Monday, October 13, 2008



Why Obama is ahead

Because people don't know the facts below and the media is not telling them. All that people hear is that that the financial crisis is "Bush's fault"

History is important to study... if you can trust the national media to not withhold key information they don't want you to see or twist daily news to fit their agenda.

In the last 40 years, there have been nine major surveys of editors and reporters who work for national media. The most they ever voted Republican in a national election was 14%; the more common range has been 4% to 7%. This is one reason why no matter who wins a political debate, the media almost en masse repeatedly tell you their man won. And most voters who don't pay close attention will believe them. It's called coordinated propaganda. What were the most consistently repeated and strongly asserted slogans you've heard over the last few years? "We're losing in Iraq . . . we must get out . . . it's costing us $10 billion a month we could use here at home . . . we're not any safer . . . the surge won't work."

A year ago, vice presidential candidate Joe Biden opined that we should get out of Iraq immediately and then divide it into three separate countries. This is the sound, seasoned judgment that's supposed to compensate for running mate Barack Obama's youth and complete lack of experience with the military or America's security in a dangerous world! Well, the surge in Iraq has worked, we are winning decisively and, as a result, now have a new democracy and strong ally in the Mideast. Meanwhile, seven years have passed since 9/11, and we still haven't had another major terrorist attack on our soil.

Yet the media give no credit at all to President Bush, the only president to do something about the terrorist attacks that we had suffered repeatedly beginning in 1992.

With the economy slowing and a weak financial market created solely by our subprime mortgage mess, what do we keep hearing now from the media in hopes the majority will believe it and vote accordingly? "The mess is caused by eight years of failed Bush economic policies, including the tax cuts for the rich that should be rescinded." This is not the talk of a uniter of people, but rather a separator stirring up class warfare, envy and resentment. It's a stirring-up of hate in an attempt to endlessly criticize, condemn, demean and destroy every opponent.


(Larger graphic here)

Do you know the real cause of the out-of-control subprime loan mess that's creating so much fear and hurting every American? It's not something the media or a certain political party wants you to find out. A picture is worth a thousand words, however, and we've made notes of key events on the chart above that you can follow as we give you some key facts.

In 1995, President Clinton mandated new regulations that coerced banks to make significantly more subprime loans to inner-city residents previously viewed as unqualified buyers in high-risk areas. Banks were rated on how well they complied and faced big fines if they didn't do what government regulators wanted.

The government's worst decision was allowing and encouraging banks, for the first time, to bundle these subprime loans in giant packages with prime loans. These packages were then sold to other investors as safe because they were government-sponsored by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The first of these government-encouraged packages came to market in 1997. For the banks, they were profitable because they could be sold quickly and thereby absolve the banks of any risk in the loans they made. Many subprimes were variable-rate loans made without down payments or documentation of borrowers' incomes.

The banks could then use the money to make even more of these lower-quality, government-required loans, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought them with virtual abandon.

It evolved into a Big Government pyramid scheme with Democrats in charge of Fannie and Freddie making large political donations to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and other politicians who continually defended the anything-goes lending of the two agencies.

In short, this was yet another well-intended, Democrat-supported,government-designed and run program that failed miserably and had the usual unintended consequences. A few more facts:

* April 2001: The Bush administration's fiscal budget stated that the size of Fannie and Freddie was "potential problem because financial trouble of a large Government-Sponsored Enterprise could cause repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity."

* May 2002: The Office of Management and Budget wanted disclosure and governance principles in Bush's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie and Freddie.

* February 2003: A federal housing oversight report warned that unexpected problems at Fannie Mae could immediately spread into financial sectors.

* September 2003: Treasury Secretary John Snow, in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, recommended that Congress enact legislation to create new agency to regulate and supervise financial activities of housing-related government entities to set prudent and appropriate minimum capital requirements. Rep. Frank, the committee's ranking member, strongly disagreed, saying: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis . . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we'll see in terms of affordable housing."

* February 2004: The president's new budget again highlighted risks of the explosive growth of these government enterprises and the then-low levels of required capital. It also called for the creation of a world class regulator. The administration determined that housing regulators of government agencies lacked the power and stature to meet their responsibilities and should be replaced with a strong new third regulator.

* February 2004: Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, cautioned Congress against taking the strength of financial markets for granted. He too called for reducing the risk by ensuring that housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.

* April 2004: Rep. Frank ignored warnings, accusing the administration of creating an "artificial issue." "People pay their mortgages," he told a group of mortgage bankers. "I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."

From 2004 to 2008 the Bush administration made 12 more attempts to get Congress to pass legislation to have safer, sounder regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie and capital rules. You can see them for yourself on the White House Web site. But here are a couple of examples that show how Democrats resisted:

* July 2005: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected legislation on reforming Fannie and Freddie. "While I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that would limit Americans from owning homes and harm our economy in the process," he said.

* August 2007: Sen. Dodd, another Democrat, ignored President Bush's emphatic calls for Congress to pass Fannie and Freddie reform legislation and called for him to immediately reconsider his ill-advised position.

Democrats have become a far-left propaganda party with the lowest-ranked Congress in history. For six years, they have consistently refused to rein in the monumentally risky subprime loans that Clinton Democrats gave birth to.

Yet, voters are blaming Republicans for this crisis and seem to think that a newcomer they know little about, despite his questionable past associates and mentors, can bring us more huge programs. These include one that would socialize the health care system at a time when government-run systems in Canada and Britain are lower in quality and nearly bankrupt.

We will not have another 1929. The chart above shows we are in a 1937-type correction with a 1938-39 perhaps ahead. That's when England's Neville Chamberlain thought he could appease Hitler just by talking to him and getting a signature on a piece of paper that guaranteed "peace in our time."

Today, a new Hitler in Iran says he wants to have similar relations with the U.S. Are terrorists hoping that we will sign a nice agreement that gives Iran another couple of years to develop a nuclear weapon?

Source







The Coming Obama 'Thugocracy'

By Michael Barone

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago -- papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.\cf0\b0 \f2\fs24

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers -- like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey -- voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes -- we know where you live -- and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

Source



Baruch Obama?

In Israel, for better or (usually) for worse, politics permeates virtually all cultural, religious, and historical events and issues. So it was surprising that, during the period in May marking the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding, President Bush's gracious remarks to the Knesset (Israel's parliament) were met with tremendous appreciation and warmth across a wide swath of the notoriously broad Israeli political spectrum. I was privileged to witness that reaction in person during the historic festivities in Jerusalem.

While the American commentariat, especially those in the liberal media protective of Sen. Barack Obama, went apoplectic over Bush's comments about appeasing terrorists and their sponsors, Israelis left and right praised his speech to the heavens.

So it was from an interesting perspective, during the Yom Ha'atzmaut (Independence Day) celebrations, that I had occasion to reflect on America's support for the Jewish state, and the questions that have been raised about Obama's positions.

Israel has of late been enduring more than its share of existential angst. Its enemies have been waging low-level military and diplomatic campaigns for years, beginning with the avowedly terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza, which rains often fatal rockets down on Israeli towns on a daily basis, to the rearming and ascendant Hezbollah, which scored a significant victory in the ongoing Lebanese power struggle, to an aggressive Iranian theocracy hell-bent on acquiring the nuclear means to destroy Israeli population centers.

Meanwhile, Israel suffers from a serious, embarrassing problem of its own making: political corruption. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has resigned in the face of allegations that he received tens of thousands of dollars in cash-stuffed envelopes by an American businessman.

Yet somehow, to the untrained eye, all seems better than well in Israel. The joyous Yom Ha'atzmaut celebration marked a major milestone in this young country's development and, knock wood, was unmarred by terrorist violence. The Israeli economy gallops along at a rapid clip: 5% GDP growth in 2007, and 4% expected this year, despite the global slowdown. Israel is third worldwide only to the U.S. and Japan in patents-per-capita (and, incredibly, 14th overall worldwide in absolute terms); it boasts more scientists and engineers per capita than any other country in the world. Israel has the second-most startup companies in the world. For the first time in my adult life, the dollar was actually worth fewer Israeli shekels than during my previous visit. Real estate brokers, who for years listed homes in dollars, have now switched to the now-more stable Israeli currency.

Culturally, the country continues to thrive. Jerusalem recently hosted an international writers' festival where leading Israeli scribes hobnobbed with their European and American counterparts. Israel's top basketball team placed second in the European tournament, while an Israeli soccer manager brought the storied English Chelsea franchise within inches of Premier League and Championship League trophies.

Israeli musicians, graphic artists, architects, and even boutique winemakers regularly achieve worldwide acclaim, a theme hammered home by the May issue of the in-flight magazine of El-Al (Israel's national airline), which was dedicated to 60 Israelis who have impacted the world.

The flipside of these achievements, as also apparent from the magazine, is a deep Israeli preoccupation with global approval. The Jewish people, according to the Bible, are meant to be an or la-goyim, a "light unto the nations." The Jewish state, thus, strives to be a model society, setting a good example for a world riven by strife.

Yet its efforts aren't always rewarded by a world still disturbingly hostile to the idea of a Jewish state or by elites in liberal Western countries who believe the country isn't worth the trouble it has begotten. That's why, by far, the most important and moving part of President Bush's address, one that was little-reported in the Western media, was when he said:
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.

This strong reassurance from the leader of the free world resonated far more with Israelis than the president's more controversial statement regarding appeasement that immediately preceded it. But, in fact, they're flipsides of the same coin.

Obama, who favors precondition-less talks with Iranian leaders, can't seem to grasp the serious problems infecting his sometimes muddled position-and his campaign lashes out at anyone who dares criticize his approach.

(Obama evidently believes that the threat posed by countries like Iran pales in comparison to that posed by the Soviet Union in its heyday, telling an Oregon primary crowd that "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." He later backtracked, describing the Iranian threat as "grave," but, at least initially, he regarded a growing country of 65 million people, well on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons, as "tiny.")

Obama argues that negotiation is not appeasement. But what exactly does "negotiation" mean in the context of dealing with tyrannical regimes? As Charles Krauthammer observes, "what concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?" These are questions that, unbelievably, nobody in the mainstream media is asking.

And it's not as if Iran welcomes talks with the U.S. as an avenue for mutual understanding. As its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, recently remarked:
You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We...do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world.

While Obama has vowed to meet with helpful folks like these, he has also resisted meeting with Hamas. But this position lacks intellectual coherence, as Hamas is sponsored by Iran and serves as its Palestinian proxy. The American Spectator's Philip Klein puts its well, asking "why should it be beyond the pale to question the earnestness of Obama's vow not to negotiate with Hamas, when he has promised, as part of his sweeping program for change, to negotiate with its patron [Iran], which shares the same ultimate goal?"

These concerns dovetail with another aspect of Obama's Israel problem: his policy advisers. One of his former counselors, Gen. Merrill McPeak, was revealed to harbor frustrations about powerful pro-Israel voices in the U.S., telling a newspaper that "we have a large vote here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it." Another, Robert Malley, was exposed as conducting negotiations (albeit not on behalf of the campaign) with Hamas.

When asked whether Jimmy Carter should meet with Hamas during the former president's recent Middle East visit, Obama's initial response was "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"

And in a recent interview with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, after Goldberg had written an article entitled "Is Israel Finished?", Obama-incredibly, while trying to sound like a pro-Israel stalwart-trafficked in the same, tired finger-pointing so often seen among Western liberal elites, characterizing the Israeli-Arab conflict as "this constant wound,...this constant sore, [that] infect[s] all of our foreign policy." This attitude suggests that the United States is abhorred by the Muslim world because of our support for Israel rather than because Islamic extremists detest our values and our way of life. Then, more recently, there was the flap over Obama's now-you-see-it-now-you-don't "support" for Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem.

The outrageous ramblings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's (former) pastor and spiritual advisor, contribute to this sense as well. The good reverend has referred to Israel as "a dirty word" and blamed it for September 11. He offered space in his church's newsletter to a Hamas functionary who, predictably, bashed the Jewish state.

Obama, who has said he occasionally refers to himself as "Baruch Obama" during his interactions with Jewish crowds ("baruch" is Hebrew, and "barack" is Arabic, for "blessed"), has lately made a concerted effort to appeal to the Jewish community, including stops in Florida nursing homes that, according to the New York Times, are populated by hostile residents.

But his relative weakness among a Jewish electorate that's generally in the tank for the Democrats is palpable. A recent Gallup poll that gave Obama 61% support to Sen. John McCain's 32% among Jewish voters was conventionally interpreted, as Gallup's own poll title put it, as "Obama Beats McCain Among Jewish Voters." Yet these numbers are by far the weakest for any Democratic presidential candidate in recent memory. That one in three Jewish Americans say they will vote for the Republican candidate has to be damning; after all, only one in four supported President Bush in 2004, notwithstanding his stalwart support for the Jewish state.

Of course, these numbers will fluctuate over the course of the final few weeks of the general election, and Obama will do his best to blunt their impact. And there's no question that the American Jewish community is not a single-issue voting monolith. But with Israel so much in the news, and so much on the mind, the contrast between Bush's speech and Obama's position couldn't be clearer.

Source






Report: 'Obama wants kindergarten children to be taught climate change science'?

On Monday, I wrote about Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's education bill, S.2111, The Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act of 2007 (Story) and its intent to achieve important social outcomes (emphasis added) to the elementary and secondary student population.

Given that it was William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist and founder of the Weather Underground who served as "Collaborative" co-chair, crafting education policies to Obama's chair manship in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC ), that reportedly directed more than US$100-million for radical activists, I thought nothing could be more eye-opening.

After all, what could be more eye-popping than Obama possibly resurrecting the radical ghost of William Ayers in elementary and secondary schools by significantly redesigning and amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to allow, in part, for "State...local educational agencies and schools to increase implementation of early intervention services, particularly school-wide positive behavior supports"?

While the highly charged debate on climate change and global warming ensues, Obama wants kindergarten children to be taught climate change science in the classroom. On May 14, 2007, Obama introduced in the Senate, a bill called, the "Climate Change Education Act," which authorizes "the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program."

In Section 3 of Obama's bill, S. 1389 called, "Climate Change Education Program," the Director of the National Science Foundation shall establish a Climate Change Education Program to-"broaden the understanding of climate change, possible long and short-term consequences, and potential solutions; apply the latest scientific and technological discoveries to provide formal and informal learning opportunities to people of all ages, including those of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds; and emphasize actionable information to help people understand and to promote implementation of new technologies, programs, and incentives related to energy conservation, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas reduction."

The National Science Foundation (NSF), according to their website, is an independent federal agency which was created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare - has as an annual budget of "about US$6.06 billion" and is the funding source for "approximately 20% of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities."

Under Obama's education bill, the NSF would be responsible to provide "Program Elements" for the "Climate Change Education Program" which include: "a national information campaign to disseminate information on and promote implementation of the new technologies, programs, and incentives- and create "a competitive grant program to provide grants to States, local municipalities, educational institutions, and other20organizations." These institutions and organizations will use these grants to "create informal education materials, exhibits, and multimedia presentat ions relevant to climate change and climate science" and also will "develop climate science kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum and supplementary educational materials."

According to a 2007 US Senate report, "over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries" voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."

Putting those findings aside, preschool and kindergarten children are already participating in save-the-Earth and recycling type programs throughout the school year.

In addition, during "Earth Day," every April 22, for example, according to a "First-School" program, children are encouraged to partake in "arts and crafts experiences" that enables them "to acquaint themselves with the natural qualities of the earth such as leaves, rocks, shells, dirt, wind, rain and sunshine. Children also learn to observe, create, and remain in touch with the ever changing world, and to develop a caring attitude towards the ear th by learning to recycle and use materials for art and crafts rather than throwing them away."

Then there is the United Nation's "World Environment Day," which was established in 1972. It's another day focusing on climate change and the environment that the US actively participates in, that according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) website, recommends every June for people of all ages to celebrate-in many ways, including street rallies, bicycles parades, green concerts, essay and poster competitions in schools, tree planting, recycling efforts, clean-up campaigns and much more."

The UNEP's Environment Fund for 2008-2009 has been budgeted at US$152 million. In response to the "contribution trends in 2006-2007," the UN has asked governments to "increase their pledges to this fund "by at least 22%." The United States already contributes 22% of the UN's regular budget-- which this year "$4.19 billion for core UN operations" was requested. That figure includes the UNEP but does not include the UN budgets for programs like "UNICEF and the World Health Organization" or "the cost of UN peacekeeping, which is projected to. increase from US$5 billion in 2007 to US$7 billion in 2008."

Although no firm budget has been set to enact Obama's K-12 Climate Change Education bill "such sums as may be necessary to carry" it out have been "authorized." Whatever the cost of Obama's Climate Change Science Education will be-- Obama's education plans do not begin at kindergarten but "at birth" and will cost annually US$10 billion.

According to "Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan for lifetime Success for Education" found at barackobama.com, the White House hopefuls have "a pre-school agenda that begins at birth" called their comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan which "will provide critical supports to young children and their parents by investing $10 billion per year." Because as the Obama-Biden plan states: "Children's ability to succeed in school relies on the foundation they build in their first three years. Prekindergarten f or four-year-olds is important, but it is not enough to ensure children will arrive at school ready to learn."

Last week, the US Congress passed a US$700 billion economic bail out package designed to save the US economy from collapse. With Obama's revolutionary CPositive Behavior in Effective Schools Act," which if passed into law allows Title I education funding to be extracted-without restrictions and Obama's Climate Change Education program, the amount of US taxpayer educations dollars dedicated to subjects such as math, reading, writing and history is unknown. Obama's Climate Change Education Act has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Source






Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says

Sen. Barack Obama "is lying" when he insists that he has never prayed in a mosque and was never a Muslim, a prominent Middle East expert and journalist says. Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum think tank, says he fully accepts that Obama is a Christian now. But there is strong evidence that Obama received a Muslim upbringing during his years in Indonesia, Pipes said.

"It's fine with me that he was a Muslim and a convert to Christianity," Pipes told Newsmax. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal "is a convert from Hinduism. I have no problem with his conversion. What I have a problem with is that he's lying" when he says he was never a Muslim.

Newsmax asked whether Pipes is alleging outright that Obama has lied about having a Muslim upbringing. Pipes' response: "The evidence suggests to me that he is lying, yes."

Pipes told Newsmax, "It would start with the fact that his father was a Muslim - granted, not a practicing Muslim, but in the Muslim world, if your father is a Muslim, you're a Muslim. His father named him Hussein, which is a name only given to Muslim babies. He went with his stepfather to a mosque. They celebrated certain Muslim holidays at the mosque together. He had knowledge of the Koran. He had knowledge of Muslim prayers. You put all this together, he was a Muslim."

Pipes contends that a Nov. 12 post on Obama's Web site headlined, "Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim," stated: "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." Today, that post bears the same headline, but does not include an assertion that Obama "never prayed in a mosque" and "has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim."

The page now bears a quote Obama made during the Jan. 15 debate on MSNBC: "In the Internet age, there are going to be lies that are spread all over the place. I have been victimized by these lies. Fortunately, the American people are, I think, smarter than folks give them credit for."

The current post, which includes links intended to debunk any Muslim connection, is headlined "Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian".

Several media outlets, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, have reported on Obama's schooling in Indonesia, where he lived from 1967 to 1971, which included Muslim religious studies. It is known, for example, that Obama's designation as a Muslim while attending a Catholic school may have simply reflected the fact that his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim. Still, Obama was grouped with Muslim students at the school and engaged in weekly religious studies, including studying the Koran and learning Muslim prayers.

In 1970, Obama's family moved and he was enrolled in a public school where children such as Obama who were identified as Muslim spent two hours a week studying Islam. [Editor's Note: Read the Los Angeles Times report on Obama's Muslim upbringing -- Click Here Now.]

A March 2007 Chicago Tribune article by Kim Barker, which stated several accounts had "distorted the reality" of Obama's years in Indonesia, reported that he did irregularly attend Muslim prayer services at the local mosque. Obama's third-grade teacher at the Catholic school, Fermina Katarina Sinaga, told Barker that Obama accompanied his stepfather to pray at the mosque, doing so "rarely." Pipes said Barker's story bolsters his position that Obama was raised as a Muslim while he lived in Indonesia.

His accounts of Obama's upbringing have received a "very severe reaction from the left" and threats from some Muslims, he said. "The Islamists murmur and threaten," Pipes said, declining to specify the threats he has received.

Pipes sees a whopping double standard in how the mainstream media has reported on Obama's past. "It's been quite fascinating to watch the careful picking over of Sarah Palin's record, down to her library policies as mayor of Wasilla, and her possible false pregnancies, and so forth, an analysis that involved excruciating details in her case."

He contrasts that to the "the general pass" the media has given Obama, whether over his career in the Illinois Senate, the Annenberg library papers, or his upbringing in Jakarta. Pipes said his reports have "simply been dismissed as untrue without any facts to counter it."

The McCain campaign "has been very cautious about looking into Barack Obama at all," said Pipes, adding that the GOP has demonstrated a general reluctance to raise questions about Obama's past.

Pipes has posted four articles on his Web site, "DanielPipes.org", defending his view that Obama was a Muslim. The articles include the assertion that "for some years (Obama) had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian stepfather." As a measure of the interest in Obama's background, Pipes' articles have attracted close to half a million hits....

More here







WHAT VOTERS NEED TO KNOW

The following information has been completed on my own time and not on behalf of any group or organization. It is based upon my own research and uses contacts I have in all branches of the US government, conversations with think tank leaders, policy experts, election law attorneys, sources within the McCain campaign, and top political consultants.

Obama belonged to a Socialist Party. New Information has come out confirming that Obama was a member of a radical socialist political party in Chicago called the "New Party," composed of former Black Panther members. Several documents have confirmed Obama's membership as recently as 1996. Obama's supporters have attempted to "scrub" websites clean of this information but fortunately, researchers made copies of it before it disappeared. So far, the media is refusing to cover this story.

Obama continues to hide his past. Obama has continued to block reporters from gaining access to any and all medical, school, and even legislative records from his state senate days. The media should be screaming about this but they are not. This makes Obama the least known presidential candidate in perhaps American history. All of McCain's records have been made available.

The only thing we do know about Obama's time at Columbia University is that the title of his thesis was "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament" but he will not release it. I wonder why.

Michelle Obama has written a racist thesis. Access to Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton was also blocked until recent effort by researchers to gain access to it. I can understand now why access was initially blocked.

In her thesis, Michelle identifies herself as a black separatist and is clearly hostile to the notion of blacks integrating into the larger society with all the evil whites. This is Farrakhan type racism that could have easily been written by a Klansman from a white perspective.

Do you think if Cindy McCain had written a thesis about white separatism, it would be news?

Illegal foreign contributions are pouring into Obama's campaign at an unprecedented rate. Analysis of Obama's disclosures reveal he has received around $32 million dollars from overseas, much of it from the Middle East. There are 11,500 foreign donations. 520 of the donors list their country as "IR" which is Iran. He received millions from "Palestinians" and others hostile to US policy. Such contributions are illegal and the Republican Party has asked the FEC to investigate.

Even more alarming is that $190 million of his contributions are unidentified. The donor is not listed. Many donors are clearly using fake names such as "Good, Will." The problem is that the FEC has no power to freeze Obama's campaign or even stop him from continuing to receive foreign money.

All that will happen is that Obama will be fined AFTER the campaign is over. With 10% of Obama's money coming from overseas, this means that for the first time in American history, foreigners will influence the outcome of a presidential election.

Anti-American dictators are praising Obama. Just about every anti-American dictator in the world has issued words of praise for Obama: Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, North Korean ruler, Kim Jong-il, Venezuelan strongman, Hugo Chavez, Libyan dictator, Moammar Qadhafi, and so forth.

Never before in American history have so many enemies of America praised a candidate for the presidency. Not only that, but an array of communist and socialist parties both here and abroad have praised him. Even terrorist groups such as the pro-Al Qaeda HAMAS and the Columbian terrorist group (and heroin producing) FARC have praised him.

And what did Obama promise in return? Such praise and endorsements do not come casually. This means that people representing Obama must have met with these groups and leaders and have promised changes in US policy favorable to them.

Obama's extremist friends go into hiding. The Obama campaign is frantically covering up all Obama's socialist and Marxist connections by keeping his wacko friends away from the press. They just need to keep Americans in the dark for one more month! Moreover, documents that show Obama's work with extremist groups are disappearing. But I don't hear our crack reporters yelling "censorship!"

Forced union dues used for Obama. The unions are gearing up for the largest campaign mobilization in US history. We now know that they have allocated over $100 million dollars of forced union dues to a massive independent effort attacking McCain and supporting Obama. On election day, hundreds of thousands of union workers will mysteriously call in sick and will work on getting the vote out for Obama.

Polls are showing some discouraging trends. They show that people are blaming the fiscal crisis upon the Republicans, even though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Democrats and banks were forced by Democrats to make high risk loans to low income people all in the name of "equality" and "compassion".

Indeed, it was Obama's group, ACORN, who played a key role years ago in pressuring these agencies to implement such policies. Three of the key architects of this policy are now involved with Obama's campaign. Moreover, McCain is the one who authored sweeping legislation to reform all of this and it was blocked by the Democrats.

Americans don't know who controlled Congress the last two years. Polls also show that most Americans do not know that the Democrats took power in late 2006 and thus had oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; nor do they know that the Democrats shut down every inquiry into these rogue agencies and ignored every sign of trouble.

Nor do Americans realize that right after the Democrats took control, the economy went south. Except for the foreign policy arena which the Constitution explicitly grants power to the presidency, Bush has been a lame duck for two years in all other policy areas.

Indeed, every economic indicator plunged downward AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 - inflation, unemployment, job creation, etc, and yet, a misinformed public is blaming Bush, and by extension, McCain for the economy and sadly will be voting based upon ignorance of basic facts.

McCain is not Bush. Most Americans also do not know that McCain fought Bush on Iraq strategy, earmarks, spending, tax policy, education policy, homeland security issues, etc, etc, and that he is by far the most independent member of Congress while Obama never crossed the aisle and was just an isolated far left senator.

It is now clear that we are paying a price for the vulgarization of American culture. We have polls showing many Americans get their "news" from Saturday Night Live, John Stewart, David Letterman, Jay Leno, and even from incoherent ramblings by such popular cultural figures as Alex Baldwin, Whoopi Goldberg, and so on.

Americans engage in less serious reading and far more in entertaining themselves than any previous generation of Americans. This is truly sad and will cost our country in ways we can't even predict.

Obama has hordes of attorneys ready to challenge votes. We now know that the Obama campaign has around 10,000 lawyers volunteering to work on election monitoring. As the Kerry campaign had four years ago, there will once again be an effort to decertify absentee ballots sent in abroad from military personnel, based on petty mistakes often made with such ballots.

Thousands of military personnel were disenfranchised four years ago and since they usually vote Republican, the Obama campaign will repeat this effort.

Obama is registering thousands of illegal aliens. While the Obama campaign works hard to disenfranchise the men and women fighting to protect us from terrorism, at the same time they're working feverishly to register illegal aliens, felons, and the homeless by the hundreds of thousands.

Video clips have already appeared on You Tube showing the Obama campaign registering illiterate homeless people. Most states do not ask for proof of citizenship to register to vote, so hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens will be voting for Obama.

The group that has specialized in registering illegal aliens for a decade is, in fact, Obama's former "community service" group -- ACORN. While ACORN has been in legal trouble repeatedly for this work, the Obama campaign has contracted them out do to "voter registration." Wink, wink.

Lots of felons will be voting. Not by coincidence, democrat governors and democrat legislators are granting felons the right to vote. Just last week, the Virginian Democrat governor gave thousands of felons the right to vote. Remember, crime pays! The Governor claims this action has nothing to do with the coming election. Right.

Democrats are already disqualifying ballots in Ohio. In Ohio, the Democrat Secretary of State is already disqualifying thousands of Republican absentee ballots, claiming they didn't check some obscure box on the absentee forms. The GOP is filing suit here. But expect Republican ballots to be challenged all over the country by the legions of left wing trial attorneys who are volunteering their time to help steal the election just in case it's close.

Taxpayers groups are being ignored by the media. There are four major taxpayer groups in Washington DC that monitor taxation and spending issues full time. All have now rated Obama as one of the worst senators on tax, spending and pork issues, while also rating McCain as one of the best senators on these issues. All have issued press releases but the media has purposely ignored this story.

Obama supports gay marriage. Recently, both Obama and Biden have made false statements about opposing gay marriage. They know the vast majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but in both private messages and private speeches, the Obama campaign has informed the homosexual community that they favor repealing DOMA.

DOMA is a federal law that if repealed, means all states will have to recognize married homosexuals who move there from states which have already legalized homosexual marriage - like Massachusetts and California. It's a back door way of legalizing gay marriage nationwide and it's why all the radical gay groups have mobilized for Obama unlike any other candidate before.

With the exception of Fox News, none of the above mentioned developments is being covered by the major media in any meaningful way. All have been given this information. We all know, however, that if McCain took millions of dollars from Middle Easterners, was praised by a half dozen foreign dictators, and hid all his medical and school records, there would be huge stories on TV, radio and the newspapers for weeks on end.

The media is protecting this candidate to a degree never before seen in presidential campaign history.

Predictions if Obama Becomes President

I have been asked for my predictions of what will happen if Obama were to win the presidency and take solid control of both houses. Put your seatbelt on:

Jobs will leave America and job creation will decline. The capitol markets are starved for cash due to the credit crisis. What is needed more than anything right now is tax cuts for corporations so they can survive the coming recession. This is the worst possible time to raise corporate taxes as Obama is proposing.

Our corporate tax hikes are already among the highest in the industrialized world and this was killing us BEFORE the fiscal crisis. But Obama doesn't understand how the economy works. He views corporations as a source of funding for his social programs. Period.

If he goes through with his corporate tax hike, look for corporations to 1) Outsource jobs overseas 2) Move the entire corporate headquarters overseas, 3) Delay expansion plans, 4) Lay off workers.

Obama's proposal for a government takeover of health care insurance will send the stock market plunging in regards to health care plans, due to the instability such a proposal would create. Obama's plan will drive private plans out of existence, eventually taking over the entire health care market. Also, as in Canada and other nations with "universal" health care, the good doctors leave the profession, creating a shortage, and waiting lists will be instituted for most procedures.

The doubling of capital gains taxes will bring job creation to a grinding halt. There aren't many economists who argue with this point. But Obama doesn't seem to understand this. If this goes through, look also for the unemployment rate to rise.

There will be a flurry of lawsuits against private Christian schools, churches, etc. on the gay issues, all due to the legalization of gay marriage which creates a legal framework for a full frontal assault on American culture.

With the Obama administration using its power to promote homosexual marriage, gay attorneys will work in tandem with Obama's justice department to chip away at religious freedom, claiming gay rights now trump constitutional rights. Lawsuits will be aimed at forcing private Christian schools to admit gay teachers and to teach gay sex alongside heterosexual sex in sex ed courses.

Similarly, churches that refuse to marry gay couples will be the subjects of lawsuits as well. Indeed, gay legal groups are already laying plans for the final assault on what's left of America's Judeo-Christian culture.

Union power will have a negative impact on the economy. Obama has promised the unions he will remove the secret ballot which means unions will be able to intimidate workers as they did in the 1950s. This means more power, more money, and more demands on industry. This also means more corporations moving offshore or filing for bankruptcy.

The cumulative impact of higher corporate taxes, higher capital gains taxes, and stronger unions - on top of a severe fiscal crisis -- means America will likely have a recession lasting 3-4 years.

Criticism of Obama's agenda will be suppressed. Similarly to the Clinton administration, Obama will use the power of the government to harass opponents with IRS audits. He will also suppress criticism of his agenda by passing the "Fairness Doctrine" which will cause radio stations to remove talk shows. The talk show industry is already preparing for the assault. This is not a joke.

Illegal alien rights will be federalized. Obama has spent much of his career fighting for the "rights" of illegal aliens. There is little doubt he will use his Justice Department to fight for these "rights" which in turn will attract millions of additional illegal aliens. What little gains made in the last few years in fighting for a more secure border will be lost.

The reemergence of bogus race-based rights. Obama believes in wild racial conspiracy theories such as quotas for police arrests and pull overs, reparations for blacks based on the notion all whites are guilty of perpetrating slavery in the past, and that lending agencies based their lending policies on race instead of credit risk.

Indeed, it was the last issue used by Obama's group, ACORN, to fight for high risk lending policies which caused the mortgage crisis we have today.

This worldview will mean that Obama's Justice Department to spend its resources on charging businessmen with racism for not hiring enough minorities, spending millions on federal studies "proving" racism in law enforcement, and going after universities for not implementing race-based admission plans.

Internal Security will be weakened resulting in America becoming more vulnerable to terrorism. Obama has been critical of our internal security apparatus, including the program that monitors the phone calls of foreign terrorists and other elements of the Patriot Act. What most Americans don't know is that Bush's aggressiveness on internal security prevented dozens of terrorist plots, many of which the public never knew about.

Obama's close ties to ACLU type attorneys make it likely that he will weaken internal security measures such as the Patriot Act. This will send an "open season" message to Islamic terrorists.

Just this week, a court has ruled that we must release terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo and grant them all the rights US citizens have. Obama supported this decision. Then we have Obama declaring in his own book (Audacity of Hope), "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Gas prices will rise. Obama's hostility to drilling and nuclear power means he will rely totally on "alternative" forms of energy to meet our energy needs but there isn't an energy expert alive who will claim this will enable us to meet our energy needs anytime in the next few decades. Coupled with Obama's proposal to increase taxes on an already over-taxed oil industry - which will be passed on to consumers - you can expect to pay steep prices for gas for many years to come.

Welcome to Obama's America.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

1 comment:

Dr. Slogan said...

The growing list of worst America-haters endorsing Obama, is mindboggling for anyone who takes 5 seconds to think about it. Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi, Hamas, Kim Jong-Il, Castro, Ortega... The list goes on, yet so many people choose to ignore this. They spend days researching the next car to buy, not to mention the next house, but somehow assume it's okay to spend 5 min researching the background of the person who have an enormous impact on everything in America. Socialism in its ugliest shape is coming to them if Obama gets elected, but they'll realize this only when it's too late.

But there are still many eyes we can open before the election. Obama keeps going up in polls because people listen to the huge propaganda machine–and take its lies at face value. We need to use more of conversation changers. More of attention grabbers that make an impact in 5 sec. And THEN those whose opinions still can be changed may start reading more. Obama’s side if excellent in creating visuals that go straight to the emotions level, bypassing logic. Just take a look at this site know what I’m talking about.

Can you name a single memorable anti-Obama poster that speaks to the center-leaning Democratic voter? If you can't, but would like to use one, visit the fast growing repository accompanied by a blog and a Facebook page that are designed fill this gap. Please take a look--it will take you only a couple of minutes to form your opinion and decide whether you'd like to use it. Your comments and suggestions are more than welcome.

- Jeff Tyler (Dr. Slogan)