasy of omnipotence and grandeur. Emotionally, he is still a little hurt boy, neglected and unloved in the body and mind of a grown up man. Such people can be dangerous. Narcissists have the emotional maturity of a child, or even an animal, but the intellect of a man. They feel like a beast, but think like a human.

If we look into the childhood of all narcissists, we can see that invariably they were abused. Saddam was born to a widow who after losing her husband and her 12 year old son was so distressed that she attempted suicide. Before his birth, she would pull out clumps of her hair and pummel her pregnant abdomen with her fists. Saddam Hussein in his own official biography recounts his unhappy childhood. Hitler was the son of a very abusive man who would beat him regularly. From Saddam to Osama, to Hitler, to Stalin, to Khomeini, to Mao and to Kim Jong Ill, it is wounded childhood that causes NPD. Obama’s chaotic childhood and his continuous struggle to find his identity make him a prime candidate for NPD.

Hitler was confused about his identity. His father was an illegitimate son of a Jew. He chose to be in denial of that part of himself and his response was the genocide of the Jews. Obama’s search for his identity led him to a racist church that preached “Black Power.” He changed his given name Barry to Barack, in an atempt to rid himself of the only vestige he had with his white heritage.

Narcissists have only one issue. They want power and will do and say anything to get it. Their words mean nothing to them. They do not intend to keep them. They look into your eyes and swear on a stack of Bibles that they are not going to do something when that is exactly what they intend to do. They break their promises when it suits them and annul their treaties when they can get away with it. They lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie.

Narcissists are pathological liars. They lie even to themselves. Ironically, they are the first to believe their own lies. When normal people lie, they show signs of distress. Narcissists don’t. They can pass any polygraph test with flying colors. It is this conviction that fools people around them making them believe in their truthfulness and sincerity. In a twisted way they are sincere because, although they are conscience that they are not truthful, they believe in their own lies. This is difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain, but for a narcissist fantasy and reality are intertwined. The narcissist’s delusional thoughts of grandiosity are real to him.

Obama’s Incredible Shrinking Tax Cut Down to $150,000 Incomes

2008-10-31T09:45:00.000-07:00

http://www.douchebagreport.com/archives/748

Most politicians wait until after the election to change their campaign promises. But Barack Obama is a new kind of politician, so he’s taking a new tact.

Remember when Obama promised to cut taxes for people making $250,000 or less?

So do we. Or at least, we thought we did. Apparently, though, Obama has been saying he won’t raise taxes on people making $250,000 or less. The tax cut is for people making $200,000 or less.

Or is it. Joe Biden, who is famous for his “gaffes”…AKA “accidentally telling the truth”, now indicates that the cut off is now for those making $150,000 or less.

With one week left before the election, how low can Joe Douchebag go? Enough to be honest? Check back soon to find out.

Written by Tristan · Filed Under Politics

Biden lowers standard of “rich” to those earning $150,000 a year

2008-10-31T09:36:00.001-07:00

http://freevoiceonline.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/biden-lowers-standard-of-rich-to-those-earning-150000-a-year/

Biden lowers standard of “rich” to those earning $150,000 a year
October 29, 2008, 2:51 pm
Filed under: Democrats, Economy, McCain, Media Bias, Obama, Republicans, Sarah Palin | Tags: Taxes, rich, Joe Biden
All through the campaign the Obama-Biden campaign had a standard definition of “rich” as those who earn $250,000 a year saying only those who earned that amount (or more) would be the ones getting tax raises.

Apparently now the Obama-Biden campaign is now lowering their standard definition of rich to those earning $150,000 a year. — Until now, this was considered middle class by Obama.

Could this be a sign that Obama will in fact raise taxes on, not only the rich, but also the middle class as well as the poor?

Obama's Redistribution Tax Plan Shifting Down to Middle Class

2008-10-31T09:25:00.000-07:00

http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-redistribution-plan-taxing.html

Obama's Redistribution Plan a Taxing Fantasy
Donald Lambro,
Friday, October 31, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Joseph Biden recently blew the whistle on Barack Obama's specious claims that he would cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans by raising them for people earning more than $250,000.

The Obama's gaffe-prone running mate, who has become the loose cannon of his campaign, said in an unscripted interview with a TV station in Scranton that the real soak-the-rich tax threshold in Obama's plan would start with incomes at $150,000.
Biden later tried to revise his remarks by saying that anyone earning between $150,000 and $250,000 wouldn't get a tax cut but their tax rates wouldn't rise, either. Sure. Or as Sarah Palin would say with a wink and a nod, "You betcha."

But Obama's draconian income-tax rate on the top 5 percent of income earners would not produce nearly enough federal revenue to pay for his so-called "tax cuts" for 95 percent of the nation's taxpayers and the rest of his social-welfare spending.

"Those 5 percent don't make enough money, or at least they won't after they find ways to shelter more of their income when their tax rates rise," the Wall Street Journal editorialized Wednesday.

Biden was revealing what has long been suspected among economic analysts who have crunched the numbers on his income transfer tax plan. Obama's tax-the-rich plan to send checks to the 47 million lower-income tax filers who pay no income taxes belies his specious 95 percent claim, since he does not cut their income tax rates.

Biden's uncontrolled bout of candor pokes one more hole in Obama's tax plan to expand the number of working Americans who pay no income taxes to nearly 50 million. Indeed, his campaign Web site boasts that his income-redistribution plan would wipe another 10 million people off the tax rolls.

It also exposed one more claim in a long line of falsehoods the Obama campaign has told about his shifting tax scheme. An Obama TV ad running in battleground states says, for example, that his plan has won support from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, when nothing could be further from the truth.

On the contrary, a recent analysis by the foundation's Center for Data Analysis concludes that John McCain's economic recovery plan would stimulate more economic growth than the Obama plan. Among its chief findings:

-- Job growth over 10 years is more than twice as high under McCain's tax plan than Obama's.

-- Total employment grows an average of 915,800 jobs under Obama, and by 2.13 million under McCain.

-- Economic growth, as measured by the country's gross domestic product, would be "nearly three times higher than under Obama."

-- A typical family of four "would see an average of $5,138 more in disposable income under McCain plans compared with $3,631 more under Obama's."

A strategic weakness in Obama's income-redistribution plan stems from his decision to give low- to middle-income taxpayers a refundable tax credit, instead of cutting their tax rates, said Heritage analyst William Beach, who led the study.

"Because Sen. Obama relies largely on tax credits to achieve his redistribution, his plan does not find a large economic benefit from lower tax rates, nor a more efficient tax structure," Beach wrote.

"This lower economic performance stems in large part from the modest decreases in marginal tax rates on taxpayers earning less than $250,000 and increases in those rates above that level," he said.

Obama has sold his plan as something it is not: a plan that will grow the economy when, in fact, it would grow the government at the economy's expense.

At the core of his plan is the belief that renewed growth depends first and foremost on income transfers to low- and middle-income people and a mountain of "infrastructure" spending on roads, bridges and other public-works projects, and grants to state governments to spend as they please.

McCain's plan is rooted in the belief that economic growth, job creation and higher incomes can only be fueled by lower tax rates to stimulate business expansion, entrepreneurial risk-taking and capital investment that will grow the economy, not the government.

Even Democrats, some of whom are now advising Obama, have raised questions about his pump-priming infrastructure spending and his rigid opposition to McCain's proposal to cut the 35 percent corporate income tax.

"It's going to be very hard to compete for jobs if we keep high corporate tax rates," David Rothkopf, a trade official in the Clinton administration, told the Washington Post last week.

Notably, two other economists in Clinton's administration wrote earlier this year that spending on infrastructure, as Obama proposes, is among the "less effective options" to combat looming recessions because the money usually trickles down into the economy when it is too late to do any good.

The authors of that study: Douglas W. Elmendorf, now an adviser to House Democrats, and Jason Furman, who is Obama's chief economic adviser.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Obama Tax Inceases:"Spreading the Wealth Around" to Non-Taxpayers

2008-10-31T09:08:00.000-07:00

-Mr. Wurzelbacher's fears are well founded.

-Mr. Obama was unable to name a single significant program he would scale back when asked by debate moderate Bob Schieffer to do so.

Mr. Obama will have to come up with the money to pay for some trillion dollars in new spending in his first term.

-"Tax cut" but which will really be a check from those who do pay taxes to low-income Americans who already don't pay any federal income taxes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/20/spreading-the-wealth-around/

COMMENTARY:

"When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Barack Obama explained to Joe Wurzelbacher in Ohio earlier this week. But Joe the Plumber, as he has become known thanks to Wednesday night's presidential debate where his name was invoked no fewer than a half dozen times by both candidates, isn't buying it. And Mr. Wurzelbacher is right to be skeptical.

In an interview with CBS' Katie Couric after the debate, Mr. Wurzelbacher said he was worried Mr. Obama would be the one deciding who was wealthy and, therefore, should be taxed more. Mr. Obama says only those earning more than $250,000 will see their taxes go up. But Mr. Wurzelbacher worries, "When's he going to decide that $100,000 is too much, you know? I mean, you're on a slippery slope here."

Mr. Wurzelbacher's fears are well founded. Mr. Obama was unable to name a single significant program he would scale back when asked by debate moderate Bob Schieffer to do so. Mr. Obama will have to come up with the money to pay for some trillion dollars in new spending in his first term - including what he calls a "tax cut" but which will really be a check from those who do pay taxes to low-income Americans who already don't pay any federal income taxes.

The wealthy already pay a hugely disproportionate share of all federal income taxes. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation using the latest Internal Revenue Service figures (for 2006), taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $153,542 and above made up the nation's top 5 percent of earners. But this top 5 percent paid nearly 60 percent of all the income taxes collected in 2006, while earning about 37 percent of AGI. For all the talk of middle-income earners paying most of the taxes, the facts suggest otherwise. Those in the 26 to 50 percentiles of AGI pay about 11 percent of taxes and earn 19 percent of income.

So when Barack Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth around," he's really talking about redistributing wealth through the tax system by forcing higher income earners not only to pay a disproportionate share of taxes but to fund cash transfers to those earning less. Mr. Obama's proposed tax plan includes provisions for what he calls refundable "tax credits" for low-income Americans, many of whom don't pay any federal income taxes. In other words, those who already pay no taxes would be sent a government check equal to the "credits" in Mr. Obama's plan, including 6.2 percent of income of those earning up to $8,100 and a refundable "credit" of 10 percent of mortgage interest paid by those who don't itemize.

Obviously some people think this is "fair." Mr. Obama told John McCain in the debate on Wednesday, "Well, I don't mind paying a little more." But Joe the Plumber might not feel quite the same way. As a small businessman, Mr. Wurzelbacher will likely take those earnings to invest in a bigger company - that's what he told Mr. Obama he wanted to do when he asked his original question on the campaign trail.

By growing his business, Mr. Wurzelbacher creates wealth. By "redistributing wealth," as Mr. Obama wants the government to do, he is actually reducing overall wealth in the economy by taking away capital from those who can invest it efficiently in direct job creation. And the real irony is that if Mr. Obama is elected and succeeds in raising taxes on the top 5 percent, he is likely to collect less tax, not more, if history is a guide.

Mr. Obama says he wants to return roughly to the tax system in place during the Clinton years. But in 1994 (after Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate in what was the largest tax increase in history), the top 5 percent of earners paid only 48 percent of all taxes, not today's 60 percent. Even after the boom years of the late 1990s, the wealthiest 5 percent were shouldering less of the tax burden than today's wealthy, about 55 percent. And the total revenues collected from them were less than today as well.

One of the great successes of America has been the realization of people like Joe the Plumber that one day they, too, could be "rich" if they worked hard, invested and grew their own businesses. Now Mr. Obama and the Democrats want to replace that American Dream with a fantasy that wealth is static and must be redistributed to ensure fairness. If Mr. Obama's plan becomes reality, it could well turn into an economic nightmare by punishing the most productive in order to reward the least productive in our society.

Spreading the wealth doesn't sound all that different from Karl Marx's famous dictum: From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist.

McCain Shredding "Spreading the Wealth Around" Obama's Lead

2008-10-31T09:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/polls_mccain_obama/2008/10/31/146232.html
McCain Shredding Obama's Lead

Friday, October 31, 2008 8:04 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

Iraq isn't the only place where the surge seems to be working. John McCain's gains over the last five days are remaking the political landscape as Election Day approaches.

The double-digit leads Barack Obama held last week have evaporated, as all three of the top tracking polls (the most current and reliable measurements out there) show McCain hot on Obama's heels.

Zogby had Obama ahead by 12 points last week — now it's down to 4. His margin in the Rasmussen poll has dropped from 8 points to 3 in the last few days. Gallup shows only a 2-point difference.

In each news cycle, Obama is on the defensive — staving off accusations of closet socialism and trying to wriggle out of his once overt advocacy of income redistribution. "Spreading the wealth around" has become the anti-Obama slogan and might become the epitaph for his candidacy, just as "brainwashed" was for George Romney and "Where's the beef?" was for Gary Hart.

Then, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's image is returning to haunt Obama. Yes, McCain refused to use the issue in his own campaign, but independent groups like goptrust.com are using funds from tens of thousands of individual donors to run ads featuring Wright and his relationship with Obama.

Just yesterday, a tape surfaced in which Obama described the Rev. Wright as "the best the black church has to offer."

The double dose of Obama's support for spreading the wealth around and his affiliation with the toxic Rev. Wright are eroding his once-formidable lead.

If the stock market doesn't send us all into shock again, the election could be very close with the undecided vote looming large. The key question is, About whom are they undecided?

At the height of the financial crisis, voters couldn't decide if McCain was really a maverick or just a Bush clone. But the spotlight has shifted: It's no longer McCain who is caught in its glare, but Obama.

As the Democrat moved convincingly ahead last week, voters began to seriously consider what kind of president he'd be. Bush and McCain seemed increasingly irrelevant as people pondered whether they really want to trust Obama with this kind of power.

By this point, the nature of the undecided vote has likely shifted from people who are torn between wanting change and worrying about Obama, to people who have basically decided not to back Barack but haven't sufficiently collected their thoughts to come out for McCain.

Then there's the so-called Bradley effect, where white voters lie to pollsters and say they are backing the black candidate when they're not.

To date, it's been a myth: As The Wall Street Journal reported, Tom Bradley had lost his lead in the polls by the time California voted on his bid to become governor. But it may be real this year.

Undecided voters may be reluctant to say they're not voting for Obama. They may be concealing their real intentions by saying they're undecided. (They might even not have come to grips with their intentions themselves.)

High turnout may also be a wild card. On the surface, it seems sure to bolster Obama's chances as large numbers of poorer, less educated, younger, and minority voters turn out to vote for the first time.

But the swelling turnout may have gone beyond this social outreach. And, as it does, it can help McCain. After all, white voters back McCain by double digits. If the contest inspires them all to vote, Obama will lose.

So we approach Election Day with the possibility of a rerun of 2000 plainly before us.

McCain has closed to a point where the race will likely be very, very close — and we'll have to stay up very, very late on election night.

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

OBAMA'S POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

2008-10-31T08:54:00.000-07:00

A POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS !

Approximately 230 years ago the Revolutionary War began. When it ended, the United States of America was born. Liberty was proclaimed and laws were enacted under The Constitution of the United States. Today, that Constitutional liberty is sorely threatened because one aspirant for the office of President of the United States, Senator Barack Obama, remains silent while being challlenged, through an increasing number of lawsuits in various states, to confirm that he is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States of America and eligible to seek the office of President. He has stone-walled all efforts to authenticate his proof of citizenship.

If any readers of this letter are unaware of this legal crisis it is because the major media outlets make no mention of possible legal restrictions which could bar the Senator from seeking this office. In fact, on Oct.25, I wrote to Bill O'Reilly of Fox News in New York about the media silence ( incl.Fox) and, with tongue in cheek, asked if we would only be made aware of the lawsuits after judges had ruled on them.

Ironically, a few days before, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by the former Ass't Attorney General of Philadelphia, Pa., Mr.Philip Berg, by declaring that Mr.Berg did not prove that he would suffer harm to himself if Senator Obama was declared eligible to run for President. The next day, Newsday,Long Island,New York's major newspaper, mentioned this case for the first time by simply mentioning the Dismissal of the lawsuit. Mr. Berg is now taking this issue directly and immediately to the U.S.Supreme Court. I wonder if a class-action suit is in the works.

The most compelling issue in this case was the request for a valid copy of Senator Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate (not the differing "Cert.of Live Birth"), since claims were made that he was actually born in Mombasa,Kenya. Ominously, the Government of Kenya recently said that they will not release any documents pertaining to the Senator until the U.S. elections are over. Mr.Berg, in his lawsuit, also requested that a "certificate of USA citizenship" be produced, since Senator Obama was believed to have been a citizen of Indonesia for some time, under the name of Barry Soetoro.

Consider-a simple request to produce two valid documents, which Mr.Berg stated in his lawsuit would be sufficient for withdrawing the lawsuit. Now, three months later, the Senator still refuses to provide these documents for examination by Federal or State authorities....or anyone else ! Would an average citizen act in such a manner ? For that matter, should anyone seeking the highest office in the Land act this way ? On the contrary, and, in fact, I know of eight instances where average citizens have now instituted lawsuits to force their respective States to insist that Senator Obama either provide a valid birth certificate or see his name removed from the election ballots of those States.

I would also like to mention an "above average" citizen, Senator John McCain, who has served his Country bravely and faithfully since he was seventeen years of age. His valid citizenship, since he was born in the Canal Zone, has been confirmed by the U.S.Senate. He could, and would immediately produce a certified copy of his birth certificate, if requested. The only time that he couldn't comply with such a request was the five and one-half years he was "tied up" in Vietnam on Government business. In contrast, Senator Obama could easily obtain any existing valid birth certificate within forty-eight hours from Hawaiian authorities. Fast forward-eight lawsuits and one petition to the Supreme Court later and he still won't answer the three-am phonecall !

WHO IS THIS MAN ?

The more we seek to learn about Senator Obama, the more concerned about him we become. Asking for transparency, we are repaid with more secrecy. Here are some of the records which, it has been reported, he refuses to release:
Occidental College records Columbia College records
Harvard College records Selective Service Registration
Medical records Illinois State Senate records
Cert.copy of Original Birth Certificate Embossed signed paper Cert.of Live Birth

With all this secrecy, he expects us to accept his birth record as legitimate, solely on his word ! I've gone that route before but it was for Someone born in a manger over 2,000 years ago, in a little town called Bethlehem.

ARE MY WRITTEN INTENTIONS WORTHY ?

As I've said in previous letters, I am morally driven, not racially, to engage in this issue. All humanity is entitled to a "redress of grievances." Sadly, however, on the issue of life those in the womb are being excluded from this "right" by many, and a President Obama would swell the casualty list enormously ! He said that, as President, he would allow abortions to be performed throughtout the entire nine months of a pregnancy and would even take this position to the ultimate end: if any child survived an abortion attempt and lived to exit it's mother's womb the Obama Party would allow the child to die, if the mother so wished !

We keep hearing the "antiseptic" phrase "fewer and safer abortions", while closing in on 50,000,000 (that's millions). I have two questions: First, how can permitting more abortions result in fewer abortions. Am I doing the math wrong. Secondly, a "safe" abortion, to be honest, means only one person will exit the hospital alive. Why not re-term it a "half-safe" abortion ? For that matter, drawing from the world of credit cards I would offer an added definition of abortion-IDENTITY THEFT !

To my fellow Catholics, and all others who honestly believe their genuine concerns about financial conditions, war, the environment, etc. equate with abortion I offer a simple reflection for them. Imagine Senator Obama,(who has promised to make abortion the "Law of the Land", from shore to shore), at a rally and being asked by one of his many cheering fans to describe what actually happens to a child during an abortion "procedure". I guarantee that if he dared to answer the request truthfully, the cheers he had been hearing would become tears and sobs would soon echo throughout an empty stadium.

In conclusion, may I point out that, as with my recent letters, I did not speak of issues such as taxes, health insurance,etc., because I was not stepping into the political arena. Senator Obama, however, plunged into the arena of morality and his defenseless targets, the unborn, need our voices before their's are silenced forever.
I am not voting for a political party but for someone who will insure that the unborn's date of birth doesn't immediately become their date of death ! I pray that all those receiving this letter join with me on Nov.4 "pulling" for life-literally.
"Before I formed thee in the womb of thy mother, I knew thee." (Jeremias 1:5)

With prayerful hope and trust,
Robert Quinn
69-11 67th Place,Glendale,
New York 11385
tel:718-497-6464

PS;Mr.Philip Berg has steadfastly, at his own expense, pursued this lawsuit right up to the U.S.Supreme Court. If anyone would like to help him financially he would be most appreciative. His address is:
Philip J.Berg,Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill,Pa. 19444-2531
Tel:610-825-3134
E-Mail:philjberg@gmail.com

President Obama of the U.S.S.A., the United Socialist States of America

2008-10-31T08:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/26/a-socialist-america/
Sunday, October 26, 2008
KUHNER: A socialist America?
Jeffery T. Kuhner
COMMENTARY:

The mainstream media have downplayed the profound significance that an Obama presidency will have in combination with a Democratic congressional supermajority - the transformation of our country into a socialist state.

The U.S.A. will become the U.S.S.A., the United Socialist States of America. Capitalism, self-reliance, limited government, personal responsibility, Christian moral standards - all the key traditions that built modern America - will be swept away in a liberal tidal wave.

According to current polls, Sen. Barack Obama is poised to win the White House on Nov. 4. Democrats are also expected to increase their majorities in Congress. In fact, some polls indicate they can attain a filibuster-proof Senate of 60 seats. This will enable Democrats to pass almost any legislation without fear of Republicans blocking it. Democrats will control every branch of government.

The results will be not only "change," but a historic political shift to the left - one that will permanently alter America for the worse.

On taking office, Mr. Obama will focus immediately on passing universal health care. His plan calls for a national public insurance program modeled on Medicare, except it will be available to everyone. Most analysts predict it will shift nearly 50 million Americans from private coverage to government-run care and create a massive, new entitlement - the largest expansion of government since the Great Society.

Eventually, the program will evolve into what Mr. Obama says he truly wants: a Canadian-style, single-payer system, in which health care is nationalized. Socialized medicine will do in America what it has done in Western Europe and Canada: push politics permanently to the left. The program's vast size and immense cost will lead to rising taxes and the rationing of services. Moreover, once such a radical, complicated monstrosity is in place, it is almost impossible to dismantle it - no matter how poorly it performs (just look at Canada and Britain, where there are long waiting lines, substandard technology and poor treatment yet reform is consistently opposed by entrenched interests).

National health care will be the final piece in establishing a cradle-to-grave, liberal welfare state. America's social programs will resemble those of statist Europe; we will also resemble the Continent's anemic growth rates, lower productivity and higher unemployment. America's culture of entrepreneurialism and technological dynamism will degenerate into one characterized by economic dependency and social stagnation.

Mr. Obama will ram through Congress increases in the top rates for income taxes, capital gains and dividends. More ominously, he vows to lift or eliminate the cap on payroll taxes, which funds Social Security and Medicare. Hence, a tax designed to maintain a pension insurance system will be used for the redistribution of wealth. Democrats' class-warfare, soak-the-rich policies will deepen the economic downturn, kill job creation and discourage corporate investment. These policies will permanently expand the federal government's tax share of gross domestic product: Big government will become super-size government.

Led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats are likely to pass a series of laws cementing their control of Congress for years to come. Their goal: to tilt the electoral playing field decisively in their favor. They will surely finally pass amnesty for the 20 million illegal immigrants in America. This will transform the Hispanic voting bloc into a key - and loyal - segment of the Democrats' coalition, and help to forge a new Democratic majority. Felons, too, will be given the right to vote. And the District of Columbia will be granted congressional representation - meaning more Democratic seats.

Also, Democrats hope to muzzle conservative talk radio. Liberals in Congress or an Obama Federal Communications Commission will attempt to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine - the pernicious notion that the public airwaves must have an "equal" and "fair" distribution of conservative and liberal views. The intent is to force radio owners to air unpopular liberal talk-show hosts, as well as empower the FCC to harass stations with potential lawsuits over allegedly "excessive" conservative content. Air America dismally failed in the marketplace of ideas. The progressive movement, however, plans to use state power to compel ideological conformity.

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid unholy alliance will complete the revolutionary project of the 1960s: a society stripped from its traditional Christian moorings. Mr. Obama has made no secret of his support for abortion rights. He is a radical, an extremist, on the issue. He opposes the ban on partial-birth abortion. As an Illinois state legislator, he even voted against a law to preserve an infant's life if an abortion is botched.

Finally, his administration will consolidate a liberal Supreme Court and thus advance the leftist social agenda of abortion on demand, gay rights, the decriminalization of prostitution, the legalization of marijuana and euthanasia. The culture of death will triumph. Democrats will finally attain the twin goals of liberalism: economic collectivism and moral anarchy.

President Obama:"Persecution" and "Suffering" is Fate of Christians

2008-10-31T08:47:00.001-07:00

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79411

Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate

By David Kupelian

October 29, 2008

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." – Abraham Lincoln

As Election Day rapidly approaches, many Americans are wondering why so many of their countrymen reject a genuine war hero with decades of experience, one whose pro-life, limited-government values pretty much reflect those of Middle America. Instead, these same countrymen are enthralled with a man who not only has no experience or qualifications for the job, but who is, in fact, the most radically left-wing major-party presidential candidate of our lifetime, having been mentored and supported for decades by terrorists (Ayers), communists (Davis), America-hating racists (Wright) and criminals (Rezko).

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

After all, in past presidential contests, Americans have flatly rejected ultraliberal candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis – and those guys weren't nearly as radicalized as Obama, who the nonpartisan National Journal rates as having the most left-wing voting record in the entire U.S. Senate – even more so than socialist Bernie Sanders! Moreover, recently it's been proven, despite his campaign's denials, that Obama was indeed a member of the socialist "New Party." And Obama himself confesses that during his college days he intentionally sought out Marxists as friends.

So, how do we explain all this? Why are so many of us eager to turn our nation, the greatest and noblest on earth, over to an angry-at-America, hardcore left-wing "change agent" who will – with the help of a like-minded, Democrat-dominated Congress and a liberal-activist federal judiciary – bring about radical "change" to every area of our lives? Just consider:

* Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history, having announced publicly: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This would remove all restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws, making America the abortion capital of the world. Of course, you know what kind of Supreme Court justices he would nominate, which as I have pointed out previously would end all hope of overturning Roe v. Wade in our lifetimes.

* He's hands-down the most pro-homosexual candidate in history, promising to back virtually the entire radical "gay rights" agenda, including the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, essentially throwing open the door to gay marriage in all 50 states. And, as he proclaims in his "open letter to the LGBT community": "I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." That will allow and encourage overt homosexuality throughout the armed forces, something military experts have long maintained will destroy the very fabric of America's armed services.

* Sounds bad for Judeo-Christian values, you say? Dr. James Dobson's influential Focus on the Family organization analyzed issue after issue and predicts – are you ready for this? – "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" as the fate of Christians if Obama becomes president.

Obama "would be the most anti-gun president in American history," warns the National Rifle Association, which points out that he has supported a complete ban on handguns, voted to ban most rifle ammunition, and supported increasing the tax on guns by 500 percent.

* Obama would devastate an already deeply troubled U.S. economy. Jacking up taxes, as he promises to do, during the worst financial crisis and credit meltdown since the Great Depression is breathtakingly foolish. No wonder three out of four CEOs of American companies say Obama would be a disaster. Apparently Obama, who constantly badmouths "CEOs" and "corporations," doesn't realize it is these very companies that create over 120 million of America's 140 million jobs (the rest being created by government).

* In order to throttle the troublesome talk radio truth-tellers who caused him so much trouble during the election season, and to reward his cheerleaders in the elite press, Obama will attempt to muzzle conservative talk radio by resurrecting the horrendous "Fairness Doctrine."

* Obama alone will be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory in Iraq. He is so weak, inexperienced and narcissistic, he will reflexively appease our nation's enemies and thereby encourage the growth of evil the world over. Millions will suffer as a direct result.

Then there's the issue of Obama's truly disturbing past. It seems that no matter how stunning the revelations – some of which are finally emerging, no thanks to a shockingly irresponsible and infantile "mainstream press" – they don't penetrate the public mind. Regardless of the evidence against him, people remain entranced by Obama:

* Amidst ever-growing evidence of vote fraud in multiple states perpetrated by ACORN – the notorious left-wing group with which Obama, despite his public statements, has long and deep ties – the Obama campaign's lawyers are now arguing that the Justice Department should not investigate any vote fraud claims until after the election. Instead, say Obama's attorneys, Justice should investigate those citizens who have brought to light the evidence of voter fraud, for supposedly trying to intimidate poor people into not voting. And no wonder: Thirteen of Obama's own campaign workers in Ohio have confessed to have fraudulently voted in that crucial swing state.

* Despite repeated indignant denials by the candidate and his campaign, Barack Obama was once a Muslim. If you question that fact as just a nasty "Internet rumor," examine for yourself Obama's registration papers to the Catholic school he attended in Indonesia, reproduced here by the Associated Press, which clearly indicate his religion at the time as "Islam." Much more troubling are the radical Islamist ties he maintains today, as respected Islam expert Daniel Pipes documents. Even rabid anti-Semite and leader of the radical Nation of Islam group, Louis Farrakhan, says "the Messiah is absolutely speaking" through Obama.

* Which brings us to his most troubling association of all: Obama sat in the church pews for 20 years listening to and absorbing the anti-American, racist, hate-filled sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who claims, among his other lunatic rants, that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks and deliberately created AIDS in order to commit genocide against black people. Wright's rage-filled preaching of "black liberation theology" – an anti-American, anti-White, Marxist philosophy disguised as Christianity – filled Obama's mind and soul for two decades, and they have unquestionably influenced his worldview.

Sitting at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for two decades and being filled each week with such venom against America and white people can fairly be called a form of brainwashing. If you doubt this statement, try spending 30-60 minutes on YouTube and just listen to random video clips of Wright's "sermons." Then, imagine swallowing this poisonous concoction, in person, every week for 20 years. It would be transformative.
*

One can go on and on, it's dizzying: Obama worked closely – for years – with William Ayers, a criminal and domestic terrorist who once bombed the Pentagon and other government buildings; there's absolutely compelling evidence – including independent scientific forensic analysis – showing that Ayers wrote all or part of Obama's best selling book "Dreams from My Father"; Obama received crucial funding and other financial benefits from notorious convicted Chicago criminal Tony Rezko; the Obama campaign refuses to produce a simple birth certificate to dispel persistent claims in multiple lawsuits that question the candidate's constitutional qualifications to be U.S. president – it goes on and on, and yet inexplicably, none of it seems to penetrate the minds of those entranced with Obama.

So again, the question: Why, despite a mountain of evidence utterly proving his profound unworthiness to be president, do so many millions of Americans worship Barack Obama? Let's take a closer look.

The magic of envy

In recent decades, more and more Americans have been conditioned by politicians to depend on government to solve their problems. This is how demagogues have long operated. They demonize "the rich," implying they obtained their wealth by exploiting the downtrodden; they stir up racial hatreds at every opportunity; they endlessly bash business and CEOs as evil exploiters; they promise "social justice" and universal happiness if only we will elevate them to power over us.

They do all this by appealing to anger and envy. They know instinctively that if they can stir up and ignite these dark, addictive passions in all of us, they will create a large voting bloc of people dependent on them, and thus be rewarded with great power. In its purest form, this phenomenon is called Marxism, communism, socialism – the spiritual core of which is raw envy. This philosophy of cradle-to-grave security and "wealth redistribution" exerts a powerfully seductive grip on people who have not discovered true inner "government." As William Penn famously said, "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."

Communism, of course, is atheistic – where the government is the only true god, the giver of blessings, the solver of problems, the dispenser of justice and mercy. This envy-based, class-warfare-fueled revolutionary system talks always of justice, fairness, progress – but the only progress it delivers is from freedom to slavery.

This is the appeal more and more Americans have been conditioned over the years to respond to, as we have progressively fallen away from the Judeo-Christian values that once animated our culture and institutions. The envy-based system Marx unleashed on the world is alive and well, and in different forms it still dominates large parts of the world. In America, it has taken root in the Democrat Party. Ronald Reagan may have destroyed the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, but you cannot destroy evil itself. Evil remains, and continues to do its job of tempting and, if possible, corrupting the souls of men.

Even the encouragement of immorality – free sex, abortion, homosexuality, easy divorce and so on – is all part and parcel of the socialist modus operandi, because immoral, dysfunctional people who have crossed the moral line and thus become estranged from God now need the "god" of socialist government.

All of this, my friends, is what we're poised to elect as president in the person of Barack Obama.

This has been coming for quite awhile. Americans, many of us anyway, have become increasingly corrupted over the years. We've been conditioned by our leaders into voting for lying, unprincipled, seductive candidates. We almost elected certified wacko Al Gore as president – someone who seriously wants to outlaw the internal combustion engine. Then we almost elected John Kerry – a super-ambitious, unprincipled and thoroughly unlikable man who first achieved notoriety by betraying his Vietnam soldier colleagues, scandalously maligning them as baby-killers before Congress and the nation.

Now, we're very close to electing an even worse candidate – and the reasons for this tell us much about ourselves.

The power of guilt

If you've ever studied disasters like the explosion of the Challenger Space Shuttle or the sinking of the Titanic, you'll find there was not just one reason, but a whole series of factors that seemingly conspired to cause the catastrophe.

One of the "aiding and abetting" factors in the current election is the fact that Obama is black. Let's talk about race.

Americans – even though slavery and segregation are long gone from the national scene – still have a large and understandable reservoir of collective guilt over its past exploitation and mistreatment of blacks.

Guilt is a fantastically powerful factor in all of our lives. It is a very uncomfortable, nagging pain in our conscience, this thing we call guilt. When we're guilty we try to relieve this inner conflict, and this is often a good thing. If we're guilty toward God, for instance, then we naturally want to make up for that guilt by finding reconciliation and obedience to Him. If we've wronged our neighbor and our conscience bothers us, that guilt is the valuable, redeeming factor that prods us to apologize and make restitution if appropriate. Without being able to experience a guilty conscience, we'd all be amoral psychopaths – literally oblivious to whether or not we had done anything wrong.

However, there's another side to guilt. Manipulative and unprincipled humans soon discover how to use our guilt to get their way. They can even make us feel guilty when we haven't done anything wrong – for instance, by way of false accusation, a tactic the left has perfected.

Now, Barack Obama obviously is not to blame for being black – or more to the point, for how people feel about him because of his race. But the fact is, his being black pushes the guilt button in most of us and we simply see him differently than we would if he were white. (Imagine voting for a white guy with such flimsy credentials and ominous associations.) With white voters in particular, there is a strong urge to finally move beyond our collective guilt over slavery and to prove, once and for all, that we're not a nation beset by racism – by electing a black president.

It's not an exaggeration to call this guilt-induced way of looking at Obama, this conditioned attitude, a type of trance. We hold him to a different standard, we see and feel differently about him, than we would if he were white. We have a kindliness, a desire for his success, a form of love and admiration and well-wishing toward Obama, all based on guilt. But love based on guilt is not real love. It's just an unconscious attempt to rid ourselves of guilt. Shelby Steele, author of "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era," puts it this way: "[Americans] struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with."

Yet this guilt phenomenon is also why craven race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton still command media respect as "black leaders." We see them through the "white guilt trance," part of which means we're really afraid of being regarded as racists, so we don't criticize these men for their blatant serial demagoguery. Likewise with Obama, there is a great deal of hesitancy to criticize him out of fear of being thought a racist.

You might respond to this by saying: But I don't have any guilt over slavery or segregation. Fine, but it gets much subtler than that.

Did you ever get angry at your kids – and then find yourself "being nice" to them to make up for the guilt of having been impatient? With that in mind, consider just one of many ways guilt (in this case, racial guilt) can find its way into you: Let's say you're walking down the street and a group of black men are walking toward you, and you become fearful (very similar to the story Obama famously told about his white grandmother). That fear has a little resentment attached to it, for that's the nature of fear. But when you become resentful for any reason at all, you automatically incur guilt, because resentment is a wrong, failing way for mature human beings to respond to the stresses of life. Now, saddled with this new guilt associated with black people, a compulsion rises up from within you to make up for that guilt – which you do by discovering a mysterious affinity for black people that wasn't there before. But that "love" isn't real love – it's all rooted in guilt and resentment (just like when you got impatient with your kids, then suddenly became "nice" to them to compensate for your anger). Although my example here centers on race, this guilt principle is universal. Indeed, guilt-based false love is the basis of the ubiquitous "love-hate relationship" that so vexes the human race; hate easily turns into false love, to make up for the guilt of hating. Do you get it?

It's subtle, but this is exactly the kind of dynamic that leads to self-destructive relationships – from personal relationships to electing tyrants.

The Obama News Network

A third factor, shaped powerfully by both the secular love of government and the white guilt factor just discussed, is the incomprehensibly unprofessional way the news media have behaved during the 2008 election.

In my estimation, we basically don't have a free press in America any more, other than the "New Media" – that is, talk radio, the Internet and some cable TV. Most of the rest of the establishment media have pretty much committed suicide this year.

Get David Kupelian's best-selling exposé, "The Marketing of Evil," autographed, from WorldNetDaily.

Just imagine that radical activist groups like the ACLU or the strident abortion outfit NARAL decided to start up their own "news organizations," complete with broadcast "anchor people," "reporters" and "correspondents," as well as newspapers and news websites and so on – and with a straight face they called their output "news." Everybody would laugh. Why? Because, while it would have the familiar form of news, it would of course just have the substance of their radical propaganda. No one would take it seriously.

This is exactly what we have in the so-called "mainstream press" today. The New York Times and NBC News, for example, are not true news organizations any more. They've become political and cultural activist organizations pretending to do news. And after having dropped all pretense at fairness this year, everyone knows it. This is why they're more concerned about Joe the plumber's tax bill than about the election being stolen by ACORN – because the elite media have become nothing more nor less than the propaganda ministry and attack dogs for Barack Obama.

Obama, the Manchurian candidate

In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.

Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.

Yet, as I have documented previously, John McCain rendered more genuine service to his country each and every day of those five-and-a-half years he endured in a North Vietnamese prison than Barack Obama has in his entire life.

In "The Manchurian Candidate," several war heroes came back to America from abroad. But one of them harbored a dark agenda, lying in wait, secretly, until it could emerge and transform America.

America has a choice Tuesday between a genuine war hero and a genuine Manchurian candidate.

Choose well.

Obama Admits Infants Born Alive During Abortion are Left to Die

2008-10-31T08:39:00.000-07:00

Largest Abortion Provider Backing Presidential Candidate Barack Obama Admits Infants Born Alive During Abortions Left to Die: 'It Does Happen'

Largest Abortion Provider Backing Presidential Candidate Barack Obama Admits Infants Born Alive During Abortion are Left to Die

NJ Planned Parenthood Nurse: "It Does Happen."
MEDIA ADVISORY, October 31 /Christian Newswire/ -- On October 30, 2008, Students for Life of America (SFLA) released undercover video footage recently taken of a nurse at a NJ Planned Parenthood facility in Freehold, NJ describing how an abortion would be performed on a 22 week old unborn child to a pregnant woman. In the footage, the Planned Parenthood nurse describes to the pregnant woman that the abortion procedure would involve inducing labor and delivering the baby , and after the woman asks if the baby can be born alive, the nurse admits that "it does happen, but it wouldn't be able to survive on its own so eventually the baby does die."

View the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6wea065aYs

This Planned Parenthood facility is part of a network of Title X clinics that receives millions in state and federal tax dollars. The SFLA video is shocking and of particular interest because Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, who has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood, claimed he voted against a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate that would have protected babies born alive during an abortion. During the October 15 Presidential debate, Senator Obama said he voted against the bill because it would have infringed on Roe v. Wade , claiming that such protections were already in place. The video taken from Students for Life of America includes an audio of Senator Obama speaking out against the bill in 2002 on the Illinois Senate floor.

You can view the video here on youtube.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx? v=e46UqG8zSU.

Marie Tasy, Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life said that Congress passed the Federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 which was signed into law by President Bush. "Despite the passage of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, we learn through this video that even today, babies who are born alive in NJ during abortions are not treated with the care and respect entitled to them under the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, but instead left to die as confirmed by the Planned Parenthood nurse on the video," said Tasy. "The refusal to administer emergency care to these helpless infants is both cruel and inhumane and should not be tolerated in a civil society," said Tasy. A 2007 study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology indicates that babies born alive during an abortion procedure is more commonplace than originally thought. The study reported that one baby in 30 survives an abortion attempt.

Kristan Hawkins, Students for Life of America Executive Director, remarked, "I was absolutely stunned when the Planned Parenthood nurse revealed that allowing a baby to die after being born alive is a common practice for abortionists. It begs the question of why a presidential candidate will not support basic human rights protections for babies born alive during an abortion procedure. This is outright infanticide and a candidate for President defends it!"

New Jersey Right to Life Executive Director Marie Tasy said that this video underscores the need for Congress and the NJ Legislature to ensure enforcement of existing laws and the implementation of additional safeguards to require abortion clinics involved in performing late term abortions to have emergency resuscitation equipment on the premises and personnel who are trained and qualified in how to administer emergency neonatal and resuscitation treatment to babies born alive during abortions.

She also said that New Jersey Right to Life joins with Students for Life of America to call on Senator Obama to reconsider his opposition to extend basic human rights to babies born alive during abortions as well as urge Congress to immediately defund and investigate Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider and recipient of over $300 million federal taxpayer dollars each year.

Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Marie Tasy, Executive Director, New Jersey Right to Life, 732 562-0562

New Jersey Right to Life

Forward this press release to another reporter or news producer

This email was sent to mrtnzfred@aol.com by newsdesk@christiannewswire.com.
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Christian Communication Network | 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW | Washington | DC | 20006

Famous Celebrity Exposes Obama on Abortion... Video and Audio Files Available for Media and Public to Play

2008-10-31T08:38:00.001-07:00

Famous Celebrity Exposes Obama on Abortion... Video and Audio Files Available for Media and Public to Play
Actor, producer and former telenovela star produces incredible new ENGLISH and SPANISH VIDEOS about Barack Obama's pro-abortion positions!
DALLAS, October 31 /Christian Newswire/ -- In a graphic new video, famous Latino film star Eduardo Verastegui explains the crisis of abortion in America, while explaining Barack Obama's pro-abortion track record and agenda.

Before producing this video, Verastegui, 34, became famous singing in the popular Latino band "KAIRO" and acting in "telenovelas" (Latin-American soap operas). People Magazine en Español recently voted him one of the 50 Most Beautiful People in the world. His movie, "Bella," won the 2006 Toronto Film Festival People's Choice Award.

Now, Verastegui is working to save moms, babies and families from abortion. He hopes the media and the public will watch and share his incredible new English and Spanish videos with the world. His videos, and hi-resolution DOWNLOADS for media playback, are available to watch online at:

www.ObamaMustSee.com and www.DuraRealidad.com.

When Verastegui learned about Obama's anti- family agenda, he decided to produce these videos to show people the truth. Eduardo says, "Barack Obama does not share our traditional Latino values... That's what inspired me to put this video together. I want people to know the truth about Obama."

"As a Latino, I was also shocked to learn that most abortion centers are located in neighborhoods where Hispanics and minorities live. It broke my heart when I discovered that more than 650 Latino babies are killed every day by abortion in the U.S.," said Verastegui. "We need to put an end to abortion - and political candidates play a very important role in this matter."

In the video, Verastegui explains Barack Obama's pro-abortion positions, saying: "Did you know that; Barack Obama supports abortions performed in the final months of pregnancy... That Obama supports partial-birth abortions... That Obama wants to finance abortions with the taxes you and I pay."

"As a legislator, Obama voted several times against a bill that tried to help babies who survive abortion, and are born alive." And, "Obama wants to remove all pro-life laws that currently protect unborn babies and their mothers in many states."

Verastegui explains, "Mr. Obama does not want parents of a pregnant minor as young as 13- years-old to be notified before she aborts her baby. Insane anti-parent laws like this allow child molesters and sexual predators to force young girls into secret abortions to cover up their sexual crimes."

Originally produced in Spanish and offered on YouTube, now a stunning new English
version of Eduardo's video is available online. You can view both videos at:

Click: www.ObamaMustSee.com or www.DuraRealidad.com

Video and Audio DOWNLOADS are available at the Web sites for radio and TV stations to play in news reports.

Spokespersons available in English and Spanish.

Contact: Sue Cyr (214) 685-1079

Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Sue Cyr, 214-685-1079

Forward this press release to another reporter or news producer

This email was sent to mrtnzfred@aol.com by newsdesk@christiannewswire.com.
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Christian Communication Network | 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW | Washington | DC | 20006

Same-Sex Marriage Obama for Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

2008-10-31T08:33:00.000-07:00

www.thejudeo-christianview.com

Federal Sex Policies: Pastoral Options for

Full Disclosure and Informed Consent for your Congregation

Your congregation has a clear Right to Know, a right to Full Disclosure and Informed Consent on Sen. Obama?s pending Federal policies on:

New "Sexual Orientation" Laws affecting Pastors, Churches, Congregants, Businesses

-Same-Sex Unions: Sen. Obama favors full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects your state from forced recognition of Same-Sex "Marriages" from other states where courts have ordered gay marriage (MA, CA, CT).

-Expansion of Partial Birth Abortion, a barbaric procedure which involves piercing the skulls of babies during delivery. Sen. Obama?s pending "Freedom of Choice Act" would sweep away all restrictions on late-term abortions. Obama also favors federal taxpayer subsidies for abortion on demand and opposes requiring that parents be notified prior to an abortion on their teenage daughter.

-Full, open integration of flagrant homosexuals into U.S. military barracks, forcing inappropriate same-sex intimacy (bunks, bathing, etc.) on heterosexual soldiers.

-Possible permission of infanticide: Sen. Obama voted repeatedly to kill Illinois equal protection for infants who survive abortions. Infanticide of abortion survivors was later banned by bipartisan agreement in Congress, yet that ban is subject to repeal.

Complete documentation is at www.thejudeo-christianview.com

Q: What can a pastor, priest or rabbi legally say about these matters to the congregation?

A: Under the Free Exercise/Religious Liberty clause of the First Amendment, non-violent "pulpit to pew" speech in a house of worship is protected from government regulation. Pastors, rabbis and priests are free under both the Constitution and the tax code to preach Biblical ethics and morality, to name names of politicians, and to explain their public policies to congregants. Despite widespread misreporting and intentional distortion by opponents of religious liberty and free speech, no church has ever lost its tax exempt status for any such activity. Although The Judeo-Christian View does not advise express endorsement of any candidate from the pulpit, it is completely uncontroversial as a matter of law that pastors have a right to endorse/oppose in their personal capacities. For brief law videos, supporting documentation, details, caveats, and legal backup, go to www.thejudeo-christianview.com

Q: I'm not a wimp, I recognize my legal liberties, but I am simply uncomfortable using my pulpit to mention any politicians' names ? even if they threaten Judeo-Christian foundations on marriage, heterosexual monogamy, and child sacrifice/infanticide. What OTHER options are available to alert my flock?

A: Play the brief Interfaith Video Sermon you received on DVD for your congregation this weekend (or download it at www.thejudeo-christianview.com). Or, circulate the printed Sermon Outline /bulletin insert, or teach from it, or urge Sunday School or lay teachers to do so. If you feel impaired, allow a member of the congregation to speak this weekend on these paramount matters of Same-Sex Unions and Child Sacrifice. Or, lead the congregation in prayer for Sen. Obama's repentance on these matters. Email this message (available at website at Congregational Resources) or another message to your congregants. Email your flock to go now to the website, urging them to see the powerful videos and possibly join you in subscribing. Email in your personal capacity, or as religious leader (either way is fine legally). Contact your flock by auto-dialer, or put a prayer alert on your phone trees. But, by any or all of these means, be a Good Shepherd of your sheep and a Faithful Watchman at the walls (Ezekiel 33, 34).
TheJudeo-ChristianView.com P.O. Box 734, Vista, California 92085-0734

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

Other Vital Resources:
Liberty Counsel: Many pastors, priests, rabbis and boards do not understand that they can freely preach/teach the Bible AND clearly explain to their congregations where NAMED political leaders stand on public policy issues informed by the Bible, distinct from any talk of endorsements. For example, because churches are not granted tax-exempt status by the IRS but acquire it automatically when they come into existence, the IRS has never been able to take it away from any church. Click herefor a video discussion (toward bottom of linked page) on this by Prof. Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law and Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel -- a nonprofit legal defense organization for congregational leaders and their houses of worship, upholding First Amendment freedoms for all Americans via litigation, education and policy work. Established in 1989, Liberty Counsel is a nationwide organization of attorneys with offices in Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and hundreds of affiliate lawyers across the Nation. Liberty Counsel's website is www.LC.org.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission: The CADC is a non-profit that aims to be the first-in-mind champion of Christian religious liberty, a first line of response to anti-Christian defamation, bigotry, and discrimination via public relations and, as necessary, litigation. According to CADC, by declaring he is a Christian, yet denying Christianity's essential doctrines and morality, Barack Obama has associated the name of Jesus Christ with practices expressly condemned in the Torah, the Tanakh, and the New Testament. To view CADC's brief and incisive videos on this and other vital topics, go to www.christianadc.org

The Anti-Defamation League: The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, scrutinizing and exposing hate groups and offering expertise on domestic and international terrorism. ADL also seeks to foster interfaith relations, to safeguard religious liberty, while defending the security of Israel and Jews worldwide. Through the Bearing Witness program, a partnership with The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Archdiocese of Washington, provides religious educators with the training and resources necessary to teach their students about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. For more, go to www.adl.org.

Restore America: Restore America is a non-profit dedicated to engaging clerical leaders and laity in shared citizenship responsibility to "Value our Vote and Vote our Values" through conferences, seminars, commentaries, and electronic media. Restore America's objectives include a renewed understanding of America's Judeo-Christian history and founding principles, and the promotion of citizens of Judeo-Christian principle into public office. To view Restore America's vision, ministry and resources visit www.restoreamerica.org.

__________________________SUBSCRIPTION INFO__________________________

WERE YOU FORWARDED THIS EDITION OF THE TOWNHALL SPOTLIGHT?
You can get your own free subscription by visiting here. This newsletter is never sent unsolicited. It was sent to you because you signed up to receive this newsletter on the Townhall.com network OR a friend forwarded it to you. We respect and value your time and privacy. If this newsletter no longer meets your needs we will be happy to remove your address immediately. You can unsubscribe from this Townhall Spotlight here. Send postal mail to:
Townhall Spotlight Unsubscribe
1901 N. Moore St - Suite 701, Arlington, VA 22209
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Copyright 2006 Townhall.com, Salem Communications and its Content Providers.
All rights reserved.

Anti Obama Activism Planned in 50 cities; 'Main Street' America Unite: Obama is not 'Main Street!' Sunday and Monday, Nov 3 and 4

2008-10-31T08:31:00.001-07:00

Anti Obama Activism Planned in 50 cities; 'Main Street' America Unite: Obama is not 'Main Street!' Sunday and Monday, Nov 3 and 4
MEDIA ADVISORY, October 31 /Christian Newswire/ -- "Main Street Americans" to hold signs on Sunday, Nov 2 from 1:00-2:00 pm, and/or Monday, November 3, from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm on "main streets" in cities across the country.

Source: Randall Terry

Founder, Operation Rescue

Washington, DC. 904-687-9804

Yesterday, October 30, voters in 25 cities protested against the pro-abortion agenda of Obama at various campaign headquarters across the nation.

Multiple hundreds of people participated; 250 people in Indianapolis; 150 in Cincinnati; 50 in Charlotte. (Full list of cities can be seen at http://www.humble plea.com) We were thrilled with the turnout given such short notice.

On Sunday, November 2, from 1:00 - 2:00 pm, and/or Monday, November 3, from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm, "Main Street Americans" will lead a nationwide coordinated event in cities across the country.

We currently have 30 cities; activists in at least 50 cities are expected to participate.

This morning (Friday, October 30, 2008), 300,000 email invitations were sent out inviting people to lead an event in their community, or to participate in one.

The events will be held on Main Street, or a very busy "main street" where there are many cars and/or pedestrians.

Signs will include:

Main Street Loves Freedom, and Rejects Obama!

Obama is not "Main Street!"

Our Main Street is not Marxist!

Our Main St. Doesn't Kill Babies!

Obama's Main Street Bridge crosses the River Styx!

Obama's Main Street is Paved with the Blood of Babies!

For more information, call 904-687-9804.

Christian Newswire

Obama's $3.5 million Earmark for FactCheck.org/Annenburg Foundation

2008-10-30T23:56:00.000-07:00

-Obama called for an $3.5 million dollar earmark for the Annenburg Foundation that sponsors FactCheck.org. Several FactCheck articles have been viewed as promoting the Obama campaign line instead of truly acting as a fact checkers. Controlling the ‘facts’ is a hallmark of a totalitarian regime, and this is a truly unsettling connection.

http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/10/06/obama-factcheckorg-ayers-and-the-annenburg-foundation/

Obama, FactCheck.org, Ayers, and the Annenburg Foundation
October 6th, 2008 at 03:14pm KMorrison

There is a disturbing link between Barack Obama, FactCheck.org, and William Ayers. National Review reports that William Ayers and Barack Obama both served as co-chairs of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. Obama called for an $3.5 million dollar earmark for the Annenburg Foundation that sponsors FactCheck.org. Several FactCheck articles have been viewed as promoting the Obama campaign line instead of truly acting as a fact checkers. Controlling the ‘facts’ is a hallmark of a totalitarian regime, and this is a truly unsettling connection.

Mission statement from FactCheck.org.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

Requested Anneberg Earmark from Barack Obama - Citation from Answers.BarackObama.com

Obama Requested $3.5 Million For The USC Annenberg Research Network. In 2005, Obama requested $3.5 million for the USC Annenberg Research Network on International Communication, in partnership with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to support the deployment of pervasive broadband for education and economic development.Funding was for the construction of a large-scale broadband wireless systems in two communities—one in South Los Angeles and the other in small-town Illinois. In each community, broadband network coverage will be provided over a minimum of about a half-square mile area, utilizing leading edge wireless technologies. In Los Angeles, this will include the five schools in USC’s immediate neighborhood, with about 8,000 K-12 students. USC also will provide wireless equipment and access to every family with a student entering the first grade of a new Science Center School, and in Illinois, a similar group of students will be selected to receive wireless equipment and access within the coverage area. The impact of these technologies on the students and their families will be tracked. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education, 6/7/05]

Obama’s Challenge from the National Review

Let’s first review CAC’s [Chicago Annenburg Challenge] initial setup. In the first year, 1995, Obama headed the board, which made fiscal decisions, and Ayers co-chaired the Collaborative, which set education policy. During that first year, Obama’s formal responsibilities mandated close cooperation and coordination with the Collaborative. As board chair and president of the CAC corporation, Obama was authorized to “delegate to the Collaborative the development of collaborative projects and programs . . . to obtain assistance of the Collaborative in the development of requests for proposals . . . and to seek advice from the Collaborative regarding the programmatic aspects of grant proposals.” All this clearly involves significant consultation between the board, headed by Obama, and the Collaborative, co-chaired by Ayers.

Hat Tip to Death by 1000 Papercuts for first reporting this in their article Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation

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

Clarification: The connection between Obama and Ayers is through
the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that received money from the Annenburg
Foundation, but the Chicago Annenburg Challenge Challenge and the
Annenburg Foundation are not directly connected philosophically. The
earmark Senator Obama requested was for the Annenburg Foundation, which
funded the Chicago Annenburg Challenge and also funds FactCheck.org.
Obama is tied to both groups one via earmark, the other via direct
participation, however, Ayers is not directly connected to
FactCheck.org.

Obama/FactCheck.Org/Annenberg Foundation are One

2008-10-30T23:40:00.000-07:00

Obama/FactCheck.Org/Annenberg Foundation are One

-Factcheck.org is part and parcel of the Annenberg Foundation.

-Factcheck was also chosen by the Obama campaign as the arbitrar of whether Obama’s birth certificate, which purportedly proves he’s a citizen of the United States, is authentic.

-“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience"

-In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, a “branch of the Annenberg Foundation”.

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/obama-bill-ayers-and-factcheckorg-all-have-ties-to-annenberg-foundation/

Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation
Posted by LBG1 on October 6th, 2008
Obama/Ayers/FactCheck.Org: All Tied to Annenberg Foundation

How many people are aware that Senator Obama has ties to Factcheck.org, the “non-partisan” political “fact checking” site, vis-a-vis the Annenberg Foundation? Or that the controversies surrounding Obama, such as his ties to Bill Ayers, a former member of the violent Vietnam War era Weather Underground terrorist group, and the veracity of Obama’s “birth certificate” are both linked to Factcheck and Annenberg. There’s also news about the ongoing federal lawsuit involving Obama’s birth certificate: how a U.S District Judge has thrown out Obama’s attorney’s Motion to Dismiss and ordered them to “pony up” the certificate “post haste”.

From Google Search:

FactCheck.org - Annenberg Political Fact CheckMonitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major US political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases.

The Annenberg Foundation is at the center of the ongoing Obama-Bill Ayers controversy. Ayers was a former member of the homegrown terrorist group, the Weather Underground, which took credit for bombing the Pentagon, the Capital Building, and the New York City Metro Police Department plus 30+ other bombings during the Vietman War era.

The Weathermen, a small band of extreme leftists who got their name from lines in a Bob Dylan song - “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” - conducted a bombing campaign against targets such as police headquarters, prisons and courthouses for three years to “bring the [Viet-nam] war home”.

Two police officers were killed in 1981, when members of the Weathermen and Black Liberation Army stole $1m from an armoured car. It was their last action.
–Times Online

Charges against Ayers were dropped after the FBI was accused of using illegal wiretaps. Ayers wrote in his 2001 “memoir”, Fugitive Days, that he regretted that his group “didn’t do enough” back then in regards to the almost 30 plus bombings his group took credit for. Ayers later became a professor in Chicago and the founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an offshoot of the Annenberg Foundation.

Here’s one “literary” review of Ayer’s “memoir” Fugitive Days:

From Library Journal
“Memory is a motherfucker,” writes Ayers (A Kind and Just Parent). In the 1970s, he was a head of the radical Weathermen and one of America’s Ten Most Wanted, along with his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, but he is now a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. His memoir is a breath of fresh air in this self-absorbed age. Ayers discusses his reservations about the use of violence to achieve an end to violence (reservations he held then as well), but he is unrepentant in believing that America was the aggressor against North Vietnam and that right-minded people have an obligation to resist unjust wars. The book is uneven in tone, alternating fluffy passages about the passage of time with straightforward narration of Ayers’s more than ten years on the lam. The sentiments expressed in the book still seem noble, however, regardless of one’s opinions of the means used by Ayers’s comrades. There are many lessons still to be learned from such narratives. Recommended. David Keymer, California State Univ., Stanislaus

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review has been closely following Obama’s ties to Ayers as well as his association to ACORN .

While both the AP and the New York Times are reporting that there is no “truth” to the claims that Obama had “ties” to Ayers, Kurtz has uncovered a long standing association between the two men, one that leads straight to the Annenberg Foundation:

Ayers was a “key founder” of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, a “branch of the Annenberg Foundation”.

Ayers co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg “Collaborative”, which set education policy for the “Challenge”.

Obama was “authorized to delegate to the Collaborative the development of collaborative projects and programs”.

Obama had to “obtain assistance of the Collaborative in the development of requests for proposals.”

Obama had to “seek advice from the Collaborative regarding the programmatic aspects of grant proposals.”

Ayers sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”.

Obama and Ayers sat together on the board’s Governance Committee.

Ayers and Obama were “part of a group of four instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern CAC”.

As Board Chair, Obama authorized the funding for Ayers educational projects, as well as projects of Ayers’ “radical” friends.

Obama and Ayers “guided” monies to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).

Kurtz also points out Obama’s tenure as Board Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in regards to the one and only “executive experience” of Obama which was rated as a bust:

“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts. Ayers’s terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.”

Factcheck.org is part and parcel of the Annenberg Foundation. Factcheck was also chosen by the Obama campaign as the arbitrar of whether Obama’s birth certificate, which purportedly proves he’s a citizen of the United States, is authentic.

We were mostly uninterested in the birth certificate controversy until a recent court case in Philadelphia caught our attention.

On August 24, a prominent Democrat and attorney in Pennslyvania, Philip J. Berg, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Obama and the DNC. Berg’s suit claimed that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States is therefore uneligible to run for President. On September 24, rather than show up with a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, attorneys for Obama and the DNC filed a motion to dismiss.

On September 29, Judge Barclay Surrick denied the motion to dismiss and ordered three separate items to be delivered to the judge in three days:

* A certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate
* A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship
* A certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance

Clarification - It was inaccurate to say the judge has demanded the documents: the judge in Berg v Obama has not ruled on various motions yet. It is more accurate to say that Phillip Berg, in his court filing asked for the three documents in question.

60. Plaintiff has asked for a simple resolution. Plaintiff has asked that Obama supply a genuine certified copy of his original long version “vault” Birth Certificate, A Certification of Citizenship and a certified copy of his Oath of Allegiance. If in fact Obama can prove his “natural born” citizenship status, which he cannot, then he has not been prejudiced in anyway, but instead Plaintiff has been protected and his civil rights secured. However, if Obama is unable to supply said documentation, then he needs to withdraw his candidacy, again which will eliminate Plaintiff’s deprivations and instill Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected safeguards and rights.
We found it interesting that the Obama campaign saw fit to “release” Obama’s birth certificate to FactCheck.org but not to the U.S. District Judge supervising the Berg lawsuit against Obama.

Factcheck.org “verified” the Obama birth certificate yet intrepid bloggers Atlas Shrugs as well as Yid With A Lid have found several inconsistencies which call into question whether the certificate is “authentic”.

Again, regardless of whether the certificate is authentic or not, DBKP finds the fact that Obama’s attorney chose to file a motion to dismiss rather than just handing over a certified copy of the birth certificate to the judge puzzling. Everyday ordinary citizens have to prove citizenship by providing a certified copy of their birth certificate in order to obtain a driver’s license or an ID card. We cannot fathom why the Obama camp chose the motion to dismiss instead of complying with a Federal judge’s order to provide a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate. The Obama campaign handed over a copy to Factcheck.org, why the “stall” with handing a copy over to the Federal Judge handling the Berg lawsuit?

If the Obama birth certificate is on the “up and up” then releasing it to a Federal Judge should be a “priority” of the Obama campaign instead of filing “motions to dismiss”. After all, the rest of us ordinary Average Joe’s have to fork over a copy of our birth certificates every now and then to prove we’re citizens in order to get a something as mundane as a driver’s license. We imagine most citizens would comply with a judge’s order to supply a copy of our birth certificate without too much fuss. Obama, an attorney himself, must surely realize the consequences of disobeying a judge’s order.

DBKP is keeping a close eye on the Berg case in Philadelphia. The judge ordered on September 29 for the three documents to be presented by Obama within 3 days. Rumors have circulated across the web that the judge “dismissed” the case. Those rumors are untrue. The Obama camp has yet to supply the documents to the judge.

Blogger Steve Diamond of the blog, Global Labor, has more info on the connections between Obama and Ayers:

*The Woods Fund

* The connection between Obama and Ayers’ wife, Bernadette Dohrn, another ex-Weather Underground grad.

* Obama’s first fundraiser for Illinois Senate hosted by Ayers and Dohrn

* The link between Michelle Obama and Ayers visa-a-vis a panel to discuss a book written by Ayers

* A longtime radical friend of Ayers who blogs for Obama

As far as Obama’s past association with Ayers, Obama claims that Ayers was “one of thousands” of people he knew. We’re not sure how many boards Obama has sat on as Chairman and President but one would think he’d remember the “founder” who was once a famous member of a notorious far left terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon and the Capital Building. In fact, in 2001, Bill Ayers was written about in the New York Times, when Obama was still Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The article in the Times was published the same day that hijackers boarded four planes and ended up murdering over 3,000 innocent citizens. Bill Ayers was pictured standing on the American flag. The timing was a coincidence, the subject, Ayers’ memoir, Fugitive Days:

”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.” Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970’s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.

According to the Obama campaign, he and Ayers had a “tangential” relationship which seems to revolve around the Annenberg Foundation. In 2001, Obama and Ayers were still members of the Chicago Annenberg Foundation, Obama was Chairman while Ayers was touting his memoir, Fugitive Days, about his days spent “bombing” in the name of “change”.

By LBG

Obama "Changes the Word Redistribution and calls it 'Tax Cut'"

2008-10-30T23:30:00.000-07:00

-They are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers.

-The bottom line is his plan is nothing more than a redistribution plan or as it is more commonly known, welfare.

-There comes a time in people's lives where they might need a helping hand, there is nothing wrong with welfare being available to help those folks temporarily until they can get on their feet, but welfare should not be something Americans for the most part should live their lives on, it is meant as "help" not a permanent fix and under Obama's plan, we would become a welfare country where the only "incentive" given, would be to work less so we can get more from those that work more.

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/10/barack-obamas-redistribution-or-welfare.html

Barack Obama's Redistribution or 'Welfare' Economics Plan

The Wall Street Journal goes through Barack Obama's 95 percent "illusion" and states "It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."

The bottom line is his plan is nothing more than a redistribution plan or as it is more commonly known, welfare.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

Polling has shown the American people are against a redistribution of wealth, so how does Obama get around that... he simply changes the word redistribution and calls it "tax cut", voila, no worries about the American people because as far as he is concerned, they are too stupid to understand the difference.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Obama is hoping that this "illusion" he has created will go unchallenged and people will hear the words "no taxes for 95 percent" of the people, while ignoring how many of those same people do not pay income tax anyway.

Take a good look at who pays the top percentages of all income taxes in the US, it is not the people that Obama is promising to give "tax cuts" to, that is the illusion, and not a very good one at that.

There comes a time in people's lives where they might need a helping hand, there is nothing wrong with welfare being available to help those folks temporarily until they can get on their feet, but welfare should not be something Americans for the most part should live their lives on, it is meant as "help" not a permanent fix and under Obama's plan, we would become a welfare country where the only "incentive" given, would be to work less so we can get more from those that work more.

.

Posted by Susan Duclos at 9:00 AM

Obama’s Tax Plan = Huge New Welfare Program

2008-10-30T22:57:00.000-07:00

-The libs claim that the checks are not welfare, but a tax cut on the payroll taxes that the workers pay. But here’s the big problem with that stupid argument… those payroll taxes are supposed to be an investment in their future social security and medicare benefits.

-Take the payroll taxes away from funding those programs, and you make them both welfare programs.

-Those two programs are going broke as it is, and now Obama wants to take funding away from them so he can claim some sort of tortured logic tax cut argument? How fiscally irresponsible is that?

http://theconservativepost.com/WordPress/?p=744

Obama’s Tax Plan = Huge New Welfare Program

Filed Under Conservative Side of the Story, Evils of Socialism, Taxes, The Race
- Scott Miller
Obama’s claim that he will cut taxes for 95% of all Americans is an out-and-out lie. How do I know that? Because at least 1/3 of all working Americans pay ZERO income taxes .

So then what about the 1/3 of Americans that don’t pay taxes? How can Obama cut their taxes? Makes no sense, right? To a Marxist it does… see, Obama will actually have the government cut welfare checks to these Americans who don’t pay taxes.

The libs claim that the checks are not welfare, but a tax cut on the payroll taxes that the workers pay. But here’s the big problem with that stupid argument… those payroll taxes are supposed to be an investment in their future social security and medicare benefits. Take the payroll taxes away from funding those programs, and you make them both welfare programs. Those two programs are going broke as it is, and now Obama wants to take funding away from them so he can claim some sort of tortured logic tax cut argument? How fiscally irresponsible is that?

Obama makes Taxpayers Pay 1.054 Trillion to Non-Taxpayers

2008-10-30T22:36:00.000-07:00

Smoke, Mirrors and Socialism

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=9484

Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 13, 2008

The Wall Street Journal puts an ingredients label on the snake oil Obama is selling as tax cut for 95% of Americans:
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals.
Those credits include tax credits for college tuition, a savings tax credit, an expansion of the earned-income tax credit, a child care credit, clean car credit and a "make work pay" credit.

All but the clean car credit are called tax "refunds". Or so they want you to believe. The WSJ explains what that means in reality (redistribution of income on a massive level):
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
Talk about voodoo economics - 1.054 trillion in transfer payments.

And somehow, the top 5% are going to pay for all of this at rates no higher than those found under the Clinton administration.

Uh huh.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery — among many — of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
[http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=9484]

Obama's Taxes Taxpayers for more Welfare Checks to Nontaxpayers

2008-10-30T22:10:00.000-07:00

-In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent[20%] of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent[2%], according to the Center.

http://www.macpac08.com/2008/10/obamas-tax-lies.html

Oct 16, 2008
Obama's Tax Lies
Interesting article at the Wall Street Journal, outlining how Obama's tax policy is more about wealth redistribution than it is lowering taxes for, as he says "95% of all families."

"For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut."

These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.

Thanks To AFBlue at 7:24 AM
Labels: obama tax lies, obama tax plan

"I can't Vote Black because I am black; I have to Vote Christian because that's who I am"

2008-10-30T21:37:00.000-07:00

-For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say: Father, based on your word, I am voting for Obama--even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against You. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights--even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.

I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions.

Subject: Why I Can't Vote for Obama by Huntley This article was written by Huntley Brown, a fabulous concert pianist, a man of God, and a black man. View/hear a sample of his music at http://www.huntleybrown.com/ and read why he will not vote for Obama. Then share this message with your family and friends.

Why I Can't Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown

Dear Friends, A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama. I sent out an e-mail with a few points. With the election just around the corner, I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before, but it's worth repeating...

First, I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments--but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.

Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads. I follow. I can't dictate the terms. He does because He is the leader.

I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now, I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

In an election, there are many issues to consider. But when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning--to name a few--wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.

We need to follow Martin Luther King's words. Don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't know Obama, so all I can go off of is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

To beat Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in two short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100% rating. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas, etc. love him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives, and they have since overturned partial birth abortion--the same practice Obama wanted to continue.

Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.

The 5-Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:

A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby.)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

God help him. There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.

Think about this: You can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.

There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.

Obama tells us he has good judgment, but he sat under Jeremiah Wright's teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now?

Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19-20 "Go and make disciples of all nations." This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you, believe what you believe, etc. The question I have is: What did Jeremiah Wright teach him?

Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a ...

1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

Would you support a President who went to a church like that?

Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush were a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.

This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discover he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.

A church can't have a value system based on race. The church's value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church, it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.

Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then He is a murderer, and we had better kill Him."

Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?

So what does all this mean for the nation?

In the past, when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing--judgment.

Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

Then God says in 1 Samuel 8:18 " When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us.
20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD.
22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."

Here is what we know for sure.

God is not schizophrenic.

He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.

Maybe I am the one not hearing--but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say: Father, based on your word, I am voting for Obama--even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against You. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights--even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.

I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally, I have two questions for all my liberal friends.

Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,

1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?

2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?

Blessings, Huntley Brown

FOX News Poll: McCain Closing Fast

2008-10-30T18:51:00.001-07:00

FOX News Poll: McCain Closing Fast

Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:38 PM

By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size

A FOX News poll released Thursday shows the race between presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama has tightened considerably, with Obama now leading McCain by just three points among likely voters, 47 percent to 44 percent.

Just last week, Obama held a 49 percent to 40 percent lead over his Republican rival, but changes in several swing states has narrowed the margin the Democratic junior senator from Illinois has over McCain.

Among likely voters who say they are independent, Obama has gone from a 9 point lead over McCain last week to just 5 percentage points.

"Independent voters have long been regarded as one of the keys to this race and these results may foreshadow a tightening in the battleground states where independents carry disproportionate weight," says Ernie Paicopolos, a principal of Opinion Dynamics Corporation.

In addition, among white Catholics, Obama has completely lost the 11-point edge he held over McCain last week to a split this week of 46 percent to 46 percent.

McCain also has considerably increased the support he receives from his own party over Obama. Fully 88 percent of Republicans now back McCain, up from 83 percent last week, while Obama’s 89 percent of support among Democrats is only slightly up from the 88 percent he was receiving last week.

Among his backers, 88 percent say they support Obama "strongly" and 12 percent "only somewhat." For McCain, 78 percent of his voters support him "strongly" and 22 percent "only somewhat."

Among those who have voted early, Obama leads 52 percent to 43 percent over McCain, and newly registered voters say they will come out for Obama by 54 percent to 38 percent.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national poll from October 28 to October 29. The poll has a 3-point error margin. "

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Romney: Obama Would Kill Millions of Jobs

2008-10-30T18:46:00.000-07:00

Romney: Obama Would Kill Millions of Jobs

Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:11 PM

By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size

In the final days of the campaign, John McCain needs to emphasize that Barack Obama would kill millions of jobs, Mitt Romney tells Newsmax.

“It’s too late in the process to be unveiling new initiatives,” Romney says. “Instead, you focus on the consequences of an Obama presidency and the benefits of a McCain presidency. And frankly, in my lifetime, I don’t recall a more anti-job program than Barack Obama’s.”

McCain’s program creates jobs, Romney says, while Obama’s shrinks them.

“My own view is that’s the message in the last days. Boil it down in a way that people understand,” Romney says. “You don’t have to go through all the differences and the details. The headline is: Barack Obama will kill millions of jobs in America; John McCain will create millions of jobs in America.”

While the economic crisis has hurt McCain’s chances, “What caused this downturn was profligate borrowing in the mortgage market,” Romney observes. “And who’s been pushing that? Democrats and a lot of Republicans. And then, when it came to regulate that borrowing, Republicans wanted to regulate it and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrats said no, just hand out the money. That’s what caused this downturn.”

In fact, “Republican Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire authored a bill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Democrats blocked it,” Romney says. “This is Barney Frank trying to do the old two-step. This is the guy that led the charge to hand out mortgage money to people who couldn’t afford to pay. And it’s caused the crisis that we’re seeing. It’s just easy to say blame George Bush, and that’s what the Democrats are doing.”

Obama’s program would kill jobs because it would raise taxes on companies and entrepreneurships that create jobs, Romney says.

In addition, “Putting a penalty on employers that don’t provide a government-approved healthcare program kills jobs,” he says. “The card check program to unionize small business kills a lot of jobs, permanently. And John McCain’s program creates jobs.

"He lowers taxes on employers to create incentives to add jobs. He puts in place a healthcare plan that lets individuals buy their own insurance and keeps the burden off employers. And he invests in truly becoming energy independent, which lowers our energy prices and makes it more attractive to do business in this country.”

Romney has been campaigning for McCain and he's also been campaigning for 28 congressional candidates, five U.S. Senate candidates, and two gubernatorial candidates.

Formed in April, Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC has donated $202,000 to 75 GOP candidates. He’s made another $173,000 in donations through his affiliated state PACs, including to the National Organization of Marriage in California to pass Proposition 8 and to an effort to stop a ballot initiative in Massachusetts to decriminalize marijuana use.

In all, financial support through Romney-controlled state and federal PACs has totaled $375,000.

Asked whether he would run for the presidency again, Romney says, “As you know, politics is a lot about timing; and when the window opens, you either step through or you decide not to. Well, the window opened for me, I stepped through, I got on the stage, battled hard, but I lost fair and square. And looking down the road, it’s hard to imagine the window opening again. But you know, time will tell.”

In the meantime, Romney is going on a whirlwind tour in the final days of the campaign.

“I think this is an absolutely critical time for our country, so all the team is pulling on the oars as hard as we can,” Romney says. “I’ve seen John McCain come from behind before, and it was in the race where he was running against me and Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani. He surprises folks. There’s not a lot of time to go, but I don’t count this race over yet.”

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

McCain:Obama’s “Definition of Rich has a Way of Creeping Down”

2008-10-30T18:42:00.000-07:00

McCain: Obama’s Slippery Definition of ‘Rich’

Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:42 AM

By: Dave Eberhart Article Font Size

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has highlighted the fact that throughout the campaign, his opponent Barack Obama’s “definition of rich has a way of creeping down.”

“Senator Obama has made a lot of promises,” McCain elaborated. “First he said people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you’re a family making less than $200,000, you’ll benefit, [and] Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to “middle class people — people making under $150,000 dollars a year.”

“At this rate, it won’t be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase,” McCain concluded.

[McCain’s reference to the Obama tax increase vote has been widely disputed. The fact is that Obama voted twice this year for Democratic-supported resolutions on the budget for the 2009 fiscal year. In those nonbinding resolutions, Obama and others, including two Republicans, voted to allow the tax cuts that President Bush pushed through Congress in 2001 and 2003 to expire at the end of 2010, as envisioned in the original legislation. This has the potential of constructively increasing the taxes for some making $42,000 per year.]

A timeline of Obama definitions of rich:

In July 2008, Barack Obama said: “If you make $250,000 a year or less, we will not raise your taxes. We will cut your taxes.” (Barack Obama, remarks, Powder Springs, Ga., 7/8/08)

In August 2008, Obama economic policy adviser Jason Furman said that Barack Obama “would cut taxes for almost all of the families making less than [$250,000].”

“Finally, and perhaps most importantly,” instructed Furman, “the op-ed today makes a very important point that, while Barack Obama would not raise taxes for any family making below $250,000 — in fact, it would cut taxes for almost all of the families making less than that. Senator McCain cannot make a similar promise for his tax plan because, for the first time in history, he would make families pay taxes on the health insurance that they get from their employers.” (Obama for America, press conference call, 8/14/08)

In October 2008, Gov. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, delivered the Democrat radio response saying that those making less than $250,000 would see lower taxes.

“He’ll restore the middle class by cutting taxes for small businesses, and for 95 percent of workers and their families, including 5.7 million in Ohio. If you make less than $250,000, you won’t see your taxes go up one single dime. In fact, your tax rates will be lower than they were under Ronald Reagan.” (Governor Ted Strickland, Democratic Radio Response, 10/4/08)

In the new Obama ad, “Defining Moment,” the threshold for the Obama tax plan for families seeing a tax cut is lowered from $250,000 to $200,000.

In an interview with a Scranton, Pa. news station, Joe Biden said most recently that only families making under $150,000 would get a tax cut:

“Spreading the wealth was not — he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy,” said Biden. “For example, you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was put in by George Bush — people making an average $1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic…

“They’re going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we’re saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn’t need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year.”

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations

2008-10-30T06:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_illegal_donors/2008/1

Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:27 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size

A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.

Some of these “red flag” donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.

A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed “yellow flags” such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten.

Under federal law, only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate to federal political campaigns. It is illegal for the campaigns to accept money knowingly from foreign donors.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 placed new restrictions on political fundraising after the scandals of 1996, when the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was exposed for having taken millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.

But even with the new laws, it remains very difficult to identify with any precision foreign money if a campaign itself does not cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and perform its own due diligence.

Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money.

The Newsmax investigation focused only on donors whose names the Obama campaign disclosed, which are available to public scrutiny through the Federal Election Commission Web site.

In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.

That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”

Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama’s donor list to identify those who apparently aren’t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis.

Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obama donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.

“Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors,” Rustmann said. “Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”

Rustmann and his investigative team expressed “high suspicions” that 118 donors flagged as “red” were not U.S. citizens.

“That’s all we can say for certain, because it’s difficult to prove citizenship with no database that lists citizens,” Rustmann said.

Typical is Victor A. of Lagos, Nigeria, who gave $500 to the campaign in May. In the FEC database, his address is listed as Ikoyi, NA. But a closer look at the actual itemized receipts filed by the campaign shows that he declared his address as 9e Awori Street Dolphin Estate, Lagos, Nigeria.

That apparently slipped by the eagle eyes of the Obama campaign’s finance team.

A survey of the Obama donor base returns 8,794 donations from individuals who gave their state as “NA.” They included donors from Bangalore, India; London; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Lagos, Nigeria; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Thousands more gave state abbreviations that, combined with the city addresses they listed, clearly referred to foreign countries. Examples include IT (Italy), FR (France), GR (Greece), NZ (New Zealand), JP (Japan), GA (Gaza).

Another 2,372 donors gave their state of residence as “ZZ,” with cities including Moscow, Barcelona, Beirut, London, Lausanne, Singapore, Hagatna, Gunma-Ken, Buelach, Shanghai, Geneva, Prague, Aichi-Gun, Kiev, Hong Kong, and others.

The Obama campaign claims that these donors with overseas addresses are Americans living abroad, but there is no way of knowing that for certain because the campaign has not systematically required proof of citizenship from overseas donors.

The pace of foreign donations and other questionable fundraising practices has increased during the past few weeks, even as Obama campaign spokesmen say they have closed loopholes on their Web site and changed the credit-card authorization procedures that have allowed such donations. The Federal Election Commission had flagged 16,639 potential foreign donations as of Oct. 21 that brought in $5,249,263.96 to the campaign.

Take the case of Jo Jacquet, who gave $23,065 to Obama in 23 separate contributions last month. CTC found three people with variations of the name “Jo Anna Jacquet” who had U.S. addresses and Social Security numbers. It is not clear whether this specific Obama donor is a U.S. citizen.

“Jo Jacquet” made all of her contributions on two days, alternating between $5 and $2,300 charges to a credit card.

On all of the donations, she gave her employer as “DFDFGDFG,” and her profession as “DFGDFGDFGHFGH.” None of this attracted the suspicions of the Obama campaign or of Chase Paymentech, the company that processes the Obama campaign’s credit card donations.

The FEC requested that the Obama campaign re-attribute or re-designate all of the money from “Jo Jacquet” that went beyond the $4,600 limit but did not require that it be refunded. Under campaign finance rules, the campaign can shift this money into the “Obama Victory” account, a joint fundraising committee with much higher individual limits that it operates with the Democratic National Committee.

One apparent reason for the unusual number of foreign donors who may not hold U.S. citizenship is the fact the Obama campaign turned off the security features most merchants demand for customers when doing online transactions, such as verifying the card number against the cardholder’s name and billing address.

Another major loophole is the apparent widespread use of gift cards, which notoriously have been used for money-laundering purposes, especially in places such as Russia and Ukraine, industry security analysts tell Newsmax.

Newsmax asked James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, who was responsible for taking the unusual step of deactivating the Address Verification Service recommended by VISA USA on the Obama Web site. Such security features can be deactivated by the processing company, or at the request of the merchant, in this case, Obama for America.

Wester said that Paymentech was “not going to be issuing a statement at this time.”

VISA USA has a series of verification tools it recommends to online merchants to prevent online credit card fraud and to guarantee the security of personal credit-card information.

“Fraudsters have been known to test credit card numbers by making online donations to charitable organizations,” a credit-card industry insider told Newsmax, on condition of anonymity.

In fact, by operating as a “high-risk merchant,” the Obama campaign could put both its donors and Chase Paymentech at risk, he said.

“A legitimate online merchant or charity would call in the Secret Service or the FBI” if it saw the high fraud rates that have appeared on the Obama campaign Web site.

“If they are not taking basic security safeguards to prevent such obvious online fraud as you have found, then how can any donor have confidence that they will protect credit card information? But if cash flow is the name of the game, it doesn’t matter as long as they get the money up-front and get the job done. They can pay the fines later,” he added.

Following are a few of the individuals the Newsmax/CTC International investigation found of overseas donors. To demonstrate its compliance with FEC regulations, the Obama campaign should request proof that these individuals are, indeed, U.S. citizens;

Nasser Z. of 187 Blvd Bineau in Paris-France, “NA,” made seven donations totaling $785. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship. But on Nasser’s personal blog, he states that he is of Algerian origin and lives between Paris and Dubai. He also notes that he is not registered to vote in the United States and hints that he may be an adviser to the Obama campaign on Arab relations.

Salem H. gave $200 to the campaign in March 2008, listing a London address. He said he worked as a salesman for “Anaka,” No information was found either on Haffar or his company indicating U.S. citizenship.

Essomba H. made 11 donations totaling $265. Essomba gave an address in Lyon, “NA,” and said he was unemployed but working for “Association,” the French equivalent of a community organizer. CTC found that Essomba actually worked for PDT Associates Afrikespace et Oyenga, which showed him as living in Lyon, France. His personal blog states, "I'm a Cameroonian living in France” and notes that he is not registered to vote.

Gedewon (or Gideon) G. made 32 donations totaling $1,095. Although he lists his employer as “Filtom Design Services” and his residence as Toronto, Canada, CTC could find no company with that name. Gedewon frequently posts blogs to a Web site for expatriate Eritreans, where he often promotes Obama.

Mahamane M. gave $500 to the campaign and listed his address as Niamey, the capitol of the central African state of Niger. He listed his occupation as managing director of C.N.U.T. Niger. The Public Transport Users Council, CNUT is affiliated with the prime minister’s office. In an interview, Mahamane said he is particularly interested in developing transportation resources that will help bring Niger’s extensive uranium resources to market.

Gilles M. lives in Zurich and claims to be “founder and senior consultant” of 4?ME (sic) Image Consulting. Gilles made three donations to the campaign for a total of $240.39. The campaign found him suspicious enough to return one of them in July, but kept the rest. Under FEC rules, that will bring Gilles back into the shadows, since his aggregate contributions now total less than $200.

Stamen S. of Sofia, Bulgaria, lists his profession as “Mployer” and his employer as "Employer." He has made ten donations totaling $170. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Francis B. . of La Creche, France, made three donations totaling $200. He is reported as being a medicine physician at Hospital-Niort and is listed. CTC found no verifiable record of U.S. citizenship.

Pedro M.,. who said he was a salesman for Intermundo in Prague, made two donations for a total of $900. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Sandeep M., . an investment manager at Clariden Leu, Kuesnacht, in Zurich, Switzerland, gave the maximum $2,300 allowed per election. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Marissa M., . a nurse living in Guatemala City, gave eight $25 donations. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Somine L. . declared that she worked at the French Ministry of Culture in Paris, and donated $100. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Although CTC had no way of accurately evaluating the real amount of foreign donations based on the survey they did for Newsmax, Rustmann said he believe that the anecdotal evidence was clear.

“In my opinion, from what I have seen here, millions of dollars came from illegal donations, because the Obama campaign did little to vet the donors,” Rustmann said.

An earlier Newsmax estimate, based on the unusual occurrence of unrounded contributions, which fundraising experts attributed to foreign currency donations, concluded that as much as $63 million could have come from foreign sources.

A veteran investigator with the Criminal Investigative Division of the U.S. Secret Service told Newsmax on Monday that most of the donor fraud Newsmax has identified could fly under the radar of federal investigators, unless the feds received a complaint from a victim of identify fraud.

Identify fraud certainly appeared to be the case when it came to the $174,800 donated in September in the name of Manchester, Mo., resident, Mary T. Biskup. A retired insurance manager, Biksup told The Washington Post that she never gave the money to the Obama campaign, and had checked her credit-card statements and couldn’t find any trace of a charge to her account.

“We're not out a penny," Biskup said. "I gather that someone has hacked into something using other people's credit cards and putting my name on it."

The credit-card industry often covers up identify fraud, such as apparently occurred with Biskup. Credit-card companies would rather swallow losses and chargebacks than admit to consumers that criminals have cracked their security systems, insiders tell Newsmax.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

'Undecideds' Could Shift Toward McCain

2008-10-30T06:15:00.000-07:00

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/undecided_voters/2008/10/29/145401.html

'Undecideds' Could Shift Toward McCain

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:06 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

If current survey trends continue, Obama will finish with less than 50 percent in the polls. Even discounting the Nader vote (some people never learn), the undecided voters could tip the race either way. How will they break?

Since there is no incumbent, they cannot automatically be assigned to the challenger; and since turnout is likely to be huge, the current undecided voters will probably make their way to the polls and cast their ballots.

But for whom?

At the beginning of this contest, Obama effectively made the case that the election was a referendum on Bush's performance in office. Painting a vote for McCain as a desire for "four more years of the same failed policies," he made the most of Bush's dismal approval rating. Had he been able to keep the focus on Bush, he would likely have inherited most of the undecided vote.

But as Obama surged into a more or less permanent lead in October, animated by the financial crisis, he has assumed many of the characteristics of an incumbent. Every voter asks himself one question before he or she casts a ballot: Do I want to vote for Obama? His uniqueness, charisma, and assertive program have so dominated the dialogue that the election is now a referendum on Obama.

As Obama has oscillated, moving somewhat above or somewhat below 50 percent in all the October polls, his election likely hangs in the balance. If he falls short of 50 percent in these circumstances, a majority of the voters can be said to have rejected him. Likely, a disproportionate number of the undecideds will vote for McCain.

But don't write Obama off. His candidacy strikes such enthusiasm among young and minority voters that there is still a chance that a massive turnout will deliver the race to the Democrats.

None of the polling organizations has any experience with — or model for — so massive a turnout, especially among voters notorious for staying at home. But the primaries proved that these young and minority voters will not stay home this time, but will vote for Obama.

The effect of this increased vote is hard to calculate, but it may be enough to offset the undecideds who will vote for McCain.

But the basic point, six days away from Election Day, is that even if Obama clings to a 4- or 5-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over.

The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent. As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.

Clearly, in recent weeks, McCain has been able to cast Obama as a leftist. He has made the issue of income redistribution central to the campaign. With the aid of Joe the plumber and the discovery of Obama's Chicago PBS interview, in which he lamented the absence of redistribution of wealth, McCain has made the proposition seem central to Obama's ideology.

The unprecedented power the bailout has given the government over the banking industry raises the real specter of socialism in America. The banks have, effectively, been nationalized.

How will government use its power over them? This new reality, coupled with Obama's professed pursuit of "social and political justice" through "redistribution of the wealth," is enough to send a shiver down the spine of those who embrace the free market as the key to economic growth.

The audacity of Obama's injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the voters seem to be buying it.

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

AP Reporter Married to Democratic Operative Doesn't Report that Sources are Obama Donors

2008-10-30T06:14:00.000-07:00

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/soren-dayton/2008/10/29/ap-reporter-married-democratic-operative-doesnt-report-sources-are-oba

AP Reporter Married to Democratic Operative Doesn't Report that Sources are Obama Donors
By Soren Dayton (Bio | Archive)
October 29, 2008 - 16:41 ET

AP Reporter Lara Jakes Jordan wrote about a letter that had "been sent" but not yet delivered to Attorney General Mike Mukasey. The reporter had a significant number of facts, including that the signers of the letter were Obama donors, that she did not disclose. Part of the story:

Six former Justice Department lawyers want Attorney General Michael Mukasey to make sure voter registration investigations don't keep eligible minority voters from the polls on Election Day.

The six attorneys formerly worked in the department's Civil Rights Division, which oversees ballot access issues as part of the Voting Rights Act.

The core of the letter concerned a policy at the DoJ that the Wall Street Journal has noticed is not being followed:

In a letter Friday to Mukasey, the attorneys noted that Justice Department policies generally discourage voter-related investigations until after elections to make sure the inquiries don't interfere with legitimate voters at the polls.

There are several problems with this story however. First, as noted above, the letter hadn't yet been delivered and no names were mentioned. Once I actually asked her for a copy of the letter, it turned out that 3 of the 6 signers of the letters were Obama donors. And she did not disclose that she herself is married to John Kerry's campaign manager Jim Jordan. And that's not the only problem.

The letter lists 6 attorneys: Stephen J. Pollack, James P. Turner, Brian K. Landsberg, Joseph D. Rich, Paul F. Hancock, and Sandra S. Coleman.

Of these, Pollack donated $2,300 to Barack Obama. Rich donated $500 (and possible more. 2 Joseph Rich's donated with no compliance information). Hancock gave $250 (and another $1,000 to Chris Dodd). It is also possible that Turner gave $2,300 and is a Democratic Congressional staffer, but I cannot confirm that that is the same person.

This story is written by the spouse of the campaign manager for the previous Democratic nominee describing a letter by Democratic partisans containing unchallenged misleading statements that advances an argument by Barack Obama's campaign.

One would think that the AP might have reported that differently.

Obama Speechwriter Switches to McCain

2008-10-30T06:12:00.000-07:00

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/29/obama-speechwriter-switches-mccain-ignored-msm

Obama Speechwriter Switches to McCain; Ignored by MSM
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
October 29, 2008 - 10:56 ET

Imagine if a speechwriter for John McCain had switched sides and announced she was going to vote for Barack Obama. Would she not be featured bigtime in the mainstream media complete with new thrills running up Chris Matthews leg? Well, this did happen except that it was an Obama speechwriter, Wendy Button, who became disillusioned with The One and switched to supporting McCain. Here are the highlights of Wendy Button's explanation of why she made the switch:

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional."

Young lady, only when the switch is made from Republican to Democrat will it be mentioned in the MSM. They search the country for "lifelong Republicans" who are going to vote for Obama but when an Obama speechwriter switches over to the "Dark Side," all you will hear from the MSM is the sound of crickets chirping.

When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn’t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for “The South Beach Diet” and he snapped, “Oh so you read People magazine.” He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.

I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.

...The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.

As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

...Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?

...Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.

Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”

...I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.

Wow! Pretty strong stuff. However, Wendy, don't expect any accolades from the MSM for making your political switch in the "wrong direction." Oh, and I highly doubt you will ever again be permitted to post to your Huffington Post blog.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

Obama "was Drawn to Socialists and even Marxists as a College Student

2008-10-29T20:07:00.000-07:00

http://politicalscene08.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-and-marxism.html

Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days

Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

Obama has been widely criticized for choosing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American firebrand, as his pastor. Wright is a purveyor of black liberation theology, which analysts say is based in part on Marxist ideas.

Few political observers go so far as to accuse Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, of being a Marxist. But Republican John McCain has been accusing Obama of espousing socialism ever since the Democrat told an Ohio plumber named Joe earlier this month that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's running mate, Biden, recently contradicted his boss, saying: "He is not spreading the wealth around." The remark came as Biden was answering a question from a TV anchor who asked: "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question?" an incredulous Biden shot back. "It's a ridiculous comparison."

But the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Obama has managed to cultivate the image of a political moderate in spite of his consistently liberal voting record. In 2006, he published a second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope," that leaves little doubt about his adherence to the left.

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," Obama wrote in "Audacity." "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."

National Journal magazine ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. The publication is far from conservative, employing such journalists as Linda Douglass, who resigned in May to become Obama's traveling press secretary.

Bill Sammon is the Washington deputy managing editor for FOX News Channel.

Real Truth about Obama's Marxist Mentors

2008-10-29T19:56:00.000-07:00

'The Truth About Obama': Shocking New Free Expose from Human Events can Swing Election
LOS ANGELES, October 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- "Millions of American voters still do not know what an ultra-left extremist Barack Hussein Obama is, but this free, factual, blockbuster new exposé from Human Events can fix that if enough people spread it around right up through Election Day next Tuesday," says John Finn of Los Angeles.

Finn says, "This new, carefully researched report by the respected journalist Ross Kaminsky is based on the new book The Case Against Barack Obama by David Freddoso (Regnery, 2008). It blows the lid off all the pretenses that Obama is mainstream. Here is total proof that Barack Hussein Obama is 'way too extreme for America.'

"This hard-hitting new report," explains Finn, "is short enough for anyone to read and digest quickly. Get this free report right away if you want to find out the real truth about Obama's Marxist mentors, his radical left-wing community agitation in Chicago, his far-left record in Illinois politics, his consorting with unrepentant Marxist ex- terrorists, his tired formulas for more big government and widespread higher taxes, his doomed-to-fail socialized medicine scheme, the emptiness of his rhetoric about 'change,' his pledges to be a 100% pro- abortion president, his opposition to reform in corrupt Chicago politics, and his Windy City slumlord pals."

Finn says, "You can forward this press release right now to all your friends, relatives and contacts, and tell them to send it along to everyone they know, and so on."

"Also," Finn says, "you can access 'The Truth About Obama' yourself right away, distribute it to everyone you can, and get those people in turn to circulate it to everyone they know, and so on. That way, we can reach millions of Americans with the truth and save them from voting for the most left-wing presidential candidate in U.S. history.

"Getting 'The Truth About Obama: What Every American Needs to Know' is easy, and it's free, too," Finn says. "All you have to do is click on the following link and you'll be inside the document": http://realtruthaboutobamanow.com

"After that," explains Finn, "you can print out the document yourself and distribute it locally, and you can forward the link to all your e-mail contacts, too. You can make a difference in this election if you access 'The Truth About Obama' right away and distribute it as widely as possible. Let everyone know Obama is bad for the USA."

Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: John Finn, 310-373-0743, john@johnfinn.com

Forward this press release to another reporter or news producer

This email was sent to mrtnzfred@aol.com by newsdesk@christiannewswire.com.
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Christian Communication Network | 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW | Washington | DC | 20006

20 Cities:Anti-Obama Pro-Life Demonstrations and Press Conference to Held Thursday, October 30

2008-10-29T19:50:00.000-07:00

Anti-Obama Pro-Life Demonstrations and Press Conference to Held in Over 20 Cities at Obama Headquarters on Thursday, October 30

Anti-Obama pro-life demonstrations and press conference to held in over 20 cities at Obama Headquarters on Thursday, October 30. Theme: "Dear Christian: Please do not turn your back on unborn babies by voting for Obama." All times 12 noon, local. Cities include NYC, DC, Miami, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Sacramento, and more.

Also: Catholic Bishop's Radio ad denouncing Obama airs in swing states.
MEDIA ADVISORY, October 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- Our message is simple: "Dear Christian, please do not abandon the babies with your vote. We all know these are tough days for America, but is it worth turning our backs on the innocent to vote for Obama? Please, come to your senses." Randall Terry

Randall Terry will lead event in Arlington VA (outside DC)

Arlington details, and partial list of cities and contacts at end of press release.

Also, radio ad from a Catholic Bishop that could sway Catholics away from Obama has begun airing in swing states.

U.S. Catholic Bishop Rene H. Gracida states in English and Spanish:

This is Bishop Rene H. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they must vote in this election with an informed conscience. A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate." (Listen to radio commercial at www.randallterry.com.)

Bishop Gracida's statement corrects the deceit promoted by certain Catholic Obama supporters during this campaign.

Partial list of cities. All Protests from Noon to 1:00 pm local time:

Arlington, VA

Joseph Landry, 904-687-9804
4350 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 105
Arlington, VA 22203

Charlotte, NC
Joseph Gustafson, Cell 704- 756-5051, Home 704-541-5778

Cincinnati, OH
Marti Shoemaker, Cell 513- 518-6473, Home 513-741-7120
1524 Madison Rd.

Colorado Springs, CO
Douglas Montgomery, 719-964-4050

Columbus, OH
Annamarie, 614-792- 2241,
Fr. Joseph Klee, 740-355-3196

Dallas, TX
Sue Cyr, 214-685-1079

Fort Wayne, IN
Ginny Gehret, 419-942- 2473

Indianapolis, IN
Robert Rust, 812-662- 6367

Jacksonville, FL
Jeremy Blanchard, Cell 904- 838-1408, Home 904-886-3291

Kansas City, MO
Mary Ann Benage, Cell 316- 253-3353, Home 620-223-4044

Memphis, TN
Stephen Olita 901-490- 8044

Miami, FL
Miles Codius, 305-794-0480

New York, NY
Chris Slattery, 914-224- 5773

Raleigh, NC
Rose McCreery, 919-847- 8357

Sacramento, CA
Jackie Roderick, 916-204- 9505;
Daphne Hewitt, 916-439-2795

Sioux City, IA
Marge Stanek, 712-253- 2501

St. Augustine, FL
Christine Humphries, 904- 829-9457

St. Louis, MO
Bill Kee, 903-269-8638

Virginia Beach, VA
Kathryn Tribble, Cell 757- 502-0890, Home 757-831-9924

Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Randall Terry, Founder, Operation Rescue, 904-687-9804

Forward this press release to another reporter or news producer

This email was sent to mrtnzfred@aol.com by newsdesk@christiannewswire.com.
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Christian Communication Network | 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW | Washington | DC | 20006