Satellite Intelligence Availability

Image Gallery: Inside GeoEye's $500 Million Imaging Satellite

By Cora Nucci

InformationWeek October 23, 2008 04:00 AM

COMPILER COMMENTS: this article gives an idea of the current resolution limits for spacebased photography. It is interesting that this is co-sponsored by a US commercial company. Availability of such resolution in the public domain would affect the quality of terrorist site information gathering considerably. Since most such targets are civilian, they are likely NOT in the government-permission sector of restriction. A word to the wise should be sufficient. Go to the article to see an image gallery of what this satellite can do. Impressive, alarming.

See photos of the Geo-Eye-1 satellite, which will capture ultra high resolution images for Google and U.S. Government agencies from 432 miles above Earth.

GeoEye-1, the highest resolution imaging satellite in orbit, has begun releasing color images of such exceptional spatial resolution, that some cannot be viewed without explicit government approval.

GeoEye's $500 million satellite launched into orbit September 6 on a Boeing Delta II rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base. After a 45-day testing and calibration period, images will begin downloading to GeoEye customers.

The GeoEye-1 being packed for transport to Vandenberg AFB for final launch preparations.

The GeoEye-1 is capable of capturing images as small as 16 inches in size from 432 miles above Earth -- close enough to spot a crusty baguette or an 12-lb. bluefish -- but not quite near enough to identify a human face, the company says.

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

Obama’s Religious Ruse: ‘I’ve Always Been a Christian’ (Part 1 of 3)

(Compiler's note: Like you, I don't know where this article will go, but we are looking here for character and truth from one of our Presidential candidates at this most important juncture in our country's history. )

by Alexander LaBrecque

Barack Hussein Obama insists that he is a “devout Christian” of “deep faith,” and Big Media echoes his claim without question. Even some critics hesitate to challenge the validity of that claim.

The ruse that he is a Christian must be exposed for what it really is: Obama’s cloak to conceal that he is a Marxist from a Muslim background, for which he holds widespread support in the Islamic world. This series of three articles will analyze his exploitation of Christian rhetoric to serve the subterfuge.

Obama’s claim that he is a Christian coincides with his adamant denial that he was ever a Muslim. Yet his sister with whom he lived as a child has disclosed “my whole family was Muslim.”[1] His 1968 registration at a Catholic school lists him as “Barry Soetoro,” a citizen of Indonesia, and his religion is Islam.[2] He himself admits that later he studied the Koran at a public school in Jakarta. Only Muslim children studied the Koran there,[3] and his former principal recalls that Barry studied mengaji — recitation of the Koran in Arabic, an advanced form of study.[4]

Without intent, he corroborated this in a 2007 New York Times interview: with a first-rate Arabic accent Obama recited the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer and remarked that it is “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset.”[5] These lines chant the confession of faith committing one to Islam: the declaration of Allah’s supremacy, that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is his prophet.[6]

His memoir discloses that in his teens he considered becoming a Black Muslim like Malcolm X.[7] Obama divulged this year that in 1981 he made a three-week trip to Karachi, Pakistan with Muslim friends from college, and there he became knowledgeable of Sunni and Shiite sects.[8] Although his memoir concealed that journey, it revealed his inner state at that very time: “I had spent the summer brooding over a misspent youth … the state of the world and the state of my soul. ‘I want to make amends,’ I said. ‘Make myself of some use.’”[9] Obama’s experience with Islamic sects on that soul-searching, penitential pilgrimage preceded his radical commitment to Marxism as a student at Columbia University.

For two decades Obama was indeed a member of a “church” in Chicago, but its Marxist “theology” of Black Power, its affinities with the Nation of Islam, and having the raving malevolent Jeremiah Wright as his “spiritual mentor” make Obama’s claim to be a Christian less than credible.

Confirming that Obama’s “deep faith” is not Christian has been his denial that Jesus Christ is Lord of all and the supreme revelation from God for all humankind, and its corollary, his admitted skepticism about an afterlife.

The reality of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most basic confession of the Christian faith and has been affirmed by all Christians since the first generation as God’s revelation of life everlasting.[10] Christians call upon the name of Jesus as the crucified and risen Lord whom God vindicated to become the Savior of all peoples and to give believers eternal life. This hope is so integral to the Christian faith that the apostle Paul reasoned that conversely if resurrection is not the destiny of those who belong to the risen Christ, then Christ himself is dead, the faith has no content, and believers are not reconciled to God. “If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.”[11] Inherent in Jesus’ teaching and the Christian hope is also the Jewish expectation of God’s judgment of all persons, that beyond this life divine justice will reward the good and punish those who do evil.[12]

In 2004 Obama was interviewed by Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times. He told her that Christians “may presume a set of doctrines” that “I don’t necessarily subscribe to.” Elaborating, he trivialized the core of the Christian faith by which believers live: “If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe [in] Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that’s all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.” Immediately Falsani asked him if he believes in heaven, and the skeptic mocked: “Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?” “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die,” or whether rewards for one’s conduct will be in this life only or in a hereafter. He identified “heaven” with feeling that he cares for his daughters and that they are learning from him his mother’s values. In the same way, sin — inconsistency with his values — is “its own punishment.”[13]

Because faith perceives that which is presently unseen all Christians struggle against weakness of faith, but Christian faith is not skeptical about the hereafter. No one who actually believes that God resurrected Jesus from death to personal immortality remains agnostic about an afterlife.[14] Obama’s skepticism on this core premise betrays his skepticism about the reality of Christ’s resurrection, about the Christian faith itself.

Obama’s definition of “Christian” is likewise illuminating. According to Falsani’s transcript, he said:

I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith. On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. . . . intellectually, I’ve drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith. . . .

So I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

Asked if he has always been a Christian, Obama replied: “I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.”[15]

In fact she was never a Christian. Her parents were skeptics, she became a Marxist while attending a high school where The Communist Manifesto was taught, and she proudly identified herself as an atheist.[16] In a July 2008 interview, Obama admitted his mother “never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know.”[17]

Obama has variations of this ruse. MSNBC reported shortly before Christmas 2007 how he personally assured patrons at a small-town cafe that he has never been anything but a Christian, for his Muslim father was not religious and his parents had divorced. “My mother was a Christian from Kansas … I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian.” Asked for his definition of “Christian” Obama answered: “Somebody who believes in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.”“I’m so glad to hear that,” the inquirer responded[18] — being told what she hoped to hear.

At the very least Obama concealed that this definition of “Christian” never applied to his mother and his upbringing, or else “Christian” includes being an atheist or, as he described her in other accounts, an agnostic and secular humanist. Knowing that his mother was never a Christian, Obama fabricated that she was, in order to make his own claim more plausible.

Obama’s mother did not believe that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth is now the risen Lord and Savior, as Christians do. According to his own testimony his mother was scornful of Bible-believing Christians,[19] an “agnostic”[20] and “a lonely witness for secular humanism”[21] who defined the spiritual values that he still holds today. She “had as much influence on my values as anybody,” and “my mother was a deeply spiritual person,”[22] “in many ways the most spiritually awakened person I’ve ever known.”[23] She was “very suspicious of the notion that one particular organized religion offered one truth,”[24] at most believing in a “higher power” common to all religions. “In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad-Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology.” This may account somewhat for why Obama did not commit to Islam, despite his Muslim childhood and his later affinity for Islam.

To acquaint him with religions as diverse expressions of human culture his mother took him occasionally to church on Easter and Christmas, to a Buddhist temple, a Shintoist shrine and Hawaiian burial sites.[25] According to Obama, “her view always was that underlying these religions were a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself but also for the greater good.”[26]

His mother died of cancer in 1995, some seven years after Obama’s alleged commitment to the Christian faith. A decade later Obama ended the “Faith” chapter of his book The Audacity of Hope (2006) with an intimate account of her final days, beset with fear and apprehensive of death: “She had admitted to me during the course of her illness that she was not ready to die. . . . more than once I saw fear flash across her eyes. More than fear of pain or fear of the unknown, it was the sheer loneliness of death that frightened her.” Christians might anticipate that our author will here share some words of divine care from the depth of his faith, to diminish her fear and comfort his dying mother; this is wholly absent.

As his next paragraph confirms, nearly a decade later he still had no answer even for his little daughter’s question of an afterlife, telling her instead that she is too young “to worry about that,” while recognizing within himself that he knows nothing more than that he hopes his mother’s spirit might be in a better place. “I wondered whether I should have told [my daughter] the truth, that I wasn’t sure what happens when we die, any more than I was sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang.”[27]

This is the confession of an agnostic materialist — not of someone who believes that God raised Jesus from the dead, a Christian assured that not even death can separate from the Creator’s love those who belong to the risen Christ. He even doubts that God pre-existed a theoretical Big Bang. Obama’s inability to offer any assurance of God’s care beyond death to either his dying mother or his inquiring child is due to his agnosticism. It is because he himself is an agnostic that he is skeptical of the Christian hope.

What his mother did believe is the atheism of New Age mythologist Joseph Campbell, whose work she admired, and whose influence on Obama is manifest. Campbell popularized interest in the power of myths to affect human experience and denied the Judeo-Christian tradition its historical validity. Campbell’s The Power of Myth was one of her favorite texts, according to an interview in which Obama calls his mother “an agnostic,” qualifying: “I think she believed in a higher power.”[28] According to Campbell, all religions are essentially the same, merely cultural variations of a common human consciousness of being alive; their myths and symbols differ only in details, and those differences are irrelevant. This is an abject rejection of the ethical monotheism of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is also a denial that God has revealed salvation for humans from all cultures by raising the crucified Jesus from the dead. It means that God has not exalted Jesus as the risen Lord, in whom people of all nations should believe.

Like his mother, Obama himself regards the Christian faith and other religions as merely vehicles for an elevating experience of human consciousness. When he reasons, “I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith. . . . So I’m rooted in the Christian tradition,” an agnostic is identifying himself with what he regards as Christian myths so that we will project that he believes as Christians do. Yet he immediately qualifies that the myths of other religions are equally valid: “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”[29]

Thus what Obama really believes is that through religion — myths of Christian, Muslim, Hindu or animist origins — all people have in common the same higher power, which is their experience of a collective human consciousness. But this experience need not originate from religious myth: just as Obama can “be transported” by “a good choir and a good sermon in the black church,” so too “I can be transported by watching a good performance of Hamlet …or listening to Miles Davis.”[30] This is Barack Obama’s “deep faith.”

At the time of his 2006 book he defined himself as “Christian and skeptic.”[31] Not Christian and analytical, not Christian and inquisitive, but “Christian and skeptic.” His own testimony confirms he is a “Christian” only in terms of his adopted identity, and a skeptic in regards to the core of the Christian faith, to which he at most “subscribes.” Obama attests that his decision to become a member at Trinity did not remove his skepticism, but manifested an existing commitment to his prior world view. “It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear.”[32]

The lack of a dramatic conversion is common when children who had been raised by Christians but were uncommitted do commit to Christ later as adults. But that was not Obama’s background, and he believes no differently than what his agnostic mother taught him as a child. The one and only difference is his current adoption of Christian identity, that the skeptic now “subscribes to” Christian verbiage.

He tells Christians that he has “a relationship with Jesus Christ,” but that means he has attached himself to the christ myth. Like his mother, he scorns Christians who “cling to their religion,”[33] and he touts the depth of his skepticism as attesting his “deep faith”: “I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. . . . I think religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt.”[34]

In his years as a community organizer Obama taught other activists the tactics of the Marxist agitator Saul Alinsky. One of Alinsky’s tactics is to employ ridicule; here is another: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”[35]Combining those tactics, Obama has mocked “it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive [the Sermon on the Mount’s] application.” This nullification was in context of his arguments for abortion. By Obama’s logic, Jesus’ ethics cannot be applied socially to innocent human life because the Sermon on the Mount is not applied to defending America from those who seek to kill us.[36]

Falsani asked Obama to identify his spiritual role model, and from his answer apparently it was not enough that for the revelation of God’s kingdom and to die for others’ sins Jesus went to the cross; perhaps Barry finds Jesus too judgmental, or Jesus’ faith in God too strong. For Obama’s spiritual role model is not Jesus but a skeptic, Mahatma Gandhi — “a great example of a profoundly spiritual man who acted and risked everything on behalf of those values but never slipped into intolerance or dogma. He seemed to always maintain an air of doubt about him.”[37]

From that description, one wonders if it is himself Obama seeks to emulate. Asked by Falsani to define sin, Barry replied: “Being out of alignment with my values.” Asked to define when he is most centered and aligned spiritually, he answered: “I think I’ve already described it. It’s when I’m being true to myself.”

In the light of the foregoing we can better discern from Obama’s statements what he actually thinks about Jesus. According to Falsani’s transcript, when she asked Obama, “Who’s Jesus to you?” he laughed nervously and replied: “Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.”[38]

It is understandable that Obama laughed nervously at this question, for he had to make his own view of Jesus appear Christian while knowing it is not. For him, Jesus was an historical figure who did exist and is long dead, who was a great teacher not all that unique among other faiths’ venerated leaders, past and present — Gandhi, Buddha, Muhammad, to name a few. In his mind, what distinguishes Jesus from the others is that Christian mythology regards him as “a bridge” between God and humans, therefore to Obama that myth is powerful precisely because it can be a means for reaching his own high aspirations. To quote Alinsky: “The [community] organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level to which man can reach — to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.”[39]

What we have here is a baptized Marxist who denies the biographical reality of his Muslim background, takes pride in his skepticism, is the center of his universe, is posing as a Christian, esteems the power of the christ myth, and seeks the most powerful position of authority in the world.

At the time of the Falsani interview Obama closely allied himself with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church. But not once did Obama disclose to Falsani that his church’s core is “black liberation theology” or reveal the radical content of Wright’s preaching. He knows the difference between its Black Power and historic Christianity, or else he would be more candid about it. The Audacity of Hope? Obama has the audacity to claim he has always been a Christian while disbelieving the Christian hope and its foundation, the reality of Jesus’ resurrection, whereby Jesus is Lord of all. His definition of “Christian” includes being an agnostic and a skeptic. Not only is he a pseudo-Christian — he’s a messianic poser.

Part Two will concentrate on Obama’s “conversion.”

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alexander LaBrecque earned his Ph.D. from the University of Sheffield, England, for his dissertation on Christ’s resurrection in the apostle Paul’s theology. Write him at alexlabrecque@verizon.net.

---

[1] Paul Watson, “As a Child, Obama Crossed a Cultural Divide in Indonesia,” Los Angeles Times, March 15, 2007.

[2] An image of the 1968 form — originally published by the Associated Press, but later scrubbed — is at The Obama File.

[3] Kim Barker, “History of Schooling Distorted,” Chicago Tribune, March 25, 2007.

[4] Tine Hahiyary quoted in Indonesia’s Kaltim Post, January 27, 2007, English translation by Laotze, “Tracking Down Obama in Indonesia — Part 5,” An American Expat in Southeast Asia, January 28, 2007.

[5] Nicholas D. Kristof, “Obama: Man of the World,” New York Times, March 6, 2007.

[6] Reuven Koret, “Is Barack Obama a Muslim Wolf in Christian Wool?” Israel Insider, March 27, 2008.

[7] Dreams From My Fathers. A Story of Race and Inheritance (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1995), pp. 86-87.

[8] Mayhill Fowler, “Obama: No Need for Foreign Policy Help From V.P.” The Huffington Post, April 7, 2008; Larry Rohter, “Obama Says Real-Life Experience Trumps Rivals’ Foreign Policy Credits,” New York Times, April 10, 2008.

[9] Dreams, p. 119.

[10] Romans 10:9; John 3:16; John 6:40. See also 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 for a summary of the resurrection faith of Jesus’ disciples and the earliest Christians.

[11] 1 Corinthians 15:12-20.

[12]Matthew 7:21-23; 22: 23-32; 25:31-46; Romans 2:1-16; 2 Corinthians 4:13-5:10.

[13] Citations of Falsani’s March 27, 2004 interview are from the full transcript now on her blog. Her published account was “Obama: I Have a Deep Faith,” Chicago Sun-Times, April 5, 2004.

[14] Paul’s converts from paganism at Thessalonica were anxious about the fate of deceased Christians only because they lacked comprehension of their new resurrection faith. Paul assured them that Christ’s resurrection was for the benefit of those who believe that God raised him from the dead, that they too may rise to life and be with him forever (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:10).

[15] Falsani transcript.

[16] Tim Jones, “Barack Obama: Mother Not Just a Girl From Kansas,” Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007.

[17] Lisa Miller and Richard Wolffe, “Finding His Faith,” Newsweek, July 12, 2008.

[18] Aswini Anburajan, “Obama Asked About Connection to Islam,” MSNBC First Read, December 22, 2007, italics supplied.

[19] The Audacity of Hope. Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2006), p. 203.

[20] “Finding His Faith.”

[21] Dreams, p. 50.

[22] Falsani transcript.

[23] Audacity, p. 205.

[24] “Finding His Faith.”

[25] Audacity, pp. 203-204.

[26] Falsani transcript.

[27] Audacity, pp. 225-226.

[28] “Finding His Faith.”

[29] Falsani transcript.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Audacity, p. 9.

[32] Ibid, p. 208.

[33] “Transcript of Obama’s Remarks at San Francisco Fundraiser Sunday,” Time, April 11, 2008.

[34] Falsani transcript.

[35] Rules for Radicals. A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York: Random House, 1971), p. 128.

[36] Audacity, p. 218.

[37] Falsani transcript.

[38] Falsani transcript, italics supplied.

[39] Rules for Radicals, p. 61.

Chesler: The FBI was right to drop designation of Said murders as "honor killing"

by Robert Spencer

How many more girls must die as they did?

Over at Pajamas Media, in "The FBI Was Right. Why They Stopped Calling Yaser Said an Honor Killer," Phyllis Chesler says that the FBI's decision to stop calling the murders of Amina and Sarah Said by their father "honor killings" is tactical, not politically correct:

So here’s what I think: If indeed Yaser Abdul Said is still hiding in the United States–and is being sheltered by other Muslims–imagine it from their point of view. If they are strangers, not blood relatives, would they be more or less likely to turn him in if they learned he was a common murderer or if they learned that the FBI was pursuing him because he was a Muslim? Or a Muslim honor killer? Since the FBI is clearly interested in capturing him, perhaps they concluded that advertising Said as an honor killer might limit their chances of success.

Some Muslims view honor killings as the only way a family can cleanse itself from having been dishonored. To them, an honor killer might be seen as a hero. Thus, designating Said as an honor killer might endear them to him and lead to his being safely sheltered for a longer period of time. Other Muslims may disapprove of honor killings entirely but might also see the designation as a way in which Western culture might choose to unfairly stigmatize all Muslims. Thus, the more moderate Muslims might also be less inclined to “get involved” in turning another Muslim in.

There is no doubt in my mind: Said did honor kill his two young and vivacious daughters. But, I understand why the FBI might have changed the wording on the poster.

I sure hope she's right. On the other side of the balance is the fact that, as Chesler notes, CAIR was livid over the "honor killing" designation -- and some sectors of the FBI have been extremely solicitous of CAIR over the years.

Ultimately, whether or not the FBI terms this an "honor killing," the primary question is this: will American law enforcement officials ever begin to call upon the Muslim leadership in America to go beyond their bland affirmations that this practice has nothing to do with Islam, and actually do something about it? It is absolutely true that honor killing takes place in other cultural contexts. It is also true that the Qur'an says nothing about it. But it also cannot be denied that the stipulation in Islamic law that a parent who murders his or her child is exempt from penalty (cf. 'Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2) creates a legal and cultural atmosphere in which this sort of thing is tolerated. And our own multiculturalist blinders render officials too ignorant and/or bemused to confront this.

From a Clinton Township, Michigan Police Lieutenant

(Compiler's note: Must read. rca)

For those of you who know me, I rarely talk Politics.

Those are private matters for the most part, but I just have to vent a little.

I would call myself a conservative as 99% of Policeman are, and almost
always vote Republican, but I also know that they are all Politicians.

We are stuck in a quagmire of a two party system and the non politician,
independent has no chance to change this country or run this country.

I am not trying at all to dissuade your vote, but Obama has really
cheesed me off. I have read a few articles and have heard that he does
not support anyone in uniform. That goes from our Military to our
Police and probably the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts for all I know. I
have heard these stories of Obama making the Police and Secret Service
(who protect his dumb butt) stay out of his eyesight.

Well, I learned it well Thursday October 9th. Michelle Obama was in
Clinton Twp. Mi Thursday for a rally at our biggest High School. My
department had a small role in protecting her. About 8 Officers were
detailed

to the School for HER security. I was offered the overtime but turned it
down.

One of my Sergeants, and best buddies was assigned there. He came back
infuriated. The rumors are true!!!

My Sergeant was providing security in a hallway as Mr.s Obama was moving
from room to room for different reasons. He was told by the SS that
when she came down his hall, he had to duck behind the corner and not
allow her to see him. He questioned this several times to be sure he
heard it right, and the SS agent (embarrassed of course) had to hide
from her view too.

It is outrageous that the persons running for the President of our
country on the Democratic side, has so much disdain for men and woman in
uniform, they demand that they are kept from their view!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets be clear. This was not in the public. This was not a Honor Guard
detail standing behind her on stage in front of thousands. This was in
a hallway, out of the public eye, and the Obama's refuse to even see an
Officer or Soldier in their view. The Police have to hide!!!!!!!
WHY???????????? That's the scary question! What else is going on here?

No wonder he refuses to wear the flag on his suit or salute the flag.
It will be a terrible day if Obama is elected to run our country I love
so much.

It is so sad that these people are the few who we have to choose from
for the most powerful position in the world!!!!!!!!!

It's almost unbelievable!!

Thanks for letting me vent!!!!!!!!

I already heard about this straight from the mouths of the Michigan State
Police that are on their Motor Unit. They were told to "hide" behind the
bus when Obama exited it so that he couldn't see them. Our (the Macomb
County Sheriff's Office) Motor Unit, along with the State Police, escorted
McCain when he was in town, and we were right out front, where we could
proudly be seen. I don't know how you think, but the only people I have
known in my career that don't want to be seen near cops are
criminals....thats scary!

D. Abbott

Radical Loon When Obama Was Only 47

(Compiler's note: Are we the American people going to understand before it is too late?? This is a "must read." rca)

by Ann Coulter

The media are acting as if they completely and fully vetted Obama during the Democratic primaries and that's why they are entitled to send teams of researchers into Alaska to analyze Sarah Palin's every expense report.

In fact, the mainstream media did no vetting. They seem to have all agreed, "OK, none of us will get into this business with Jeremiah Wright, 'Tony' Rezko, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and everyone's impression of an angry Michelle Obama on 'The Jerry Springer Show.'"

During one of the Democratic primary debates, Hillary Clinton was hissed for mentioning Syrian national Rezko, and during another, ABC moderator George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one question about William Ayers.

In the past week, TV anchors have taken to claiming that Obama "refuted" John McCain's statement that Obama launched his political career at the home of former Weather Underground leader Ayers.

No, Obama "denied" it; he didn't "refute" it. If "denying" something is the same as "refuting" it, then maybe the establishment media can quit harping on Palin's supposed lack of qualifications to be president, since she too "refuted" that by denying it.

Back before the media realized it needed to lie about Obama launching his political career at Ayers' house, the Los Angeles Times provided an eyewitness account from a liberal who attended the event.

"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."

The Times has now stripped this item from its Web page, but the great blogger Patterico has preserved it for posterity on his Web page.

Obama's glib remark that "Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago; 40 years ago when I was 8 years old he engaged in despicable acts with a domestic group. I have roundly denounced those attacks" -- doesn't answer anything.

First of all, the fact that Ayers is a professor of education proves only one thing: He is dumber than any person without an education degree.

Ayers is such an imbecile, we ought to be amazed that he's teaching at a university -- even when you consider that it's an ed school -- except all former violent radicals end up teaching. Roughly 80 percent of former Weathermen are full college professors -- 99 percent if you don't include the ones killed in shoot-outs with the police or in prison -- i.e., not yet pardoned by a Democratic president.

Any other profession would have banned a person like Ayers. Universities not only accept former domestic terrorists, but also move them to the front of the line. In addition to Ayers, among those once on the FBI's most-wanted list who ended up in cushy college teaching positions are Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University), Mark Rudd (a junior college in New Mexico) and Angela Davis (History of Consciousness Department, University of California at Santa Cruz).

While others were hard at work on Ph.D.s, Susan Rosenberg was conspiring to kill cops and blow up buildings, and was assembling massive caches of explosives. This put her on the fast track for a teaching position at Hamilton College!

Despite having absolutely no qualifications to teach, having earned only a master's degree in "writing" through a correspondence course, Rosenberg was offered a position at Hamilton within a few years of President Clinton pardoning her in 2001, releasing her from a 58-year prison sentence for participating in the murder of cops and possessing more than 700 pounds of explosives.

But Obama thinks it's a selling point to say that Ayers is a college professor.

Hundreds of college professors have signed a letter vouching for Ayers, which would be like Lester Maddox producing a letter from George Wallace assuring us that Maddox is a respected member of the community. No, really, I've got the letter right here!

The media keep citing the fact that the money Obama and Ayers distributed to idiotic left-wing causes came -- as The New York Times put it -- "from Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher and philanthropist and President Richard M. Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom."

Great Republican though he was, Walter Annenberg died in 2002. The money came from the Annenberg Foundation, which, like all foundations, distributes money to projects that its founder would despise. John Kerry ran for president on the late John Heinz's money. That didn't mean Republican Heinz was endorsing Kerry.

As John O'Sullivan says, any foundation that is not explicitly right-wing will become a radical left-wing organization within a few years. It could be the Association of University Women, the American Association of Retired People, the American Rose Growers, the Foundation for the Study of Railroad Engineers or the Choral Society of Newport Beach.

Left-wing radicals swarm to free foundation money, where they can give gigantic grants to one another and they will never have to do a day's work. That's exactly what Obama and Ayers did with Annenberg's money.

None of the Annenberg money went to schoolchildren. It went to Ayers' left-wing crank friends to write moronic papers that we hope no one ever reads.

Instead of teaching students reading and writing, Ayers thinks they should be taught to rebel against America's "imperialist" social structure. In 2006, Ayers was in Venezuela praising communist dictator Hugo Chavez, saying, "We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution."

He has backed a line of schoolbooks such as one titled "Teaching Science for Social Justice."

Forget about Ayers' domestic terrorism when Obama "was 8 years old." Does he agree with Ayers' idiot ideas right now?

It's Not the Economy; It's the Media's Economic Agenda

New special report shows how journalists turn major issues of the day to the left.

By Dan Gainor

“It’s the economy, stupid.” That little James Carville nugget from the 1992 election is as true now as it was then.

With Wall Street more of a roller coaster than an investment vehicle, ordinary Americans are worried about their future as they watch the markets shake, rattle and roll toward November.

More than half of Americans said in a September 2008 CBS News/New York Times poll that the economy and jobs are the most important issues in the presidential election. The mainstream media are feeding voters’ fears as they have done throughout the campaign – talking about an economy “in crisis,” “heading over a cliff,” or nearly “apocalyptic.”

We’ve heard some of what the candidates plan for the economy but nowhere near enough, and there is little if any discussion of the media agenda for the next four years. The media – especially ABC, CBS and NBC – have decided the economy is a winning issue for the left and are using economic troubles to push a sweeping agenda of liberal policies, regulation and big government.

Based on their coverage, we can expect four more years of economic populism from the nation’s news outlets. From health care to taxes to global warming, the networks have already made it clear where they stand, and the winning president will have to ignore that at his peril.

Look at the pathetic way the news has covered earmarks, that pesky pork that fills the bills on Capitol Hill. Only one of the presidential candidates has made it a key issue – Sen. John McCain. He’s never taken an earmark in his long career. Never.

Sen. Barack Obama on the other hand has requested $740 million in earmarks. Add his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden’s, most recent requests, and it pushes that total over $1 billion.

But when did the media become entranced by the subject? After Sarah Palin was added to the GOP ticket, so they could try desperately to link her to the famous “Bridge to Nowhere.” There were more than 50 mentions of earmarks on the three broadcast networks since Palin joined the ticket – almost as many as in the entire eight months before. Just two discussed Obama’s massive earmark requests.

Those results come from a new study by the Business & Media Institute (BMI). BMI examined how the news media push liberal economic positions for the two-part report on the candidates. The study examined network news coverage – ABC, CBS and NBC – from Jan. 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2008.

The findings say a great deal about the left-wing views of America’s Fourth Estate. Forget for a moment the media’s prObama stance. That helps set the scene for one election. The journalists pushing these themes could help mould the nation for generations.

In health care, the liberal theme was obvious. Networks reported the national health care problem as vastly more inflated than it really is. ABC, CBS and NBC bought into the hype that 47 million Americans are without health care at least 18 times. It’s between 10 and 20 percent of that claim.

To bolster the argument, reporters applauded Obama’s “ambitious” way to “improve” health care. Then they turned around and ignored the positives of the McCain plan and defended the idea of “government-run health care.”

The networks endorsed a similar attitude about taxes, treating cuts as a cost to government in one-fourth of all stories. That’s nearly twice the number of stories that depicted tax cuts as a “relief” to taxpayers.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell showed one GOP candidate that journalists have a liberal view when it comes to letting people keep the money they earn. “Rudy Giuliani proposed lowering corporate tax rates and capital gains taxes, costing trillions,” she said on the Jan. 12 “Saturday Today” show.

Even when the candidates agreed, the media still pushed the agenda leftward. Both Obama and McCain back an economy-numbing cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. It’s designed to make energy more expensive, so journalists love it – just not as much as they love climate change stories.

They’ve done nearly 500 of those warming stories in the first nine months of this year but only examined the pricey “cap-and-trade policy” 18 times. Just three of those stories mentioned costs.

While the newscasts included a great gnashing of teeth for our overall economic fate, journalists have helped ensure our economic future shifts further to the left. If the next president follows that agenda, America in four years will be a land of higher taxes, stifling regulation and sky-high energy costs.

For much of the last year, ABC, CBS and NBC have done their part to portray the American economy in chaos. Now if they get their way, they might help make it a reality.

IRS, U.S. Banks Accept Fraud-Prone Mexican ID That Lets Illegals Into U.S. Credit Market

(CNSNews.com) - The Internal Revenue Service and U.S. banks have been allowing foreign nationals, many of whom are illegal aliens, to use a fraud-prone Mexican identifcation card that the FBI says is not a "reliable" to obtain U.S. bank accounts and Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) and thus enter the U.S. credit market. Mexican banks, meanwhile, do not accept the card--the Matricula Consular--as identification, according to the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. ....

Government Ownership in Banks Could Cause More Problems than It Solves

By Fred Lucas

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government’s purchase of $250 billion in stocks from U.S. banks as part of the $700 billion financial bailout could cause a repeat of the same poor market discipline that caused the credit crisis, according to free market economists.

“These shares put in the hands of the government has a muting effect on incentives,” said Frank Gamrat, senior researcher at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy. “Profit-making incentives drive the economy and maximize performance. You take out that incentive when the government is going to provide capital.”

That was the problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises designed to provide mortgages for low-income earners, said Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow in economics at the libertarian Cato Institute.

“The key point is that this big debacle started from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and that debacle happened with the backing of the government,” Gokhale told CNSNews.com.

The U.S. Treasury Department is buying $125 billion in non-voting shares in nine of the nation’s major banks and $125 billion in shares of smaller banks around the country to provide an infusion of capital and inspire the banks to make more loans.

Congress gave secretary of the Treasury the authority to do so as in vaguely worded section of the $700 billion bailout package that defined as among the "troubled assets" the secretary could buy "any other financial instrument."

Several European countries took similar steps to stabilize their economies.

Critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said the two mortgage giants drive the market for risky loans because they used their tax-exempt status and government line of credit to buy up risky loans that they then turned around and sold to Wall Street firms who assume these two "government-sponsored enterprises" had an implicit government guarantee.

This time the banks will be cautious about relying on the government for security or more oversight given the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, said J.D. Foster, a senior economist with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

This is the case, he said, because when government steps in, the companies are shaken up, top management is often replaced, and shareholders feel the pinch.

“It is extremely risky to make investments expecting a government bailout,” Foster told CNSNews.com.

The Treasury Department says that the stock buy in banks is temporary and that it intends to sell the shares back to private entities when economic conditions improve. However, there is no timeline to do so, and nothing in the $700 billion law requires the government to sell the shares, which also concerns some economists.

“With the buying of troubled assets, there is a clear endpoint that comes when the debt is paid off,” Gokhale said. “With purchasing stocks, there is no clear end. Taxpayers might argue they want a return. At what point do you sell again?”

The lack of a timeline for selling the stocks back to the banks or other private parties is likely to prevent the public from becoming alarmed that the banks will not be secure after a certain date, Gamrat told CNSNews.com.

But he thinks political pressure could promote the classic model of buying low and selling high in the stock market. Despite the potential revenue gains from such a move, Gamrat said it would be wrongheaded.

“If the government sells [the stocks] to make a profit, I’m not sure anyone wins,” Gamrat told CNSNews.com. “The government should sell at the same price it paid. It will show the public that this was a good faith effort to provide capital. If it is used for revenue, the government will gamble in the stock market again.”

The federal government’s purchase of $250 billion in bank stocks should already be a concern, said Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman magazine, who noted that the auto industry, like banks, is also seeing hard times.

“The government is not always good at picking winners,” Richman told CNSNews.com. “History shows government expands during a crisis and never shrinks after the crisis. What if Detroit’s problems continue? Will the government buy stock there?”

A bigger concern is what control the government could exert over the banks, he said. Even without a vote among the banks’ shareholders, “there are still subtle ways to control – the government regulates these banks,” said Richman. “They can say if you don’t do things a certain way, we will make life unpleasant. It’s a dangerous idea.”

The purchase of bank shares might have been necessary, said Foster, who is “concerned about the influence over the banks.”

“Even with non-voting shares, there is a lot of influence,” he told CNSNews.com. “In the long run, the worry might be whether the government likes owning stock.”

Afghanistan: Wounded Digger Lashed Self To Vehicle And Fought On

Thanks to Mongol's link in comments about this article. This story shows how just how tough our Aussie brethren soldiers are!

News.Com

DESPITE being shot twice during an ambush in Afghanistan, an SAS soldier lashed himself to the front of his patrol vehicle so he wouldn't be left behind if he passed out from loss of blood and kept on fighting.

The Digger is expected to be recommended for a high level bravery award.

Suffering from serious upper body wounds, the soldier struggled on to the front of his SAS long range patrol vehicle (LRPV) and, under heavy fire, used a rope to attach himself firmly between the vehicle's bull bar and radiator.

Once he was secured, and there was no chance that he would fall off if he fainted, he picked up his rifle and resumed firing at the enemy during a two-hour fighting withdrawal.

SAS troops and their special forces comrades from the Commando Regiment are well aware of the slow and painful death that awaits them if they are captured by the Taliban.

The Digger, who cannot be identified, faded in and out of consciousness, emptying several magazines as volleys of enemy rounds and rocket propelled grenades, rained down around him.

He was finally evacuated from the battle field at high speed still lashed to the front of the LRPV. [...]

A source told The Courier-Mail the Digger was now "up and about" and would recover fully from his serious gunshot wounds. His heroic deeds will be recognised when he is recommended for a high level bravery award.

Several others engaged in the do-or-die battle on September 2 are also in line for top honours.

This is one heck of a story about bravery and survival. Hats off to this digger and I wish him a speedy recovery.

There was a downer to this story as due to a "glitch" the pay was docked of 100 SAS soldiers, some serving in Afghanistan. Luckily this has been fixed. This such "glitch" is no way to treat our finest and bravest allies!