VAST Right Wing (VRWC)

[joseywalestx]

Obama Information Czar Outlined Plan For Government To Infiltrate Conspiracy Groups

Sunstein called for Cointelpro style effort to silence truth using army of hired provocateurs

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-information-czar-outlined-plan-for-government-to-infiltrate-conspiracy-groups.html

[chunga1]

Islamic mosque built at 9/11 Ground Zero
Muslim business leader: 'This has hand of the divine written over it'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 17, 2009
8:10 pm Eastern


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Wreckage from plane that hit the twin towers fell on the same building that may serve as an Islamic cultural center.


A new Islamic mosque will open its doors just steps from Ground Zero where Muslim terrorists murdered 2,751 people in the name of Allah on Sept. 11, 2001 – and its leading imam, who conducts sensitivity training sessions for the FBI, has reportedly blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.

The five-story building at Park Place, just two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site, was the site of a Burlington Coat Factory. But a plane's landing-gear assembly crashed through the roof on the day 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked the airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers in 2001.

Now Muslim worshippers currently occupy the building, and they plan to turn it into a major Islamic cultural center.

"The men and women stand up, raise their hands on either side of their head, murmur 'Allahu akhbar,' bow and kneel again," reports Spiegel Online.

"Only in New York City is this possible," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.

They have leased the new prayer space as an overflow building for another mosque, Masjid al-Farah, at 245 West Broadway in TriBeCa, where Rauf is the spiritual leader.

Get "Why We Left Islam" now from the people who published it – WND Books.

The building – vacant since that fateful day when time stood still as millions of Americans grieved the loss of loved ones, friends, family members, co-workers and strangers – was purchased in July by real-estate company Soho Properties, a business run by Muslims. Rauf was an investor in that transaction.

Just down the street, the Museum of Jewish Heritage honors victims of the Holocaust, and St. Peter's Church, New York's oldest Catholic house of worship, is located around the corner.

Rauf has announced his plans to turn the building into a complete Islamic cultural center, with a mosque, a museum, "merchandising options," and room for seminars to reconcile religions, "to counteract the backlash against Muslims in general, " Speigel reports. The project may cost as much as $150 million.

Rauf told the New York Times purchasing the building "where a piece of the wreckage fell sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11."

"It was almost obvious that something like this had to arise from the ashes of 9/11," Khan told Spiegel. "In some way, this has the hand of the divine written over it. It's almost as if God wanted to be involved."




The move is supported by the city. The mayor's director of the Office of Immigrant Affairs, Fatima Shama, told the Times, "We as New York Muslims have as much of a commitment to rebuilding New York as anybody."

The city's Department of Buildings records show the building has been the focus of complaints for illegal construction and blocked exits in the last year. Recent entries from Sept. 28 and 29, 2009, indicate inspectors have been unable to access the building. One complaint states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 1st attempt – No access to 5 sty building. Front locked. No responsible party present." The second, just a day later, states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 2nd attempt – no access to building. No activity or responsible party. Building remains inaccessible at Park Place."

Agency spokeswoman Carly Sullivan told the Times the complaints were listed as "resolved" under city procedures since the inspectors were unable to gain access.

Imam Rauf, born in Egypt, has written three books: "What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West," "Islam: A Sacred Law" and "Islam: A Search for Meaning."

WND reported in 2003 when, at least four times that year, the FBI's New York field office held all-day sensitivity training sessions, not far from Ground Zero, featuring Rauf.

Speaking for about two hours each session, "he gave an overview of Islamic culture and some of the differences between what fundamentalist terrorist groups say are the teachings of the Quran and what he believes, as a student of religion, the Quran actually says," said special agent James Margolin, spokesman for the FBI New York office.

Rauf asserted that the Quran "certainly doesn't counsel terrorism, murder or mayhem," Margolin said. And he said terrorists have misinterpreted the Quranic term "jihad" to mean violent, or armed, struggle against nonbelievers. Rauf claims it means internal struggle.

Rauf was invited to speak in Sydney, Australia, by Premier Bob Carr in 2004. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, he said the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they've done to Muslims before terrorism can end.

He said the West must understand the terrorists' point of view – and he blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets," he said.




According to the report, Rauf said there would be little progress until the U.S. acknowledged backing dictators and the U.S. president gave an "America Culpa" speech to the Muslim world.

On June 4, 2009, President Obama gave a speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, in which he stated:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Rauf praised Obama for "embracing Islam in the peacemaking process" in his speech to the Muslim world. He wrote in the Washington Post:

The historic significance of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. … In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the 'Clash of Civilizations,' which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved. … He captured the attention of Muslims because, unlike most politicians, he was willing to critique both his own country and Muslims where they fell short of their ideals.

In an interview with Beliefnet on Islam and America, a reporter asked Rauf, "Some Islamic charities are being investigated for terrorist ties. Have you seen what you consider to be reputable Islamic charities being financially damaged?"

"We believe that a certain portion of every charity has been legitimate," he responded. "To say that you have connections with terrorism is a very gray area. It's like the accusation that Saddam Hussein had links to Osama bin Laden. Well, America had links to Osama bin Laden – does that mean that America is a terrorist country or has ties to terrorism?"

In 2004, Rauf participated in a 30-second advertisement, broadcast on Arabic television, in which he apologized for alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

The Times reported Rauf said he believes "Islamic terrorists do not come from another moral universe – that they arise from oppressive societies that he feels Washington had a hand in creating."

Readers of various blogs are outraged at the news of the mosque. Comments include the following:

Muslims are doing this only to see if they get away with it. It's the way Islam spreads in every country these days, like a cancer – through incremental totalitarianism. In this case, they'll quietly open the mosque, then, as they get away with it, they'll ramp up their outrages until someone finally points it out. At that time, their lawyers, backed by the ACLU and various liberal organizations, will pounce.
This is not different than allowing the Nazis to establish their headquarters and propaganda office in NYC in 1938. How come people could tell right from wrong then and not now?
What bonehead allowed this to happen?
That's disgusting. That truly is low. I feel bad for the people who lost family members.
This is outrageous. I just don't have word.

This is called "staging" for the KSM trial.

You've got to be kidding me. If this is true, our beloved country is already gone. We no longer have the America I know and love.

Who wants to bet this place becomes a "tourist attraction" for Muslims? This mosque will become one of Islam's holiest shrines as it sits upon the site of their greatest modern military victory.
Good idea. Maybe terrorists will be less likely to bomb this area if there's a mosque there.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119328

[chunga1]

America, Join the Obama Coup or Get Out of the Wayby Evan Sayet
Dear America,

I hate you.

I hate you because you’re stupid, you’re bigoted and you’re dangerous.

I know that you’re stupid because you believe in an invisible man in the sky. Not only does that make you stupid, it makes you dangerous. After all, if you’re that easily led to believe in some invisible man in the sky then you might be led into believing in witches and you might burn people at the stake. I don’t care if you “cling” to your religion because you’re not as rich as I am, the fact that you cling to that stupidity makes you a threat to the utopia that would come if only there were no religion.

I know that you’re bigoted because you love America. I’m a citizen of the world, not xenophobic or nativist like you. I don’t believe in false borders falsely imposed on me by corporations and evil, white men seeking to exploit the world. Remember what my Messiah’s mentor said, it’s “white man’s greed that rules a world in need.” Why do you think America is better than any other nation? It’s only your bigotry and bigotry is evil. You’re evil. And you’re standing in the way of my utopia, the peace and prosperity that would come if only there were no countries.

And those of you in the military, you scare me most of all. You’re not just stupid and evil, you’re bloodthirsty. Why else would you want to kill your fellow citizens of the world? You’re Nazis. I’ve told you this before, many times before, any American who serves in the military is a Nazi. I hate your Islamophobia. I hate that you fought in the Vietnam War just because you hate the Yellow Man. Why does color mean so much to you? Why the antipathy for people who are different than you are?

And you people in Kansas, what’s the matter with you? Why are you so against socialism? It’ll be good for you. We’ll be taking money from rich people and giving it to you. You could take more vacations, buy a bigger screen TV. You scare me. Why don’t you want other peoples’ money? There’s something the matter with Kansas. You just don’t know what’s in your own best interest.

That’s why I support President Obama plans to take over America. Until you have given up your stupidity and your racism — your religion and your patriotism – you cannot be trusted with your freedom. And we’re not going to allow you to teach your hate to your children.

Please, America, join the Obama coup or just get out of the way. As President Obama said, America is no longer a Christian nation. We are all now citizens of the world. The time for your antiquated superstitions, for patriotism and faith, are gone!


Sincerely,
The Leadership of the Democrat Party

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/esayet/2009/09/02/america-join-the-obama-coup-or-get-out-of-the-way/

[chunga1]

tu...

[joseywalestx]

Here is a bit of history and the present

[joseywalestx]

you will have them we know that
The nobama private army is already there

[MuchCompensation]

OMG, let me call the thought police to restrain me!!!!

LOLOLOL.

MC

[joseywalestx]

here is the first example of a communist admitting that they are

Posted by: MuchCompensation Date: Saturday, May 02, 2009 5:15:32 PM
In reply to: benzdealeror2 who wrote msg# 422661 Post # of 422665 [Send a link via email]
It seems Capitalistic logic and values have had their opportunity to screw things up for a while, lets see how the other side of the pendulum swings.

MC

[bliz82]

You are very right. However, I do believe it will backfire in the end.

[chunga1]

yup

[joseywalestx]

did you watch the video

[chunga1]

1st i've heard of this one.

[joseywalestx]

Look at this The socialists are causing all kinds of trouble nationwide This is the future of this country These are the people that elected Nobama

http://www.westernyouth.org/index.htm

[chunga1]

Immigrants ravage U.S. infrastructure
Financial analyst: $1.6 trillion required to repair devastation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 15, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Edwin S. Rubenstein


The United States will need $1.6 trillion to repair damage to its infrastructure from a massive influx of immigrants, a new report reveals.

In his report titled, "The Twin Crises: Immigration and Infrastructure," prominent researcher Edwin S. Rubenstein examines 15 categories of infrastructure: airports, border security, bridges, dams and levees, electricity (the power grids), hazardous waste removal, hospitals, mass transit, parks and recreation facilities, ports and navigable waterways, public schools, railroads, roads and highways, solid waste and trash, and water and sewer systems.

Rubenstein, a financial analyst and former contributing editor of Forbes and economics editor of National Review, claims the nation is facing a crisis – with immigration responsible for at least 80 percent of spending needed to expand the U.S. infrastructure before the middle of this century.

"If the infrastructure crisis could be fixed by spending money, there would be no crisis," Mr. Rubenstein explained in a statement. "Since 1987, capital spending on transportation infrastructure has increased by 2.1 percent per year above the inflation rate. At $233 billion (2004 dollars), infrastructure is already one of the largest categories of government spending. Our infrastructure is 'crumbling' because population growth has overwhelmed the ability of even these vast sums to expand capacity."

While immigration policy has been hotly debated for a number of years, Rubenstein writes that its impact on infrastructure is rarely discussed.

Public schools

Immigrants make up 21 percent of the school-age population in the U.S.

"In California, a whopping 47 percent of the school-age population consists of immigrants or the children of immigrants," the report states. "Some Los Angeles schools are so crowded that they have lengthened the time between classes to give students time to make their way through crowded halls. Los Angeles' school construction program is so massive that the Army Corps of Engineers was called in to manage it."

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 18 percent of all schools are considered overcrowded, and 37 percent use trailers and portable structures to accommodate growing student bodies. Public facilities are an average of 40 years old. Cities with high populations of illegal aliens are spending large amounts of their budgets on constructing new schools.

"Our anticipated gains in the number of foreign-born students alone will require us to build one elementary school a month to keep up," Miami-Dade, Fla., school Superintendent Roger Cuevas said.

Hospitals

Rubenstein cites a recent construction boom among the nation's hospitals. As many as 60 percent of America's hospitals are either under construction or have plans for new facilities.

"But we have a two-tier hospital system in the U.S. Hospitals in poor areas – that serve primarily uninsured immigrants and Medicaid patients – cannot afford their facilities," he writes. "The uncompensated costs are killing them. In California, 60 emergency departments (EDs) have closed to avoid the uncompensated costs of their largely illegal alien caseloads."

Illegal aliens use emergency rooms more than twice as often as U.S. citizens, and providing their uncompensated care has been the death of many emergency departments.

In 2006, more than 46 percent of illegals did not have medical insurance. Although illegal aliens are not supposed to be eligible for Medicaid, they receive Emergency Medicaid and their children are entitled to all benefits that legal immigrants receive.

Because hospitals are forced to care for Medicaid recipients, the government program never covers full costs of service. It underpaid hospitals by $11.3 billion in 2006, he wrote.

(Story continues below)




Water and electricity

Rubenstein referenced immigration trends revealing that aliens often choose to live in cities with strained water supplies – especially near the border – and their sheer numbers have made conservation efforts nearly impossible.

"Cities like San Antonio, El Paso, and Phoenix could run out of water in 10 to 20 years," he writes. San Diego's water company has resorted to a once-unthinkable option: recycling toilet water for drinking."

Due to immigration, demand for water exceeds the California State Water Project's capacity. Now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed building a $6 billion reservoir. Approximately one-fifth of the state's electricity is tied up in collection, storage and transportation of the water.

Electric utilities are expected to require an additional $142 billion to keep generator capacity at recommended levels before 2050 due to the increasing population.

National parks


Trash left behind by illegal aliens


America's national parks are also bearing the brunt of immigration. Illegals wear roads and paths through parks.

"Their fires, trash, and vandalism have despoiled thousands of acres of pristine parkland," he writes.

According to Rubenstein, illegals leave beer, water and milk bottles, personal hygiene items and medications, clothing and shoes, food and food cans, jewelry, paper trash, sanitary pads, disposable diapers, backpacks, blankets, towels, plastic bags, homemade weapons, disintegrating toilet paper and human feces on U.S. property while they journey into the country.

They damage vegetation, leave abandoned vehicles and bicycles, spray paint trees and boulders and create campfires that turn into wildfires.

Border security costs

Costs for securing the nation's borders are expected to increase 20.6 percent in fiscal year 2009. These include expenses for border patrol, electronic surveillance, the border fence and other security needs. President Bush allocated $44.3 billion for the Department of Homeland Security – a 4.5 percent increase from last year's budget of $42.4 billion.




"While the U.S. builds a fence across much of the border, many illegals are taking a different route. Underground," Rubenstein reveals. "Authorities have discovered dozens of illegal tunnels across the international border in recent years. Smuggling of drugs, weapons, and immigrants takes place daily through these underground passageways."

Illegal aliens also use drainage systems to travel across the U.S.-Mexico border – from El Paso to San Diego.

"One tunnel, actually a system of two half-mile passages connecting Tijuana with San Diego, is by comparison a superhighway," he wrote.

While the Border Patrol attempts to stop these underground incursions with steel doors, cameras and sensors, harsh weather conditions and human smugglers destroy the equipment and barriers.

These costs, and the expenses of providing "enhanced driver's licenses" as alternative passports for citizens, RFID chips, government databases and watch lists are expected to soar.

Fiscal burden

In his research, Rubenstein finds that the average immigrant household generates a fiscal debt of $3,408 after federal benefits and taxes are considered. At the state and local level, the fiscal debt amounts to $4.398 per immigrant household.

"There are currently about 36 million immigrants living in about 9 million households, so the aggregate deficit attributable to immigrants comes to $70.3 billion," he writes. "… Immigrants could deplete the amount of funds available for infrastructure by as much as $70 billion per year."

Rubenstein cites figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, projecting that the U.S. population will reach 433 million by 2050 – increasing 44 percent, or 135 million, from today's numbers.

A full 82 percent of this increase will be directly attributable to new immigrants and their U.S.-born children.

"The brutal reality is that no conceivable infrastructure program can keep pace with that kind of population growth," he wrote. "The traditional 'supply-side' response to America's infrastructure shortage – build, build, build – is dead, dead, dead. Demand reduction is the only viable way to close the gap between the supply and demand of public infrastructure."

He concludes, "Immigration reduction must play a role."

Edwin Rubenstein's complete report, "The Twin Crises: Immigration and Infrastructure," released Jan. 13, is available here.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86243

[gp100357]

That "Giant Sucking Sound" Ross Perot spoke of, only this time it is from within ...

[chunga1]

U.S. governors seek $1 trillion federal assistance
Fri Jan 2, 2009 5:48pm EST
By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Governors of five U.S. states urged the federal government to provide $1 trillion in aid to the country's 50 states to help pay for education, welfare and infrastructure as states struggle with steep budget deficits amid a deepening recession.

The governors of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin -- all Democrats -- said the initiative for the two-year aid package was backed by other governors and follows a meeting in December where governors called on President-elect Barack Obama to help them maintain services in the face of slumping revenues.

Gov. David Paterson of New York said 43 states now have budget deficits totaling some $100 billion as tax revenues plunge.

"It's clear that the federal government needs to step in and jump-start the economy," said Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.

The latest package calls for $350 billion to create jobs by building or repairing roads, bridges and other public works; $250 billion to maintain education; and another $250 billion in "counter-cyclical" spending such as extending unemployment benefits and food stamps, which are typically a responsibility of the states.

The remainder would be used to fund middle-class tax cuts, stimulate the embattled housing market, and stem the tide of home foreclosures through a loan-modification program.

Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey said he hoped some of the $700 billion authorized by Congress in the Troubled Asset Relief Program would be available to help the housing market.

The governors said during a conference call with reporters that the plan had been discussed with Congressional leaders and the incoming administration, which had indicated its willingness to help.

"The Obama team has been very receptive in listening to us," said Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin. He said "quite a number" of other governors back the initiative.

The Republican Governors Association, however, said the level of federal aid being sought would create a burden for the future.

"The proposal by the Democratic governors goes beyond things like 'shovel-ready' infrastructure projects and is essentially a bailout of these states' general funds," Nick Ayers, executive director of the Republican Governors Association, said in a statement. "Now is the time to focus on finding cost-effective ways to provide essential services without burdening future generations with ever greater debt."

Doyle of Wisconsin said the plan would allow states to maintain essential services at about the current level until 2010, when the national economy is expected to begin a recovery.

The proposal comes amid expectations that the Obama administration, which takes office on January 20, will provide hundreds of billions of dollars in economic stimulus to boost the shrinking U.S. economy and halt the loss of jobs.

Paterson of New York said his state's budget deficit has surged to $15.4 billion currently from $5 billion in April 2008, despite a 3.2 percent cut in the education budget.

Corzine said the money called for represents about 3 percent to 3.5 percent of the economy, equivalent to the amount that the economy is expected to contract by over the next two quarters.

In light of the $700 billion provided to bail out the financial industry, "It's not shockingly large," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5014F120090102?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

[chunga1]

Bush’s Legacy May End Up Better Than You Think: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The George W. Bush farewell tour took off in earnest last week, with the president granting interviews left and right. The image that emerged was surprisingly upbeat. His party is in tatters, the economy is the bleakest in a generation, and yet Bush played the part of a man confident that history will side with him.

He recognizes that times are tough. “It turns out this isn’t one of the presidencies where you ride off into the sunset, you know, kind of waving goodbye,” Bush told a Washington audience. That’s the understatement of the century.

Bush’s popularity is about the lowest on record for postwar presidents. A recent Gallup Poll ranked his 29.4 percent approval rating as the 10th-worst quarterly ranking since 1945. Only Harry Truman and Richard M. Nixon saw lower ratings.

With those numbers, one might forgive Bush if he snuck out of town and entered the witness-protection program. Instead, we get a concerted effort at legacy management. Is this campaign hopeless, or might history judge him favorably?

The argument for his eventual vindication is stronger than many might expect.

On foreign policy, Bush emphasizes that he pursued a “freedom agenda” and spread freedom to Iraq. While the Iraqi future is far from clear, it is possible that the country becomes a democracy and a reliable ally of the U.S. If that transformation is completed, then it could well be viewed as a turning point in the war on terror.

On the home front, to virtually everyone’s surprise, we’ve avoided a terrorist attack since Sept. 11.

Hard to Argue

So it is hard to argue that Bush’s policies were a failure. The unpopular war may have trashed his party, but it didn’t have the same effect on the country.

Turning to the economy, the pro-Bush argument becomes more of a stretch. First, his accomplishments were few. He passed a relatively small tax cut and was unable to hold the line on government spending. As a result, the deficit skyrocketed and set the stage for his tax cuts to be reversed. The prescription- drug benefit wasn’t paid for, and the jury is out on his No Child Left Behind education policy.

The insignificance of Bush’s economic policy, though, might work to his advantage. We are in the midst of the worst recession of our generation, yet it is hard to attribute this crisis to anything that Bush actively did. If his large deficits produced skyrocketing interest rates that crushed the economy, then the argument that Bush caused the mess we’re in might hold water. If he was the one who deregulated the financial sector, then we could justifiably blame him for our predicament.

Before Bush

Instead, the forces that allowed the financial sector to blow up -- deregulation, for example -- were in place when he took office. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who failed to stem the crisis, was inherited from the previous president. Bush even tried to avert the crisis early and often in his presidency, as he sought strict limits on the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage-finance companies that were at ground zero of the crisis.

Bush was unable to stop the housing crisis and its fallout, but he tried. In that failure, he is hardly alone. The crisis has touched just about everyone, wiping out wealth in countries run by both liberals and conservatives.

All told, it seems unlikely that history will blame Bush for the financial crisis. He may even receive credit for helping to minimize its impact.

Diminishing Importance

Capital markets, after all, have been anticipating a recession for most of this year. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have defended their extraordinary actions as necessary insurance against a depression. If a disaster is avoided, if the recession begins to ease in the coming months and the bailout frenzy ends, then the terrible economy we see before us will diminish in historical importance.

This is the 11th recession of the postwar period, and 33rd in the National Bureau of Economic Research’s business cycle chronology, starting in 1854. Most presidents have a recession or two during their term, but it is hard to think of one that historians blame on a president. Bush’s tenure would have been unusual if it hadn’t had a recession. It is hard to see why he would bear more blame than has been the historical norm.

It may well be that Paulson and Bernanke have made things worse, and we are going to enter a depression. If we do, then historians will view Bush as someone who at the very least failed to act as needed. Regardless of how foreign policy turns out, Bush would take his place next to Hoover in the rogues’ gallery of history.

But if we look back and see only a worse-than-normal recession, then the Bush legacy will depend on the future of Iraq, and its role in smoothing out the Middle East. In the best-case scenario, Bush will have been a good -- maybe even a great -- president.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=acJBjLS7oKAc

[gp100357]

Amen - we have to ... no other option.

[chunga1]

Fairness Doctrine 2.0
Posted November 25th, 2008 at 9.26am in Entrepreneurship, First Principles.
After the Democratic Party took control of Congress in 2006, experts predicted the federal government was sure to pass “comprehensive” immigration reform. The new liberal majorities in the House and Senate wanted it, the mainstream media wanted it, a Republican president wanted it, and the eventual nominee of Republican Party helped craft the bill. But then democracy happened. Conservative and independent activists pierced through the establishment’s gooey rhetoric to expose what was at the core of the bill: amnesty for millions of immigrants who violated American laws when entering the country that would end up costing taxpayers at least $2.6 trillion.

Key to this grassroots victory was talk radio. By informing and motivating their listeners, talk radio hosts generated thousands of calls to Congress, which swamped Capitol Hill switchboards. When the dust settled, the American people won. This was made possible thanks to the principles enshrined in the First Amendment: the freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But the establishment was not happy. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) complained that “hate radio” had hijacked political discourse and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Authorized by the Communications Act of 1934 and implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance.” While this may sound reasonable at first, just like “comprehensive” immigration reform does, the language itself is impossibly vague. The Fairness Doctrine became a tool for politicians to harass stations that dared to air opinions they did not like. Even if a challenge against a station ultimately failed, the cost of defending against it could be substantial. So the safe route for most station owners was to stay far away from the policy discussion entirely.

It took a conservative revolution in Washington before the FCC finally recognized how stifling its “fairness” rule was. In 1987 the FCC found that “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.”

But now that they are back in power, liberals are again bent on stifling dissent. They have learned from their past failures, however. Last year former talk show host Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) sponsored legislation forbidding the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. It passed 309-115. But the measure was never taken up by the Senate. The FCC still has the same power it did in 1949 to create a new Fairness Doctrine. And that is exactly what the left is already moving to do.

Last year the Center for American Progress released its blueprint for the re-censorship of America’s airwaves. The report notes that the exact same language that authorized the original Fairness Doctrine has never been repealed: “Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. … The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings … and empowered local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders.” These are exactly policy prescriptions the Center for American Progress wants the FCC to adopt today: shortening radio broadcast licenses from eight to three years; requiring broadcasters to prove to bureaucrats they are operating “on behalf of the public interest”; and forcing broadcasters who fail to satisfy the bureaucrats to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The left will not call this new policy the Fairness Doctrine. They know they lost that fight. Instead, liberals are using new buzzwords like “localism“to mask their attacks on free speech. But make no mistake, the “public interest” requirements of Fairness Doctrine 2.0 can be defined almost any way a regulator wants — up to and perhaps even beyond that required by the old Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives must keep a close eye on what the FCC does next.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/11/25/morning-bell-the-fairness-doctrine-20/

[chunga1]

Clinton Faces a Familiar List of Overseas Problems
Obama's Likely Choice for Secretary of State Brings a Hawkish Reputation to Table With North Korea, Iran and Palestinians

By JAY SOLOMON


WASHINGTON -- As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton would seek diplomatic solutions to problems her husband and President George W. Bush largely failed to solve, from North Korea's nuclear program to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the U.S. standoff with Iran.

Sen. Clinton's international stature would help gain the attention and cooperation of world leaders, say current and former U.S. diplomats. Even the former first lady's critics acknowledge that her tenacity and attention to detail could make her an effective chief American diplomat.
Still, Sen. Clinton's foreign-policy doctrine, as outlined during the presidential campaign, is considerably to the right of President-elect Barack Obama's. The two could form an effective good-cop, bad-cop combination, supporters say. Others fear a reprise of the ideological battles between the White House and State Department that marked President Bush's administration.
Representatives of Mr. Obama and Sen. Clinton continue to have intensive talks, and have resolved the financial-disclosure issues surrounding the international charity work of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, according to a transition aide. People on both sides say Mr. Obama is on track to announce Sen. Clinton as his choice.
"We're still in discussions, which are very much on track," said Philippe Reines, a senior adviser to Sen. Clinton, on Friday. "Any reports beyond that are premature."
Meanwhile, an official close to the transition team also said Friday retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones has moved up the list to become the favorite to become Mr. Obama's national security adviser.
His choice would likely mean James Steinberg, a top foreign policy adviser to the Obama campaign, would move over to the State Department and become Mrs. Clinton's deputy, the official said. Another Obama confidante, Susan Rice, would then be positioned to be Mr. Jones's deputy.
View Full Image

Getty Images
Iranian protesters at the White House.
Two other officials close to the transition said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, earlier mentioned for secretary of state, is likely to be nominated for commerce secretary.
Mr. Obama has indicated he will take a central role in crafting American strategy. "If she [Sen. Clinton] really is going to be a partner with the president, and not being placed just to neutralize her, it could be a good team," said Lawrence Wilkerson, a chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell. "She has the gravitas and work ethic...to get things done."
Sen. Clinton has earned a reputation as being among the more hawkish Democrats during her eight years in the Senate. She voted in favor of the Iraq war, though she later distanced herself from the decision and accused the Bush White House of providing skewed intelligence to Congress. She has also supported stringent economic sanctions against Iran for its nuclear activities, and broke with Mr. Obama last year by backing a Bush administration initiative to label an Iranian military body, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, a terrorist organization. During the campaign, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran if the country carried out a nuclear strike on Israel.
View Full Image

Associated Press
North Korea's Kim Jong Il toasts Madeleine Albright in 2000.
Sen. Clinton ranks among Israel's staunchest defenders in Congress, raising concerns among some Arab diplomats about her ability to be a peace broker between Palestinians and Israelis. Many Arab governments have voiced hope that the Obama administration will view their positions more favorably than Mr. Bush did.
"She's not incredibly popular in the Arab world, but she's a known quality, which could help," said an Arab diplomat working on the Palestinian issue.
Sen. Clinton has joined with Mr. Obama in pledging to break from the unilateralist foreign policies that often defined the Bush administration, while working to rebuild American alliances globally. She has called for the U.S. to work closely with the United Nations and to empower multinational bodies like the International Criminal Court.
View Full Image

Getty Images
Late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, with Bill Clinton and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000.
In facing the rising power of China and Russia, Sen. Clinton has called for a sustained effort to integrate Beijing and Moscow more effectively into global economic and political bodies. "Our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century," she wrote in Foreign Affairs last year.
Sen. Clinton and Mr. Obama have both indicated they will continue an engagement strategy with North Korea pursued by President Bush that echoes an agreement the Clinton administration originally made with Pyongyang in 1994.
Some Democratic foreign-policy specialists grumble that the inclusion of Sen. Clinton and veterans of Mr. Clinton's foreign-policy team undercuts Mr. Obama's calls for change in Washington. Former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross, for example, is expected to take a similar job under Mr. Obama.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122729889963548689.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[chunga1]

Silver linings in Tuesday's storm

Sunday, November 9, 2008

With his fellow Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann looking on, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner on Tuesday discusses his recent tour with several other House Republicans of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. (United Press International)

Despite the overall dismal results of Tuesday's elections, there were a few positive developments for conservatives.

Senate races in three states (Georgia, Alaska and Minnesota) remain too close to call, but it is unlikely that Democrats will be able to reach the 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster.

In Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose parliamentary skills will be needed on behalf of Republicans, won a hard-fought race with 53 percent of the vote. In Mississippi, Republican Rep. Roger Wicker won a difficult race to serve the remaining four years of Sen. Trent Lott's term. In Nebraska, retiring Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a moderate who clashed with conservatives on issues like Iraq and illegal immigration, will be replaced by former Gov. Mike Johanns, a conservative.

Republicans wrested four House seats from the Democrats.

In Florida's 16th Congressional District, Tom Rooney's win over scandal-plagued Democratic incumbent Tim Mahoney is very good news for conservatives. Mr. Rooney, an Army veteran who made combating illegal immigration a focus of his campaign, is probably more conservative than Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned two years ago. In Louisiana's 6th district, Bill Cassidy, a state senator and physician, recaptured one of the three seats Republicans lost in special elections earlier this year. Dr. Cassidy is a favorite of Louisiana conservatives for his support of tax cuts and pro-family legislation. Texas' 22nd district, formerly held by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, was recaptured for Republicans by Pete Olson, a conservative stalwart who served as chief of staff to Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn. In Kansas' 2nd Congressional District, state Treasurer Lynn Jenkins emphasized her opposition to tax increases and illegal immigration in unseating freshman Democratic incumbent Rep. Nancy Boyda.

In a number of other races, right-of-center Republican opponents survived stiff challenges to win re-election.

In Minnesota's 6th district, freshman Rep. Michele Bachmann, a conservative leader on an wide array of issues, won despite a well-financed effort to defeat her by the national Democratic Party. In Arizona's 3rd district, Rep. John Shadegg held on to his seat despite a campaign in which national Democrats spent more than $2 million in an effort to defeat him. In a few cases, moderate Republicans were succeeded by conservatives. In Minnesota's 3rd district, where moderate Rep. Jim Ramstad is retiring after nine terms, his successor will be state Rep. Erik Paulsen, an anti-tax conservative.

There is a strange twist in the Alaska Senate race, where incumbent Republican Ted Stevens, a convicted felon, narrowly leads Democratic challenger Mark Begich and votes are still being counted. If Mr. Stevens were re-elected and subsequently expelled, Gov. Sarah Palin would appoint a temporary replacement to serve out the remainder of Mr. Stevens' six-year term (in all likelihood a conservative Republican), and a special election would be held within 90 days.

No Democrat has been elected to the Senate from Alaska since Mike Gravel in 1974.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/silver-linings/

[iamshazzam]

"What is a Veteran?"

"They are men and women who, for many reasons, donned the uniform of our country to stand between freedom and tyranny; to take up the sword of justice in defense of the liberties we hold dear; to preserve peace and to calm the winds of war.

Your mothers and fathers, your grandparents, your aunts and uncles, your neighbors, the shop owners in your community, your teachers, your favorite athlete, a Hollywood star, and your political leaders... each one could be a veteran.

But as much as they may differ by gender, race, age, national origin, or profession, they share a common love for our great nation; a love great enough to put their very lives on the line, if need be, to guarantee the way of life we enjoy today, and to secure that way of life for tomorrow's generations.

The title “veteran” must be earned. It is a title endowed by a grateful nation on citizens whose shoulders were broad enough to carry the weight of our common defense.

It is a title that speaks of courage and sacrifice in the face of mortal danger.

It is a title that speaks of compassion and heartbreak in the wake of the terrible cost of war.

And it is a title that speaks of love of country, and of a belief in America’s goodness, and our strength.

In each of America’s struggles, heroes in uniform emerged to inspire and spur us on to victory. Our veterans’ steadfast resolve to stand and fight for the American way of life is a constant reminder that the righteousness of our destiny overarches the anguish of our losses.

America’s servicemen and women, who became our nation’s veterans when they set their uniforms aside and resumed their civilian lives, distinguished themselves through their willingness to risk life and limb in defense of the freedoms we all cherish.

Those who have served our nation in uniform are the best people our society has to offer. We owe them our full support, and our sincerest thanks."

[tmcc]

Locked,Loaded and Ready to Vote !

They try to use fear and emotionalism and intimidation to
stop us from voting.
They try to convince us that the Socialist Party is going to sweep the election away.

It ain't gonna happen !

Vote for FREEDOM.

Vote for the U.S. Constitution ( Strictly Constructed )

Vote for those who died on 9/11/01

Vote for those that sacrificed and died for freedom in Iraq and Afghanastan and in all the past JUST WARS fought by the citizen soldiers of the U.S.A.

Vote for the past generations who worked hard to maintain the LEGACY of FREEDOM and LIBERTY -
so they could pass it on to you.

Vote for future generations,so FREEDOM will still BE THERE
for them when they arrive.

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE !

Vote McCain-Palin in '08

[iamshazzam]

Be prepared! Be very prepared! DO NOT SIT THIS ONE OUT!!!!!

Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss 'Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets'
by Jason Horowitz | October 30, 2008

It seems that the final days of the presidential campaign have made Erica Jong and her friends more than a little anxious.

A few days ago, Jong, the author and self-described feminist, gave an interview to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, the choicest bits of which were brought to my attention by the reliably sharp-eyed Christian Rocca, the U.S. correspondent of Il Foglio, who published excerpts on his Camillo blog. Basically, Jong says her fear that Obama might lose the election has developed into an "obsession. A paralyzing terror. An anxious fever that keeps you awake at night." She also says that her friends Jane Fonda and Naomi Wolf are extremely worried that Obama will be sabotaged by Republican dirty tricks, and that if an Obama loss indeed comes to pass, the result will be a second American Civil War.

Here's a translation of Jong's more spirited quotes to the Milan-based Corriere, as selected by Rocca.

"The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged."

"My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves."

"My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium."

"After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…"

"If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets."

"Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act."



She also laments that not all of America's men of letters share her devotion to Obama.



"Tom Wolfe and John Updike are men of the right and Philip Roth is at this point a hermit who leads a monastic life in Connecticut, far from everything and everybody."

Luckily, she said there is her and Michael Chabon, who, she says, have "taken the place of Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer respectively."

They have the same political sensibilities, she said, but a better "sense of humor."

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/erica-jong-tells-italians-obama-loss-will-spark-second-american-civil-war-blood-will-r

[tmcc]

Please watch this You-Tube, it has already received
11 million+ viewings
The most ever
Watch it thru till the very end.

It is a U.S Iraq War veteran talking direct to obama.

Must see !

E-Mail it to ALL that you know that might still be undecided.

Could be an election changer !

dear mr. obama --->

[iamshazzam]

[bliz82]

Obama: Constitution is 'Deeply Flawed'

Monday, October 27, 2008 8:20 PM

By: David A. Patten

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having “deep flaws” during a September 2001 Chicago public radio program, adding that the country’s Founding Fathers had “an enormous blind spot” when they wrote it.

Obama also remarked that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

Obama’s statements came during a panel discussion that aired on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, titled “Slavery and the Constitution.”

The discussion that led to the statements took place on the now-defunct Odyssey program, which also aired statements by Obama bemoaning the fact that the Civil Rights movement had failed to bring about an economic redistribution of wealth in America.

Obama’s remarks came toward the end of a somewhat professorial, academic discussion on the Constitution and the evolution of Civil Rights.

The panelists were discussing the compromise struck by the Founding Fathers to avoid a direct confrontation over slavery, as well as the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments after the Civil War. Those amendments outlawed slavery, required “equal protection” under the law, and stated that African-Americans must be provided the right to vote.

Prior to Obama’s statement, Richard R. John, a professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said that slavery had been a significant issue for the Founding Fathers. But it was not, John stated, a matter of central importance to them.

John said it was easy to second-guess America’s Founding Fathers for establishing a government that allowed slavery to continue.

“I think it’s easy to be very hard on the Founders, and to be very hard on our governing institutions,” John said. “But I just wish we’d think about what the alternatives were, what the practical alternatives [were], and not some possible, counterfactual dreams we might have.”

At that point, the moderator of the program, Gretchen Helfrich, turned to Obama.

“Barack Obama, what are your thoughts on the Declaration and Constitution?”

“I-I-I think it’s a remarkable document –“ he began haltingly.

“Which one?” Helfrich interjected.

“The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments,” he replied. “But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.

“African-Americans were not -- first of all they weren’t African-Americans -- the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a ‘nagging problem’ in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.

“And in that sense,” Obama continued, “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

Obama did not elaborate on the “fundamental flaw” that persists.

Conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh pounced on Obama’s remarks during his Monday radio program.

“Good Lord, ladies and gentlemen! I don’t see how he can take the oath of office, which is this: ‘I do solemly swear, or affirm, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Said Limbaugh, “He has rejected the Constitution.”

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_constitution/2008/10/27/144675.html

[iamshazzam]

too good to pass up - lol and so true

[chunga1]

AP presidential poll: Race tightens in final weeks


Email this Story

Oct 22, 5:16 PM (ET)

By LIZ SIDOTI

(AP) Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., campaigns at Robert Morris University...
Full Image



Google sponsored links
McCain Vs Obama - Better for your Wallet? Vote Now.
www.personalliberty.com/


Are Obama Polls Accurate? - Post Polls On Your Website And Blog Find Out What People Really Think.
www.BuzzDash.com/Politics








WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.

The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day.


(AP) Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain acknowledges a cheering crowd during a campaign...
Full Image


"I trust McCain more, and I do feel that he has more experience in government than Obama. I don't think Obama has been around long enough," said Angela Decker, 44, of La Porte, Ind.

But Karen Judd, 58, of Middleton, Wis., said, "Obama certainly has sufficient qualifications." She said any positive feelings about McCain evaporated with "the outright lying" in TV ads and his choice of running mate Sarah Palin, who "doesn't have the correct skills."

The new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.

Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, conducted by Republican strategist Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. In other surveys focusing on likely voters, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Obama up by 9 percentage points, while a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center had Obama leading by 14. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, among the broader category of people registered to vote, found Obama ahead by 10 points.

Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.


(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a foreign policy meeting...
Full Image


Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor and polling authority, said variation between polls occurs, in part, because pollsters interview random samples of people.

"If they all agree, somebody would be doing something terribly wrong," he said of polls. But he also said that surveys generally fall within a few points of each other, adding, "When you get much beyond that, there's something to explain."

The AP-GfK survey included interviews with a nationally representative random sample totaling 1,101 adults, including 800 deemed likely to vote. For the entire sample, the survey showed Obama ahead 47 percent to 37 percent. He was up by five points among all registered voters, including the likely voters.

A significant number of the interviews were conducted by dialing a randomly selected sample of cell phone numbers, and thus this poll had a chance to reach voters who were excluded from some other polls.

It was taken over five days from Thursday through Monday, starting the night after the candidates' final debate and ending the day after former Secretary of State Colin Powell broke with the Republican Party to endorse Obama.

McCain's strong showing is partly attributable to his strong debate performance; Thursday was his best night of the survey. Obama's best night was Sunday, hours after the Powell announcement, and the full impact of that endorsement may not have been captured in any surveys yet. Future polling could show whether either of those was merely a support "bounce" or something more lasting.

During their final debate, a feisty McCain repeatedly forced Obama to defend his record, comments and associations. He also used the story of a voter whom the Democrat had met in Ohio, "Joe the plumber," to argue that Obama's tax plan would be bad for working class voters.

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama told the man with the last name of Wurzelbacher, who had asked Obama whether his plan to increase taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year would impede his ability to buy the plumbing company where he works.

On Wednesday, McCain's campaign unveiled a new TV ad that features that Obama quote, and shows different people saying: "I'm Joe the plumber." A man asks: "Obama wants my sweat to pay for his trillion dollars in new spending?"

Since McCain has seized on that line of argument, he has picked up support among white married people and non-college educated whites, the poll shows, while widening his advantage among white men. Black voters still overwhelmingly support Obama.

The Republican also has improved his rating for handling the economy and the financial crisis. Nearly half of likely voters think their taxes will rise under an Obama administration compared with a third who say McCain would raise their taxes.

Since the last AP-GfK survey in late September, McCain also has:

_Posted big gains among likely voters earning under $50,000 a year; he now trails Obama by just 4 percentage points compared with 26 earlier.

_Surged among rural voters; he has an 18-point advantage, up from 4.

_Doubled his advantage among whites who haven't finished college and now leads by 20 points. McCain and Obama are running about even among white college graduates, no change from earlier.

_Made modest gains among whites of both genders, now leading by 22 points among white men and by 7 among white women.

_Improved slightly among whites who are married, now with a 24-point lead.

_Narrowed a gap among unmarried whites, though he still trails by 8 points.

McCain has cut into Obama's advantage on the questions of whom voters trust to handle the economy and the financial crisis. On both, the Democrat now leads by just 6 points, compared with 15 in the previous survey.

Obama still has a larger advantage on other economic measures, with 44 percent saying they think the economy will have improved a year from now if he is elected compared with 34 percent for McCain.

Intensity has increased among McCain's supporters.

A month ago, Obama had more strong supporters than McCain did. Now, the number of excited supporters is about even.

Eight of 10 Democrats are supporting Obama, while nine in 10 Republicans are backing McCain. Independents are about evenly split.

Some 24 percent of likely voters were deemed still persuadable, meaning they were either undecided or said they might switch candidates. Those up-for-grabs voters came about equally from the three categories: undecideds, McCain supporters and Obama backers.

Said John Ormesher, 67, of Dandridge, Tenn.: "I've got respect for them but that's the extent of it. I don't have a whole lot of affinity toward either one of them. They're both part of the same political mess."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081022/D93VPI9O0.html

[joseywalestx]

and then it turns out that colin powell was just another yes man anyway I dont think he has to many military men behind him

[joseywalestx]

colin powell wasnt on the news as much though /and besides that everybody figured he would go with nobama anyway,,,all the money was on that happening for all the obvious reasons

[iamshazzam]

but remember - schwartzkoff was the theater commander, powell was the chairman of the joint chiefs and therefore called the shots or had the final say in operations

[joseywalestx]

alot of these guys dont even know who colin powell is. remember it was I cant even begin to spell his name correctly but here goes swartzcoff who was the commander then

[iamshazzam]

i find it hard to believe that even 2.3% would vote for bammy - however, i'm sure cp had a big influence on "some" of the military vote..............

[joseywalestx]

SO MUCH FOR THE TROOPS SUPPORTING NOBAMA

Poll Suggests U.S. Troops Support McCain 3-1
A Military Times poll indicates landslide support for John McCain, who captures 68 percent of the military vote to Barack Obama's 23 percent.

A poll by the Military Times newspaper group suggests that there is overwhelming support for John McCain among U.S. troops in every branch of the armed forces by a nearly 3-1 margin.

According to the poll, 68 percent of active-duty and retired servicemen and women support McCain, while 23 percent support Barack Obama. The numbers are nearly identical among officers and enlisted troops.

Click here to see the raw data.

The Military Times, which publishes the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times, polled 80,000 subscribers from Sept 22 to Sept. 29. The non-scientific survey gathered 4,300 respondents -- all of them registered and eligible to vote.

A racial divide was immediately evident among the respondents. Nearly eight in 10 black servicemembers chose Obama, while McCain captured 76 percent of white voters and 63 percent of Hispanic voters.

Click here to see more on this story from FOX News.

Numbers among men and women respondents were also visibly different. Men overwhelmingly said they would vote for McCain, 70 percent to 22 percent. But among women the margin was much closer: 53 percent support McCain, while 36 percent support Obama.

U.S. troops also said in the poll that they prefer McCain to handle the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- 74 percent said McCain would perform better, while just 19 percent said Obama would.

Four years ago the Iraq War was the single most important issue on which the military voted. But the war now ranks third in importance to these voters. The most important issue among the respondents was character (42 percent), followed by the economy (25 percent) and the Iraq War (16 percent).

There was a racial divide on these issues, as well. Black servicemembers said the economy was the No. 1 issue that affected their vote, and white troops said character was paramount.

The Military Times offered certain caveats for its poll, which was open only to its 80,000 subscribers. Responses were entirely voluntary and were not focused on a representative sample of the public, as scientific polls are. The troops polled were also somewhat older than average enlisted servicemembers and included more officers than is representative of the military as a whole.

Yet judging by the numbers, it appears that the Democratic party has not made many inroads into the traditionally Republican military.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/poll-troops-support-mccain/

[iamshazzam]

'Smears' About Obama Largely True
Monday, October 20, 2008 9:32 PM

By: Lowell Ponte


The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” -- and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.


But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth -- and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.


Obama’s www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama ideological allies are not dominant.


These “smears” and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.


FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”


In a section of the site titled “Who’s Behind the Smears,” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.


The people and groups named are real, but members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.” This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.


Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their factuality. Here’s what we found:


Claim No. 1. Obama's campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.

“Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from the Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising. “Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”


Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.


“The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”


However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.


McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.


Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul -- the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests -- came in the form of a flood of small, anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.


Claim No. 2. Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.


It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.


Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of the former Weather Underground leader. [Obama is currently lawyerly saying it was not the first event. Perhaps there was another meeting first at Dunkin Donuts. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in the Ayers’ home.]


There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon and Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grothwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”


“Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques…” says the Obama Web site.


Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who as recently as 2001 said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.


Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?


3. Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.


“John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution -- James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines -- whose corruption played key role in the current financial crisis.


But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”


Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.


Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.


And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.


Claim No. 4. Obama has close ties with ACORN, a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.

Obama’s site says the candidate never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”


In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell -- calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” -- for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, among the largest radical groups in the United States.


As Newsmax has documented [Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past], Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.


ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.


As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November: When “I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”


Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.


The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”


Over the years ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This in theory could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.


Claim No. 5. Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.

“During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children -- including his own two daughters -- from illegal gun violence.”


But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”


Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September [NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops], to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights. If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”


Claim No. 6. A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”


But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.


Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food or warmth.


Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “None of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”


True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”


Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.


How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.


"Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."


Claim No. 7. Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.

Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe.


A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off. … He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to than them for their service. … I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Sen. Obama].”


Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.


Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.


Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.


Claim No. 8. Barack Obama is not a Muslim.

FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.


In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.


His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Koran. According to a childhood friend, attended services at a local mosque occasionally.


Obama’s Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in the Baltimore Sun) headlined Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid. Middle expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama’s Muslim faith and says he is “lying” when he says he was never a Muslim.


It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say was never a Muslim. But in the past Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.


Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.



Claim No. 9. As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.

Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.


The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.


What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.


“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline … or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”


During his campaign Obama has promised to various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate, and new taxes on gasoline. He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raises taxes on most Americans. By backing wishing the Bush cuts to expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.



Claim No. 10. Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United Stats and “completely false” and “groundless.”


As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from the State of Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for certified birth certificate.


No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which blacked out on copies on the Obama site.


Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”


Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html

[iamshazzam]

"sign of the week?" - lol. what a great yard sign:

[iamshazzam]

[iamshazzam]

If Obama is an Indonesian citizen, by virtue of his adoption by his mother's second husband, is he legally able to be elected President of the U.S.? CLICK HERE. That would be the father who registered him for school as a Muslim and an Indonesian citizen. And he is NOT Barack's stepfather if he was ADOPTED, that would make him his FATHER! CLICK HERE.


This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana)

http://www.gillreport.com/dn_archive.php

[iamshazzam]

Michelle Obama calls Corsi 'evil'
She tells foreign news agency 'to support Africans and African-American view'

Posted: October 14, 2008
9:36 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


WASHINGTON – Michelle Obama placed a surprise call to an African news agency to protest its coverage of WND investigative stories about her husband – characterizing the source of the material as "racist" and Jerome Corsi as "evil."

The call was placed to African Press International, according to a report in the publication today. It said Michelle Obama accused API of "colluding with American Internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband."

The report said Mrs. Obama had hoped the African media "was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with."

API's account said it was "only relaying what the American bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations." This, according to the story, angered her.


"African Press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view," she reportedly said. "It is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a stepfather. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband's face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by his stepfather. The important thing here is where my husband's heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that my husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner."

The Obama campaign immediately denied the telephone call happened.

Tommy Vietor, a campaign spokesman, told Byron York on the National Review Online blog "The Corner," the conversation didn't happen.

"The answer is no, it's not real, the report is made up. She did not speak to the organization," Vietor said.

However, in an e-mail to WND, a man who identified himself as API's "Chief Editor Korikr" confirmed the exchange.

"API hereby confirms to you that the story is true and if the huge interest on this particular story continues, we will post the recording on our website in the next immediate days.

"When we published the story we did not intend to cause any chaos but we are shocked by the huge interest the story is receiving from the Americans and the American media," he continued.

"Mrs. Obama called us just to ask API to stop joining the mainstream hate online media that is trying to destroy her husband's opportunity to get the presidency," he wrote.

He said his editorial board would meet to discuss how best to release the audio.

AFI asked Michelle Obama to comment on the detention of Corsi during his visit last week to Kenya, where he was investigating the presidential candidate's links to a controversial strongman serving as prime minister.

Get the book that started it all – Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," personally autographed – for only $4.95, available today, but only from WND!

"When API asked Mrs. Obama to comment on why Dr. Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya's prime minister, Mr. Raila Odinga, was involved in Dr. Corsi's arrest, she got irritated and simply told API not to dig [into] that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency," the publication reported.

AFI also said the first lady in waiting had some clear instructions for the publication.

"Mrs. Obama asked API to write a good story about her husband and that will earn API an invitation to the inauguration ceremony when, as she put it, her husband will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year," the report said.

Michelle Obama had one other point to make – regarding the endorsement of her husband by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, which she deemed "unfortunate."

She reportedly told AFI that it was unfortunate that the highly controversial Farrakhan made his support known before the election.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78041

[iamshazzam]

a disgrace to our fine men and women in uniform!!!!!!!!! he should be charged impersonating a real man...

[iamshazzam]

...better keep an eye on your credit card statements........you may not only be voting in Ohio, you may be financing the nuts (er, I meant acorns)

Northland Couple Warns of Political Credit Card Fraud

Last Edited: Tuesday, 07 Oct 2008, 10:23 PM CDT
Created: Tuesday, 07 Oct 2008, 8:58 PM CDT
SideBar



NORTH KANSAS CITY, MO. -- A North Kansas City couple has been left scratching their heads after they became the victims of a political scam.

Steve and Rachel Larman say a strange credit card charge appeared on their statement this month -- a $2300 donation to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. The Larman's say they don't want this to be about their political affiliation, but they say they're not about to give the Obama campaign any help from their pocketbook.

They said they notified Chase, their credit card bank, to report the fraud.

"(They) said that they had seen-they were familiar with this," said Steve Larman. "It was fraud, they believe through telemarketing but they were going to be doing some more investigations."

The Larman's don't want their politics to enter into what is essentially just a fraudulent charge. But they say that the charge involves the Obama campaign adds insult to injury for the registered Republicans.

"They (Chase) kept on asking me 'are you sure you wouldnt have gone to a site in support of Obama'," said Rachel Larman. "And I repeatedly said 'Im voting for McCain - I would not be going to an Obama site'."

Chase dropped the charge from the Larman's card. The couple is thankful thay they caught the charge on the card, but worried that others may not see that type of fraud on their own credit cards before it's too late.

"You always get emails saying be on the lookout," said Rachel. "So I just wanted to get the word out, that there's someone out there perpetrating this against people, and to pay attention."

The Obama campaign said they were aware of the Larman's story, but did not have any comment.

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7599837&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

[iamshazzam]

THE O JESSE KNOWS
JACKSON ON OBAMA'S AMERICA
Comments: 238Read Comments Leave a Comment Jackson: Expects Obama to stop "putting Israel's interests first" in making Mideast policy.

Last updated: 12:34 pm
October 14, 2008
Posted: 1:35 am
October 14, 2008

EVIAN, FRANCE


PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black?

Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."

Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him?

"I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation's institutions: "We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don't see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction."

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn't part of Obama's policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

On the economic front, he hopes for "major changes in our trading policy."

"We cannot continue with the open-door policy," he says. "We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad."

Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico?

Jackson dismisses the question as "premature": "We could do a great deal without such dramatic action."

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "an illegal and unjust act." But he's now sure that the United States "will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time."

What of Obama's promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting "realities on the ground."

"We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there," he says. "We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith."

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama's idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. "We've got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want," Jackson says. "Nothing is gained by not talking to others."

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran's uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn't start without preparations.

"Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy," he says. "He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared," he says.

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."


http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0

[iamshazzam]

"please!!!! nobody sit this one out - we are doomed if they get full control!


Democrats Aim for Super Majority in Congress as Economic Crisis Hits Home
Republicans Fight for Political Survival; North Carolina Could Change Fate of GOP
By ALEX GREEN and RICK KLEIN
Oct. 14, 2008 —


An increasingly hostile national climate for Republicans has shaken up Senate races across the nation, giving Democrats a plausible shot at achieving 60 seats -- a filibuster-proof majority that would embolden policy ambitions in Congress.

The shifting landscape -- driven in large part by economic unease -- leaves Democrats almost certain to dramatically expand their 51-49 majority in the Senate, according to independent analysts and political strategists in both parties.

But whether Democrats can reach the 60-vote threshold depends on the outcome of races like the one in North Carolina, where Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole is seeking a second term in a race that was never supposed to be close.


GOP's Dole Fights for Political Survival
Dole is a party stalwart who represents a historically "red" state.

She served in Ronald Reagan's Cabinet, led the GOP's Senate campaign efforts in 2006, and is married to the longtime Senate Republican leader, former Kansas senator Bob Dole, the GOP's 1996 presidential nominee.

Yet Dole is caught in dangerous political crosscurrents this year. An unpopular war, a battered economy, and a tattered Republican brand leaves North Carolina voters -- like those in states across the nation -- particularly hostile to Republicans this year.

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is pumping get-out-the-vote resources into the Tar Heel State, in its efforts to expand the presidential map. And Democrats are engaging in an aggressive effort to paint Dole as a political insider who has lost touch with her constituents.

"She is going against a headwind," said ABC News political analyst Cokie Roberts.

The case against Dole is similar to that used against many incumbents: That she has let her ties to her home state atrophy.

Dole's Democratic opponent, state Sen. Kay Hagan, has pounced on a recent media report that found Dole having spent as few as 13 days in North Carolina in all of 2006.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is running a provocative series of ads against Dole, meant to portray her as ineffective and out-of-touch. In one, two elderly men sit on a porch, commenting on Dole's "40 years in Washington" and arguing over whether Dole is 93 or 92.



Fight for Senate Power Spotlights North Carolina Race
The 93 refers to a Roll Call newspaper ranking that placed her as the 93rd most-effective senator; the 92 represents the portion of the time she's voted with President Bush.

But to many observers, it's a clear play of the age card against the 72-year-old Dole, whose opponent Hagan is 55.

Democrats say it's about job performance, not age. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the DSCC chairman, said the ad is effective because it reinforces voters' perceptions of their senator.

"She's not the Elizabeth Dole that was elected when she first ran, and the voters of North Carolina realize that and they just want to make sure that Hagan's OK," said Schumer, D-N.Y. "They're learning that Hagan's OK. ... It's a good race for us."

The Dole campaign calls the line of attack disingenuous.

"Sen. Dole opposes the president when she thinks it's the right thing to do, which happens to have been quite often," campaign spokesman Dan McLagan said.


Economic Crisis Shifts Political Landscape
The shift in the national landscape is particularly striking because Republicans had renewed optimism just a few weeks ago.

With their united calls to increase oil drilling -- and a popular new face at the top of the ticket in Gov. Sarah Palin -- Republican officials left their convention feeling much better than they had in months about their prospects in congressional races.

Rebecca Fisher, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said fundraising is still up; the committee brought in $6.6 million last month, some $1.5 million more than the party raised in September 2006.

Republican candidates, she said, continue to enjoy success in positioning themselves as independent of the party and its powerbrokers.

"The environment is not favorable, but I don't think the bottom's dropped out of our races," Fisher said. "Voters will make decisions on a candidate-by-candidate basis. I don't believe candidates will lose just because they have Rs behind their names."

McLagan said Dole always expected a close race.

Dole won her first campaign, in 2004, by nine percentage points, and North Carolina did send Democrat John Edwards to the Senate in 1998.



Republicans in Political Danger as National Mood Sours
But few expected as many GOP seats to be endangered this year.

Polls suggest that Republican-held seats in Virginia and New Mexico are as good as gone for the GOP, with the prospects in Colorado and New Hampshire only marginally better.

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator, is currently on trial on federal corruption charges, and a conviction would boost Democratic chances to unseat him in one of the nation's most Republican states.

Picking up those five seats would leave Democrats with 56 caucus members. Whether they can reach the 60-vote threshold depends on the outcome of a second wave of races, including seven where GOP incumbents are in unexpectedly tight campaigns.

Four of those races -- including the Dole-Hagan contest -- are in historically Republican states, where reelecting veteran senators is seldom in question.

Seats in Mississippi and Georgia are far tighter than Democrats ever anticipated, and even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is in a dogfight to keep his job.

Things are even tougher for Republican incumbents in Democratic-leaning states.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., announced last week that he was suspending all negative advertising, after a blistering series of attacks appeared to damage his standing against comedian-turned-political activist Al Franken.

With Coleman's support for the Wall Street bailout measure proving unpopular, public polls show Franken with a narrow lead.

The Minnesota race also includes independent candidate Dean Barkley, who served briefly as a senator in 2002 after being appointed to fill a vacancy following the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone by then-governor Jesse Ventura.

In Oregon, Sen. Gordon Smith is essentially even with Democrat Jeff Merkley.

Smith has burnished his moderate credentials by breaking publicly with President Bush on, among other issues, the Iraq war, and has sought to align himself with Obama in advertisements.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins appears to be in slightly better shape in her race against Democratic Rep. Tom Allen, but a national wave could change that, too.

Meanwhile, only one Democratic-held seat -- Sen. Mary Landrieu's in Louisiana -- is being seriously contested by the GOP this year.



Democrats Dream of Super Majority in Senate
Sixty votes represents an operating majority in the Senate, given arcane rules that allow a minority of as few as 41 of the 100 senators to indefinitely delay action on almost any matter through the legislative maneuver known as the filibuster.

Such a super-majority would make it far easier to confirm judges nominated by a President Obama and push through a Democratic agenda -- or to force a President McCain to work with Democrats in installing judicial nominees and top government officials.

In practice, a 60-member Democratic caucus wouldn't mean having enough votes to head off filibusters on all matters.

The current caucus includes two independents -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman -- in addition to several conservative members.

Lieberman has famously broken with his party on the Iraq war, and is campaigning for John McCain -- including speaking in support of the GOP presidential contender at the Republican National Convention this summer.

Schumer, the DSCC chairman, acknowledged the possibility of reaching 60 -- but said he isn't getting ahead of himself.

"[The chances are] better than they were two weeks ago, they keep getting better but you never -- you don't know until you get much closer," he said. "When I say my prayers at night maybe, but I don't know."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6024813&page=1

[iamshazzam]

[iamshazzam]

Media Ignore Farrakhan’s Endorsement of Obama
Saturday, October 11, 2008 7:43 PM

By: Ronald Kessler


Imagine the media frenzy that would ensue if David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan endorsed John McCain for president. Yet Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of Barack Obama has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media.

Speaking to a convention of the Nation of Islam, Farrakhan not only declared his support for Obama, but also told his followers that Obama was the “Messiah.”


[Editor's Note: Editor's Note: See the video of Louis Farrakhan calling Obama "The Messiah" — Go Here Now].

“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. “And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

Farrakhan compared Obama to Nation of Islam founder Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, whom Farrakhan says also had a white mother and black father.

“A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” Farrakhan said. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”

Incredibly, only Fox News and a few other news outlets have run Farrakhan’s endorsement. Farrakhan made the statement last February, but it only recently appeared on YouTube.

While Obama has no control over who endorses him, the nature of those who express affinity with him provides insight into who he is and what his agenda could be. Obama’s endorsers and supporters range from admitted terrorist William Ayers and Weatherman Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn to Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, the New Black Panthers, the New SDS, and a host of other radical organizations and individuals.

Among other things, the New Black Panthers favors releasing all blacks from jails throughout the world and giving blacks reparations for slavery. The group asserts that until that happens, blacks should be exempt from all taxes.

The media blackout on Obama’s associations goes back to last January, when Newsmax began running stories on his minister’s sermons and the fact that his church gave an award for lifetime achievement to Farrakhan. When the media finally began picking up the stories in mid-March, the primaries began favoring Hillary Clinton instead of Obama.

Farrakhan has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the Antichrist. He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.

“Do you know some of these satanic Jews have taken over BET [the Black Entertainment Network]?” Farrakhan said in a speech on Nov. 11, 2007. “Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry, and television. And they make us look like we’re the murderers; we look like we’re the gangsters, but we’re punk stuff.”

The month after that speech, Obama’s minister and friend, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, honored Farrakhan at a gala, bestowing on him its Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award.

Obama has said he found religion through Wright in the 1980s and consulted him before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.

In the November/December issue of his church’s magazine, Trumpet, Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan, whom he helped in organizing the Million Man March in Washington in 1995. Wright lauded Farrakhan as one of the giants of the African-American religious experience in the 20th and 21st centuries.

“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, black America listens,” Wright said. “His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.”

Hailing Farrakhan’s “integrity and honesty,” Wright said, “His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change, and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.”

When no one in the media was picking up Newsmax’s stories on Wright’s award to Farrakhan and his sermons saying America created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks, a reporter for one of the cable news networks told me that if she proposed running such a story, her network would accuse her of “bias against Obama.”

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Media_Farrakhan_obama/2008/10/11/139620.html

here's the video:

http://election.newsmax.com/obama_messiah.html

[iamshazzam]

[iamshazzam]

an incomplete list of ten reasons to vote for obammy:

10 - if you want to give up your rights to bear arms.

9 - if you want reparations.

8 - if you want a socialist government.

7 - if you want liberation theology imposed on your children.

6 - if you want bill ayers as secretary of education.

5 - if you want jeramiah wright delivering the inaugural Prayer.

4 - if you want the so-called freedom doctrine imposed.

3 - if you want to ride a bicycle everywhere.

2 - if you want hillary clinton on the supreme court.

1 - IF YOU WANT TO SAY GOODBYE TO AMERICA, AND BECOME A NATION OF VICTIMS WHO HAVE NO SAY IN THEIR GOVERNMENT.

[iamshazzam]

you go girl.......

Palin criticizes Obama on abortion at Pa. rally


Email this Story

Oct 11, 4:14 PM (ET)

By DAN NEPHIN


JOHNSTOWN, Pa. (AP) - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attacked Barack Obama on abortion on Saturday, saying the Democratic presidential candidate has "left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life."

Palin said she and Republican presidential candidate John McCain would be "defenders of the culture of life." She opposes abortion in all cases except where the pregnancy threatens the woman's life.

Alaska's governor also touched upon common campaign themes during her speech to about 5,000 supporters in Johnstown, but she focused on children with special needs and then abortion. Palin, whose infant son, Trig, has Down syndrome, said she and McCain would make protecting such children a priority.

"Every child has something to contribute ... if we give them that chance," she said.

Palin said it was about time that Obama was "called" on his abortion views.

"Please, it is not negative and it's not mean-spirited to talk about his record," she said.

In the Illinois Senate, Obama opposed legislative efforts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 to give legal protections to any aborted fetus that showed signs of life. The 2003 measure was virtually identical to a bill President Bush signed into law in 2002 that unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

Obama and others who opposed the Illinois bill said the state already had a law to protect aborted fetuses born alive and considered able to survive. They contended that the proposed legislation would have undermined abortion rights in ways that the federal law would not.

Palin called Obama's ideas and votes on abortion "radical."

"In short, Sen. Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He's fighting with those who won't protect a child born alive," she said.

"A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate that we deserve and that we need on this issue of life - that's OK, that debate - at both the state and federal level," she said.

Palin did not raise, as she has recently, Obama's ties to William Ayers, a Vietnam-era militant who helped found the violent Weather Underground. A week ago, she told supporters that Obama was "palling around with terrorists," touching off arguments over whether Obama's work with Ayers, now a college professor, on nonprofit projects several years ago was pertinent to today's campaign.

Although audiences at Palin and McCain events had been getting angrier as the GOP campaign's attacks on Obama became sharper and more personal, the Johnstown crowd was largely in check. It booed Obama several times, including when Palin referred to his comments about rural people clinging to guns and religion.

"We prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Johnstown then another way in San Francisco," she said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081011/D93OGKAG0.html

[iamshazzam]

If we sit home this election and let o get in office, we will rue the day!