Saturday, November 01, 2008
By Michelle Maskaly
Fox News
A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays.
During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.
The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts."
The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.
Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child's signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents' rights.
Meanwhile, a school board member, Jeff Cook, says some type of action should be taken.
"We have a general rule that all instruction should be age appropriate, and this clearly was not," said Cook, who has served on the school board for five years.
Val Joyner, a school district spokeswoman, told FOXNews.com in an e-mail that when deciding what to teach on this subject matter, educators "gather materials from community agencies and other education groups" and that "the materials have grade level indicators which help determine what is age-appropriate."
The district said the pledge cards were intended for middle school and high school students.
Asked last week if the district planned to take action against Miller, Joyner said she would have to look into the incident. On Thursday she told FOXNews.com that she did not have an answer for the question and that she would no longer be doing any media interviews.
Joyner said in an e-mail that Miller, the teacher, "planned to teach students how to become an ally and conflict-mediation through various activities." She added that the district doesn't advocate for a specific cause and/or lifestyle, and it has "no curriculum for gay, lesbian and transgender lifestyles."
The district employs a "Professional Learning Specialist: Equity," who is in charge of gathering material and helping teachers decide what should be taught on the subject matter.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, the group representing Voelker, said parents at the Faith Ringgold School weren't notified of what was going to take place in the classroom.
He said that teaching students as young as pre-school about gay, lesbian and transgender issues is common in California, but that there are "all kinds of material the average parent could find highly objectionable or potentially harmful" to their children.
When asked if the school district did anything wrong, he said, "possibly," but he declined to go into detail or say whether Voelker would sue the district.
Dacus would not comment specifically on whether children who signed the pledge could be held responsible if the school determined that they were not honoring it. He said they are minors and there are certain degrees of limited liability, but from a psychological and emotional perspective, it's a whole different ballgame.
"[There is] tremendous peer pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude," Dacus said.
Meanwhile, opponents of gay marriage are up in arms over the incident, which occurred as California voters prepare to vote Tuesday on Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage.
"How do you teach a 5-year-old to sign a pledge card for lesbian, gay and transgender issues without explaining what transgender and bisexual is?" asked Sonja Eddings Brown, a spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Sowell: Obama Win Would Be Historic Tragedy
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
