Posts
(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?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
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.
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.”
(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!
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!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Audacity of Hope and The Power of Reason
by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired
The
What the hell!
Consequently, the focus of the media and political debate has turned inward to the economy.
We have just witnessed the single largest government intrusion into the market place in history. Whether it was the right thing to do will be determined by the results 10 to 20 years hence and the extent to which free market forces are allowed to function. By bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without any consequences to those at every level, from borrower to corporate management and Congressional oversight, Americans forfeited the opportunity to fail as well as to succeed. Both are essential for a vibrant economy, and everyone should have that opportunity with all the risks and rewards that flow from it.
The great economic opportunities that Americans have enjoyed for over two hundred years are now in the balance. If one reads even a modicum of history, one recognizes that it is axiomatic that hand-in-hand with economic opportunity is personal freedom, and to the extent that Government controls one, it inherently controls both. The freedoms that Americans enjoy under their Constitution have been and remain the envy of the world.
I despise robber barons who take what they do not earn, where manipulation is rewarded with monetary wealth, but spiritual emptiness. Witness, Ken Lay, Mr. 'I didn't know what was going on,' but who encouraged employees to invest millions of their incomes and savings all the while knowing full well that Enron was on its way to collapse. He is but one despicable example, and there are plenty of others, including the fired heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both of whom are or were advisers to Senator Obama's campaign.
It is fascinating, if not infuriating that a dictator to the South would tell us that we need to rewrite our Constitution, one supposes along socialist or communist lines. Is it surprising that Obama wants to sit down with Hugo Chavez without pre-condition?
As one who did his time in the hell of Vietnam and has an abiding love and appreciation for our Armed Forces, the Constitution and Nation that they uphold and defend, to walk away from Iraq at this juncture is not only an insult, it would be one more nail in the nation's coffin. The first nail was painfully and clearly driven by the Democrats in 1975 when they cut off funding for the beleaguered people of South Vietnam; with Harry Reid and Senator Obama using the same logic if not the same words with regard to Iraq that were used during that cowardly abandonment.
Senator Obama's desire to take from those who work for a living and 'spread it around' to those who don't is the worst economic nightmare that has come upon this country. Ever! As a small business owner whose gross receipts are well over $450k, but whose net is near zero in the present economy, and who has both faith and hope that hard work and ingenuity will eventually lead to economic prosperity, Obama's economic plan would shut down the business and millions like me if not put me immediately into bankruptcy.
Those who argue that we should 'totally change the system' so that everyone is equal would take away both initiative and freedom. Why should one work 16 hours a day for years if by staying home one keeps more money than by working? How about the ones whose livelihoods would also be terminated absent the work that ones small business generates for them? How about the cash flow through the local bank that is convertible into loans for others?
Those who have a guilt complex over slavery and are basing their planned vote accordingly, need to get over it. Slaves were released nearly 150 years ago. Trillions of dollars have been spent to advance their economic well being, but too many hang onto the past with a vengeance, and that's too bad for everyone. Too many of them believe the nation that expunged the scourge of slavery, that initiated Affirmative Action and thousands of 'programs for the underprivileged,' and that awarded them sub-prime loans, continues to owe them. So their Messiah-in-Chief, Robin Hood, Barrack Hussein Obama plans to take from those who work and distribute it to those who don't. Give me a break!
I support John McCain and Sarah Palin because:
1. They are committed to the Constitutional intent of forming a more perfect union.
2. Committed to appointing Federal Judges who will use their knowledge and experience to uphold and defend the Constitution as it is written, not as liberals would have it be.
3. Committed to preservation of the freedoms that are spelled out in the Constitution's 'Bill of Rights,' in particular the Tenth Article of Amendment. Liberals, look it up.
4. They are committed to insuring that no nation or person will imperil this nation, from without or from within. The former is easy, but the latter more difficult given the 'criminal' stupidity of so many Obama lemmings.
5. They are committed to fostering an environment wherein the economy can flourish through lower taxes and less government intrusion in Americans' lives. Obama's plan would put millions out of business; but the truth is it won't fly. Nor, incidentally, will he.
6. They are committed to making certain that every American now and for generations to come have the opportunity to fulfill their dreams. Under the Obama plan, dreams would be 'spread around.'
7. They are committed to the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Given the Obama agenda, if one is a fetus, run for cover.
If one is a live born botched abortion baby, hope for a compassionate nurse. If one is a sexual pervert, relax your dreams would have come true. If one lives in
I oppose B.H.O., a nice guy but personally empty suit and painfully misguided socio-economically, while continuing to struggle with and for his identity. (Yes, I heard Obama's buddy Louis Farrakhan tell Americans and the world that Obama is the Savior.) It's no wonder that Obama is screwed up. He is a pathetic lost soul, the leader of lost souls who don't even know it, nor do they want to know. If one chooses not to believe me, read his books.
Actually, I like Obama and would vote for him if he had his head screwed on straight, but he doesn't and therefore serious and responsible Americans will flood the polls and will not elect Obama as President in his present lost state.
Hospitals ill equipped to handle victims of dirty bombs
Emergency room doctors and nurses are worrying about hospitals being too ill equipped to handle casualties from a radioactive 'dirty bomb' in a terror attack.
The finding underscores the need for better preparedness training and clearer guidelines for managing such events, the researchers said. A dirty bomb combines conventional explosives and radioactive materials.
"This study suggests many issues urgently need to be addressed in order to meet the challenge posed by radiological terrorism," said the study's co-author, Steven M. Becker, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) associate professor of public health.
"There is a need for increased information and training on managing radiological events, protecting staff and treating affected patients," he added.
In ranking the six most-voiced concerns, the top worry was that hospitals would be overwhelmed by incoming patients, Becker said. Those patients would likely be a mix of contaminated, injured and contaminated and those fearful of contamination, according to an UAB press release.
The No. two worry was emergency duty (ED) professionals' need to ensure their own family's safety, which is discounted or not mentioned in many preparedness plans, Becker said. This second concern was linked closely to the No. 3 worry that ED staffing would drop below acceptable levels based on staff family needs and fears about radioactivity.
Additionally many study participants disagreed with current federal radiological management guidelines, which state that patient stabilisation and treatment of life-threatening conditions should take precedence over decontamination, Becker said.
"Some stated unequivocally that they would not follow this guideline since they felt it was too dangerous to the hospital and its staff," he said. Past chemical terrorism response training has put decontamination as a first priority.
In addition to highlighting serious gaps in preparedness training, the study points to the need for easy-to-follow pocket guides, posters, ED toolkits and telephone hotlines to help manage radiological events. Also, emergency staffing levels need to better account for ED professionals' concern for family and loved ones.
"It is clear from our results that crucial preparedness work needs to be done to keep hospital EDs ready for current and future threats," said Sarah A. Middleton, program manager in the UAB Department of Paediatrics and co-author on the study. The study was funded by Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
Their findings were published in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, a journal of the American Medical Association.St/jg
Iraq, Al-Qaeda And WMDs, Yet Again
(Compiler's note: A must read. rca)
by John Daum
I am amazed by the cultural amnesia regarding Iraq and al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. It seems that once an idea has become a punch-line on Leno and repeated as a political talking point that that qualifies it is a historical fact. Marilyn Lloyd declares in her pro-Obama opinion piece, "However, there were no weapons of mass destruction or documented ties from 9-11 to this war." Her statement is a popular one and rhetorically effective in this election season, but it just doesn't hold up to anyone with access to any news services.
Let me jog your memory. Saddam Hussein provided funds, shelter and/or training to a variety of terrorist organizations including Abu Nidal, Ansar al-Islam, the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers Party, the Mojahedin-e Khalq and the Palestine Liberation Front. There are also well-documented meetings, training sessions and funding of al-Qaeda operatives. I am not suggesting that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but the claim that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups is ahistorical.
As for the "weapons of mass destruction," the case is even more compelling. The intelligence services of France, Britain, Spain, Australia, Japan, Germany, Israel, as well as Jordan, Egypt, Iran and NATO all confirmed the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As did, I might add, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Bob Graham, Sen. Barbara Boxer and other prominent Democrats.
One of the most interesting sources about WMD's in Iraq is Saddam himself. The invasion of Iraq yielded 3,000 hours of taped meetings of Hussein and his war cabinet as well as reams of documents related to WMD. In the tapes, Saddam gives instructions on transporting WMD's out of Iraq in the event of an invasion or UN inspections. The tapes also contain Saddam discussing Iraq's "special weapons" programs and quips about fooling UN weapons inspectors.
So where are all the weapons of mass destruction? Demetrius Perricos, president of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and successor to Hans Blix, confirmed in June 2004 that Saddam had indeed smuggled WMD's out of Iraq before the war. Fifty-six sorties of commercial jetliners, with their seats removed, transported "aid" to Syria in 2002 when a dam burst there. This is where the WMD's are. Remember, our "diplomacy" via the United Nations provided Saddam with over two years to hide, dismantle and transport his WMD's. All of this information is a few clicks away on from sources like the AP and Reuters and the BBC.
It seems we have forgotten Associated Press stories like the 2003 discovery of 3,000 chemical suits found in military bases in central Iraq and the discovery of nerve gas antidote injectors in An Nasiriyah, Iraq. These types of news stories were commonplace at one time. I remember reading in USA Today about the discovery of schematics from U.S. elementary schools found on a CD-rom in a bunker in Iraq. News stories like this are easy to come by for anyone that is willing to read. Poland purchased 17 chemical weapons warheads for $5,000 each from the Iraqis to keep them off the market. These warheads were found to contain cyclosarin, a nerve agent more deadly than sarin. As recently as August 2005, U.S. troops discovered 1,500 gallons of chemical agents in a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq.
All of the liberals that want to champion the "fact" that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq should be profoundly disturbed by that fact along with the rest of us. Hans Blix reported that there are 6,500 chemical weapons and four tons of biological agents that are unaccounted for. It's not a question of "if" Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction, it's a question of where they are now and who will be in office when they turn up.
by John Daum
I am amazed by the cultural amnesia regarding Iraq and al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. It seems that once an idea has become a punch-line on Leno and repeated as a political talking point that that qualifies it is a historical fact. Marilyn Lloyd declares in her pro-Obama opinion piece, "However, there were no weapons of mass destruction or documented ties from 9-11 to this war." Her statement is a popular one and rhetorically effective in this election season, but it just doesn't hold up to anyone with access to any news services.
Let me jog your memory. Saddam Hussein provided funds, shelter and/or training to a variety of terrorist organizations including Abu Nidal, Ansar al-Islam, the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers Party, the Mojahedin-e Khalq and the Palestine Liberation Front. There are also well-documented meetings, training sessions and funding of al-Qaeda operatives. I am not suggesting that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but the claim that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups is ahistorical.
As for the "weapons of mass destruction," the case is even more compelling. The intelligence services of France, Britain, Spain, Australia, Japan, Germany, Israel, as well as Jordan, Egypt, Iran and NATO all confirmed the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As did, I might add, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Bob Graham, Sen. Barbara Boxer and other prominent Democrats.
One of the most interesting sources about WMD's in Iraq is Saddam himself. The invasion of Iraq yielded 3,000 hours of taped meetings of Hussein and his war cabinet as well as reams of documents related to WMD. In the tapes, Saddam gives instructions on transporting WMD's out of Iraq in the event of an invasion or UN inspections. The tapes also contain Saddam discussing Iraq's "special weapons" programs and quips about fooling UN weapons inspectors.
So where are all the weapons of mass destruction? Demetrius Perricos, president of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and successor to Hans Blix, confirmed in June 2004 that Saddam had indeed smuggled WMD's out of Iraq before the war. Fifty-six sorties of commercial jetliners, with their seats removed, transported "aid" to Syria in 2002 when a dam burst there. This is where the WMD's are. Remember, our "diplomacy" via the United Nations provided Saddam with over two years to hide, dismantle and transport his WMD's. All of this information is a few clicks away on from sources like the AP and Reuters and the BBC.
It seems we have forgotten Associated Press stories like the 2003 discovery of 3,000 chemical suits found in military bases in central Iraq and the discovery of nerve gas antidote injectors in An Nasiriyah, Iraq. These types of news stories were commonplace at one time. I remember reading in USA Today about the discovery of schematics from U.S. elementary schools found on a CD-rom in a bunker in Iraq. News stories like this are easy to come by for anyone that is willing to read. Poland purchased 17 chemical weapons warheads for $5,000 each from the Iraqis to keep them off the market. These warheads were found to contain cyclosarin, a nerve agent more deadly than sarin. As recently as August 2005, U.S. troops discovered 1,500 gallons of chemical agents in a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq.
All of the liberals that want to champion the "fact" that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq should be profoundly disturbed by that fact along with the rest of us. Hans Blix reported that there are 6,500 chemical weapons and four tons of biological agents that are unaccounted for. It's not a question of "if" Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction, it's a question of where they are now and who will be in office when they turn up.
Muslim Brotherhood Website: Jihad Against Non-Muslims Is Obligatory
On a website devoted to Ramadhan, the Muslim Brotherhood posted a series of articles by Dr. Ahmad 'Abd Al-Khaleq about Al-Walaa Wa'l-Baraa, an Islamic doctrine which, in its fundamentalist interpretation, stipulates absolute allegiance to the community of Muslims and total rejection of non-Muslims and of Muslims who have strayed from the path of Islam.
In his articles, the writer argues that according to this principle, a Muslim can come closer to Allah by hating all non-Muslims - Christians, Jews, atheists, or polytheists - and by waging jihad against them in every possible manner.
For full report, visit http://www.memriiwmp.org/content/en/report.htm?report=2877.
In his articles, the writer argues that according to this principle, a Muslim can come closer to Allah by hating all non-Muslims - Christians, Jews, atheists, or polytheists - and by waging jihad against them in every possible manner.
For full report, visit http://www.memriiwmp.org/content/en/report.htm?report=2877.
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack: A Preventable Homeland Security Catastrophe
(Compiler's note: Must read. rca)
by Jena Baker McNeill and Richard Weitz, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #2199
by Jena Baker McNeill and Richard Weitz, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #2199
A major threat to America has been largely ignored by those who could prevent it. An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack could wreak havoc on the nation's electronic systems—shutting down power grids, sources, and supply mechanisms. An EMP attack on the United States could irreparably cripple the country. It could simultaneously inflict large-scale damage and critically limit our recovery abilities. Congress and the new Administration must recognize the significance of the EMP threat and take the necessary steps to protect against it.
Systems Gone Haywire
An EMP is a high-intensity burst of electromagnetic energy caused by the rapid acceleration of charged particles. In an attack, these particles interact and send electrical systems into chaos in three ways: First, the electromagnetic shock disrupts electronics, such as sensors, communications systems, protective systems, computers, and other similar devices. The second component has a slightly smaller range and is similar in effect to lightning. Although protective measures have long been established for lightning strikes, the potential for damage to critical infrastructure from this component exists because it rapidly follows and compounds the first component. The final component is slower than the previous two, but has a longer duration. It is a pulse that flows through electricity transmission lines—damaging distribution centers and fusing power lines. The combination of the three components can easily cause irreversible damage to many electronic systems.[1]
An EMP attack on the United States could materialize in two forms: nuclear and non-nuclear. The most devastating form, and most difficult to achieve, is an EMP that results from a nuclear weapon. This form destroys any "unhardened" electronic equipment and electric power system— which means virtually any civilian infrastructure in the United States. The pulse occurs when a nuclear weapon explodes above the visual horizon line at an altitude between 40 and 400 kilometers. The detonation of the nuclear warhead releases photons in the form of gamma radiation and x-rays. These energetic particles scatter in every direction away from the blast. Many of the particles descend and interact with the magnetic field lines of the Earth, where they become trapped. The trapped electrons then create an oscillating electric current within the field, which rapidly produces a large electromagnetic field in the form of a pulse. Once the pulse reaches electronic equipment, it negatively interacts with them and either disables, damages, or destroys them. An EMP generated by a nuclear weapon could affect all critical infrastructures that depend on electricity and electronics within the vicinity of the nuclear warhead blast radius. A nuclear weapon with a burst height of approximately 100 kilometers could expose objects located within an area 725 miles in diameter to the effects of EMP.[2]
A non-nuclear, or improvised, EMP is a radio-frequency (rather than gamma or x-ray frequency) weapon. While easier to conceal and not requiring a missile, a non-nuclear EMP must be detonated close to the target and does not produce as much damage as the nuclear version, affecting largely localized areas.[3] But such a weapon could be harnessed as an "E-Bomb" (electromagnetic bomb), a stand-alone weapon that is easier to hide and maneuver. It is difficult to estimate the exact damage of an improvised attack, but in 1993 EMP testing by the U.S. military shut down engine controls 300 meters away at a contractor site.[4] Not large-scale by any means, but damaging enough to cause concern.
It was not until the United States began high-altitude testing of nuclear weapons over the Pacific in the early 1960s that the potentially devastating effects of EMP on even distant ground targets attracted widespread attention within the U.S. defense community. In the 1962 Starfish Prime test, during which a nuclear weapon was detonated 400 kilometers (250 miles) above Johnston Island in the Pacific, electrical equipment more than 1,400 kilometers (870 miles) away in Hawaii was affected. Street lights, alarms, circuit breakers, and communications equipment all showed signs of distortions and damage.[5]
In 1997 and 1999, the House National Security Committee and the House Military Research and Development Subcommittee held hearings on the potential threats to civilian systems in America from an EMP attack. Congress subsequently established the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, also known as the Graham Commission after its chairman, William Graham (former science advisor to President Ronald Reagan). The Commission issued a report in 2004 that evaluated the threat to the U.S. from an EMP attack, ...
SHOT IN THE FANNIE MAE
(Compiler's note: Helps in understanding what lead up to the bailout. rca)
Not political - Educational!!!!
Not political - Educational!!!!
ACT! for America’s “Voter Guide 2008
(Compiler's note: Must read. rca)
I am delighted to announce the launch of ACT! for America’s “Voter Guide 2008.” This voter guide is a truly ground-breaking project that injects into the public and electoral debate issues such as sharia law and sharia-compliant finance, issues we are sure many candidates for federal office have never faced before.
The ACT! for America staff emailed and mailed issues questionnaires to over 1,000 candidates for President, U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. To see how candidates responded, please click here.
With the election only two weeks away, people are paying very close attention to what candidates are saying and doing. This is the ideal time to inform people about how candidates stand on the issues we address in the candidate questionnaire.
So I would ask you that, even before you go to our website to check out how candidates have responded, please forward this email to everyone you know. You can forward using our forwarding device, which you’ll find at the very bottom of this email, or simply forward it using your email client.
As you can imagine, this has been a very involved, very time-consuming project, that has required extensive human and financial resources. If you are able to help support the cost of this project with a contribution, please click here. We would greatly appreciate any help you can provide us.
Thank you so much, our patriotic members, for your continued commitment to exposing and resisting the threat of radical Islam. Thank you for rising in defense of our security, our liberty and our values. Thank you for the time and resources you give to this very important effort. With your continued support we will continue to move forward in our mission to roll back the threat that we know is all too real. I give you my promise, that we at ACT! for America are committed to serving you and our country to ensure that our leaders are monitored and held accountable for their decisions and that we will continue to mobilize, educate and give power to the average citizen who is the backbone of our great nation.
Always devoted,
Brigitte Gabriel
I am delighted to announce the launch of ACT! for America’s “Voter Guide 2008.” This voter guide is a truly ground-breaking project that injects into the public and electoral debate issues such as sharia law and sharia-compliant finance, issues we are sure many candidates for federal office have never faced before.
The ACT! for America staff emailed and mailed issues questionnaires to over 1,000 candidates for President, U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. To see how candidates responded, please click here.
With the election only two weeks away, people are paying very close attention to what candidates are saying and doing. This is the ideal time to inform people about how candidates stand on the issues we address in the candidate questionnaire.
So I would ask you that, even before you go to our website to check out how candidates have responded, please forward this email to everyone you know. You can forward using our forwarding device, which you’ll find at the very bottom of this email, or simply forward it using your email client.
As you can imagine, this has been a very involved, very time-consuming project, that has required extensive human and financial resources. If you are able to help support the cost of this project with a contribution, please click here. We would greatly appreciate any help you can provide us.
Thank you so much, our patriotic members, for your continued commitment to exposing and resisting the threat of radical Islam. Thank you for rising in defense of our security, our liberty and our values. Thank you for the time and resources you give to this very important effort. With your continued support we will continue to move forward in our mission to roll back the threat that we know is all too real. I give you my promise, that we at ACT! for America are committed to serving you and our country to ensure that our leaders are monitored and held accountable for their decisions and that we will continue to mobilize, educate and give power to the average citizen who is the backbone of our great nation.
Always devoted,
Brigitte Gabriel
Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama
Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obama’s “Not” Qualified to be President
Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President
For Immediate Release: - 10/21/08 - Complete contact details and pdfs of this press release and motions filed by plaintiff Berg today are at the end of this article
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
OBAMA - Admitted:
1. I was born in Kenya.2. I am a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.
5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.6. My mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.10. I was not born in Hawaii.
11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii.12. I was not born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii.
13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii.14. I am a citizen of Indonesia.
15. I never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain my U.S. Citizenship status.16. I am not a “natural born” United States citizen.
17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961.18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends.
19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan.20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens.
21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country.22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan.
23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan.24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
25. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage.26. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.
27. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.28. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.
29. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.30. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.
31. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.32. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine.
33. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed.34. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed.
35. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia.36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia.
39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya.40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law.
41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth.42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963.
43. I am not a “Naturalized” United States Citizen.44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means.
45. I cannot produce a “vault” (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii.46. My “vault” (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya.
47. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses.48. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.
49. Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama.52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia.
53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro.54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law.
55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office.56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America.
DNC - Admitted:
1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.Our website obamacrimes.com now has 50.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama.
3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama.4.The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen.
7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii.8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status.
9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President.
10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama.
11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008.
12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States.
13. The DNC admits their Credential Committee’s Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to serve as President of the United States.14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States.
15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon.16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from.
17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote.18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates.
19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign.
21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States.22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis.
23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution.24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution.
25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution.26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen’s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans.
27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Cowering in the Geopolitical Corner: When We’re Weak, We’re Vulnerable
by Nicholas Guariglia
If one were to sum up the public mood for the past seven years, it would go something like this: from September 11, 2001 until January 2008, the public largely overlooked a healthy economy because it was upset with what it considered to be a failed foreign policy. But now, since the beginning of this year, the sustained gains from the military surge have allayed fears about Iraq, and the struggling economy – high energy prices, a federal deficit, collapsing entitlement programs, a housing bubble crisis – has emerged to the forefront of the public’s worries.
During tough economic times, it is human nature for citizens to pull in their financial reins; to spend less, to invest less, and to save more. Therefore, psychologically, people expect the same to occur on a national level. Government expands to “save the day.” Trade becomes inward, more protectionist to “protect” American-made goods. Exports go down. And abroad, despots get a strange look in their eye, and some very dangerous thoughts in their minds. Our enemies become hungry wolves encircling a wounded rabbit. ....
.... There’s a lesson to be learned here, and it is this: when the cat’s away, the mice will play.
.... There’s a lesson to be learned here, and it is this: when the cat’s away, the mice will play.
If history is any indication, we can be certain of two things: 1) when the United States is economically weak, our enemies exploit that weakness; 2) when we elect new presidents, our enemies challenge their resolve.
It happened to Truman, who lost China to the communists, allowed Stalin to get the bomb, and settled with an ugly draw on the Korean peninsula.
It happened to Eisenhower, who lost the space race to Moscow, and Cuba to Castro.
It happened to Kennedy, whose naiveté in meetings with Khrushchev convinced the Soviet Politburo he could be had, starting a missile crisis that nearly destroyed the world.
It happened to Carter, who once mocked his fellow Americans for having an “inordinate fear” of communism, only to see the Russians gobble up Afghanistan and violate his precious arms control agreements he was sure they would honor. His “holy man” Khomeini overtook our embassy, effectively ending Carter’s chances at reelection and ruining his legacy.
It happened to Reagan with the Marine barracks in Beirut.
It happened to George H.W. Bush with Noriega and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
It happened to Clinton with Milosevic, Saddam’s inspection violations and attempts to assassinate George Bush Sr., and al Qaida’s attacks on our embassies.
And of course, it happened to George W. Bush (is reference to 9/11 even needed?).
Al Qaeda, an organization which has only existed for two U.S. presidential administrations, challenged both President Clinton in the first months of his presidency — the 1993 World Trade Center bombing — and President Bush Jr. in the first months of his first-term with the second World Trade Center attack. Al Qaeda even attacked the USS Cole before Bush’s inauguration.
Sen. Obama’s election would be the first time that these two geopolitical phenomena combined into one. His socialistic and protectionist economic policies would not only further the recession, thus making us more vulnerable than we already are, but his juvenile freshman outlook of the world would cause al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, et al, to salivate with eager anticipation. ...
....Within the next four years, I fear that one or more foreign events will occur — upheaval in Pakistan, the nuclearization of Iran, a Russian invasion of another European ally, a Chinese attack on Taiwan, more North Korean roguery, another war in Lebanon, the collapse of Iraq, an all-out attempt to liquidate Israel, a catastrophic terrorist attack — that will overshadow, dwarf, and to some degree exasperate, our current anxieties on the home-front. And it will be then, and only then, that we will all collectively realize what we have done as a country, in electing a young, unknown novice — a weak man, to put it bluntly — over the well-known steady-hand and statesmanship of the elder John McCain.
....Within the next four years, I fear that one or more foreign events will occur — upheaval in Pakistan, the nuclearization of Iran, a Russian invasion of another European ally, a Chinese attack on Taiwan, more North Korean roguery, another war in Lebanon, the collapse of Iraq, an all-out attempt to liquidate Israel, a catastrophic terrorist attack — that will overshadow, dwarf, and to some degree exasperate, our current anxieties on the home-front. And it will be then, and only then, that we will all collectively realize what we have done as a country, in electing a young, unknown novice — a weak man, to put it bluntly — over the well-known steady-hand and statesmanship of the elder John McCain.
Egads! - Biden Guarantees International Crisis if Obama Elected
Could Senator Biden be warning us that Senator Obama is not prepared to be Commander in Chief of the world superpower’s armed forces? Or, as John Bolton, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations put it, “Leaders around the world see Obama as soft, untested, weak and very naïve”….
“Mark my words," Senator Biden warned ominously, “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said at a fund raiser, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him.”
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said at a fund raiser, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him.”
And with that, the foot-in-the-mouth Senator from Delaware scored yet another major gaffe (a gaffe is what happens when politicians inadvertently tell the truth): just two weeks before the election, he reminded voters exactly what it is they do not at all like about this young rookie, a newcomer with no military experience who remains untested on the stage of grave world dangers and threats to our country and families.
All over America tonight, citizens are looking at each other and saying, “Oh yeah, that was it…we don't want a rookie like Obama as president of the globe’s mightiest superpower. His well known skittishness in the face of determined and ruthless forces will invite aggression from our enemies, and they will want to know just what America is now willing to do. We need a McCain who our enemies won't dare test. Our enemies did that once – tested a new but tough-minded president - and they won’t make that mistake again,” as they then will reflect on the fact that America has not been attacked since 9/11.
But it should be noted that, in all the previous tests of a new American president who was not tough-minded (Senator Obama – please put down that white flag!), we failed. Think of one who responded by doing nothing (Clinton with Mogadishu or the first World Trade Center attack – it was no surprise that 9/11 would follow), or think of one who courted aggression because of his greenhorn qualities (think of Kennedy, Kruschev and the Cuban Missile Crisis), and you have the scenario that awaits us. The world will want to test this one unknown young man to see how the United States will respond to more dead Americans, and to more shattered American families.
On the other hand, when tough-minded presidents come into office, America’s enemies scatter like cockroaches under a spray of Raid. Think Ronald Reagan and the fact that the Iranian hostages, held for 444 days under the weak-kneed Jimmy Carter, were formally released into United States custody on January 20, 1981, minutes after Reagan was sworn in.
Joe Biden went on to admit, " Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right. I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us. There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'."
And therein lies another problem. Here Biden openly admits that they probably won’t get it right from the get-go, just as Obama had to try three times to register a proper response to Russia when it barreled into Georgia. Doesn’t inspire much confidence, does it? McCain, very familiar with Russia and how to handle them, responded correctly and appropriately from the moment the crisis began. In fact, the invasion of Georgia highlighted McCain’s leadership and experience in world affairs over Obama by his handling of a foreign crisis. McCain was quick to condemn Russian aggression, saying it was a matter of “urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States…a clear violation of international law,” calling on Russia to “immediately and unconditionally cease operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgia.” At that moment, Obama was still floating ideas about how to respond, as he did over the next three really embarrassing days.
Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."
"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real." Well, we could have told you that, Senator Biden. And based on how your candidate has stated time and again he’d like to deal with al-Qaeda (that is, run in the opposite direction), it does not make us feel safe that you two are on the threshold of a place where you probably should not be.
"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real." Well, we could have told you that, Senator Biden. And based on how your candidate has stated time and again he’d like to deal with al-Qaeda (that is, run in the opposite direction), it does not make us feel safe that you two are on the threshold of a place where you probably should not be.
The American people will decide on November 4th whether you should be there, but it is quite possible that, on this day, they will remember that Senator McCain has seen America’s enemies up close and personal, looked them right in the eye, face-to-face, and in so doing, he has been tested over the years as few in this country have. Americans don’t want to be “tested” (read: see more dead American bodies in our homeland) when our economy is in crisis and we are already fighting in two hot wars. We don’t need another American city reduced to chaos and rubble.
This is precisely what people are worried about, and a tested and experienced McCain is much more likely to get it right than an untested ingénue with attitude, who has no understanding of how at risk America is. As Senator Biden himself said of Senator Obama’s candidacy, “This is no time for on-the-job training. Lives will be lost.”
For this reason, we are grateful to Senator Biden for reminding us just what is at stake here. Yes, we have economic woes, but Americans will at least live through that. Another attack on our soil will not guarantee that Americans will live through it, and it will certainly not guarantee that we will respond in a way that will keep America’s enemies further at bay.
- The Editors of FamilySecurityMatters.org
Massive Fund Raising Misdeeds Prove Obama is Bought, But Who owns Him?
Having dug through the FEC and Obama's contribution reports, is the damning information there enough to get Obama defeated, if not impeached? ....
In July, Obama boasted that, as of May 31, his contributor base numbered some 1.5 million people, with one-fourth, or $66.25 million of his $265 million, coming from those contributing $2,000, or more... some 33,200 people. Thus, the remainder, or $198.75 million, came from some 1.47 million people, each contributing $5, $10, $20... or, as Obama assured us, "whatever they could afford."
While it is true that Obama is the kind of guy who could read Bill Clinton's golf scorecard and make it sound convincing, simple arithmetic should have told him that $198.75 million dollars cannot be contributed by 1.47 million people in "$5, $10, or $20" amounts. Each of those 1.47 million people would have had to contribute, on average, $135 to create a pool of $198.75 million... and that simply does not happen. It has never happened before in American politics and it is not happening now.
But now, just days before the election, the Obama campaign has compounded their sins. They are now reporting that their contributor base has increased from 1.5 million to 2.5 million and that the total amount raised now approaches $600 million. If we can assume that 25% of their contributions still come from individuals giving $2,000 to $2,300, that base has now grown from 33,200 individuals to 65,000 in a time span of just three months, and the number of individuals contributing modest amounts... "$5, $10, $20, or whatever they could afford"... is now up from 1.47 million to 2.43 million, each contributing, on average, $185.
Anyone who believes that is actually happening will believe almost anything. So how are they doing it?
In our July 25 column we pointed out that UBS Americas, headed by Robert Wolf... along with George Soros, one of Obama's top two money men... had been accused of highly unethical and illegal banking practices in six months of hearings by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. According to an article in The Nation, UBS Americas, a subsidiary of UBS, of Zurich, Switzerland, has advised wealthy Americans, including many of our worst villains, how to shelter funds from the IRS, as well as from prosecutors, creditors, disgruntled business associates, family members, and each other.
In a Statement of Facts in the recent criminal trial of former UBS executive Bradley Birkenfeld, it was alleged that UBS took extraordinary steps to help American clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting federal authorities. For example, UBS advised American clients to avoid detection by using Swiss credit cards to withdraw funds, to destroy all existing off-shore banking records, and to misrepresent the receipt of funds from their Swiss accounts as loans from the Swiss bank. According to The Nation, UBS established an elaborate training program which taught bank employees how to avoid surveillance by U.S. Customs and law enforcement, falsify visas, encrypt communications, and secretly move money in and out of the country... "
It is the perfect instrument for funneling illegal campaign contributions into the coffers of an unscrupulous American politician. Putting two and two together, I suggested that a very wealthy individual, or cartel, wishing to influence the election of the President of the United States, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device. A U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could receive hundreds of thousands of individual contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with fictitious payees being entered by teams of paid staffers working in a "boiler room" setting. The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the cartel, or by the wealthy, but unnamed, "international financier."
For most of the super wealthy, especially those attempting to hide income and assets from U.S. authorities, an unexplained debit and credit of $2,300, or less, would not even raise an eyebrow. So who would ever know the source of such contributions? No one.
Now, in an October 20 article in Newsmax, writer Kenneth Timmerman provides details from Federal Election Commission records that give substantial weight to my theory. In studying Obama's FEC filings, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had given substantially more than their $4,600 limit ($2,300 in the primaries and $2,300 in the General Election). The law requires that such excess contributions must be returned to the donor within 60 days of the donor going over his/her limit. However, many of the donors contacted by Newsmax said that they had not been contacted by the Obama campaign and that they had not received refunds.
But these are relatively minor infractions compared to 66,383 highly suspicious contributions, from 37,265 donors, whose contributions were not rounded to even dollar amounts. For example, Timmerman tells us that John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Illinois, gave a total of $8,724.26. He gave in odd amounts such as $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver of Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions totaling $7,051.12. Thirteen of her contributions were later refunded. However, in an odd coincidence those 13 refunds, in amounts such as $233.88 and $201.44, came to an even $2,300, the maximum amount allowable in any one election.
One contributor interviewed by Newsmax, Ronald J. Sharpe, Jr., a retired schoolteacher from Rockledge, Florida, is reported to have given $13,800... $9,200 over his limit. However, Mr. Sharpe does not remember giving that much money to Obama, nor has anyone from the campaign ever contacted him about a refund.
Of the 66,383 contributions in odd amounts, 44,410 were in unrounded amounts of less than $100, 15,269 contributions were in unrounded amounts of between $101 and $999, and 704 contributions were in odd amounts greater than $1,000.
Lest anyone suggest that these 37,265 donors either emptied their piggy banks or emptied their pockets and purses periodically and just sent it all to Obama, pennies and all, allow me to suggest something a tiny bit more Macheavellian. Those 66,383 contributions are the proceeds of conversions of foreign currency, smuggled into the country in foreign credit card receipts, and converted to U.S. dollars.
According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance reports contain some 370,500 unique names... a far cry from the 2.5 million contributor base claimed by the campaign. Of course, when your money is coming in large chunks from offshore accounts, such as hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time from the Middle East and from Third World African countries, then laundered though UBS accounts in Zurich, it takes a bit of creativity to put authentic-sounding names on all of it for the FEC records.
How massive is this crime? Since the Obama campaign has refused to disclose their complete contributor list (they continue to hide the identities of some 2 million donors), as the McCain campaign has done, Newsmax estimates that "Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases."
Given the massive voter registration fraud committed by Obama's supporters, the fraudulent votes already cast in early voting by itinerant out-of-state voters, and the massive crime involved in accepting tens of thousands of illegal foreign contributions, John McCain and Sarah Palin simply must close the gap in the closing days of the campaign. If not, we will inaugurate a man on January 20 who will have to be impeached before his wife has a chance to measure the White House for new draperies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
