Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:07 PM
By: Thomas Sowell
Some elections are routine, some are important, and some are historic. If Sen. John McCain wins this election, it probably will go down in history as routine. But if Sen. Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic — and catastrophic.
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.
Performance is where Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies he proposes under the change banner are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began to take off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of change.
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to "spread the wealth around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and a lack of incentives has stifled the production of new wealth.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran’s being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counterattack.
Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy — and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that situation cannot be reversed.
Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?
If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.
In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for President Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat — yet.
America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.
Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.
What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has been demonstrated repeatedly in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.
None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage, and decisive actions, none of which Obama has ever demonstrated.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. 94305. To find out more about Sowell, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
© 2008 Creator's Syndicate Inc.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Police: Huffington Post Writer Stabbed Ex-Lover 220 Times With Screwdriver
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Fox News
A Huffington Post writer stabbed her former lover more than 200 times with a screwdriver and then tried to conceal the slaying, PalmBeachPost.com reported.
After committing the gruesome crime, Carol Anne Berger, an election correspondent for the Huffington Post, reported her former flame missing, then fatally shot herself a day later, police told the Web site.
Lt. Gary Chapman said Jessica Kalish, 56, a software executive, was found in the backseat of her BMW on Oct. 23, the Web site reported.
Kalish had been stabbed with a Phillips-head screwdriver 220 times, he said, with wounds concentrated in the back of her head, back, arms and face. A blow to Kalish's neck likely killed her, Chapman told the Web site.
Berger and Kalish recently had hired an attorney to sell their house and split the revenue. Kalish had met another woman and spent hours absorbed in cyber-dates with her new companion, PalmBeachPost.com reported.
"We are all very lucky to have Carol Anne be part of the Off the Bus family," a Huffington Post statement read, referring to the Web site's special election section. "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of Carol Anne Berger and Jessica Kalish."
Fox News
A Huffington Post writer stabbed her former lover more than 200 times with a screwdriver and then tried to conceal the slaying, PalmBeachPost.com reported.
After committing the gruesome crime, Carol Anne Berger, an election correspondent for the Huffington Post, reported her former flame missing, then fatally shot herself a day later, police told the Web site.
Lt. Gary Chapman said Jessica Kalish, 56, a software executive, was found in the backseat of her BMW on Oct. 23, the Web site reported.
Kalish had been stabbed with a Phillips-head screwdriver 220 times, he said, with wounds concentrated in the back of her head, back, arms and face. A blow to Kalish's neck likely killed her, Chapman told the Web site.
Berger and Kalish recently had hired an attorney to sell their house and split the revenue. Kalish had met another woman and spent hours absorbed in cyber-dates with her new companion, PalmBeachPost.com reported.
"We are all very lucky to have Carol Anne be part of the Off the Bus family," a Huffington Post statement read, referring to the Web site's special election section. "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of Carol Anne Berger and Jessica Kalish."
Former Terrorists' Talk Sparks Controversy
By Anna Hiatt
Contributing Writer
Thursday, October 30, 2008 | 1:18 am
Category: News > University > Student Life
Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem, two self-proclaimed ex-terrorists, spoke to a packed Wheeler Hall Wednesday night, drawing praise from some attendees while prompting angry responses from others over their claims to former acts of terrorism.
During the speech, titled "Why We Want to Kill You," the men discussed their involvement with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, their childhoods and their subsequent conversions to Christianity. The event was sponsored by the Berkeley College Republicans and organized by the Walid Shoebat Foundation.
Addressing about 700 attendees, Shoebat and Saleem condemned Islamic fundamentalism and called for Muslim moderates in the United States to show pride for this country.
"If this is your home and you truly love America, then America has the right to see you express that love," Saleem said.
The two speakers have drawn controversy for their support of the state of Israel and their espousal of Christianity as the solution to Islamic fundamentalism.
"It's not my job to reform Islam. It's Islam's job to reform Islam," Shoebat said. "It's my job to save this country."
In preparation for confrontational behavior among audience members, UCPD lined the walls and restricted attendees from loitering in the auditorium.
After the speeches, several audience members openly pointed out inconsistencies in the speakers' stories.
Walid Shoebat Foundation approached Berkeley College Republicans about two months ago to sponsor the speakers, said External Affairs Vice President Kimberly Wagner. She said she believes her organization is neutral, making it an ideal choice to host the speakers.
"They don't want to kind of have the reputation of always appealing to the Jewish groups," Wagner said.
This is not the first time Shoebat's visit to a college campus has sparked controversy. In October 2006, Columbia University was slated to host Shoebat as a speaker. About four hours before the event was scheduled to take place, the university cancelled the lecture.
After the debate at UC Berkeley, some students expressed outrage at what they believed was an attack on academia. Rowdy behavior among attendees spurred police to move to the microphones to keep order and make sure questioners adhered to the rules.
Freshman Adrienne Saltz said she did not like that the speakers made blanket statements about students on campus.
"I didn't like the fact that he generalized all Berkeley students as flaming liberals," Saltz said.
However, UC Berkeley alumnus Robert Tally said he enjoyed the speech and had tried to see the two men when they spoke at Stanford University in April 2007.
"I really think it's sad that the Berkeley students here want to dismiss him as a fraud," Tally said, further noting "the hostility. It's a little scary."
Contributing Writer
Thursday, October 30, 2008 | 1:18 am
Category: News > University > Student Life
Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem, two self-proclaimed ex-terrorists, spoke to a packed Wheeler Hall Wednesday night, drawing praise from some attendees while prompting angry responses from others over their claims to former acts of terrorism.
During the speech, titled "Why We Want to Kill You," the men discussed their involvement with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, their childhoods and their subsequent conversions to Christianity. The event was sponsored by the Berkeley College Republicans and organized by the Walid Shoebat Foundation.
Addressing about 700 attendees, Shoebat and Saleem condemned Islamic fundamentalism and called for Muslim moderates in the United States to show pride for this country.
"If this is your home and you truly love America, then America has the right to see you express that love," Saleem said.
The two speakers have drawn controversy for their support of the state of Israel and their espousal of Christianity as the solution to Islamic fundamentalism.
"It's not my job to reform Islam. It's Islam's job to reform Islam," Shoebat said. "It's my job to save this country."
In preparation for confrontational behavior among audience members, UCPD lined the walls and restricted attendees from loitering in the auditorium.
After the speeches, several audience members openly pointed out inconsistencies in the speakers' stories.
Walid Shoebat Foundation approached Berkeley College Republicans about two months ago to sponsor the speakers, said External Affairs Vice President Kimberly Wagner. She said she believes her organization is neutral, making it an ideal choice to host the speakers.
"They don't want to kind of have the reputation of always appealing to the Jewish groups," Wagner said.
This is not the first time Shoebat's visit to a college campus has sparked controversy. In October 2006, Columbia University was slated to host Shoebat as a speaker. About four hours before the event was scheduled to take place, the university cancelled the lecture.
After the debate at UC Berkeley, some students expressed outrage at what they believed was an attack on academia. Rowdy behavior among attendees spurred police to move to the microphones to keep order and make sure questioners adhered to the rules.
Freshman Adrienne Saltz said she did not like that the speakers made blanket statements about students on campus.
"I didn't like the fact that he generalized all Berkeley students as flaming liberals," Saltz said.
However, UC Berkeley alumnus Robert Tally said he enjoyed the speech and had tried to see the two men when they spoke at Stanford University in April 2007.
"I really think it's sad that the Berkeley students here want to dismiss him as a fraud," Tally said, further noting "the hostility. It's a little scary."
Monday, October 27, 2008
Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love
by Dennis Prager
Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.
It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.
In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.
As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Which is why Proposition 8 exists.
But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."
The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.
Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots.
According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."
What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.
To read the rest click here
Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.
It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.
In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.
As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Which is why Proposition 8 exists.
But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."
The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.
Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots.
According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."
What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.
To read the rest click here
Why the Left Wants to Change America
by Dennis Prager
If you ask most supporters of Sen. Barack Obama why they so fervently want him to be elected president, they will tell you about their deep yearning for "change."
And that, of course, has been the theme of the Obama campaign from its inception -- "change." It is the word found on nearly all the placards at Obama rallies. It is the word most often cited by the candidate himself.
But for all its ubiquity and for all the passion of its advocates, what this change is about is not entirely clear.
Of course, Obama himself often has spoken about the overriding need for change from eight years of President George W. Bush's policies. But this is not what he or most of his supporters really mean when they talk about change. In fact, it cannot be. This is easy to show: All candidates for president run on a platform of change from the party in power. If they don't stand for change, why vote for them?
George W. Bush wanted a change from Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton wanted a change from the first George Bush. And so on back to the first candidate for president to run from a party other than that of the prior president.
If change in policies from those of George W. Bush were all Barack Obama meant by change, "change" would not elicit anywhere near the passion it does. Nor would it be the basis of the depth of his appeal to his left-wing supporters. Surely John Kerry wanted as much of a change from George W. Bush in 2004. Yet he did not run on a platform of "change."
What Barack Obama is tapping into with the word "change" is nearly eight years of the left's constructing a description of an America that has been made so awful that "change" means changing America, not just changing policies.
The truth is that aside from the Iraq war, which is turning out to be quite successful, George W. Bush's policies have not been particularly controversial or even particularly right-wing. But the left has constructed for itself a view of America that, if you subscribe to it, makes radical change imperative.
The left, from The New York Times to MoveOn.org, has led itself and others to believe that:
--George W. Bush lied America into war.
--Tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 4,000 Americans have been killed in a war waged in order to line the pockets of Vice President Dick Cheney's friends.
--The Constitution has been trampled on.
--America has become a torturing country.
--America's poor have become far more numerous and far more downtrodden.
--American troops in Iraq repeatedly have engaged in atrocities against innocent civilians.
--The opportunity for economic self-improvement has ceased for most Americans.
--Racism is endemic to American society.
To read the rest click here
If you ask most supporters of Sen. Barack Obama why they so fervently want him to be elected president, they will tell you about their deep yearning for "change."
And that, of course, has been the theme of the Obama campaign from its inception -- "change." It is the word found on nearly all the placards at Obama rallies. It is the word most often cited by the candidate himself.
But for all its ubiquity and for all the passion of its advocates, what this change is about is not entirely clear.
Of course, Obama himself often has spoken about the overriding need for change from eight years of President George W. Bush's policies. But this is not what he or most of his supporters really mean when they talk about change. In fact, it cannot be. This is easy to show: All candidates for president run on a platform of change from the party in power. If they don't stand for change, why vote for them?
George W. Bush wanted a change from Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton wanted a change from the first George Bush. And so on back to the first candidate for president to run from a party other than that of the prior president.
If change in policies from those of George W. Bush were all Barack Obama meant by change, "change" would not elicit anywhere near the passion it does. Nor would it be the basis of the depth of his appeal to his left-wing supporters. Surely John Kerry wanted as much of a change from George W. Bush in 2004. Yet he did not run on a platform of "change."
What Barack Obama is tapping into with the word "change" is nearly eight years of the left's constructing a description of an America that has been made so awful that "change" means changing America, not just changing policies.
The truth is that aside from the Iraq war, which is turning out to be quite successful, George W. Bush's policies have not been particularly controversial or even particularly right-wing. But the left has constructed for itself a view of America that, if you subscribe to it, makes radical change imperative.
The left, from The New York Times to MoveOn.org, has led itself and others to believe that:
--George W. Bush lied America into war.
--Tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 4,000 Americans have been killed in a war waged in order to line the pockets of Vice President Dick Cheney's friends.
--The Constitution has been trampled on.
--America has become a torturing country.
--America's poor have become far more numerous and far more downtrodden.
--American troops in Iraq repeatedly have engaged in atrocities against innocent civilians.
--The opportunity for economic self-improvement has ceased for most Americans.
--Racism is endemic to American society.
To read the rest click here
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obama Lacks a Moral Compass
By: Ronald Kessler
With the election two weeks away, one thing has become clear: Barack Obama is not only the most liberal presidential candidate in recent memory, he lacks a moral compass.
How else does one explain his sitting in the pews of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church as Wright spews forth hateful fabrications about America, whites, and Israel? How else explain his being “friendly” with admitted domestic terrorist William Ayers, who told the New York Times he does not rule out engaging in bombings again?
In a chilling video on YouTube, Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the Weather Underground which Ayers helped found, says the organization planned to take over the U.S. government and give parts of the country to Russia, Cuba, North Vietnam, and China. The plans included “re-educating” Americans as Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries.
In the video, Grathwohl says he asked 25 leaders of the Weather Underground who were discussing the plans, “Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t re-educate, that are die-hard capitalists?”
The reply, says Grathwohl, was that they would “have to be eliminated.” When he pursued the question further, they estimated that “they’d have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people.”
As repugnant as Obama’s relationship with Ayers is, the fact that for two decades Obama attended a church where paranoid hatred of America was preached on a regular basis is more telling. The senator counted as his minister, friend, and advisor a man who says that America created the AIDS virus to kill blacks, puts blacks in prison rather than killing them off, and deserved to be attacked on 9/11 because of its racism.
When the press finally picked up on stories Newsmax was running on Reverend Wright, Obama said he would not have belonged to the church if he had regularly heard Wright’s hate-filled statements. Yet when he announced for the presidency, Obama disinvited Wright from giving an invocation because his sermons can get “kind of rough.” Why did Obama not resign from the church then?
Last December, Wright gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. Why did Obama not resign then? Instead, after Newsmax broke the story on Jan. 14, Obama dissembled about the issue, saying the award was for Farrakhan’s work with ex-offenders. Neither the presentation nor the article about it in the church magazine mentioned anything about ex-offenders.
The truth is that Obama joined the church and adopted Wright as his friend and mentor because he feels an affinity for Wright’s radical views. Why else would he expose his kids to Wright’s “God d— America” tirades? Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America, highlights the fact that she has the same blame-America-first mentality Wright promotes.
As with his minister, Obama repudiated Ayers only when press disclosures became too embarrassing.
As Max Noel, a former FBI agent who worked the Weather Underground case, tells me, “They [the Weather Underground] were a violent, violent, anti-government, domestic terrorist organization. Obama has not only associated with those people, he continued associating with racist people like his minister Jeremiah Wright over a period of 20 years. I don’t think that’s by happenstance. It’s just amazing to me. The American people are being led by the nose by people who say this isn’t important.”
In fact, Oliver “Buck” Revell, a former associate deputy director of the FBI who at one time oversaw the applicant and hiring process at the bureau, tells me the FBI would not hire such an individual as an agent.
“One of the principal purposes of the background investigation is to determine who an applicant associated with and the degree of association with any questionable associates,” Revell says. “Obama would certainly not have been hired on my watch.”
The Obama campaign has refused to say when Obama became aware of Ayers’ terrorist background. When Obama began going to Columbia University in 1981, both Ayers and his future wife Bernardine Dohrn, an FBI most wanted fugitive, were frequently in the news. Ayers’ violent past was well known in Chicago, where he was quoted regularly and described as a former radical and former fugitive.
Ayers orchestrated an event at his home that launched Obama’s political career. Obama continued to serve on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago with Ayers for more than a year after Ayers expressed regret in the New York Times for not bombing more people.
According to Grathwohl, Ayers and Dohrn “probably had the most authority” within the Weather Underground.
Last April, Obama defended his relationship with Ayers. Obama said in a Democratic debate that he is also friendly with Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), whom he described as favoring the death penalty for those who carry out abortions.
“Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements?” Obama asked. “Because certainly I don’t agree with those, either.”
Radical as Coburn’s position may be, he was proposing legislation to be passed by Congress. That is quite different from Ayers’s admission that he bombed innocent people in violation of criminal law and that he wished he had set off more bombs.
Instead of finding ways to excuse them, Obama should have been denouncing both Wright and Ayers. Instead of voting “present” 130 times in the Illinois Senate, he should have been doing his job and taking a stand.
As Karl Rove has told me, “The public wants a president with convictions and the courage to act on them. They want a leader who is steady and firm, who can withstand strong political headwinds and won’t be blown about by events.”
As crushing as the financial crisis has been, it seems to me unlikely that Americans will send to the White House a man whose views are not only left of center but who doesn’t know right from wrong.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
With the election two weeks away, one thing has become clear: Barack Obama is not only the most liberal presidential candidate in recent memory, he lacks a moral compass.
How else does one explain his sitting in the pews of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church as Wright spews forth hateful fabrications about America, whites, and Israel? How else explain his being “friendly” with admitted domestic terrorist William Ayers, who told the New York Times he does not rule out engaging in bombings again?
In a chilling video on YouTube, Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the Weather Underground which Ayers helped found, says the organization planned to take over the U.S. government and give parts of the country to Russia, Cuba, North Vietnam, and China. The plans included “re-educating” Americans as Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries.
In the video, Grathwohl says he asked 25 leaders of the Weather Underground who were discussing the plans, “Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t re-educate, that are die-hard capitalists?”
The reply, says Grathwohl, was that they would “have to be eliminated.” When he pursued the question further, they estimated that “they’d have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people.”
As repugnant as Obama’s relationship with Ayers is, the fact that for two decades Obama attended a church where paranoid hatred of America was preached on a regular basis is more telling. The senator counted as his minister, friend, and advisor a man who says that America created the AIDS virus to kill blacks, puts blacks in prison rather than killing them off, and deserved to be attacked on 9/11 because of its racism.
When the press finally picked up on stories Newsmax was running on Reverend Wright, Obama said he would not have belonged to the church if he had regularly heard Wright’s hate-filled statements. Yet when he announced for the presidency, Obama disinvited Wright from giving an invocation because his sermons can get “kind of rough.” Why did Obama not resign from the church then?
Last December, Wright gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. Why did Obama not resign then? Instead, after Newsmax broke the story on Jan. 14, Obama dissembled about the issue, saying the award was for Farrakhan’s work with ex-offenders. Neither the presentation nor the article about it in the church magazine mentioned anything about ex-offenders.
The truth is that Obama joined the church and adopted Wright as his friend and mentor because he feels an affinity for Wright’s radical views. Why else would he expose his kids to Wright’s “God d— America” tirades? Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America, highlights the fact that she has the same blame-America-first mentality Wright promotes.
As with his minister, Obama repudiated Ayers only when press disclosures became too embarrassing.
As Max Noel, a former FBI agent who worked the Weather Underground case, tells me, “They [the Weather Underground] were a violent, violent, anti-government, domestic terrorist organization. Obama has not only associated with those people, he continued associating with racist people like his minister Jeremiah Wright over a period of 20 years. I don’t think that’s by happenstance. It’s just amazing to me. The American people are being led by the nose by people who say this isn’t important.”
In fact, Oliver “Buck” Revell, a former associate deputy director of the FBI who at one time oversaw the applicant and hiring process at the bureau, tells me the FBI would not hire such an individual as an agent.
“One of the principal purposes of the background investigation is to determine who an applicant associated with and the degree of association with any questionable associates,” Revell says. “Obama would certainly not have been hired on my watch.”
The Obama campaign has refused to say when Obama became aware of Ayers’ terrorist background. When Obama began going to Columbia University in 1981, both Ayers and his future wife Bernardine Dohrn, an FBI most wanted fugitive, were frequently in the news. Ayers’ violent past was well known in Chicago, where he was quoted regularly and described as a former radical and former fugitive.
Ayers orchestrated an event at his home that launched Obama’s political career. Obama continued to serve on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago with Ayers for more than a year after Ayers expressed regret in the New York Times for not bombing more people.
According to Grathwohl, Ayers and Dohrn “probably had the most authority” within the Weather Underground.
Last April, Obama defended his relationship with Ayers. Obama said in a Democratic debate that he is also friendly with Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), whom he described as favoring the death penalty for those who carry out abortions.
“Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements?” Obama asked. “Because certainly I don’t agree with those, either.”
Radical as Coburn’s position may be, he was proposing legislation to be passed by Congress. That is quite different from Ayers’s admission that he bombed innocent people in violation of criminal law and that he wished he had set off more bombs.
Instead of finding ways to excuse them, Obama should have been denouncing both Wright and Ayers. Instead of voting “present” 130 times in the Illinois Senate, he should have been doing his job and taking a stand.
As Karl Rove has told me, “The public wants a president with convictions and the courage to act on them. They want a leader who is steady and firm, who can withstand strong political headwinds and won’t be blown about by events.”
As crushing as the financial crisis has been, it seems to me unlikely that Americans will send to the White House a man whose views are not only left of center but who doesn’t know right from wrong.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Election 911
Newscast from the future. Includes secret Osama Bin Laden video (never seen before).
SoundTheAlarmNow
Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
Posted: October 24, 2008
12:50 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.
The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.
Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.
Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.
But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.
The party's Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.
"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.
But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."
The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."
Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.
In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.
"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."
Democrat's campaign denied allegations, but new evidence indicates membership
Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth
'This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months'
Posted: October 23, 2008
11:33 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The Pennsylvania Democrat who has sued Sen. Barack Obama demanding he prove his American citizenship – and therefore qualification to run for president – has confirmed he has a recording of a telephone call from the senator's paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya.
The issue of Obama's birthplace, which he states is Honolulu in 1961, has been raised enough times that his campaign website has posted an image purporting to be of his "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii.
But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release.
"This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States."
He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961."
Berg said he's pursuing the issue because of "the most important document in the United States," the U.S. Constitution.
"Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution," he said. "The Constitution's provisions are very small for qualifying for president. One, be over 35, and he is. Two, be in the country 14 years, and he has been. Three, be a natural-born citizen. He is not."
Obama campaign officials acknowledged the dispute by posting the image purporting to be a copy of his certification of live birth earlier this year. But they've declined to return WND requests for comment on the issues.
WND reported earlier this week Berg's claim that Obama has legally "admitted" the accusations included in his lawsuit, including that he was born in Mombosa, Kenya, by not responding to the allegations.
Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States.
His lawsuit is demanding that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate.
Berg has cited Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.
Since Obama filed only motions to dismiss the case and did not actually answer the claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen., asserted Berg, who has taken his information public through his website.
Berg addressed the existence of a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, featured on the Atlasshrugs2000 website, that suggests Obama was born in the city Aug. 4, 1961.
But Berg explained to Savage he believes Obama's mother was near pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. The family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the newspaper announcement.
Besides Berg's lawsuit, several other court challenges also have been filed, including one in Washington state where petitioners are seeking to have the Washington secretary of state "verify Obama's eligibility" to serve prior to the election.
The claim states, "The 'certificate' that Mr. Obama has posted on his official Website is a 'Certification of Live Birth,' and not a 'Birth Certificate' from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place."
Berg also told Savage there is no information available on which hospital Obama's mother used in Hawaii.
The Washington state case also alleges, "Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.
When Jerome Corsi, senior WND investigator reporter, recently traveled to Kenya to investigate several questions about the candidate, he was told the records were sealed and would not be made available.
Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.
"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.
"The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of the Hawaii certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
The Washington claim states, "If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of 'natural born.'"
Berg said he believed it also was a complication that Obama's mother divorced his father, married and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at a time when, Berg said, only Indonesia citizens were allowed in schools. Records that are available from Indonesia revealed Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Islam.
When Obama later returned to Hawaii, within the United States, there should have been a government document affirming his citizenship, but that also cannot be found. If that was not processed properly, Berg said, Obama would be in a situation even worse than not being a natural-born citizen.
"If he didn't go through immigration, he now is illegal and has been an illegal alien. He couldn't even hold the position of senator for Illinois," Berg said.
Further, Berg said he suspected Obama's college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that's why those records have been withheld by the campaign.
"I really think it's because it probably indicates he's from Kenya, or Indonesia, or received foreign aid," Berg said.
"I feel very confident saying these things," Berg told Savage.
Academic freedom: exit, far left
Nigel Freitas
October 21, 2008
Have a different opinion? Think again. The debate is over. A highly politicised ideological bias exists in academia - one harmful to students, damaging to standards and which threatens intellectual diversity - according to the majority of submissions to the Senate's academic freedom inquiry.
In nearly all cases, this bias comes from one direction - the left. A prominent academic, Mervyn Bendle, in his submission says it "dominates research programs, publications and textbooks at all levels and therefore influences every aspect of education in Australia".
Pick any controversial issue today - Work Choices, anti-terror laws, Israel-Palestine, or climate change - and in academia these issues have been decided. There is only one accepted view on each - no debate is allowed.
Ask the Cardinal Newman Society at the University of Queensland. Earlier this year it had stalls outlining pregnancy-support options for women - a move that contradicted the student union's policy of safe, free abortion on demand. The Catholic student group was reprimanded, threatened with disaffiliation and faced formal disciplinary proceedings.
Heaven help anyone on campus, academic or student, who dares to question what Dr Bendle calls a "radical orthodoxy", characterised by "theories associated with neo-Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, radical environmentalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianity, and related ideologies".
Bendle argues this entrenched left-wing culture has its roots in the counterculture of the 1960s. Yesterday's radicals are today's establishment, and now they will tolerate no dissent. Resistance is futile. You will be indoctrinated.
No recent research has been conducted into the ideological leanings of Australian educators, but in the US a 1999 study found more than 70 per cent of academics identified as left wing, compared to only 15 per cent as conservative. In some humanities departments, conservatives are outnumbered by up to 30 to one. The situation is so bad the University of Colorado recently debated creating a "chair of conservative thought" in a desperate attempt to restore some balance.
The scarcity of conservative intellectuals explains the barrage of attacks that emanated from academia during almost the entire term of the former government. These criticisms were on a wide range of different issues, from immigration to industrial relations. Some were justified, yet were almost always from a critical left-wing perspective.
This lack of balance demonstrates the much-touted commitment to "diversity" mouthed by all academic institutions is only skin deep. Gender, ethnic and sexual diversity are all the rage, but intellectual diversity is ignored.
Many Australian educators are activists masquerading as academics, agitating for radical far-left causes well outside, and profoundly hostile to, the values of mainstream Australia.
One example is Damien Riggs, of the University of Adelaide, who heads an association of academics that seek to "expose and challenge white-race privilege in Australia and elsewhere". His area of interest is "what it means to speak as a white queer person in a colonial nation".
Academics, like any other citizens, are perfectly entitled to their political opinions, however bizarre. The problem arises when these political views influence the content of their teaching.
Take the former education union president Pat Byrne who in 2005 boasted that so-called progressive educators "had succeeded in influencing curriculum development in schools, education departments and universities".
Then there are the hundreds of subjects in the humanities, most of which reflect the Marxist obsessions of their lecturers. One subject on tourism "explores travel through themes such as gender, class, race, imperialism, war and … sexuality". Another on design considers "how architecture perpetuates the social order of gender".
One former trainee teacher, Beccy Merzi, told the inquiry: "I became so fed up and disgusted by the continual barrage of criticism of mainstream values, the lack of focus on practical ways of teaching, and the continual focus on minority groups, postmodernism, gender, queer and other studies that I abandoned my teaching degree. "
But it's not only the course content that is biased - it's lecturers' conduct. Submission after submission documented educators using their classrooms to promote their political views and belittling or marking down students who disagreed.
"I have been abused and mocked by a lecturer in front of others for refusing to acknowledge the 'genocide occurring in Lebanon' during the Israeli-Lebanese war," one student, Joshua Koonin, told the inquiry.
It's high time that educators learnt that the principles of academic freedom apply equally to students as they do to their lecturers.
Nigel Freitas is a Young Liberal and the director of the Make Education Fair Campaign.
Click Here to read the rest
October 21, 2008
Have a different opinion? Think again. The debate is over. A highly politicised ideological bias exists in academia - one harmful to students, damaging to standards and which threatens intellectual diversity - according to the majority of submissions to the Senate's academic freedom inquiry.
In nearly all cases, this bias comes from one direction - the left. A prominent academic, Mervyn Bendle, in his submission says it "dominates research programs, publications and textbooks at all levels and therefore influences every aspect of education in Australia".
Pick any controversial issue today - Work Choices, anti-terror laws, Israel-Palestine, or climate change - and in academia these issues have been decided. There is only one accepted view on each - no debate is allowed.
Ask the Cardinal Newman Society at the University of Queensland. Earlier this year it had stalls outlining pregnancy-support options for women - a move that contradicted the student union's policy of safe, free abortion on demand. The Catholic student group was reprimanded, threatened with disaffiliation and faced formal disciplinary proceedings.
Heaven help anyone on campus, academic or student, who dares to question what Dr Bendle calls a "radical orthodoxy", characterised by "theories associated with neo-Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, radical environmentalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianity, and related ideologies".
Bendle argues this entrenched left-wing culture has its roots in the counterculture of the 1960s. Yesterday's radicals are today's establishment, and now they will tolerate no dissent. Resistance is futile. You will be indoctrinated.
No recent research has been conducted into the ideological leanings of Australian educators, but in the US a 1999 study found more than 70 per cent of academics identified as left wing, compared to only 15 per cent as conservative. In some humanities departments, conservatives are outnumbered by up to 30 to one. The situation is so bad the University of Colorado recently debated creating a "chair of conservative thought" in a desperate attempt to restore some balance.
The scarcity of conservative intellectuals explains the barrage of attacks that emanated from academia during almost the entire term of the former government. These criticisms were on a wide range of different issues, from immigration to industrial relations. Some were justified, yet were almost always from a critical left-wing perspective.
This lack of balance demonstrates the much-touted commitment to "diversity" mouthed by all academic institutions is only skin deep. Gender, ethnic and sexual diversity are all the rage, but intellectual diversity is ignored.
Many Australian educators are activists masquerading as academics, agitating for radical far-left causes well outside, and profoundly hostile to, the values of mainstream Australia.
One example is Damien Riggs, of the University of Adelaide, who heads an association of academics that seek to "expose and challenge white-race privilege in Australia and elsewhere". His area of interest is "what it means to speak as a white queer person in a colonial nation".
Academics, like any other citizens, are perfectly entitled to their political opinions, however bizarre. The problem arises when these political views influence the content of their teaching.
Take the former education union president Pat Byrne who in 2005 boasted that so-called progressive educators "had succeeded in influencing curriculum development in schools, education departments and universities".
Then there are the hundreds of subjects in the humanities, most of which reflect the Marxist obsessions of their lecturers. One subject on tourism "explores travel through themes such as gender, class, race, imperialism, war and … sexuality". Another on design considers "how architecture perpetuates the social order of gender".
One former trainee teacher, Beccy Merzi, told the inquiry: "I became so fed up and disgusted by the continual barrage of criticism of mainstream values, the lack of focus on practical ways of teaching, and the continual focus on minority groups, postmodernism, gender, queer and other studies that I abandoned my teaching degree. "
But it's not only the course content that is biased - it's lecturers' conduct. Submission after submission documented educators using their classrooms to promote their political views and belittling or marking down students who disagreed.
"I have been abused and mocked by a lecturer in front of others for refusing to acknowledge the 'genocide occurring in Lebanon' during the Israeli-Lebanese war," one student, Joshua Koonin, told the inquiry.
It's high time that educators learnt that the principles of academic freedom apply equally to students as they do to their lecturers.
Nigel Freitas is a Young Liberal and the director of the Make Education Fair Campaign.
Click Here to read the rest
Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?
Posted: October 21, 2008
9:22 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Campaign doesn't respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.
Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.
Since Obama has only filed motions to dismiss and has not actually answered the charges in the lawsuit, Berg claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen.
Now Berg is asking the court for a formal declaration of Obama's admission and asking the Democratic National Committee for another presidential candidate.
In a statement released today, Berg argues that he filed Requests for Admissions on Sept. 15, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36.
"Obama and the DNC 'admitted,' by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit," Berg's statement reads. "Obama is 'not qualified' to be president and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."
Berg's original lawsuit leveled several charges at both Obama and the DNC – accusing the former of lying about his place of birth, faking his birth certificate and fraudulently running for office; and accusing the latter of not properly vetting its candidate.
Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.
"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.
"The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of a Hawaii birth certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
Berg has also taken the controversy public through his website and through repeated public offers to revoke the lawsuit if Obama will produce legal documents that establish his citizenship.
Without those documents, Berg has chosen to file two additional motions in district court in Philadelphia. The first asks the court to notify Obama and the DNC of what Berg understands they have now legally "admitted," and the second asks for an expedited ruling, given the quickly upcoming Nov. 4 election.
"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg told Jeff Schreiber for his blog, America's Right. "The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."
9:22 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Campaign doesn't respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.
Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.
Since Obama has only filed motions to dismiss and has not actually answered the charges in the lawsuit, Berg claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen.
Now Berg is asking the court for a formal declaration of Obama's admission and asking the Democratic National Committee for another presidential candidate.
In a statement released today, Berg argues that he filed Requests for Admissions on Sept. 15, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36.
"Obama and the DNC 'admitted,' by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit," Berg's statement reads. "Obama is 'not qualified' to be president and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."
Berg's original lawsuit leveled several charges at both Obama and the DNC – accusing the former of lying about his place of birth, faking his birth certificate and fraudulently running for office; and accusing the latter of not properly vetting its candidate.
Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.
"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.
"The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of a Hawaii birth certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
Berg has also taken the controversy public through his website and through repeated public offers to revoke the lawsuit if Obama will produce legal documents that establish his citizenship.
Without those documents, Berg has chosen to file two additional motions in district court in Philadelphia. The first asks the court to notify Obama and the DNC of what Berg understands they have now legally "admitted," and the second asks for an expedited ruling, given the quickly upcoming Nov. 4 election.
"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg told Jeff Schreiber for his blog, America's Right. "The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Barney Frank: We'll take more of your money
'I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax'
Posted: October 21, 2008
1:48 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The government, amid this economic downturn, should raise taxes on the rich and not worry about deficit spending, says Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Frank was responding to a question yesterday by a CNBC television anchor who wanted to know if Frank thought John McCain and Barack Obama should change their "tax and spending plans" in order to pay for a $300 billion stimulus proposal moving forward in Congress.
"I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat," Frank said.
"I do think this is a time for a kind of very important dose of Keynesianism, Frank continued, referring to 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes' argument for government investment to counteract recession or depression.
"Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases," Frank said. "Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."
Posted: October 21, 2008
1:48 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The government, amid this economic downturn, should raise taxes on the rich and not worry about deficit spending, says Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Frank was responding to a question yesterday by a CNBC television anchor who wanted to know if Frank thought John McCain and Barack Obama should change their "tax and spending plans" in order to pay for a $300 billion stimulus proposal moving forward in Congress.
"I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat," Frank said.
"I do think this is a time for a kind of very important dose of Keynesianism, Frank continued, referring to 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes' argument for government investment to counteract recession or depression.
"Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases," Frank said. "Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Human tissue could be taken from the infirm without their consent and used for research
Human tissue could be taken from the mentally infirm without their consent and used to create embryos for experimentation, under Government proposals added to a controversial bill.
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent - Telegraph.co.uk
Last Updated: 2:23AM BST 19 Oct 2008
On Wednesday MPs will vote on a bill which would allow the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos to be used for stem cell research, change the conditions for granting IVF, and possibly liberalise the abortion laws.
The passage through Parliament of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has been dogged by controversy. Failed attempts to outlaw late abortion have dominated the debate, while scientists, medical ethics experts and religious leaders have clashed over the hybrid embryo issue.
Defenders of the bill have repeatedly stressed the importance of gaining consent from anyone whose tissue is taken for the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos.
It can now be revealed that a Government amendment, agreed after the main parliamentary debates, would allow tissue to be used from people who lack the "mental capacity" to give consent, children whose parents give permission, and anyone who has previously donated samples to hospitals for medical research but can no longer be traced.
Medical ethics experts and religious leaders are furious that the provisions, which they say ride roughshod over basic human rights, have already been agreed by an all-party committee of 17 MPs charged with scrutinising the bill, without any public debate or discussion in the main chambers of Parliament.
Prof David Jones, director of the Centre for Bioethics and Emerging Technologies at St Mary's University College, London, said: "In May we had a public debate about whether or not it is a good thing to create hybrid embryos.
"Now it transpires that just weeks later, with no public debate at all, the Government inserted these amendments which cross a fundamental line in medical ethics by presuming consent in many cases. I think it is totally objectionable, and I really worry that this will create a backlash against medical research."
He said he feared that someone who had strong ethical concerns about the creation of embryos could have their original wishes overruled, if they developed a disease such as Alzheimers and decisions about consent were taken by someone who did not know them.
Prof John Haldane, director of the Centre for Philosophy and Public Affairs at the University of St Andrews, described the draft legislation as a "mess" which would sweep away 25 years of progress in medical ethics.
"The most intimate thing over which you have control is your body and its fate; and this is total violation of that basic right," he said.
Under the amendment, if a person was deemed unable to give consent their carer would make a decision on their behalf. If the person did not have a carer, researchers would nominate a person to make the judgement. If scientists wanted to use human tissues already donated for research, perhaps during a medical procedure, but were unable to trace the donors because the research had been anonymised or the person had moved house, the samples could also be used.
Labour MP Dr Ian Gibson, one of the members of the committee which passed the amendments proposed by public health minister Dawn Primarolo, said he feared that major changes were being made with little consideration by Parliament and almost no public debate.
"I am really worried that this whole debate has become hijacked by the issue of abortion, and that really significant issues like this have not had a good airing, and are unlikely to do so this week when the bill gets to its final stage, despite the fact this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make some fundamental decisions," he said.
Dr Gibson said he personally opposed any use of tissue without consent. "There has to be consent, there can be no substitution for it. If you are not sure it is what the person would have wanted, that is just not good enough," he said.
Jim McManus, from the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, described the changes to the bill as a "macabre" prospect. He said: "This is a reckless step backwards, and it rides roughshod over a basic human right."
Scientists say combining animal embryos with human cells would allow an expansion in research, which is currently limited by numbers of donations of human embryos.
Catherine Elliot, from the Medical Research Council, said such research could provide a "powerful tool" to examine the development and treatment of different diseases. She said research would "rarely" be carried out without consent, because under the amendment, ethics committees must be satisfied the same research could not have been carried out using tissue from patients who had granted permission.
Charities representing people with degenerative diseases and learning disabilities last night said they knew little about the changes to the bill, which have received almost no publicity.
Mencap and The Motor Neurone Disease Association said they would now be studying the amendment, while the Alzheimer's Society expressed some reservations, but said it was optimistic that ethics committees would take cautious decisions about the use of tissue if consent had not been obtained.
A counter-amendment, deleting the changes to consent, has been listed for the bill's final debate on Wednesday, but campaigners fear it is unlikely to be discussed, as it is one of dozens vying to be chosen for the bill's final debate before MPs vote.
The Department of Health said the amendment came in response to concerns raised in the House of Lords about the use of cells from children who were not able to give consent, and adults who lacked mental capacity to consent to research into serious illnesses from which they suffered.
A spokesman said ministers were satisfied that a case had been made which justified limited exceptions from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Although MPs have been given a free vote on some aspects of the bill, including the clauses governing the creation of hybrid embryos, Labour MPs will be under a three-line whip to support the changes on consent, which are dealt with in a separate part of the legislation.
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent - Telegraph.co.uk
Last Updated: 2:23AM BST 19 Oct 2008
On Wednesday MPs will vote on a bill which would allow the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos to be used for stem cell research, change the conditions for granting IVF, and possibly liberalise the abortion laws.
The passage through Parliament of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has been dogged by controversy. Failed attempts to outlaw late abortion have dominated the debate, while scientists, medical ethics experts and religious leaders have clashed over the hybrid embryo issue.
Defenders of the bill have repeatedly stressed the importance of gaining consent from anyone whose tissue is taken for the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos.
It can now be revealed that a Government amendment, agreed after the main parliamentary debates, would allow tissue to be used from people who lack the "mental capacity" to give consent, children whose parents give permission, and anyone who has previously donated samples to hospitals for medical research but can no longer be traced.
Medical ethics experts and religious leaders are furious that the provisions, which they say ride roughshod over basic human rights, have already been agreed by an all-party committee of 17 MPs charged with scrutinising the bill, without any public debate or discussion in the main chambers of Parliament.
Prof David Jones, director of the Centre for Bioethics and Emerging Technologies at St Mary's University College, London, said: "In May we had a public debate about whether or not it is a good thing to create hybrid embryos.
"Now it transpires that just weeks later, with no public debate at all, the Government inserted these amendments which cross a fundamental line in medical ethics by presuming consent in many cases. I think it is totally objectionable, and I really worry that this will create a backlash against medical research."
He said he feared that someone who had strong ethical concerns about the creation of embryos could have their original wishes overruled, if they developed a disease such as Alzheimers and decisions about consent were taken by someone who did not know them.
Prof John Haldane, director of the Centre for Philosophy and Public Affairs at the University of St Andrews, described the draft legislation as a "mess" which would sweep away 25 years of progress in medical ethics.
"The most intimate thing over which you have control is your body and its fate; and this is total violation of that basic right," he said.
Under the amendment, if a person was deemed unable to give consent their carer would make a decision on their behalf. If the person did not have a carer, researchers would nominate a person to make the judgement. If scientists wanted to use human tissues already donated for research, perhaps during a medical procedure, but were unable to trace the donors because the research had been anonymised or the person had moved house, the samples could also be used.
Labour MP Dr Ian Gibson, one of the members of the committee which passed the amendments proposed by public health minister Dawn Primarolo, said he feared that major changes were being made with little consideration by Parliament and almost no public debate.
"I am really worried that this whole debate has become hijacked by the issue of abortion, and that really significant issues like this have not had a good airing, and are unlikely to do so this week when the bill gets to its final stage, despite the fact this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make some fundamental decisions," he said.
Dr Gibson said he personally opposed any use of tissue without consent. "There has to be consent, there can be no substitution for it. If you are not sure it is what the person would have wanted, that is just not good enough," he said.
Jim McManus, from the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, described the changes to the bill as a "macabre" prospect. He said: "This is a reckless step backwards, and it rides roughshod over a basic human right."
Scientists say combining animal embryos with human cells would allow an expansion in research, which is currently limited by numbers of donations of human embryos.
Catherine Elliot, from the Medical Research Council, said such research could provide a "powerful tool" to examine the development and treatment of different diseases. She said research would "rarely" be carried out without consent, because under the amendment, ethics committees must be satisfied the same research could not have been carried out using tissue from patients who had granted permission.
Charities representing people with degenerative diseases and learning disabilities last night said they knew little about the changes to the bill, which have received almost no publicity.
Mencap and The Motor Neurone Disease Association said they would now be studying the amendment, while the Alzheimer's Society expressed some reservations, but said it was optimistic that ethics committees would take cautious decisions about the use of tissue if consent had not been obtained.
A counter-amendment, deleting the changes to consent, has been listed for the bill's final debate on Wednesday, but campaigners fear it is unlikely to be discussed, as it is one of dozens vying to be chosen for the bill's final debate before MPs vote.
The Department of Health said the amendment came in response to concerns raised in the House of Lords about the use of cells from children who were not able to give consent, and adults who lacked mental capacity to consent to research into serious illnesses from which they suffered.
A spokesman said ministers were satisfied that a case had been made which justified limited exceptions from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Although MPs have been given a free vote on some aspects of the bill, including the clauses governing the creation of hybrid embryos, Labour MPs will be under a three-line whip to support the changes on consent, which are dealt with in a separate part of the legislation.
The Culture War at the Movies
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, October 2, 2008
This week marks the opening of two highly charged movie comedies. The first, "Religulous," is a Borat-style journey starring Bill Maher that is designed to demonstrate that anyone who believes in God is a total moron. The second, "An American Carol," is a slapstick satire that pokes fun at the far left. Director David Zucker, who did the "Airplane" movies, mocks Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and other liberal enthusiasts. Full disclosure: I have a small part in "Carol."
Now, it will be interesting to see how the critics react to these films. Most people who review movies for a living are liberal thinkers. Are they godless? I have no idea. Are they ready to embrace Bill Maher's point of view? I believe they are.
Already, the New York Times, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter have labeled Maher's fable "hilarious" while conceding that many religious folks may not share that point of view. It is obvious the Deity likes a good laugh, or else Congress would not have been created. But whether the Almighty will be chuckling over "Religulous" is, well, highly doubtful. Bill Maher might pray for a long life.
What is not doubtful is that most critics will hate "An American Carol." Far-left internet sites like Salon are hammering Zucker and his movie even though they haven't seen it. That's because the producers of "Carol" suspected they would be treated very poorly by the press and avoided all advance screenings. Why do they believe this? Well, it might be because not one American media company would distribute the film, even though it features big name stars like Kelsey Grammar and James Woods. "Carol" is being distributed by a French company whose executives may not be all that fluent in English.
No question that both movies are going to anger some folks. Maher in particular is a provocateur. Promoting his film on "The View," he told one of the ladies who is a believer that she should go to a mental hospital. Borat would be proud.
On the "Carol" front, more than a few people will be horrified that movie icon George Clooney is mocked. Talk about roping a sacred cow! Belittling God is one thing, but denigrating Clooney? Are there no limits to the madness?
It will be very interesting to see which movie wins at the box office. Will the pagans score big? Or will the first conservative satire ever clobber the atheists? At this point, only God knows, with apologies to Mr. Maher.
And if this culture war cinema battle isn't enough, Oliver Stone will be out with his movie on President Bush in a couple of weeks. I'll make a bold prediction: Many critics will love it! Can you imagine anyone sticking up for Mr. Bush at this point in time?
I don't know whether Oliver Stone believes in God. But he should.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
This week marks the opening of two highly charged movie comedies. The first, "Religulous," is a Borat-style journey starring Bill Maher that is designed to demonstrate that anyone who believes in God is a total moron. The second, "An American Carol," is a slapstick satire that pokes fun at the far left. Director David Zucker, who did the "Airplane" movies, mocks Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and other liberal enthusiasts. Full disclosure: I have a small part in "Carol."
Now, it will be interesting to see how the critics react to these films. Most people who review movies for a living are liberal thinkers. Are they godless? I have no idea. Are they ready to embrace Bill Maher's point of view? I believe they are.
Already, the New York Times, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter have labeled Maher's fable "hilarious" while conceding that many religious folks may not share that point of view. It is obvious the Deity likes a good laugh, or else Congress would not have been created. But whether the Almighty will be chuckling over "Religulous" is, well, highly doubtful. Bill Maher might pray for a long life.
What is not doubtful is that most critics will hate "An American Carol." Far-left internet sites like Salon are hammering Zucker and his movie even though they haven't seen it. That's because the producers of "Carol" suspected they would be treated very poorly by the press and avoided all advance screenings. Why do they believe this? Well, it might be because not one American media company would distribute the film, even though it features big name stars like Kelsey Grammar and James Woods. "Carol" is being distributed by a French company whose executives may not be all that fluent in English.
No question that both movies are going to anger some folks. Maher in particular is a provocateur. Promoting his film on "The View," he told one of the ladies who is a believer that she should go to a mental hospital. Borat would be proud.
On the "Carol" front, more than a few people will be horrified that movie icon George Clooney is mocked. Talk about roping a sacred cow! Belittling God is one thing, but denigrating Clooney? Are there no limits to the madness?
It will be very interesting to see which movie wins at the box office. Will the pagans score big? Or will the first conservative satire ever clobber the atheists? At this point, only God knows, with apologies to Mr. Maher.
And if this culture war cinema battle isn't enough, Oliver Stone will be out with his movie on President Bush in a couple of weeks. I'll make a bold prediction: Many critics will love it! Can you imagine anyone sticking up for Mr. Bush at this point in time?
I don't know whether Oliver Stone believes in God. But he should.
Confronting Barney
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, October 9, 2008
One of the things lacking in the second presidential debate this week was anger. With the economy brutalizing millions of Americans, I expected both candidates to be furious that, once again, the government failed to warn us about impending disaster. Before the 9/11 attack few Americans had ever heard of al Qaeda even though Presidents Clinton and Bush certainly knew of the growing danger the group posed. Now, there's compelling evidence that the feds stonewalled the present economic chaos. So why aren't McCain and Obama livid about it?
It is not hard to understand why Americans who work hard, obey the law and believe in the capitalistic system, are sick to their stomachs when they lose investment money through no fault of their own. Corrupt Wall Street greed heads and stupid, lazy federal overseers have combined to deliver one of the most punishing blows to regular folks in U.S. history.
So, again, why aren't Obama and McCain pounding the table?
Recently, I interviewed the Chairman of the House Finance Committee Barney Frank and it was quite a shootout. According to The Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and my own research, Frank presided over the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a casual disdain for the American investor.
In fact, last July, Frank went on television and said this:
"Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward."
Sure. Less than three months later Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed and even though he was in charge, Frank says he is not at fault. Of course, he blames Republicans.
After hearing that, I let Frank have it calling him a coward for not admitting any culpability. He then called me stupid. You get the picture.
Now, I remain furious with Barney Frank. To me, he epitomizes everything that is wrong with the federal government. He was incompetent in his oversight of the federal mortgage agencies and then when they folded, causing a chain reaction financial disaster for honest investors, he blamed other people.
Unacceptable and every elected official in Washington should feel the same way. This is not some political theory here, real people are getting badly hurt, lives are being dramatically affected. Those responsible need to be held to account.
But in the land of conventional politics anyone showing anger and passion is deemed to be "out of control." You must appear calm and cool in the face of any storm. Therefore, Obama and McCain showed little emotion about the terrible economic situation.
You know sometimes cool doesn't cut it, fellas. There is a time for anger.
And that time is now.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
One of the things lacking in the second presidential debate this week was anger. With the economy brutalizing millions of Americans, I expected both candidates to be furious that, once again, the government failed to warn us about impending disaster. Before the 9/11 attack few Americans had ever heard of al Qaeda even though Presidents Clinton and Bush certainly knew of the growing danger the group posed. Now, there's compelling evidence that the feds stonewalled the present economic chaos. So why aren't McCain and Obama livid about it?
It is not hard to understand why Americans who work hard, obey the law and believe in the capitalistic system, are sick to their stomachs when they lose investment money through no fault of their own. Corrupt Wall Street greed heads and stupid, lazy federal overseers have combined to deliver one of the most punishing blows to regular folks in U.S. history.
So, again, why aren't Obama and McCain pounding the table?
Recently, I interviewed the Chairman of the House Finance Committee Barney Frank and it was quite a shootout. According to The Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and my own research, Frank presided over the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a casual disdain for the American investor.
In fact, last July, Frank went on television and said this:
"Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward."
Sure. Less than three months later Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed and even though he was in charge, Frank says he is not at fault. Of course, he blames Republicans.
After hearing that, I let Frank have it calling him a coward for not admitting any culpability. He then called me stupid. You get the picture.
Now, I remain furious with Barney Frank. To me, he epitomizes everything that is wrong with the federal government. He was incompetent in his oversight of the federal mortgage agencies and then when they folded, causing a chain reaction financial disaster for honest investors, he blamed other people.
Unacceptable and every elected official in Washington should feel the same way. This is not some political theory here, real people are getting badly hurt, lives are being dramatically affected. Those responsible need to be held to account.
But in the land of conventional politics anyone showing anger and passion is deemed to be "out of control." You must appear calm and cool in the face of any storm. Therefore, Obama and McCain showed little emotion about the terrible economic situation.
You know sometimes cool doesn't cut it, fellas. There is a time for anger.
And that time is now.
Farrakhan Says 'New Beginning' For Nation of Islam
CHICAGO (AP) ― The Nation of Islam, a secretive movement generally closed to outsiders, has planned a rare open-to-the public event at its Chicago-based headquarters in what the Minister Louis Farrakhan deemed a "new beginning" for the group.
Hundreds of religious leaders of different faiths have been invited to the event planned for Sunday, a rededication of the group's historic Mosque Maryam on the city's South Side. Farrakhan is scheduled to speak.
"We have restored Mosque Maryam completely, and we will dedicate it to the universal message of Islam, and the universal aspect of the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad," Farrakhan said in an invitation letter. "It represents for the Nation of Islam, a new beginning."
The event comes just weeks after the death of Imam W.D. Mohammed, the son of Nation founder Elijah Muhammad who broke with the group and moved thousands of African-Americans toward mainstream Islam.
The Nation purchased the mosque, a former Greek Orthodox church, in 1972 and has since been making renovations. The stately 1948 structure, embellished with a golden dome and topped with an Islamic crescent moon, is adorned with Quranic verses in Arabic.
Experts say opening the mosque's doors to the public is a calculated move.
"It is a very conscious effort to open the mosque up to the community and to rededicate the community to learning about Islam," said Aminah McCloud, a professor of Islamic studies at DePaul University. "Previously, the Nation has been open to people coming to visit it, but its members don't generally go anywhere else ... now there is a concerted effort."
While the Nation has espoused black nationalism and self-reliance since it was founded in the 1930s, in recent years members have reached out to other groups. For instance, the Nation has a Latino liaison and has become involved in immigrant rights rallies and marches. Also, the Minister Ishmael Muhammad, a top assisting minister at the mosque and widely thought to be a potential successor to Farrakhan, has talked about unity between all people, at times speaking in Spanish.
Farrakhan, 75, has haltingly tried to move the Nation toward traditional Islam, which considers the American movement heretical because of its view of Elijah Muhammad as a prophet -- among other novel teachings. Orthodox Islam teaches that there has been no prophet after Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century.
He's also played down some of the group's more controversial beliefs. The Nation of Islam has taught that whites are descended from the devil and that blacks are the chosen people of Allah.
The event on Sunday also wraps up a week of events marking the 13th anniversary of the Million Man March, which Farrakhan began in 1995. That year, hundreds of thousands of people traveled to Washington, D.C. to participate.
On Thursday, Farrakhan spoke to inmates at Cook County jail urging self improvement, atonement and reconciliation, principles the Million Man March promoted.
Those values "can help reduce violence and anti-social behavior ... and have universal significance and will benefit those willing to listen," according to a statement from the Nation.
Farrakhan's Sunday speech will mark his second major public address this year and is among several smaller community and religious events he has attended.
His public appearances have surprised many since in 2006, he seceded leadership to an executive board while recuperating from serious complications from prostate cancer.
In February, Farrakhan appeared at an annual Saviours' Day event in Chicago and called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better. The Obama campaign quickly denounced Farrakhan's support, because of past comments about Jews that many have called offensive.
In the past months, Farrakhan has attended funeral services of W.D. Mohammed and Jabir Herbert Muhammad, both sons of the late Elijah Muhammad.
(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of religious leaders of different faiths have been invited to the event planned for Sunday, a rededication of the group's historic Mosque Maryam on the city's South Side. Farrakhan is scheduled to speak.
"We have restored Mosque Maryam completely, and we will dedicate it to the universal message of Islam, and the universal aspect of the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad," Farrakhan said in an invitation letter. "It represents for the Nation of Islam, a new beginning."
The event comes just weeks after the death of Imam W.D. Mohammed, the son of Nation founder Elijah Muhammad who broke with the group and moved thousands of African-Americans toward mainstream Islam.
The Nation purchased the mosque, a former Greek Orthodox church, in 1972 and has since been making renovations. The stately 1948 structure, embellished with a golden dome and topped with an Islamic crescent moon, is adorned with Quranic verses in Arabic.
Experts say opening the mosque's doors to the public is a calculated move.
"It is a very conscious effort to open the mosque up to the community and to rededicate the community to learning about Islam," said Aminah McCloud, a professor of Islamic studies at DePaul University. "Previously, the Nation has been open to people coming to visit it, but its members don't generally go anywhere else ... now there is a concerted effort."
While the Nation has espoused black nationalism and self-reliance since it was founded in the 1930s, in recent years members have reached out to other groups. For instance, the Nation has a Latino liaison and has become involved in immigrant rights rallies and marches. Also, the Minister Ishmael Muhammad, a top assisting minister at the mosque and widely thought to be a potential successor to Farrakhan, has talked about unity between all people, at times speaking in Spanish.
Farrakhan, 75, has haltingly tried to move the Nation toward traditional Islam, which considers the American movement heretical because of its view of Elijah Muhammad as a prophet -- among other novel teachings. Orthodox Islam teaches that there has been no prophet after Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century.
He's also played down some of the group's more controversial beliefs. The Nation of Islam has taught that whites are descended from the devil and that blacks are the chosen people of Allah.
The event on Sunday also wraps up a week of events marking the 13th anniversary of the Million Man March, which Farrakhan began in 1995. That year, hundreds of thousands of people traveled to Washington, D.C. to participate.
On Thursday, Farrakhan spoke to inmates at Cook County jail urging self improvement, atonement and reconciliation, principles the Million Man March promoted.
Those values "can help reduce violence and anti-social behavior ... and have universal significance and will benefit those willing to listen," according to a statement from the Nation.
Farrakhan's Sunday speech will mark his second major public address this year and is among several smaller community and religious events he has attended.
His public appearances have surprised many since in 2006, he seceded leadership to an executive board while recuperating from serious complications from prostate cancer.
In February, Farrakhan appeared at an annual Saviours' Day event in Chicago and called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better. The Obama campaign quickly denounced Farrakhan's support, because of past comments about Jews that many have called offensive.
In the past months, Farrakhan has attended funeral services of W.D. Mohammed and Jabir Herbert Muhammad, both sons of the late Elijah Muhammad.
(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, October 13, 2008
Demented Black Muslim Encourages Muslims To Mutilate White Christians
Dr. Khalid A-Mansour is a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a "mentor" to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s. Muslim Khalid Al-Mansour raised money and used his influence to get Obama into Harvard.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Farrakhan on Obama: 'The Messiah is absolutely speaking'
'Barack has captured the youth,' will bring about 'universal change'
Posted: October 09, 2008
8:03 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, another powerful Chicago-based political figure associated with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and other long-time associates of Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama, is leaving no doubt about what he thinks of the leader in the campaign for the White House.
He says when Obama talks "the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
You can watch it for yourself on a newly posted YouTube video.
Addressing a large crowd behind a podium Feb. 24 with a Nation of Islam Saviour's Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaims,
"You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. 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."
"Brothers and sisters," Farrakhan said, "Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way."
Farrakhan points out that the man Nation of Islam followers refer to as "the Savior," Fard Muhammad, had a black father and a white mother, just as Obama did.
"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.
"Would God allow Barack to be president of a country that has been so racist, so evil in its treatment of Hispanics, native Americans, blacks?" he asked. "Would God do something like that? Yeah. Of course he would. That's to show you that the stone that the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner. This is a sign to you. It's the time of our rise. It's the time that we should take our place. The future is all about you."
Get "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"
Farrakhan suggested he would keep a low profile in the campaign, despite his enthusiasm for Obama.
"That's why you have never heard me make any comment," he explained. "I love that brother, and I want to see that brother successful. I don't want to say anything that would hurt that brother, and I don't want them to use me or the Nation of Islam."
Returning to the theme that Obama is a mystical figure, Farrakhan said, he "is not the Messiah for sure, but anytime he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that's not necessarily Satan's work, that is, I believe, the work of God."
He went on to point out that when religious scholars talk about Christ or the Islamic Mahdi, they never talk in racial terms – again, pointing to Obama's mixed racial background.
WND previously reported a website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" captured the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator's remarkable rise.
The site is topped by an Obama quote strategically ripped from a Jan. 7 speech at Dartmouth College just before the New Hampshire Primary in which he told students, "… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote" for Obama.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews is among the many members of the media enraptured by Obama, admitting he felt a "thrill going up my leg" listening to an Obama speech.
At the media watchdog Newsbusters, P.J. Gladnick writes that Obama has a charisma that goes beyond "his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric."
"Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity," Gladnick says. "Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord."
Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," personally autographed – for only $4.95, available today, but only from WND!
WND also reported when talk radio host Rush Limbaugh criticized Democrats who were comparing Obama to Jesus and Gov. Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate.
"I know Jesus Christ. I pray to Jesus Christ all the time," said Limbaugh." I study what Jesus Christ did and said all the time, and let me tell you something, Barack Obama, you are no Jesus Christ."
He also attacked Obama's stances for abortion and sex education for children in kindergarten, saying, "I can't find any such references to Jesus promoting infanticide nor do I find any references to Jesus Christ suggesting sex education be taught to 4- and 5-year-olds, but I'm still looking in the New Testament and I'll let you all know if I come up with anything."
Democrats, including party strategist Donna Brazile and Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., made nearly identical biblical comparisons of the characters in this presidential election, which Limbaugh traced back to a Sept. 4 posting on a Washington blog.
"Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus," Cohen said during a one-minute speech on the floor of the U.S. House yesterday. "Pontius Pilate was a governor."
Posted: October 09, 2008
8:03 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, another powerful Chicago-based political figure associated with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and other long-time associates of Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama, is leaving no doubt about what he thinks of the leader in the campaign for the White House.
He says when Obama talks "the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
You can watch it for yourself on a newly posted YouTube video.
Addressing a large crowd behind a podium Feb. 24 with a Nation of Islam Saviour's Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaims,
"You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. 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."
"Brothers and sisters," Farrakhan said, "Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way."
Farrakhan points out that the man Nation of Islam followers refer to as "the Savior," Fard Muhammad, had a black father and a white mother, just as Obama did.
"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.
"Would God allow Barack to be president of a country that has been so racist, so evil in its treatment of Hispanics, native Americans, blacks?" he asked. "Would God do something like that? Yeah. Of course he would. That's to show you that the stone that the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner. This is a sign to you. It's the time of our rise. It's the time that we should take our place. The future is all about you."
Get "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"
Farrakhan suggested he would keep a low profile in the campaign, despite his enthusiasm for Obama.
"That's why you have never heard me make any comment," he explained. "I love that brother, and I want to see that brother successful. I don't want to say anything that would hurt that brother, and I don't want them to use me or the Nation of Islam."
Returning to the theme that Obama is a mystical figure, Farrakhan said, he "is not the Messiah for sure, but anytime he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that's not necessarily Satan's work, that is, I believe, the work of God."
He went on to point out that when religious scholars talk about Christ or the Islamic Mahdi, they never talk in racial terms – again, pointing to Obama's mixed racial background.
WND previously reported a website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" captured the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator's remarkable rise.
The site is topped by an Obama quote strategically ripped from a Jan. 7 speech at Dartmouth College just before the New Hampshire Primary in which he told students, "… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote" for Obama.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews is among the many members of the media enraptured by Obama, admitting he felt a "thrill going up my leg" listening to an Obama speech.
At the media watchdog Newsbusters, P.J. Gladnick writes that Obama has a charisma that goes beyond "his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric."
"Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity," Gladnick says. "Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord."
Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," personally autographed – for only $4.95, available today, but only from WND!
WND also reported when talk radio host Rush Limbaugh criticized Democrats who were comparing Obama to Jesus and Gov. Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate.
"I know Jesus Christ. I pray to Jesus Christ all the time," said Limbaugh." I study what Jesus Christ did and said all the time, and let me tell you something, Barack Obama, you are no Jesus Christ."
He also attacked Obama's stances for abortion and sex education for children in kindergarten, saying, "I can't find any such references to Jesus promoting infanticide nor do I find any references to Jesus Christ suggesting sex education be taught to 4- and 5-year-olds, but I'm still looking in the New Testament and I'll let you all know if I come up with anything."
Democrats, including party strategist Donna Brazile and Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., made nearly identical biblical comparisons of the characters in this presidential election, which Limbaugh traced back to a Sept. 4 posting on a Washington blog.
"Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus," Cohen said during a one-minute speech on the floor of the U.S. House yesterday. "Pontius Pilate was a governor."
Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day
A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.
The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.
A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.
"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroslow.
But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Nonetheless, the excursion offers Proposition 8 proponents fresh ammunition for their efforts to outlaw gay marriage in California, offering a real-life incident that echoes their recent television and radio ads.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
The trip illustrates the message promoted by the campaign in recent days, namely that unless Prop. 8 passes on Nov. 4, children will learn about same-sex marriage in school.
"It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened," White said.
California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction.
On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom's office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.
"With this ring, I thee wed!" Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis.
After traditional photos, the two walked out City Hall's main doors where the students were lined up down the steps with bags of pink rose petals and bottles of bubbles hanging from their necks. McCoy, a conferences services coordinator, was in on the surprise and beamed as the children swarmed around Carder.
The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8" banners.
The two met on a dance floor two years ago.
"This is one girl I can honestly say deserves happiness, and it came in the form of Kerri," said Carder's friend Dani Starelli.
Creative Arts administrators and parents acknowledged that the field trip might be controversial, but they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal, they noted.
"How many days in school are they going to remember?" asked parent Marc Lipsett. "This is a day they'll definitely remember."
Carder's students said they were happy to see their new teacher married.
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.
The students' parents are planning to make a video with the children describing what marriage is to them.
Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is "people falling in love."
It means, he added, "You stay with someone the rest of your life."
As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me," Jaroflow said. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."
E-mail Jill Tucker at jtucker@sfchronicle.com.
The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.
A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.
"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroslow.
But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Nonetheless, the excursion offers Proposition 8 proponents fresh ammunition for their efforts to outlaw gay marriage in California, offering a real-life incident that echoes their recent television and radio ads.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
The trip illustrates the message promoted by the campaign in recent days, namely that unless Prop. 8 passes on Nov. 4, children will learn about same-sex marriage in school.
"It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened," White said.
California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction.
On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom's office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.
"With this ring, I thee wed!" Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis.
After traditional photos, the two walked out City Hall's main doors where the students were lined up down the steps with bags of pink rose petals and bottles of bubbles hanging from their necks. McCoy, a conferences services coordinator, was in on the surprise and beamed as the children swarmed around Carder.
The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8" banners.
The two met on a dance floor two years ago.
"This is one girl I can honestly say deserves happiness, and it came in the form of Kerri," said Carder's friend Dani Starelli.
Creative Arts administrators and parents acknowledged that the field trip might be controversial, but they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal, they noted.
"How many days in school are they going to remember?" asked parent Marc Lipsett. "This is a day they'll definitely remember."
Carder's students said they were happy to see their new teacher married.
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.
The students' parents are planning to make a video with the children describing what marriage is to them.
Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is "people falling in love."
It means, he added, "You stay with someone the rest of your life."
As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me," Jaroflow said. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."
E-mail Jill Tucker at jtucker@sfchronicle.com.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Obama Muslim Shell Game: Catholic School Docs Show Obama Registered As Muslim
Media Contact:
Bill Wilson at bill@dailyjot.com
2007-01-30 -- [WDC News Post] -- WASH—Jan 25—DJNS—Associated Press has revealed that Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, attend a Catholic school in Indonesia registered as a Muslim, further clouding the issue of where Obama was schooled in Indonesia and when. Obama, by his own admission in books that he has written, has said that he attended a Catholic school and a Muslim school while living in Indonesia with his atheist mother and Muslim stepfather. But now that Fox News reported that Obama may have been indoctrinated in Islamic teachings while attending the Muslim school in Indonesia , he and his handlers have gone spinning the story to the news media, and their stories do not match up. Obama is claiming that the allegations by Fox are “scurrilous” and that he believes people “recognize that the notion that me going to school in Indonesia for two years at a public school there at the age of 7 and 8 is probably not going to be endangering in some way the people of America.” Associated Press is reporting that the Muslim school Obama attended is a public school, open to people of all faiths—this according to the spokesman for Indonesia’s Ministry of Religious affairs who goes only by the name of “Sutopo.” Records show that Obama attended a Catholic school first and then the Muslim school. When he was ten years old, he moved to Hawaii and attended a private secular school. There are many holes in Obama’s story. First, if he attended the Muslim school when he was seven and eight, which school did he attend when he was nine and ten, if he first attended the Catholic school? There appears to be a gap in his education or a miscommunication about what school he attended and when he attended it. Associated Press reports that Obama’s mother relocated to Indonesia from 1967-71 after marrying Obama’s Muslim step-father—who Obama claims was no longer Muslim, but an atheist. The Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where Obama first attended school, enrollment documents, however, show Obama enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs says he isn’t sure why the Catholic school document had Obama listed as a Muslim. Gibbs told AP, “Senator Obama has never been a Muslim.” While the spokesman is denying that Obama was never a Muslim, Obama, himself, has not publicly said he was never and is not now a Muslim. What can Americans expect of a Muslim-educated Obama? AP writes of its interviews at the Muslim school in Indonesia, “Those tied to the school say they are proud to have had a student like Obama, and hope that, if he is elected president, his ties to Indonesia will broaden his world perspective and his views on religion.” Indonesia is home to some of the most radical Islamic schools in the world. And Obama’s identity is yet to be revealed as the confusing doubletalk hides the real Barack Hussein Obama, Democratic candidate for President of the United States . “And they will deceive every one his neighbor, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.”-- Jeremiah 9:5
WDC Media Public Relations. 1-877-862-3600. www.wdcmedia.com
Bill Wilson at bill@dailyjot.com
2007-01-30 -- [WDC News Post] -- WASH—Jan 25—DJNS—Associated Press has revealed that Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, attend a Catholic school in Indonesia registered as a Muslim, further clouding the issue of where Obama was schooled in Indonesia and when. Obama, by his own admission in books that he has written, has said that he attended a Catholic school and a Muslim school while living in Indonesia with his atheist mother and Muslim stepfather. But now that Fox News reported that Obama may have been indoctrinated in Islamic teachings while attending the Muslim school in Indonesia , he and his handlers have gone spinning the story to the news media, and their stories do not match up. Obama is claiming that the allegations by Fox are “scurrilous” and that he believes people “recognize that the notion that me going to school in Indonesia for two years at a public school there at the age of 7 and 8 is probably not going to be endangering in some way the people of America.” Associated Press is reporting that the Muslim school Obama attended is a public school, open to people of all faiths—this according to the spokesman for Indonesia’s Ministry of Religious affairs who goes only by the name of “Sutopo.” Records show that Obama attended a Catholic school first and then the Muslim school. When he was ten years old, he moved to Hawaii and attended a private secular school. There are many holes in Obama’s story. First, if he attended the Muslim school when he was seven and eight, which school did he attend when he was nine and ten, if he first attended the Catholic school? There appears to be a gap in his education or a miscommunication about what school he attended and when he attended it. Associated Press reports that Obama’s mother relocated to Indonesia from 1967-71 after marrying Obama’s Muslim step-father—who Obama claims was no longer Muslim, but an atheist. The Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where Obama first attended school, enrollment documents, however, show Obama enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs says he isn’t sure why the Catholic school document had Obama listed as a Muslim. Gibbs told AP, “Senator Obama has never been a Muslim.” While the spokesman is denying that Obama was never a Muslim, Obama, himself, has not publicly said he was never and is not now a Muslim. What can Americans expect of a Muslim-educated Obama? AP writes of its interviews at the Muslim school in Indonesia, “Those tied to the school say they are proud to have had a student like Obama, and hope that, if he is elected president, his ties to Indonesia will broaden his world perspective and his views on religion.” Indonesia is home to some of the most radical Islamic schools in the world. And Obama’s identity is yet to be revealed as the confusing doubletalk hides the real Barack Hussein Obama, Democratic candidate for President of the United States . “And they will deceive every one his neighbor, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.”-- Jeremiah 9:5
WDC Media Public Relations. 1-877-862-3600. www.wdcmedia.com
Dow falls through 9,000 and picks up speed
Stocks continue seven-session free fall amid sluggish credit markets
From the AP
NEW YORK - Stocks plunged in the final minutes of trading Thursday, sending the Dow Jones industrials down more than 675 points, or more than 7 percent, to their lowest level in five years after a major credit ratings agency said it was considering cutting its rating on General Motors Corp. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index also fell more than 7 percent.
The sell-off came as Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services put GM and its finance affiliate GMAC LLC under review to see if its rating should be cut. GM has been struggling with weak car sales in North America.
The action means there is a 50 percent chance that S&P will lower GM’s and GMAC’s ratings in the next three months.
S&P also put Ford Motor Co. on credit watch negative. The ratings agency said that GM and Ford have adequate liquidity now, but that could change in 2009.
GM led the Dow lower, falling 31 percent, while Ford fell 58 cents, or 22 percent, to $2.08.
“The story is getting to be like that movie Groundhog Day,” said Arthur Hogan, chief market analyst at Jefferies & Co. He pointed to the still-frozen credit markets, and Libor, the bank-to-bank lending rate that remains stubbornly high despite the Fed’s recent rate cut.
“Until that starts coming down, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone getting excited about stocks,” Hogan said. “Everything we’re seeing his historic. The problem is historic, the solutions are historic, and unfortunately, the sell-off is historic. It’s not the kind of history you want to be making.”
According to preliminary calculations, the Dow fell 678.91, or 7.3 percent, to 8,579.19. The blue chips hadn’t fallen below the 9,000 level since Aug. 6, 2003.
Broader stock indicators also tumbled. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell 75.02, or 7.6 percent, to 909.92, while the Nasdaq composite index fell 95.21, or 5.47 percent, to 1,645.12.
Traders are looking for some slowdown in the selling and perhaps even a rally after the losses logged in the past six sessions. The Dow is down 1,593 points, or 15 percent, in that time, its worst losing streak since August 2007 when it shed 812 points, or 6 percent.
Thursday marks one year since the Dow and the S&P 500 closed at their highs. At the start of Thursday's trading, the Dow was down 4,940 points, or 34.8 percent, since closing at 14,198. The S&P 500, meanwhile, is off 580 points, or 37 percent, since recording its high of 1,565.15.
While credit markets appeared tight, demand for short-term Treasurys appeared to wane Thursday. The yield on the three-month Treasury bill, which moves opposite its price, rose to 0.69 percent from 0.63 percent late Wednesday. Longer-term debt prices also fell, with the yield on the 10-year note rising to 3.78 percent from 3.65 percent late Wednesday.
----------
To read the rest click here
From the AP
NEW YORK - Stocks plunged in the final minutes of trading Thursday, sending the Dow Jones industrials down more than 675 points, or more than 7 percent, to their lowest level in five years after a major credit ratings agency said it was considering cutting its rating on General Motors Corp. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index also fell more than 7 percent.
The sell-off came as Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services put GM and its finance affiliate GMAC LLC under review to see if its rating should be cut. GM has been struggling with weak car sales in North America.
The action means there is a 50 percent chance that S&P will lower GM’s and GMAC’s ratings in the next three months.
S&P also put Ford Motor Co. on credit watch negative. The ratings agency said that GM and Ford have adequate liquidity now, but that could change in 2009.
GM led the Dow lower, falling 31 percent, while Ford fell 58 cents, or 22 percent, to $2.08.
“The story is getting to be like that movie Groundhog Day,” said Arthur Hogan, chief market analyst at Jefferies & Co. He pointed to the still-frozen credit markets, and Libor, the bank-to-bank lending rate that remains stubbornly high despite the Fed’s recent rate cut.
“Until that starts coming down, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone getting excited about stocks,” Hogan said. “Everything we’re seeing his historic. The problem is historic, the solutions are historic, and unfortunately, the sell-off is historic. It’s not the kind of history you want to be making.”
According to preliminary calculations, the Dow fell 678.91, or 7.3 percent, to 8,579.19. The blue chips hadn’t fallen below the 9,000 level since Aug. 6, 2003.
Broader stock indicators also tumbled. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell 75.02, or 7.6 percent, to 909.92, while the Nasdaq composite index fell 95.21, or 5.47 percent, to 1,645.12.
Traders are looking for some slowdown in the selling and perhaps even a rally after the losses logged in the past six sessions. The Dow is down 1,593 points, or 15 percent, in that time, its worst losing streak since August 2007 when it shed 812 points, or 6 percent.
Thursday marks one year since the Dow and the S&P 500 closed at their highs. At the start of Thursday's trading, the Dow was down 4,940 points, or 34.8 percent, since closing at 14,198. The S&P 500, meanwhile, is off 580 points, or 37 percent, since recording its high of 1,565.15.
While credit markets appeared tight, demand for short-term Treasurys appeared to wane Thursday. The yield on the three-month Treasury bill, which moves opposite its price, rose to 0.69 percent from 0.63 percent late Wednesday. Longer-term debt prices also fell, with the yield on the 10-year note rising to 3.78 percent from 3.65 percent late Wednesday.
----------
To read the rest click here
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Barack Obama - "Radical and Terrorist Associates"
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Thanks to livingonplanetZ
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Thanks to livingonplanetZ
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Obama is at odds with God on abortion
Wayne Ledbetter
Statesville
Published: October 4, 2008
Neal Grose recently expressed his opinion on abortion basing it on Exodus 21: 22-25. Here are the verses from the New International Version:
22: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."
23: "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,"
24: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,"
25: burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
If you rely on this passage from the Bible and not some Liberal blog, then it is very easy to understand. How is the "humanness" of an unborn child being questioned here? It plainly gives the unborn child the same rights as any child. The text does not say "she" or "her" if the mother was the only one hurt. As far as the unborn child being the property of the father, Wow! If you said "Heavenly Father," I would agree. I take the verse to mean the baby's father is the head of the family and would handle legal actions.
Verses 23 -25 tells me that anyone responsible for the death of the mother or the unborn child should receive the death penalty. Abortion is not by accident; it is premeditated murder. There is no way I could vote for any politician who favor of abortion.
Ya"ll can support it by voting for Barack Obama if you want to, but understand that vote supports taking the life of God's creation. Check his voting record, especially in Illinois.
Statesville
Published: October 4, 2008
Neal Grose recently expressed his opinion on abortion basing it on Exodus 21: 22-25. Here are the verses from the New International Version:
22: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."
23: "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,"
24: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,"
25: burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
If you rely on this passage from the Bible and not some Liberal blog, then it is very easy to understand. How is the "humanness" of an unborn child being questioned here? It plainly gives the unborn child the same rights as any child. The text does not say "she" or "her" if the mother was the only one hurt. As far as the unborn child being the property of the father, Wow! If you said "Heavenly Father," I would agree. I take the verse to mean the baby's father is the head of the family and would handle legal actions.
Verses 23 -25 tells me that anyone responsible for the death of the mother or the unborn child should receive the death penalty. Abortion is not by accident; it is premeditated murder. There is no way I could vote for any politician who favor of abortion.
Ya"ll can support it by voting for Barack Obama if you want to, but understand that vote supports taking the life of God's creation. Check his voting record, especially in Illinois.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Muslim Made Boys Beat Themselves
7:40pm UK, Wednesday August 27, 2008 Sky News
A devout Muslim who forced boys to beat themselves with blades has been found guilty of child cruelty.
The boys were pressured into hitting themselves with an implement with five blades, called a "zanjeer zani", at a religious ceremony.
The two youngsters, aged 13 and 15, admitted they wanted to beat themselves, but not under duress and not using the blades.
"This is a part of our religion."
The younger boy said he saw Zaidi flogging himself with the zanjeer zani before washing his blood from it and handing it to the older boy.
He said Zaidi was pulling him and pushing him, telling people "this is a sad moment and look he's not doing it".
Zaidi tried to force the boy's t-shirt off and attempted to make him use the knife on himself.
The younger boy described how the 15-year-old lad "swung it once or twice and said 'I don't want to do it anymore'".
The boys both received multiple lacerations to their backs with several deeper cuts.
A film of the ceremony broadcast on television showed Zaidi beating himself until his back was bloody and cut.
Many other men at the event flogged themselves as well.
Zaidi denied his actions were wrong, saying: "This is a part of our religion."
He told the jury: "It was an emotional time and the children were happy, they asked for it. No one forced anyone."
Two days before the ceremony Zaidi was told that under 16s were not permitted to flog themselves.
Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Carol Jackson said: "The CPS wishes to make it clear that this prosecution was not an attack upon the practices or ceremonies of Shia Muslims."
The Ashura ceremony takes place during the first month of the Islamic calendar and commemorates the death of the grandson of the Prophet.
The ruling of child cruelty against Zaidi is a first in the UK.
Bahrain calls for Middle East bloc to bring together Iran and Israel
Ian Black, Middle East editor The Guardian, Thursday October 2 2008
Article history
Middle Eastern countries should set up a new regional organisation that includes all Arab states as well as Israel, Iran and Turkey, pro-western Bahrain urged yesterday.
The call - which is likely to provoke controversy - came from Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, the Gulf state's foreign minister. "Why don't we all sit together even if we have differences and even if we don't recognise each other?" he told the London-based daily al-Hayat. "Why not become one organisation?
"Aren't we all members of a global organisation called the United Nations? Why not [come together] on a regional basis? This is the only way to solve our problems. There's no other way to solve them, now or in 200 years."
Asked if that should include Israel, he replied: "With Israel, Turkey, Iran and Arab countries. Let them all sit together in one group."
The day before the interview the foreign minister made the same point in a speech to the UN general assembly in New York, calling for such a body to include countries "without exception".
Bahrain is a close ally of the US - and home to a key naval base - and, as with nearby Qatar, has discreet though informal links with Israel. But of the 22 members of the Arab League, only Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania have full diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. Other Arab countries have always refused to establish relations with Israel until it signs peace agreements with the Palestinians and Syria.
All have resisted any sort of "normalisation", seeing it as a concession that can only be made when a comprehensive peace has been reached in the region. But all support the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which called for peace with Israel if it withdraws to its 1967 borders.
Iran, which backs Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, is extremely hostile to Israel. Syria is Iran's only Arab ally. But other Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, fear Tehran's regional influence and nuclear ambitions. The Bahraini foreign minister said Arab countries should also play a role in talks between the US and Iran. "We are in Iran's backyard. If we don't know what is going on, how can we put our proposals on the table?"
This year Bahrain appointed a Jewish woman as its ambassador to the US - a first in the Arab world.
Article history
Middle Eastern countries should set up a new regional organisation that includes all Arab states as well as Israel, Iran and Turkey, pro-western Bahrain urged yesterday.
The call - which is likely to provoke controversy - came from Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, the Gulf state's foreign minister. "Why don't we all sit together even if we have differences and even if we don't recognise each other?" he told the London-based daily al-Hayat. "Why not become one organisation?
"Aren't we all members of a global organisation called the United Nations? Why not [come together] on a regional basis? This is the only way to solve our problems. There's no other way to solve them, now or in 200 years."
Asked if that should include Israel, he replied: "With Israel, Turkey, Iran and Arab countries. Let them all sit together in one group."
The day before the interview the foreign minister made the same point in a speech to the UN general assembly in New York, calling for such a body to include countries "without exception".
Bahrain is a close ally of the US - and home to a key naval base - and, as with nearby Qatar, has discreet though informal links with Israel. But of the 22 members of the Arab League, only Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania have full diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. Other Arab countries have always refused to establish relations with Israel until it signs peace agreements with the Palestinians and Syria.
All have resisted any sort of "normalisation", seeing it as a concession that can only be made when a comprehensive peace has been reached in the region. But all support the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which called for peace with Israel if it withdraws to its 1967 borders.
Iran, which backs Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, is extremely hostile to Israel. Syria is Iran's only Arab ally. But other Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, fear Tehran's regional influence and nuclear ambitions. The Bahraini foreign minister said Arab countries should also play a role in talks between the US and Iran. "We are in Iran's backyard. If we don't know what is going on, how can we put our proposals on the table?"
This year Bahrain appointed a Jewish woman as its ambassador to the US - a first in the Arab world.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Soros floats alternative bailout plan with Dems
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 09/30/08 11:19 PM [ET]
The billionaire financier George Soros, a major Democratic financial backer, is floating his own rescue plan among Democratic lawmakers who are uncertain what to do in the wake of a surprise defeat of a proposed $700 billion rescue package proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Soros has outlined his plan in an opinion editorial in the Financial Times and circulated a concept paper among decision-makers.
Specifically, the liberal philanthropist has proposed that government funds should be used to recapitalize the American banking system by purchasing equity in banks and investment firms.
Democratic Rep. Jim Moran (Va.) scheduled a meeting Tuesday afternoon with Robert Johnson, a former manager of the Soros Fund Management, to discuss the proposal.
Moran compared the proposal to Warren Buffet’s $5 billion investment in the investment firm Goldman Sachs Group in return for preferred stock and warrants to buy common stock at a discount.
Soros has also contacted Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign to share his views on the financial crisis and the best way to solve it.
Soros described the plan he outlined in his concept paper in an opinion editorial that appeared in the Financial Times early Wednesday morning, Greenwich Meridian Time.
“Instead of purchasing troubled assets, the bulk of the funds ought to be used to recapitalize the banking system,” Soros wrote.
“The Treasury secretary would rely on bank examiners rather than delegate implementation of [the Troubled Asset Relief Program] to Wall Street firms,” he wrote in reference to the plan first crafted by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. “The bank examiners would establish how much additional equity capital each bank needs in order to be properly capitalized according to existing capital requirements.”
“The recapitalized banks would be allowed to increase their leverage, so they would resume lending,” he wrote.
Soros has emerged as a harsh critic of the Treasury Department, especially of Paulson’s proposal for the government to buy $700 billion of distressed mortgage-backed securities to restore the flow of credit in the financial markets.
It is unclear whether his entry onto the debris-strewn field of the debate will help lawmakers reach agreement on an alternative proposal or further anger House Republicans, who blew up a compromise plan on the House floor Monday.
“The two main principles are to inject more cash into the securities market and shore up home mortgages,” said Moran, who has been briefed on the proposal. “He thinks it has to be more direct than the government buying up tranches. He doesn’t think the government should be buying up toxic stock.”
“There are a lot of people with ideas, I’m going to look at what they want,” said Moran, who added that he also scheduled a meeting with Robert Dugger, managing director of Tudor Investment Corporation, a fund connected with the billionaire trader Paul Tudor Jones.
Soros, who is widely regarded as a financial wizard, could jumpstart congressional negotiations in a new direction, especially now that some strategists believe the Paulson-based plan that failed Monday will be difficult to revive.
One banking industry lobbyist said it would be very difficult politically for Republicans who voted against the package Monday to change their minds and vote for it a few days later. More than two thirds of the House Republican conference voted against the plan, which failed by a vote of 228-205.
Michael Vachon, Soros’s spokesman, said: “There have been a lot of conversations going on about the Paulson plan and George has been very critical of it.”
Democrats are fond of Soros, who has emerged as one of the party’s biggest financial backers in recent years. He spent close to $24 million to defeat President Bush in the 2004 election.
For this reason Soros is a bogeyman among many Republicans. He clashed famously with former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.).
During the 2004 election Hastert questioned the source of Soros’s wealth and suggested it could have links to the drug trade.
Soros has fiercely criticized Paulson’s proposal.
“Mr. Paulson’s proposal to purchase distressed mortgage-related securities poses a classic problem of asymmetric information,” Soros wrote in a Financial Times op-ed dated Sept. 24. “The securities are hard to value but the sellers know more about them than the buyer: in any auction process the Treasury would end up in the dregs.”
Soros would like the government to restore the flow of credit to the financial markets by purchasing equity in companies saddled with distressed assets, said Moran.
The international financier would also like the government to take direct action to shore up the ailing housing market.
“The scheme addresses only one half of the underlying problem -- the lack of credit availability. It does very little to enable house owners to meet their mortgage obligations and it does not address the foreclosure problem,” Soros wrote in Wednesday’s commentary .
“A revised emergency legislation could also provide more help to homeowners,” he wrote of a package based on his own proposals. “It could require the Treasury to provide cheap financing for mortgage securities whose terms have been renegotiated, based on Treasury’s cost of borrowing.”
He has also suggested prohibiting mortgage companies from charging fees on foreclosures. Many companies are quick to foreclose because they no longer own the loan itself, which has likely been turned into a security.
Instead, these companies make money by charging delinquent borrowers during the foreclosure process.
Soros’s plan could find favor among members of the Congressional Black Caucus, many of whom voted against the Paulson-based plan Monday.
Foreclosures of subprime mortgages, considered the root of the housing crisis, affects African-American homeowners disproportionately.
Robert Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon, an economic advisory firm, who served as Commerce Department undersecretary during the Clinton administration, raised questions about Soros’s proposal.
He said that if the government bought stock in troubled firms, a problem would arise regarding how Uncle Sam would be represented as a shareholder.
“How does the government vote the shares?” he asked. “It puts them in a potential conflict of interest. Regulatory interests may hurt the bottom line.”
Posted: 09/30/08 11:19 PM [ET]
The billionaire financier George Soros, a major Democratic financial backer, is floating his own rescue plan among Democratic lawmakers who are uncertain what to do in the wake of a surprise defeat of a proposed $700 billion rescue package proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Soros has outlined his plan in an opinion editorial in the Financial Times and circulated a concept paper among decision-makers.
Specifically, the liberal philanthropist has proposed that government funds should be used to recapitalize the American banking system by purchasing equity in banks and investment firms.
Democratic Rep. Jim Moran (Va.) scheduled a meeting Tuesday afternoon with Robert Johnson, a former manager of the Soros Fund Management, to discuss the proposal.
Moran compared the proposal to Warren Buffet’s $5 billion investment in the investment firm Goldman Sachs Group in return for preferred stock and warrants to buy common stock at a discount.
Soros has also contacted Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign to share his views on the financial crisis and the best way to solve it.
Soros described the plan he outlined in his concept paper in an opinion editorial that appeared in the Financial Times early Wednesday morning, Greenwich Meridian Time.
“Instead of purchasing troubled assets, the bulk of the funds ought to be used to recapitalize the banking system,” Soros wrote.
“The Treasury secretary would rely on bank examiners rather than delegate implementation of [the Troubled Asset Relief Program] to Wall Street firms,” he wrote in reference to the plan first crafted by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. “The bank examiners would establish how much additional equity capital each bank needs in order to be properly capitalized according to existing capital requirements.”
“The recapitalized banks would be allowed to increase their leverage, so they would resume lending,” he wrote.
Soros has emerged as a harsh critic of the Treasury Department, especially of Paulson’s proposal for the government to buy $700 billion of distressed mortgage-backed securities to restore the flow of credit in the financial markets.
It is unclear whether his entry onto the debris-strewn field of the debate will help lawmakers reach agreement on an alternative proposal or further anger House Republicans, who blew up a compromise plan on the House floor Monday.
“The two main principles are to inject more cash into the securities market and shore up home mortgages,” said Moran, who has been briefed on the proposal. “He thinks it has to be more direct than the government buying up tranches. He doesn’t think the government should be buying up toxic stock.”
“There are a lot of people with ideas, I’m going to look at what they want,” said Moran, who added that he also scheduled a meeting with Robert Dugger, managing director of Tudor Investment Corporation, a fund connected with the billionaire trader Paul Tudor Jones.
Soros, who is widely regarded as a financial wizard, could jumpstart congressional negotiations in a new direction, especially now that some strategists believe the Paulson-based plan that failed Monday will be difficult to revive.
One banking industry lobbyist said it would be very difficult politically for Republicans who voted against the package Monday to change their minds and vote for it a few days later. More than two thirds of the House Republican conference voted against the plan, which failed by a vote of 228-205.
Michael Vachon, Soros’s spokesman, said: “There have been a lot of conversations going on about the Paulson plan and George has been very critical of it.”
Democrats are fond of Soros, who has emerged as one of the party’s biggest financial backers in recent years. He spent close to $24 million to defeat President Bush in the 2004 election.
For this reason Soros is a bogeyman among many Republicans. He clashed famously with former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.).
During the 2004 election Hastert questioned the source of Soros’s wealth and suggested it could have links to the drug trade.
Soros has fiercely criticized Paulson’s proposal.
“Mr. Paulson’s proposal to purchase distressed mortgage-related securities poses a classic problem of asymmetric information,” Soros wrote in a Financial Times op-ed dated Sept. 24. “The securities are hard to value but the sellers know more about them than the buyer: in any auction process the Treasury would end up in the dregs.”
Soros would like the government to restore the flow of credit to the financial markets by purchasing equity in companies saddled with distressed assets, said Moran.
The international financier would also like the government to take direct action to shore up the ailing housing market.
“The scheme addresses only one half of the underlying problem -- the lack of credit availability. It does very little to enable house owners to meet their mortgage obligations and it does not address the foreclosure problem,” Soros wrote in Wednesday’s commentary .
“A revised emergency legislation could also provide more help to homeowners,” he wrote of a package based on his own proposals. “It could require the Treasury to provide cheap financing for mortgage securities whose terms have been renegotiated, based on Treasury’s cost of borrowing.”
He has also suggested prohibiting mortgage companies from charging fees on foreclosures. Many companies are quick to foreclose because they no longer own the loan itself, which has likely been turned into a security.
Instead, these companies make money by charging delinquent borrowers during the foreclosure process.
Soros’s plan could find favor among members of the Congressional Black Caucus, many of whom voted against the Paulson-based plan Monday.
Foreclosures of subprime mortgages, considered the root of the housing crisis, affects African-American homeowners disproportionately.
Robert Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon, an economic advisory firm, who served as Commerce Department undersecretary during the Clinton administration, raised questions about Soros’s proposal.
He said that if the government bought stock in troubled firms, a problem would arise regarding how Uncle Sam would be represented as a shareholder.
“How does the government vote the shares?” he asked. “It puts them in a potential conflict of interest. Regulatory interests may hurt the bottom line.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
