Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Santa's bailout proposal

http://www.nmatv.com/video/638/Santa-Claus-Bailout-Hearings

Thursday, December 4, 2008

The real purpose of the second amendment



How is it we allow ourselves to be sheep and allow the enemy to reframe the argument?

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

How a democratic republic works

Hey America, Remember when you didn't just bend over and grab your ankles?

Barack's Camelot

Chilly Russian Reception Reminds Us of Kennedy

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

TV financial advisors mock impending crisis warning



Be Careful who you take your financial advice from


Peter Schiff got it right-everyone else got it really wrong.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Media Malpractice



"Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected"


Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

Richard Cheney for 44th President of the United Statest!

Do you think I am kidding? Think again.

George W. Bush should come onto televison this week, announce that he has fully pardoned Vice President Richard Cheney for any and all acts that may be deemed crimes under United States Law or the UCMJ and then say effective December 1,2008 I hereby resign the office of the President of the United States.

Richard Cheney would become the 44th President of the United States on December 1st, 2008 and his first official act will be to return the favor of pardoning George W. Bush. The little sidekicker is, in the interest of national security, I think an enemy would be less likely to test the resolve of a President Cheney. It would also make the transition period a little more interesting.

Maybe President Cheney could appoint a special prosecutor to determine if Barack Obama signed a oath of allegiance after re-entry to the US from Indonesia and if he commited fraud this year in presenting forged documents of his draft registration.

Remember Broadway Joe's promise. Rain on his parade and save the country another distraction President Bush and allow Richard Cheney, not Barack Obama to be 44th President of the United States.

Biden bloopers forever

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Attention Coal Miners- Obama plans to bankrupt the coal industry!



This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine):

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them.
Amazing that this statement by Obama about bankrupting the coal industry has been kept under wraps until this time.

UPDATE: NewsBusters' Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here when you scroll down to the "In His Own Words" section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle!

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Beyond the Peter Principle

Obama tax plan- Take from the old and give to the young

When Barack Obama talks about cutting 95% of the American people, by now you must realize that that somewhere around 40% of the American people already pay no federal income tax. So it is in effect welfare.

But Barack Obama is being dishonest about his plan. He will admit he is going to give the poor their payroll taxes (FICA) back when pressed. What he expects is that you are ignorant of the fact that the "poor" already get that back in the form of the EITC-Earned Income Tax Credit.

The earned income tax is a reverse income tax model , canceling out not only the tax you owed, but giving you a refund some some who paid taxes. The mindset behind the EITC was that it was intended to provide a cash supplement to poor or near-poor taxpayers.

The concept is a variation of Milton Friedman's reverse income tax, Patrick Daniel Moynihan's "guaranteed minimum income" and yes the Nixon Adminstration, whose intent was to shield the poor Americans from the FICA tax.

The credit we give now has been expanded three times since its inception-1986, 1993 and 2001. In addition to the expansion of the credit, it has been additionally supplemented with a refundable child tax credit for the poor and near poor.

The earned income tax credit (EITC) is intended to provide a cash supplement to poor or near-poor taxpayers. The original idea for the credit is from a combination of neo-conservative Milton Friedman's "reverse income tax," the "guaranteed minimum income" idea of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the Nixon Administration (whom I have written before were corporate socialists, and that reflected some of the same economic theories as Hillary Clinton), and an intent to shield poor Americans from the FICA tax.

The current credit has been expanded three times--once in 1986, again in 1993, and again in 2001. Additionally, it has been supplemented with a refundable child tax credit for poor and near-poor parents. As such, the original scope of the credit (refunding FICA) has been eclipsed many times over for households with children. Interestingly, for single households the original intent of the EITC remains--refunding some or all of FICA for the poor and near-poor.

What differs here is that Barack Obama is not telling you, the payroll taxes he plans on giving back to many of the 40% are already being given back. So he intends to double down and not only give you what you paid into FICA back once, but twice!

And then he wishes to expand the number of people eligible for FICA.

Who in their right economic mind knowing that Social Security faces bankruptcy in our lifetime, proposes to defund it even further ? The same people who want national health care when medicare is forecast to go broke in ten years or less.

Liberal Democrats like Hubert Humphrey and Harry Truman had a strong sense of American morality. They despised the Stalinist Left and fought to keep them out of the Democrat Party. They were sensitive to ordinary shame and guilt, the emotions that make us civilized.

Bob Dole asked "Where is the shame?" in the 1996 presidential election, the answer came out: Not in the modern Democrat Party. People without guilt or shame make merciless power mongers. Whether you realize it or not, this is the heart of PUMA today. PUMA was not as much about Hillary not getting the nomination (which the media would have you believe), but waking up to the fact that todays democratic party of Howard Deam, Moveon.org, Harry Reid and Barack Obama have lost their democratic soul and become the undemocratic party.

In the Orwellian upside-down world of the Left, community organizers disorganize communities. That is the meaning of revolution, to overturn whatever exists today in the raw pursuit of one's own power. Barack took the Alinsky learned lessons of community organization in the streets of Chicago and expanded it onto the national stage. But there is a line that must be drawn in class warfare and open vote buying from the American people. And that is the defunding of Social Security for welfare votes. It is the same ingredient of lowend greed and vote buying scheme that brought down the sub-prime mortgage system that was heavily encouraged by Senator Barack Obama, Meeks, Waters , Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, ACORN, The New Party and The Congressional Black Caucus .


Barack Obama was pushing the buttons of low-end greed which was at the core of what brought the banking industry down, low end greed and entitlement and now he wants to apply the same tactics to Social Security?

He might be willing to throw Bill Ayers, his white grandmother and Rev. Jeremiah Wright and even Joe the Plumber under the bus to obtain power; but are you willing to risk allowing him to throw you, your parents or your grandparents financial future under the bus to buy votes from the poor?

In closing let me ask you this. What in Barack Obama's actual voting record leads you to believe he will actually cut your taxes? When has he ever voted to cut your taxes as a senator? What did he do for his district as a Illinois Senator? Were the people in his district better off? Or were they victims of slumlords who had contributed to Barack Obama's campaign?

Can we take Barack at his word? He broke his word that he was committed to the public finance system. He broke his pledge to sit down and speak with Senator Mc Cain to come up with a plan together. The only thing I see in Barack Obama's past that is a constant is his willingness to use the poor to his own personal advantage.

Do not allow Barack Obama to defund Social Security at our expense for his gain.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Obama Says the Constitution As Framed By The Founders Is Flawed



Constitutional Scholar, Legend in His Own Mind, Barack Obama, claims the constitution is fundamentally flawed.

Barack, we know it wasn't framed in Chicago by Saul Alinsky or in Hawaii by Frank Davis and doesn't incorporate the black value system of Dr. Cone and Jeremiah Wright, but this is the United States of America, not the European Union.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

The Obama Family Church



Barack Obama's grandparents travelled halfway across the country to attend a very special church! In Obama's own words, this was the REAL church of influence in his life - through his mother. Obama's grandparents, who evidently shared the values of THIS church, raised Obama after his mother left him, to continue the influence of this church through their own teaching. No doubt, this church also is reflected in the values of Obama's grandparents, as they chose Frank Marshall Davis to be his personal tutor. Because Barack Obama lived in Seattle with his mother for some time, this was probably the first "American" church he attended! The evidence suggests he was even initiated and educated there. Fascinating information for those who really want to understand the mind and religion of Barack Obama, Ann Dunham, and Barack Obama's grandparents.

Hat tip- Alice B. Good

Laura Ingraham interviews Gov. Palin

Team Sarah Responds to Alan Colmes

Hamas Endorses Barack Obama

Obama lays out his socialist agenda in Dr. King's Church

January 20, 2008

I think we've heard this tune before

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Biden warning mirrors earlier assessment of Barack Obama



"The real problem is that these warnings from Joe Biden are similar to his earlier assessment of Barack Obama. It wasn’t so long ago that he said Barack Obama wasn’t up to the job, and that, quote, 'the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'"

Dan Rather Double-Standard in Coverage of Biden ‘Mark My Words’ Gaffe



"Well, I think the point is well taken, Joe, that certainly if Sarah Palin had said this it would be above the fold in most newspapers today."

Barney Frank: Tax the rich and my gay lover



"Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

The Mc Cain Ad that you won't see

hat tip- Terry Trippany

Monday, October 20, 2008

Barack Obama-To know him is to _____ ______

GOP Voter Fraud Arrested in SoCal

Funny how Republicans who commit voter fraud are promptly and proudly arrested, while numerous allegations of voter registration fraud nationwide by organizations favoring Democrats are still being investigated.

The head of a voter registration group hired by the California Republican Party was arrested over the weekend for allegedly lying about his address in the state in order to vote illegally, the office of California's secretary of state announced Sunday.



Mark Anthony Jacoby, the owner of a signature-gathering firm called Young Political Majors, was taken into custody by Ontario police just after midnight Saturday and booked with a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.

If Jacoby is guilty, throw him in jail. Now, if we can just get some of the other secretaries of state around the country in affected areas to make the same quick work of those who are blatantly breaking the law.

Hat tip to Bob Parks @ Black & Right
http://www.black-and-right.com/2008/10/20/gop-voter-fraud-arrested-in-socal/

Hey Joe!

Biden mocks the working man with another elitist.

Media challenged on their appalling lack of curiosity

Limbaugh: Powell Endorsement Was ‘Totally About Race’

"Let me say it louder and let me say it even more plainly: it was totally about race. The Powell nomination -- or endorsement -- [was] totally about race."

Mc Cain exposes Obama's welfare plan

Catholic Church corrects Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi

Archbishop Charles Chaput on Abortion and Politics

Debunks Nancy Pelosi's ill-informed remarks about the Catholic Churches positions and remarks on Joe Biden's warped worldview.

Archbishop Charles Chaput on Abortion and Politics

Debunks Nancy Pelosi's ill-informed remarks about the Catholic Churches positions and remarks on Joe Biden's warped worldview.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

We do not have a free market when it comes to oil

The Strategic Value of Oil



We need to do to oil what we did to salt-take away its strategic value



Looking at free market principles


Conservative means a allegiance to a set of principles


Radical Islam or Free Market Rising the price of oil?


Public Transit is not economic

Saturday, October 18, 2008

In fairness , Allow Senator Obama to explain his positions himself

Barack Obama: The 2004 “God Factor” Interview Transcript
Posted on August 5th, 2008 by reformedville | Edit
A couple people picked up on the following statement from my last post:

“Asked to define sin, Barack Obama replied that sin is “being out of alignment with my values.” “

This was taken from the following interview . The highlighting is mine. Read this carefully and I think you will see where the similarities with Oprah are very strong and with mainstream Christianity are lacking. You will walk away with a much clearer understanding of what Barack Obama deems to be Christian.

Posted by admin

June 6, 2008

Barack Obama: The 2004 “God Factor” Interview Transcript
30 APRIL 2008
Chicago-Sun Time religion columnist Cathleen Falsani (”God Girl”)

Editor’s Note:
At 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, 2004, when I was the religion reporter (I am now its religion columnist) at the Chicago Sun-Times, I met then-State Sen. Barack Obama at Café Baci, a small coffee joint at 330 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago, to interview him exclusively about his spirituality. Our conversation took place a few days after he’d clinched the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat that he eventually won. We spoke for more than an hour. He came alone. He answered everything I asked without notes or hesitation. The profile of Obama that grew from the interview at Cafe Baci became the first in a series in the Sun-Times called “The God Factor,” that eventually became my first book, The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People (FSG, March 2006.) Because of the staggering interest in now U.S. Sen. Obama’s faith and spiritual predilections, I thought it might be helpful to share that interivew, uncut and in its entirety, here.

GG

————————————–

Interview with State Sen. Barack Obama
3:30 p.m., Saturday March 27
Café Baci, 330 S. Michigan Avenue
Me: decaf
He: alone, on time, grabs a Naked juice protein shake

GG: What do you believe?

OBAMA: 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, between the ages of six and 10.
My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim.
And I’d say, probably, intellectually I’ve drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.

(A patron stops and says, “Congratulations,” shakes his hand. “Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.”)

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. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.

And so, part of my project in life was probably to spend the first 40 years of my life figuring out what I did believe – I’m 42 now – and it’s not that I had it all completely worked out, but I’m spending a lot of time now trying to apply what I believe and trying to live up to those values.

GG: Have you always been a Christian?

OBAMA:I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.

GG:Any particular flavor?

OBAMA:No.
My grandparents who were from small towns in Kansas. My grandmother was Methodist. My grandfather was Baptist. This was at a time when I think the Methodists felt slightly superior to the Baptists. And by the time I was born, they were, I think, my grandparents had joined a Universalist church.

So, my mother, who I think had as much influence on my values as anybody, was not someone who wore her religion on her sleeve. We’d go to church for Easter. She wasn’t a church lady.

As I said, we moved to Indonesia. She remarried an Indonesian who wasn’t particularly, he wasn’t a practicing Muslim. I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country. So I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and at night you’d hear the prayer call.

So I don’t think as a child we were, or I had a structured religious education. But my mother was deeply spiritual person, and would spend a lot of time talking about values and give me books about the world’s religions, and talk to me about them. And I think always, 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.

And, so that, I think, was what I carried with me through college. I probably didn’t get started getting active in church activities until I moved to Chicago.

The way I came to Chicago in 1985 was that I was interested in community organizing and I was inspired by the Civil Rights movement. And the idea that ordinary people could do extraordinary things. And there was a group of churches out on the South Side of Chicago that had come together to form an organization to try to deal with the devastation of steel plants that had closed. And didn’t have much money, but felt that if they formed an organization and hired somebody to organize them to work on issues that affected their community, that it would strengthen the church and also strengthen the community.

So they hired me, for $13,000 a year. The princely sum. And I drove out here and I didn’t know anybody and started working with both the ministers and the lay people in these churches on issues like creating job training programs, or afterschool programs for youth, or making sure that city services were fairly allocated to underserved communites.

This would be in Roseland, West Pullman, Altgeld Gardens, far South Side working class and lower income communities.

And it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened because I’d be spending an enormous amount of time with church ladies, sort of surrogate mothers and fathers and everybody I was working with was 50 or 55 or 60, and here I was a 23-year-old kid running around.

I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and it’s importance in the community.

And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply.

So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.

GG:Did you actually go up for an altar call?

OBAMA:Yes. Absolutely.
It was a daytime service, during a daytime service. And it was a powerful moment. Because, ti was powerful for me because it not only confirmed my faith, it not only gave shape to my faith, but I think, also, allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.

GG:How long ago?

OBAMA:16, 17 years ago
1987 or 88

GG:So you got yourself born again?

OBAMA:Yeah, although I don’t, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.

I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.

GG:Do you still attend Trinity?

OBAMA:Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.

Ever been there? Good service.

I actually wrote a book called Dreams from My Father, it’s kind of a meditation on race. There’s a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity.

GG:Do you pray often?

OBAMA:Uh, yeah, I guess I do.
Its’ not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it.

One of the interesting things about being in public life is there are constantly these pressures being placed on you from different sides. To be effective, you have to be able to listen to a variety of points of view, synthesize viewpoints. You also have to know when to be just a strong advocate, and push back against certain people or views that you think aren’t right or don’t serve your constituents.

And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I’m having internally. I’m measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I’m on track and where I think I’m off track.

It’s interesting particularly now after this election, comes with it a lot of celebrity. And I always think of politics as having two sides. There’s a vanity aspect to politics, and then there’s a substantive part of politics. Now you need some sizzle with the steak to be effective, but I think it’s easy to get swept up in the vanity side of it, the desire to be liked and recognized and important. It’s important for me throughout the day to measure and to take stock and to say, now, am I doing this because I think it’s advantageous to me politically, or because I think it’s the right thing to do? Am I doing this to get my name in the papers or am I doing this because it’s necessary to accomplish my motives.

GG: Checking for altruism?

OBAMA:Yeah. I mean, something like it.
Looking for, … IT’s interesting, the most powerful political moments for me come when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth. I can feel it. When I’m talking to a group and I’m saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I’m just being glib or clever.

GG:What’s that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?

OBAMA:Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.

That’s something you learn watching ministers, quite a bit. What they call the Holy Spirit. They want the Holy Spirit to come down before they’re preaching, right? Not to try to intellectualize it but what I see is there are moments that happen within a sermon where the minister gets out of his ego and is speaking from a deeper source. And it’s powerful.

There are also times when you can see the ego getting in the way. Where the minister is performing and clearly straining for applause or an Amen. And those are distinct moments. I think those former moments are sacred.

GG:Who’s Jesus to you?

(He laughs nervously)

OBAMA: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.

GG:Is Jesus someone who you feel you have a regular connection with now, a personal connection with in your life?

OBAMA:Yeah. Yes. I think some of the thigns I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

GG:Have you read the bible?

OBAMA:Absolutely.
I read it not as regularly as I would like. These days I don’t have much time for reading or reflection, period.

GG:Do you try to take some time for whatever, meditation prayer reading?

OBAMA:I’ll be honest with you, I used to all the time, in a fairly disciplined way. But during the course of this campaign, I don’t. And I probably need to and would like to, but that’s where that internal monologue, or dialogue I think supplants my opportunity to read and reflect in a structured way these days.

It’s much more sort of as I’m going through the day trying to take stock and take a moment here and a moment there to take stock, why am I here, how does this connect with a larger sense of purpose.

GG:Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?

OBAMA:Well, my pastor is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.
I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.

GG:Those two will keep you on your toes.

OBAMA:And theyr’e good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what’s happening to each of us in ways that are useful.

I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.

GG:Jack Ryan [Obama’s Republican opponent in the U.S. Senate race at the time] said talking about your faith is frought with peril for a public figure.

OBAMA:Which is why you generally will not see me spending a lot of time talking about it on the stump.

Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I’m a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root ion this country.

As I said before, in my own public policy, I’m very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics.

Now, that’s different form a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it’s perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values tha tinform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.

A standard line in my stump speech during this campaign is that my politics are informed by a belief that we’re all connected. That if there’s a child on the South Side of Chicago that can’t read, that makes a difference in my life even if it’s not my own child. If there’s a senior citizen in downstate Illinois that’s struggling to pay for their medicine and having to chose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer even if it’s not my grandparent. And if there’s an Arab American family that’s being rounded up by John Ashcroft without the benefit of due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

I can give religious expression to that. I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, we are all children of God. Or I can express it in secular terms. But the basic premise remains the same. I think sometimes Democrats have made the mistake of shying away from a conversation about values for fear that they sacrifice the important value of tolerance. And I don’t think those two things are mutually exclusive.

GG:Do you think it’s wrong for people to want to know about a civic leader’s spirituality?

OBAMA:I don’t’ think it’s wrong. I think that political leaders are subject to all sorts of vetting by the public, and this can be a component of that.

I think that I am disturbed by, let me put it this way: I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God’s mandate.

I think there is this tendency that I don’t think is healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them.

GG:The conversation stopper, when you say you’re a Christian and leave it at that.

OBAMA:Where do you move forward with that?

This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.

GG:You don’t believe that?

OBAMA:I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.
I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.
That’s just not part of my religious makeup.

Part of the reason I think it’s always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that’s by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest commong denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.

GG:Do you ever have people who know you’re a Christian question a particular stance you take on an issue, how can you be a Christian and …

OBAMA:Like the right to choose.
I haven’t been challenged in those direct ways. And to that extent, I give the public a lot of credit. I’m always stuck by how much common sense the American people have. They get confused sometimes, watch FoxNews or listen to talk radio. That’s dangerous sometimes. But generally, Americans are tolerant and I think recognize that faith is a personal thing, and they may feel very strongly about an issue like abortion or gay marriage, but if they discuss it with me as an elected official they will discuss it with me in those terms and not, say, as ‘you call yourself a Christian.’ I cannot recall that ever happening.

GG:Do you get questions about your faith?

OBAMA:Obviously as an African American politician rooted in the African American community, I spend a lot of time in the black church. I have no qualms in those settings in participating fully in those services and celebrating my God in that wonderful community that is the black church.

(he pauses)

But I also try to be . . . Rarely in those settings do people come up to me and say, what are your beliefs. They are going to presume, and rightly so. Although they may presume a set of doctrines that I subscribe to that I don’t necessarily subscribe to.

But I don’t think that’s unique to me. I think that each of us when we walk into our church or mosque or synagogue are interpreting that experience in different ways, are reading scriptures in different ways and are arriving at our own understanding at different ways and in different phases.

I don’t know a healthy congregation or an effective minister who doesn’t recognize that.

If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.

GG:Do you believe in heaven?

OBAMA:Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?

GG:A place spiritually you go to after you die?

OBAMA:What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.

GG:Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA:Yes.

GG:What is sin?

OBAMA:Being out of alignment with my values.

GG:What happens if you have sin in your life?

OBAMA:I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

GG:Where do you find spiritual inspiration? Music, nature, literature, people, a conduit you plug into?

OBAMA:There are so many.
Nothing is more powerful than the black church experience. A good choir and a good sermon in the black church, it’s pretty hard not to be move and be transported.

I can be transported by watching a good performance of Hamlet, or reading Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon, or listening to Miles Davis.

GG:Is there something that you go back to as a touchstone, a book, a particular piece of music, a place …

OBAMA:As I said before, in my own sort of mental library, the Civil Rights movement has a powerful hold on me. IT’s a point in time where I think heaven and earth meet. Because it’s a moment in which a collective faith transforms everything. So when I read Gandhi or I read King or I read certain passages of Abraham Lincoln and I think about those times where people’s values are tested, I think those inspire me.

GG:What are you doing when you feel the most centered, the most aligned spiritually?

OBAMA:I think I already described it. It’s when I’m being true to myself. And that can happen in me making a speech or it can happen in me playing with my kids, or it can happen in a small interaction with a security guard in a building when I’m recognizing them and exchanging a good word.

GG:Is there someone you would look to as an example of how not to do it?

OBAMA:Bin Laden.

(grins broadly)

GG:… An example of a role model, who combined everything you said you want to do in your life, and your faith?

OBAMA:I think Gandhi is 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.

I think Dr. King, and Lincoln. Those three are good examples for me of people who applied their faith to a larger canvas without allowing that faith to metasticize into something that is hurtful.

GG:Can we go back to that morning service in 1987 or 88 — when you have a moment that you can go back to that as an epiphany…

OBAMA:It wasn’t an epiphany.
It was much more of a gradual process for me. I know there are some people who fall out. Which is wonderful. God bless them. For me it was probably because there is a certain self-consciousness that I possess as somebody with probably too much book learning, and also a very polyglot background.

GG: It wasn’t like a moment where you finally got it? It was a symbol of that decision?

OBAMA:Exactly. I think it was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me.

Barack Obama's behavorial pattern in elections to date is studied and disturbing

Don't let the one play down his election ties to groups like acorn, his membership in the socialist acorn front group, New Party, or the current vote fraud allegations go unnoticed and unpunished-it is a pattern of behavior designed to be overwhelming to the system-something he learned well from community organizer Saul Alinsky

Video 1
CNN investigation of his past election habits



Video 2
2008 election- PUMA


Video 3
PUMA


Video 4
PUMA



Video 5

PUMA

Playing the race cards with kids

Kids that won't take it!

Strange how the racism came from the black children and went unpunished from the school. Government schools.

The Jewish Case against Barack Obama

My note: I am not a Orthodox Jew and have no interest in Jewish-Zionist arguments.

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3

Christ Hospital Infanticide Practice Cool with Barack Obama

Obama against "restricted choices legislation"

‘Nautical Metaphors’ Point to Ayers as Secret Author of Obama’s Book

The Third Jihad. Where is the media?

That's right-The media is no longer in this country-they are the democratic marxist machine propogandists.

Barack Obama and ACORN; JUST IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Monday, October 6, 2008

Obama says-You were tricked into buying that house

I will meet with no Iran with NO preconditions

Vote of no confidence

Barack's nutty group-ACORN



From Bob Parks Black & Right
The Obama No-Legs Money Scandal
October 6th, 2008
I'm really beginning to think we should let ACORN commit its fraud, teachers to be able to praise Obama exclusively during class, the media to issue one-sided reporting, and Barack Obama to pollute the process with questionable conduct. It's then and only then will people understand the ramifications of being willing dupes.

The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit.

Fraud? Who cares about fraud? We're talking about BARACK OBAMA! He's the one the world's been waiting for.

He'll be the first (and last) black president (we'll see for quite awhile).

http://www.black-and-right.com/2008/10/06/the-obama-no-legs-money-scandal/

Saturday, September 27, 2008

CBS editing manipulates interview

I was really looking forward to watching both the Joe Biden interview and the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric so I could compare the two. I was really disappointed with the Biden interview, it seemed more like a People Magazine expose and no challenge of obvious fabrication by Senator Biden. So next, Katie interviews Sarah Palin. But what do we get? A interview that has been manipulated in editing !

Governor Sarah Palin has given two mainstream media interviews. In both, she made multiple statements about the importance of multilateralism in foreign policy. In both, these comments were deleted by the news organizations.

After both interviews, a furor has broken out afterwards because of her hawkishness.

At two points in the video (2:58 and 5:39), segments have been removed from the official transcript.



Here are the missing pieces of the transcript:



(2:58) Couric: What, specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country?

Palin: At a time when new leadership comes in, that is the opportunity to forge better, tighter, more productive relationships and that’s what we’ll take advantage of with new leadership in the US and in Pakistan. And I’m sure that President Zardari, too, will agree with us as we commit to the support that Pakistan needs, that other nations in the region need, in order to win this war on terrorism. (3:32)

(5:39) Couric: But what lessons do you think you have learned as you’ve watched this unfold in terms of implementing the democracy and the challenges inherent in that goal?

Palin: Well, one is that America cannot be counted on to do this solely, to be the savior of every other nation, but we need friends and we need allies and we need this nation-building effort and we need to forge new alliances, and that is what a new election will provide opportunity to do.

Couric: What happened if the goal of democracy, Governor Palin, doesn’t produce the desired outcome, for example in Gaza, the US pushed hard for elections and Hamas won.

Palin: Especially in that region, though, we have got to protect those and support those who do seek democracy and do seek protections for the people who live there. And you know, we’re seeing today, in the last couple of days here in New York, a speaker, a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends—Israel—and we’re hearing the evil that he speaks. And if hearing him doesn’t allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, expecially there in the Mideast, then nothing will.

If Americans are not waking up to understand what it is that he represents, then nothing is going to wake us up and we will be lulled into some kind of false sense of security that perhaps Americans were a part of before 9/11.(7:25)

What do each of these three Palin answers have in common? They portray her as a foreign policy moderate who seeks multilateral coalitions with allies and who advocates for human rights, caring about better lives for Middle Easterners.

Interestingly, ABC News also edited out the same kind of moderate, multilateralist comment in order to more effectively promote the misinformation that Palin was advocating a new, warmongering approach to Russia.

Katie Couric clearly hasn't learned much from the previous CBS News scandal, Rathergate.

Technical note: There may have been further editing of each of the two interviews. In both instances, we only know about the modifications because of sloppy editing. In one, the transcript is the smoking gun for the discrepancies; in the other it is the video.

Here's an analytics perspective on the deletions:

In the Gibson (ABC News) interview:

7 instances were deleted of "allies"
5 instances were deleted of "countries"
5 instances were deleted of "democracies"

In the Couric (CBS News) interview:

4 instances were deleted of "allies"
3 instances were deleted of "democracies"
3 instances were deleted of "friends"
3 instances were deleted of "nations"

(A few word variants were included.)


http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/2887-CBS-News-Erases-Moderate-Quotes-from-Palin-Transcript.htmlPlease click the Digg button below to expose the truth about this.


Add to: | del.icio.us | BlinkList | blogmarks | Digg |


Public - 8:09 PM - 71 views - 8 eprops - 7 comments - edit it -

The Barack Obama Truth Squad

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

Barack Obama gets to dictate what is true and what isnt?????????

The brownshirts are coming if Barack has his way.

Camp Obama and ABC caught lying!

"The fact that the mainstream media is silent about this, while mud is thrown instead at Taheri, indicates once again the frightening hold gained by the quasi-religious cult of Obamania over our public discourse"
Dirty politics from Camp Obama
Thursday, 25th September 2008

Earlier this week, I wrote about the dirty tricks campaign against journalist Amir Taheri following his revelation that, in a private meeting in Iraq last July with Iraqi leaders, Barack Obama tried to persuade them to delay the agreement being hammered out with the US government on a draw-down of the American military presence. According to this account, which quoted Iraq’s foreign minister Hoshya Zebari (pictured), Obama had thus privately sought to undermine an American government foreign policy initiative – an explosive revelation. Taheri subsequently dismissed as tendentious Camp Obama’s response which he said deliberately confused two separate agreements under discussion; and he also revealed that, following publication of his story in the New York Post, he had been subjected to death threats, menacing calls about his tax status and passport, and a cyber-attack which disabled two of his email accounts.
Then Camp Obama tried another tactic. It told Jake Tapper of ABC News that Obama’s July meeting in Iraq

was also attended by Bush administration officials, such as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the Baghdad embassy’s legislative affairs advisor Rich Haughton, as well as a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Those who attended this meeting said Taheri’s story was

absolutely untrue

and that

Obama stressed to al Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate, as soon as possible, the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with, among other matters, U.S. troops having immunity from local prosecution.

And so, Tapper thundered:

What actually demands an explanation is why the McCain campaign was so willing to give credence to such a questionable story with such tremendous international implications without first talking to Republicans present at Obama’s meeting with al-Maliki, who back Obama’s version of the meeting and completely dismiss the Post column as untrue.

Actually, it is Tapper and Camp Obama from whom explanation should be demanded. Sharp-eyed readers will already have spotted the flaw in their response. Taheri’s story referred to a ‘private’ meeting. Tapper’s story – and Camp Obama’s response quoting all those people who were reportedly also present – refers to an entirely different meeting.

Taheri wrote his report having spoken to a number of people in Iraq following Obama’s July visit. He has told me that Obama made these comments at a meeting in Baghdad with Foreign Minister Zebari before the meeting with al Maliki and the cast of thousands referred to in Tapper’s article. Dismayed by what he knew Obama had said to Zebari, Maliki actually tried to pre-empt Obama from saying the same thing to him – which would have put him in a difficult position by undermining his negotiations with the US government -- by getting his press spokesman to describe the forthcoming meeting with the US senators, in which Obama was pointedly not singled out, as a courtesy call where no substantive political matters would be discussed. In other words, alert to the political damage Obama might do to the negotiations with the US, Maliki tried to shut him up.

What is really extraordinary about this whole affair is that, in any event, Obama had said the same thing to Zebari the previous month on the Foreign Minister’s trip to the US. This had even been reported in the US media. On 16 June, the New York Times reported, after Obama’s conversation with Zebari in the US:

While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached before the summer political conventions, Mr. Obama said today he opposed such a timetable. ‘My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some way might be binding on the next administration, whether it's my administration or Senator McCain's administration,’ Mr. Obama said.

On July 3, the New York Times reported these remarks by Zebari at a press conference in Baghdad:

Mr. Zebari said that on his recent trip to the United States, in addition to President Bush, he met with the presumptive presidential nominees, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat. He said that Mr. Obama asked him: ‘Why is the Iraqi government in a rush, in a hurry? This administration has only a few months in office.’ Mr. Zebari said he told Obama that even a Democratic administration would be better off having something concrete in front of them to take a hard look at.

Yet even while it was reporting what Obama had said, the US media had not seen fit to question the fact that Obama was trying to undermine US negotiations with Iraq. The implications went totally unremarked – until Taheri, who was previously unaware of these NYT reports, obtained his scoop from Baghdad.

In his latest put-down (not yet published) of the mounting attacks on the integrity of his reporting, Taheri sums up the nub of this whole affair:

1. The Bush administration is negotiating an ensemble of agreements regarding the status of US troops, the timetable for their withdrawal, and the future strategic cooperation between the two nations.

2. Senator Obama opposes these negotiations and urges an alternative set of talks in which the Congress is involved. (That would be a novel way of doing business in a system based on separation of powers.) He then tells the Iraqi Foreign Minister in private that his government had better postpone the agreements until there is a new administration in Washington.

3. The Iraqis are bewildered. They wonder whether there are two governments in the US at the same time. They also wonder what is the use of reaching an agreement that the next man in the White House could scrap in a few months' time. The negotiating process is slowed down and the prospect of an agreement, and thus a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, postponed for at least another year.

4. Although we are all fond of television-style courtroom dramas, the issue here is not who said what to whom and where and when. The issue is that Obama intervened in a process of negotiations between his government and a foreign power. He admits it himself as do all media accounts of the episode, although Senator Hagel, more royalist that the king, does not. My article was not a news story. It was an op-ed. The opinion I wanted to express was simple: no one would trust the United States if the leader of its opposition rejected agreements negotiated by its government in advance and without knowing what they looked like. The issue is that Obama has done, and admits that he has done, something that he should not have done: trying to second-guess an incumbent president.

The fact that the mainstream media is silent about this, while mud is thrown instead at Taheri, indicates once again the frightening hold gained by the quasi-religious cult of Obamania over our public discourse.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2175571/dirty-politics-from-camp-obama.thtml

Bail-out prediction

I believe the reality of the situation is that there will be a bail out, just different from the one proposed. Why? I believe it is a political bail-out. I believe it shows the incompetence of government to handle the financial affairs of the country. Take a look at how Dodd and Frank and Reid reacted when people didn't just accept their solution. How freaking out of touch can these folks get?



Do you want the group who denied any culpability trying to provide a solution? It looks like they deserve a long vacation from government service.

Why do I say I predict a bail out? It is a political reality, it is their butts on the line and they don't want to be left holding the bag.

Do you believe the rush to pass this bill now is more for political than economic reasons? Wouldn't you feel better if we studied the best way to resolve this since it involves $700 Billion instead of being rushed into to quick passing it? This didn't happen overnight.

November 4 looms.

Should WAMU's CEO Be Prosecuted?

Intentional Deception by WAMU? Should Fishman be prosecuted?
On Monday September 22, I went to move my funds out of WAMU into our local accounts. When I went to see the exact amount in our accounts, I noticed on the websites front page a note for our customers linked to this:

https://online.wamu.com/banking/offers/campaign001/landing/customer_note


To Our Valued Customers:
September 22, 2008

As WaMu’s new chief executive officer, I am writing to discuss the extraordinary economic environment for all banks in the United States and why you can count on us to continue to serve you safely and soundly.

When I was recently approached about the opportunity to lead this great company, I did my homework to satisfy myself that WaMu has the capital, the liquidity, and the business plan to serve your needs and protect your money through these challenging times.
Let me explain why I felt good about joining WaMu.

All financial institutions have been affected by the turmoil in the mortgage and financial markets, but WaMu is very different from the investment banks, such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, that you may have read about. Those firms have very different sources of funding than we do. WaMu’s business is funded largely through the deposits that customers like you put with us. We also borrow billions of dollars from the Federal Home Loan Banks system.

Most importantly, your deposits are insured to the limits established by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). (WaMu partners at your local WaMu store are happy to work with you to maximize your FDIC insurance coverage.)

Capital ratios describe the financial strength of a bank. Our ratios continue to be well in excess of the levels that government regulators require of “well capitalized” institutions. We also have an ample supply of funds on hand to meet your needs and the needs of our other customers and our day-to-day operations.

These strengths, combined with our tradition of superior products and services, are why we continue to welcome new customers every day.

I also expect that comprehensive and constructive plans recently announced by the government will shore up confidence in the U.S. banking system considerably. These plans, if approved by Congress, would remove up to $700 billion of troubled assets from the balance sheets of American financial institutions. There are also provisions to protect financial companies from disruptive rumors and speculation that are fueled by abusive stock trading practices.

Other government actions are already underway and are expected to lend even more security to the nation’s financial system. The Federal Reserve announced that it will open its discount window to financial institutions to enable them to purchase certain assets from money market funds. This provides increased financial flexibility. The Federal Reserve also recently granted requests from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley that will allow them to take deposits, thereby increasing the resources available to both companies. A more stable national financial system is good for WaMu and good for customers.

I came to WaMu because I think it is a great bank with a strong franchise and a solid financial position. We take very seriously our role as the stewards of your hard-earned money. I want to personally thank you for your loyalty and the opportunity to serve your needs.


Sincerely,

Alan Fishman
Chief Executive Officer

______________

I thought maybe, just maybe, it was all a hype about them going under after reading the letter. Then last night I see this:

CAPITOL WAMU-VE
UNCLE SAM BROKERS DEAL FOR JP MORGAN TO BUY THRIFT
By ZACHERY KOUWE
Last updated: 8:30 pm
September 25, 2008
Posted: 8:30 pm
September 25, 2008

JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon won his bid for beleaguered banking giant Washington Mutual in a takeover orchestrated by the federal government that represents the largest banking failure in history.

The takeover of the nation's largest savings and loan will completely wipe out the company's shareholders and saddle taxpayers with some of the bank's toxic mortgage assets - a condition JPMorgan and other bidders insisted on before buying WaMu.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was expected to seize WaMu and simultaneously announce JPMorgan's takeover of most of WaMu's operations Thursday night.

Dimon has long coveted WaMu's valuable retail banking franchise, which includes $144 billion in deposits and over 2,200 branches.

With the takeover, JPMorgan can essentially pick up those assets on the cheap, though it appears Dimon won't get WaMu branches in New York City.

Sources familiar with the situation Thursday said that the FDIC had all but taken over WaMu's auction process, accepting bids from several suitors including Citigroup, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo.

While details of the bids could not be learned, one source said they differed in how much of WaMu's $227 billion book of mortgages they wanted the government to take on. As much as $30 billion of those loans are in danger of default.

WaMu CEO Alan Fishman and Goldman Sachs had been conducting their own auction in the hopes of either salvaging some value for shareholders or raising enough additional capital to continue as an independent company. But people close to the company believe that effort had been stymied by the government's decision to run what amounts to a separate auction.

Sources familiar with WaMu said it had received interest from private-equity titans Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group as well as Texas billionaire Gerald J. Ford. The company and its advisers were also working with their current shareholders Thursday, including TPG Capital, to raise additional funds, sources said.

TPG and others that injected $7 billion into WaMu in April will be completely wiped out as a result of the takeover.

As of two weeks ago, WaMu said it had $50 billion of available liquidity and expected to end the quarter "well-capitalized."

WaMu shares closed down 25 percent to $1.69.

I posted this last evening 09/25@ 9:47 EST

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Question: Should Alan Fishman be brought before the Senate Banking Committee and the Securities and Exchanges Commission and FDIC for misleading investors?Should fraud charges be brought against him?

As a note- I am ok, this is not a poor me post to ramble about how I was taken advantage of, this is a post about how we deal with people giving intentional false information in a market crisis. Should Alan Fishman be prosecuted ?

*******************

The note to our valued customers about WAMU being secure is gone this (Friday 9/26) morning. In its place:

WaMu Customers, Welcome to JPMorgan Chase!

We're proud to welcome you to one of the nation's largest banks; as of September 25, 2008, JPMorgan Chase & Co. has acquired the deposits, loans, and branches of Washington Mutual. Your deposits remain insured by the FDIC and are now also backed by the strength and security of JPMorgan Chase. Our combined company will offer superior banking convenience - over 5,400 branches and 14,000 ATMs in 23 states. Here's what this means for you:


We look forward to serving you, and to introducing new products, services, and convenience in the coming months.

Tell me more* about the change to JPMorgan Chase.

I guess that is all Fishmans word is worth.

CBS editing manipulates interview


I was really looking forward to watching both the Joe Biden interview and the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric so I could compare the two. I was really disappointed with the Biden interview, it seemed more like a People Magazine expose and no challenge of obvious fabrication by Senator Biden. So next, Katie interviews Sarah Palin. But what do we get? A interview that has been manipulated in editing !

Governor Sarah Palin has given two mainstream media interviews. In both, she made multiple statements about the importance of multilateralism in foreign policy. In both, these comments were deleted by the news organizations.

After both interviews, a furor has broken out afterwards because of her hawkishness.

At two points in the video (2:58 and 5:39), segments have been removed from the official transcript.




Here are the missing pieces of the transcript:



(2:58) Couric: What, specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country?

Palin: At a time when new leadership comes in, that is the opportunity to forge better, tighter, more productive relationships and that’s what we’ll take advantage of with new leadership in the US and in Pakistan. And I’m sure that President Zardari, too, will agree with us as we commit to the support that Pakistan needs, that other nations in the region need, in order to win this war on terrorism. (3:32)

(5:39) Couric: But what lessons do you think you have learned as you’ve watched this unfold in terms of implementing the democracy and the challenges inherent in that goal?

Palin: Well, one is that America cannot be counted on to do this solely, to be the savior of every other nation, but we need friends and we need allies and we need this nation-building effort and we need to forge new alliances, and that is what a new election will provide opportunity to do.

Couric: What happened if the goal of democracy, Governor Palin, doesn’t produce the desired outcome, for example in Gaza, the US pushed hard for elections and Hamas won.

Palin: Especially in that region, though, we have got to protect those and support those who do seek democracy and do seek protections for the people who live there. And you know, we’re seeing today, in the last couple of days here in New York, a speaker, a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends—Israel—and we’re hearing the evil that he speaks. And if hearing him doesn’t allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, expecially there in the Mideast, then nothing will.

If Americans are not waking up to understand what it is that he represents, then nothing is going to wake us up and we will be lulled into some kind of false sense of security that perhaps Americans were a part of before 9/11.(7:25)

What do each of these three Palin answers have in common? They portray her as a foreign policy moderate who seeks multilateral coalitions with allies and who advocates for human rights, caring about better lives for Middle Easterners.

Interestingly, ABC News also edited out the same kind of moderate, multilateralist comment in order to more effectively promote the misinformation that Palin was advocating a new, warmongering approach to Russia.

Katie Couric clearly hasn't learned much from the previous CBS News scandal, Rathergate.

Technical note: There may have been further editing of each of the two interviews. In both instances, we only know about the modifications because of sloppy editing. In one, the transcript is the smoking gun for the discrepancies; in the other it is the video.

Here's an analytics perspective on the deletions:

In the Gibson (ABC News) interview:

7 instances were deleted of "allies"
5 instances were deleted of "countries"
5 instances were deleted of "democracies"

In the Couric (CBS News) interview:

4 instances were deleted of "allies"
3 instances were deleted of "democracies"
3 instances were deleted of "friends"
3 instances were deleted of "nations"

(A few word variants were included.)


http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/2887-CBS-News-Erases-Moderate-Quotes-from-Palin-Transcript.html

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Democrats think protesting is a partisan event

Video removed

"In the meantime Ahmadinejad still promises to destroy Israel; still issues vile racist comments about Jews.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

It's serious boys

Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street

In wake of the GSE's being taken over by the feds and now Lehman 's collapse, how much longer can we listen to Barack Obama sit and just openly fabricate the truth to deflect from his own culpability and ties to the crisis?

Back on May 7 Pam Martens did a feature piece in the Black Agenda Reportwhich I will excerpt and is linked so you can read it in full.

Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street


The candidate that claims to be the only presidential contender who doesn't take money from lobbyists is in fact the biggest recipient of lobby-related contributions. Barack Obama rakes in millions from law firms serving the interests of Wall Street, including the financial institutions that gave us the subprime lending crisis. Lawyers that work for firms that earn hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbying may technically not be lobbyists, but they share in their colleagues' earnings as influencers of Congress - a legal loophole that allows Obama to claim his hands are clean of lobby loot. "The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans."

This article is the result of a special investigation undertaken by Counterpunch, orignally printed in 2 parts, here and here..


"The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans."
Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it's marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn't the press curious about this?


Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you'll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers - this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.

The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared in February on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don't. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn't compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.

Why is the "yes, we can" candidate in bed with this cartel? How can "we," the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?

Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.


"How can ‘we,' the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?"

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers,
JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse
. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season.

But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement?

Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina on January 22, 2008:

"Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president."

Barack Obama, in an email to supporters on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe:

"Candidates typically spend a week like this - right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline - on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees."


The Center for Responsive Politics website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists, registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.

Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them.

The political publication, The Hill, reported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations. (The Obama campaign said they had stopped lobbying since joining the campaign.) Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie. That law firm is also a registered lobbyist.

What might account for this persistent (but non-reality based) theme of distancing the Obama campaign from lobbyists? Odds are it traces back to one of the largest corporate lobbyist spending sprees in the history of Washington whose details would cast an unwholesome pall on the Obama campaign, unless our cognitive abilities are regularly bombarded with abstract vacuities of hope and change and sentimental homages to Dr. King and President Kennedy.

"Many of these individual donors share in the profits generated from lobbying."

On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005. Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation:


"Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights....".

While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown's partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.)

Senator Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials, one assumes that he understood the ramifications to the poor and middle class in this country as he helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms. The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured that might not otherwise have a voice.

"Obama helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms."


Those rights should have been strengthened, not restricted, at this dangerous time in our nation's history. According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern history:

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called "Rocopoly Money" (like a sick board game), after "blitz" nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle?

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation's poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.

Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer. But be assured of one thing: this country will not countenance any more grand illusions.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said the GOP’s style of government led to the collapse of Lehman brothers, suggesting the economy couldn’t handle another Republican White House. “Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression." Barack Obama told supporters in Golden, Colorado. "I certainly don't fault Sen. McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to.”


That is not leadership.