Explore
Gaia Soulmates
 Advertising keeps Gaia free! Interested in sponsoring us?

http://rightchange.com/

Posted on Oct 6th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie
http://rightchange.com/

  

Change?.. What's it cost?.. Who pays?..

Just How Much is $700 Billion?

Seven-hundred billion dollars. It's a mind-boggling number, any way you look at it - an amount equal to one third of the money received by the Federal government last year. As the debate rages on about the political, economic and moral wisdom of the Wall Street and mortgage bailout, RightChange.com offers some perspective, in practical terms:

Just how much is $700 billion??

  • It is almost $150 billion more than has been spent on the Iraq War since the invasion in 2003
  • It is equal to $2,300 payment for every person in the United States, and more than $100 for every person in the world
  • It is enough to buy 233,333 Super Bowl ads
  • It could build 400 space shuttles
  • It could purchase 3.5 billion iPhones
  • It could purchase 700 billion items from the dollar menu at McDonalds

The stats are staggering, but the potential long-term ramifications of this deal can't be measured in phones and fries. The question we need to ask ourselves, and our leaders, is this:

Who bears the responsibility for this crisis?

As the Washington blame-game heads into double overtime, with fingers pointing across the aisle at which party bears the blame for this mess, the fact is, there is plenty of blame to go around. Sen. Barack Obama, one of the loudest critics of the firms, has been on the receiving end of over $125,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie since his election to the U.S. Senate four years ago - the highest amount of any Member of Congress over the last 10 years. Fifty seven percent of Fannie and Freddie contributions have been made to Democratic members.

As you watch Members of Congress denounce the barons of greed who precipitated the financial crisis, remind yourself: today's criminal was yesterday's contributor.


10 Things You Need to Know About Senator Obama's Economic Proposals

TaxesSep 29, 2008 Do you support the taxpayer-financed $700 billion government bailout of the financial services industry? Yes No[ Results ]

© 2008 RightChange.com | All rights reserved.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (62)  

This is the LIAR That is Running for President!

Posted on Oct 6th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie

Headline Story

RSSARCHIVE
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us

Obama and ACORN: You Can Run But You Can't Hide


Monday, October 6, 2008 7:26 PM

By: Lowell Ponte
Article Font Size  







Barack Obama is running as fast and as far away from his association with the radical group ACORN as he can, but he can't hide from the facts of his close relationship with the organization.


ACORN, or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as a "non-partisan" group devoted to helping the poor and to registering millions to vote. Critics accuse ACORN of involvement vote fraud, voter intimidation, shakedowns against businesses, and the promotion of socialist class hatred and class warfare.



Apparently worried by the connection between Obama and the group, his campaign has put claims of his ties to ACORN as the lead item on its "Fight The Smears" Web site - a site the Obama campaign created to counter what they claim are partisan lies made up against their candidate.

The release on the Obama site reads: "When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, ‘I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize.


"So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."


Indeed, Obama was being far too modest. The 2008 Democratic presidential nominee had worked not just alongside ACORN, but also as a key operative for the organization.


He was its lawyer in several pivotal ACORN cases.


Obama funded a number of its activities, as well. When he sat on the board of the prestigious Woods Fund for Chicago alongside former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, he oversaw and approved many grants for ACORN.


As the National Review's Stanley Kurtz reported, one Woods committee report boasted that the fund's "non-ideological" public image "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government ‘establishments' without undue risk of being accused of partisanship."


Obama was the Illinois director of ACORN's controversial voter registration operation, and he trained the group's leaders in the ways of radical, sometimes illegal, confrontational politics.


He also paid ACORN affiliates during his recent Democratic primary contest. For example, leading up to the 2008 Ohio Democratic Primary, Obama's campaign between Feb. 25 and March 17 paid Citizens Services, Inc., a subsidiary of ACORN, $832,598, apparently for get-out-the-vote activities.


Obama's mysterious, shrouded past as a "community organizer" is closely tied to ACORN, a group that supplies a large share of the Democratic Party political shock troops responsible for the party's recapture of Congress in 2006.


ACORN has at least 350,000 dues-paying member families, and more than 800 chapters spread among at least 104 U.S. cities as well as in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Peru.


To outsiders, Obama's "long service with ACORN led many of its members to serve as the voluntary shock troops of Obama's early political campaigns - his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000," wrote Kurtz. "With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago ACORN leaders, by the time of Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and ACORN were ‘old friends.'"



ACORN'S Radical Roots


ACORN's four co-founders were 1960s New Leftists. One was George Wiley, whose National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) members practiced confrontation politics, e.g., swarming into welfare offices and bullying social workers. The second ACORN co-founder was NWRO organizer Gary Delgado.


Wiley made no secret that he followed the radical tactics proposed in the far-left The Nation Magazine by socialist Columbia University scholars Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who argued that American capitalism could be bankrupted and destroyed by overloading our system with ever-rising costs and bureaucratic demands. (In 1996, President Bill Clinton invited Cloward and Piven to the White House as honored guests.)


ACORN's other founders and longtime bosses were former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) activist Wade Rathke, a close NWRO ally, and his brother Dale.


"We are the majority, forged from all minorities," proclaimed ACORN's founding 1970 "People's Platform" manifesto. "We are the masses of many, not the forces of few.... We will wait no longer for the crumbs at America's door. We will not be meek, but mighty."


In ACORN, the Rathkes replaced Cloward-Piven tactics designed to overthrow capitalist America with the confrontational-but-compromising tactics of Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky.


"Instead of trying to overturn ‘the system - to blow it up, as Wiley wanted to do, ACORN burrows deep within the system," wrote Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern, adding, "taking over its power and using its institutions for its own purposes, like a political ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers.'"


The Rathkes first established ACORN as the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now and struck a personal deal with that state's liberal Republican then-Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller, who reportedly paid the newly-sprouted ACORN $5,000 in cash to register voters. "Of course, they thought we were going to register Republicans," Delgado later boasted. "We did not register a single Republican voter in that election. However, we did use those resources early on to build the organization."



Obama, ACORN, and Vote Fraud


Selectively adding millions of Democratic names to the voter rolls remains one of ACORN's most lucrative activities, for which this organization has been given millions of dollars by organized labor, non-profit foundations, and Democratic-controlled government agencies.


Because Obama had worked closely with one of its leaders, Madeline Talbott, ACORN, in 1995, specifically sought out this radical young lawyer to help craft its lawsuit to impose President Bill Clinton's 1993 National Voter Registration Act, nicknamed "Motor Voter," according to Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes.


Obama's ACORN lawsuit won, thereby slapping aside state officials who resisted Motor Voter because of what it soon proved to be: a 12-lane superhighway to massive vote fraud.


The Motor Voter law required bureaucrats at welfare offices, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and other government offices to register as voters those who used their services. "Examiners were under orders not to ask anyone for identification or proof of citizenship," wrote Wall Street Journal reporter John Fund in his book "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." "States also had to permit mail-in voter registrations, which allowed anyone to register without any personal contact with a registrar or election official."


Those who took advantage of government services such as welfare were disproportionately likely to vote for the Big Government party. Motor Voter also made it more difficult to purge voter rolls of fraudulent registrations.


Motor Voter, wrote Fund, "fueled an explosion of phantom voters." But in Barack Obama's Democrat-ruled Chicago, phantom voters and voting graveyards are nothing new.


Motor Voter was the Clinton administration's attempt permanently to tilt voter rolls in favor of the Democratic Party. And Obama, working for ACORN, played a key role in imposing this law.


Perhaps thanks to ACORN's and Motor Voter's influence, of the 19 foreign terrorists who attacked America on 9/11, at least six were registered to vote.


In 1992, Obama took time off as a lawyer to direct Project Vote, ACORN's voter mobilization entity, statewide in Illinois. Project Vote added an estimated 125,000 names to voter rolls, which helped propel Democrat Carol Moseley Braun into the same U.S. Senate seat Obama now holds.


Nationwide, ACORN's Project Vote claims to have helped register more than 4 million voters in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Project Vote's tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status prohibits its involvement in partisan political activity, but one of its leaders told Foundation Watch that "lots of grass-roots members" are assisting the 2008 Obama presidential campaign.


ACORN, wrote Foundation Watch investigators Elias Crim and Matthew Vadum last June, has a "record of highly-publicized voter fraud allegations" lodged against it "in Ohio (2004), Wisconsin (2004), Florida (2004), New Mexico (2004), Colorado (2005), Missouri (2006), and Washington State (2007)." They could have named other states as well.


In 2006, in Missouri's U.S. Senate race, Republican incumbent James Talent lost by about 50,000 votes to Democrat Claire McCaskill.


"A sizeable portion of that margin," wrote columnist Carl Horowitz, "was attributable to ACORN organizers submitting phony or at least suspicious voter-registration cards to election officials in the St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas. Several ACORN members in Kansas City were indicted by the U.S. Attorney's Office just prior to Election Day, and eventually pleaded guilty. [Wade] Rathke, not one for subtlety, called City of St. Louis election officials ‘slop buckets' when they questioned the veracity of ACORN-submitted forms."


And who was Missouri state auditor during 2006, responsible at a statewide level for overseeing the honesty of voter registration? "That," wrote Horowitz, "would be Claire McCaskill." And Sen. McCaskill is one of Obama's most ardent supporters.


In Florida, ACORN's 2004 Miami-Dade field director, Mac Stuart, according to David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetworks.org investigation, "has testified that fraud is standard procedure for ACORN/Project Vote canvassers - behavior that is not only tolerated, but encouraged by supervisors." Stuart reportedly told investigators: "[T]he voter registration project has been operating illegally since it started."


In 2005, Virginia authorities sampled Project Vote registrations and rejected 83 percent of them for containing false or questionable information.


In Washington state, five ACORN employees were convicted in 2007 in what its Secretary of State Sam Reed called "the worst case of election fraud in our state's history. It was an outrage."


In this state the current Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire was elected literally by a handful of votes, but 450 apparently fictitious names were found registered to vote as Democrats at a single address. At least 1,700 ACORN voter registrations - using the names of Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert, and movie and sports stars - were later revoked in just one county of the state.


In Nevada, the state most likely to decide the 2008 presidential election, the Las Vegas Review-Journal last July 7 reported that a Clark County official "sees rampant fraud in the 2,000 to 3,000 registrations ACORN turns in every week."


ACORN, of course, blames a handful of overzealous activists or mercenaries for acts of voter registration fraud. ACORN denies that it condones or encourages any illegal behavior.



Intimidation Politics


Incidentally, Obama's ACORN comrade Madeline Talbott, according to Kurtz, "was so impressed by Obama's organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff." In 1997, notes Kurtz, Talbott was "a key leader" of 200 ACORN protestors who on July 31 tried to storm a Chicago City Council session.


These ACORN demonstrators, wrote Kurtz, reportedly "pushed over a metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session....almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call ‘direct action,' orchestrated by ACORN's Madeline Talbott," who was "led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct."


Obama has never been led away in handcuffs for radical behavior. But, notes Kurtz, Obama has used groups of ominously angry activists to intimidate and pressure local officials.


A newspaper photo of Obama in his "community organizer" days shows him next to activist group the Developing Communities Project (DCP) posters that read: "It's a power thing." The ACORN organizer manual likewise declares, "This is a mass organization directed at political power where might makes right."


Obama supporters in 2008 have angrily demonstrated against, and shared information intended to disrupt, a radio talk show in Chicago that has had Kurtz as a guest. This could be a foretaste of how intimidation might be used to stifle criticism of a President Obama administration.



Money-Hungry ACORN


By the 1980s, ACORN was expanding its horizons from voter registration to housing.


"In 1985, ACORN illegally seized 25 abandoned buildings owned by New York City and installed squatters as residents," recounted a New York Post editorial. "A weak-kneed City Hall eventually gave the group title to the buildings - proving that crime can pay."


In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Redevelopment Act (CRA), which, in retrospect, was the opening wedge for what now threatens to become a government takeover of all housing in America. Under Carter's administration, the domestic Peace Corps government entity VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America, gave a federal grant of $470,000 to ACORN to train volunteers to help low-income citizens.


A later congressional investigation found that ACORN illegally used this money for labor organizing.


According to ACORN co-founder Delgado, after two of "their own," Sam Brown and Marjorie Tabankin, became directors of Carter's ACTION agency and VISTA program, "over 3 million dollars was funneled directly to ACORN" and other left-wing organizations.


After the Clinton administration gave a grant worth more than $1 million to ACORN Housing Corp, an investigation by the inspector general of AmeriCorps found that AHC used government funds to register low-income persons for paid ACORN memberships, in violation of federal law.


Apparently this taxpayer money was given only to those poor people who agreed to pay $60 immediately back to ACORN.


By the infiltration of ideological comrades into positions of power at government agencies, ACORN became the recipient of a flood of taxpayer-funded grants, including some worth millions of dollars. AHC alone between 1997 and 2006 received more than $11,230,000 in public funds.



In 2005 alone, according to Department of Labor disclosure statements, labor leaders reportedly paid more than $2.4 million to ACORN in gifts, grants, and fees for organizing work.



Mandatory family membership dues bring ACORN another $3 million or so per year.


But foundations and churches, boasted Wade Rathke in 2004, account for less than half the revenue ACORN pockets from corporations that had been the targets of successful ACORN protest campaigns.



ACORN and Today's Credit Crisis


President Carter's CRA and related laws were repeatedly expanded to require lending institutions to avoid "redlining" policies that denied home loans to those in minority neighborhoods.


Obama was one of many lawyers who profited from successfully suing on grounds that discrimination was the reason an African-American was denied a home loan.


Banks and other lenders needed not only public good will but also the cooperation of government regulators to approve mergers and other business activities. Expanding laws such as CRA meant that if ACORN accused a bank of racial discrimination and unleashed protestors against it, however unjustly, that bank might suddenly face very unfriendly government regulators. Banks were thus set up to be easy victims for ACORN shakedowns, and paying protection money became necessary for bank survival.


"The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pay ransom to ACORN," said Robert L. Woodson, President of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise.


"The 2000 tax return for the ACORN Housing Corporation," reported the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), "disclosed grants from Bank of America, Fleet Services Corporation, Fannie Mae Foundation, Chase Manhattan Foundation, and Well Fargo Foundation totaling $4,752,198." And AHC is just one of 100 arms of the ACORN octopus.


"The banks know they are being held up," one financial industry consultant told EPI researchers, "but they are not going to fight over this. They look at it as a cost of doing business."


Politicians and left-wing activist groups including ACORN were doing more than shaking down lending institutions for their own profit. They also demanded that lending standards be loosened for those in the underclass who tend to vote Democratic.


With a large political gun aimed at their heads, banks commenced making hundreds of thousands of what they called "Ninja" - no income, no job, no assets - loans to minorities who previously would have been deemed uncreditworthy. Knowing that many of these loans they were coerced to make would go bad, many lending institutions bundled them into new types of investment packages and sold them to shed risk.


The giant quasi-governmental lending institutions Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, both largely run by Democratic appointees, became sources of funding for groups such as ACORN that aided Democratic politicians - and promoters of high-risk subprime home loans.


Democratic executives at these institutions, such as former Clinton administration member and Fannie Mae chair and chief executive officer, Franklin Raines, arranged to have their incomes increase with the amount of lending their institutions did. In six years of recklessly having Fanny Mae assume an astronomical burden of risk, Raines pushed his own income above $90 million.


As former federal prosecutor James H. Walsh recounted in a Sept. 22 Newsmax.com article, Raines was an adviser to Obama until recent national financial problems made Raines too risky to embrace.

[Editor's Note: Read "Obama, Voter Fraud & Mortgage Meltdown

" - Go Here Now].

Obama, noted Walsh, had been "the Senate's second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."


Is ACORN troubled by what many are calling a credit meltdown and the likelihood that many minority homeowners may lose their homes? Probably not, because the ideological aim of ACORN's radical founders was to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism. In the current financial situation, government will get bigger, free markets will become less free, and vast amounts of capital will shift from private companies to government.


For those like Barack Obama who share ACORN's ideology, the situation is perfect - heads, government wins; tails, capitalism loses. If people keep their homes, many will naively thank the Democratic politicians and left-wing activists who caused their problems in the first place. If poor people lose their homes, they will be that much easier for ACORN to brainwash with class hatred against evil capitalists.


And lest we forget, the first think that congressional Democrats put into their proposed "bailout package" to solve the financial crisis was a permanent slush fund to be extracted from capitalist institutions that would start growing at more than $20 million. The beneficiaries of this now-deleted slush fund were to have been radical Democrat-allied organizations such as ACORN.




Greedy Lefists


The Rathkes commingled ACORN's socialist redistribute-the-wealth ideology with their own hypocrisy and personal greed. From ACORN, they spun off approximately 100 other legal entities.


They then created a shell game under which money acquired by one ACORN front group, e.g., Project Vote, would be moved to other ACORN-controlled groups, in some cases to acquire property.


One former Arkansas ACORN chair, Dorothy Perkins, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, described the organization as "building up a land portfolio" that was supposed to "translate to money and power for the national organization."


But that money was "never seen" by the poor people ACORN claimed to serve, she said, and "all the money ended up" under Wade Rathke's control. Rathke, she said, ran ACORN "like a Jim Jones cult."



Relatively little of the redistributed wealth of Rathke's ACORN conglomerate trickled down to the poor, and comparatively little went to the organization's thousands of full-time "community organizers."


Typical pay was $25,000 a year or less, for which ACORN employees were expected to work 54 hours or more per week, weekends included. In 2006, ACORN required many of its workers in Missouri to sign an agreement that they would be "working up to 80 hours over seven days of work."


ACORN went to court in California, arguing unsuccessfully that it should be exempt from minimum wage laws. But in recent years, ACORN has staged many demonstrations to demand a "living wage," typically a minimum of $12 or more per hour, for minimum wage workers.


According to Mac Stuart, ACORN collected more than $4 for each completed, and illegally copied, voter registration. Its workers who found people and submitted their registrations were paid only $2, with ACORN and the Rathkes pocketing the difference.


But ACORN had many other sources for its annual $37.5 million budget, including millions in government and foundation grants.


ACORN head Wade Rathke was also chief organizer of a New Orleans local of one of America's most radical labor unions, the Service Employee's International Union (SEIU), and ACORN was a close ally of organized labor. Unions sometimes paid ACORN to have its low-paid workers march with picket signs pretending to be striking union members.


When ACORN workers, as well as those in his SEIU union local, tried to form their own unions to bargain for higher wages and shorter hours, Rathke successfully used a wide array of union-busting techniques to stop them - the same kinds of techniques he routinely condemned other businesses for using.


But the Rathkes fell from power in 2008 shortly before The New York Times on July 9 reported that in 1999-2000 Dale Rathke, then ACORN's chief financial officer, had diverted $948,607 from ACORN and affiliated charitable organization accounts.


Other ACORN officials in 2001 reportedly obtained a restitution agreement from Wade Rathke to repay the missing funds in $30,000 per-year installments.


ACORN, meanwhile, continued to pay Wade Rathke considerably more than $30,000 each year, in effect covering these repayments, while Dale Rathke's apparent embezzlement of almost a million dollars - in contributions to help the poor - was kept secret from the public and from those funding ACORN.


"How did ACORN handle the crime?" asked a July 13 New York Post editorial. "By disguising it on the books as a loan from one of its contractors...." and only letting Rathke go "when word of his fraud leaked to donors.... most of the people who covered up the embezzlement are still working for ACORN."


"We thought it best at the time to protect the organizations," said ACORN President Maude Hurd. "We did what we thought was right." Or what served the interests of the left.


Welcome to ACORN, the organization that made Barack Obama what he is today, and that may make him president of the United States.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (127)  

TO ALL JUDEO CHRISTIANS & TRUTH SEEKING FRIENDS! READ!!

Posted on Oct 7th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie


What the Republicans SHOULD Be Saying in Their Debates and Ads

Here's my two cents first. I think barack is a total liar, he is cunning and scamming us all. John Mc. should speak forth that he is not a con man, not scamming, and can be taken at his word. That he has a record, he has done right and he is not a liar. Barach is a slick, cunning, flim flam, bullcrap, liar who is only interested in lining his own pockets...in short, he is a deceptive creep. Mc should say those things in a nice way, coming through the back door, the american people have a right to know that hussein has no truth in him..
 

By Aaron I. Reichel, Esq. CFP Sunday, October 5, 2008

I find it most frustrating that Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, and most of their surrogates and ad writers, have failed to put forth many of their strongest and most persuasive arguments most of the time. Were they to only set forth their strongest arguments, they would easily turn the campaign around. I offer the following points which I hope readers will be able to bring to the attention of the Republican leadership, or at least to the attention of their own friends, relatives, colleagues, and other acquaintances.

[In one of my recent posts I wrote that the MCain/Palin ticket had a winning case to make. This author sets it out.]

How to Rebut Obama on Taxes

First and foremost, I respectfully believe that the response to Obama's claim to advocate lowering the taxes of 95% of the people should NOT continue to be met with the simple response that he stands for raising taxes or even that his past record shows that he does NOT stand for lowering the taxes of 95% of the electorate. Rather, what Republicans must point out, I respectfully believe, is that when Obama says he will lower taxes for 95% of the people, he will NOT really be reducing what they have to pay because:

At the same time, Obama will tax rich people and companies , but if pressed to the wall, the rich people will just move their primary homes and money out of the country (to the extent they haven't done so already) where none of their money (or much less of it) will be taxed at all, so that the 5% of the people that Obama claims to want to tax will only be paying less than what they are paying now, if anything.

Obama will tax companies that will

    (1) pass off their tax increases to consumers by charging more money for everything, so that they (the companies) can pay the higher taxes,
    (2) many companies will have to close down because they won't be able to afford the higher taxes, causing all their workers to lose their jobs,
    (3) many companies will move out of the country, causing all their American workers to lose their jobs.

So the result will be much less money in taxes collected by the federal government, but the federal government will then have to pay welfare, health care, and other entitlements to all the workers who will have lost their jobs, so the government will have to raise taxes even more, whether from the 95% or the 5%, or from both.

Plus many people won't be able to pay their mortgages, making the current economic crisis even worse than it is now.

Obama wants to pay huge health-care costs, for free, to millions of illegal immigrants and to millions of Americans now too lazy to work or unwilling to work at the low-paying jobs that are available. Where will Obama get the money to do this? Which leads us to the next critical topic:
How to Respond to Obama on Multi-Billion Dollar Bailout

To blame President Bush alone is absurd; to point out that many parties from both political parties are responsible for the economic fiasco is fair; to point out the involvement of the Democrats is necessary. The mainstream media are simply covering up or ignoring the facts that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were instituted and bloated by Democrats, first under Jimmy Carter and then under Bill Clinton. Financial institutions were pressured by government agencies into lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay back the loans if conditions would change, or be branded as racist or red-liners. The ties of many financiers who were at fault, to Barack Obama, were strong. McCain was among the politicians who blew the whistle long ago, warning of the need for regulation; Barney Frank is on tape asserting, fairly recently, that Fanny and Freddy were basically sound; the economy began to collapse only during the past two years, when the Democrats took control of Congress. Chris Dodd tried to funnel 20% of the profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund that Democrats have used to fund political action groups like ACORN, which Obama had represented in the past as an attorney.

How to Respond to Obama on Health Care

On the surface, free health care for everyone sounds very appealing, especially to Americans who don't work for a living and who are here illegally. But even those of us who happen to be citizens in good standing and who DO work for a living should be told that there are some fundamental problems with the concept of free health care for all the people who reside in America:

    1) It would bankrupt our country even more than it is already bankrupted;
    2) It cannot be implemented without ruining the greatest health care system in the world;
    3) There are reasons why people come from all over the world to the United States for treatment in the best hospitals with the best doctors, benefiting from the best research.
    4) Were everything to be "free," the health care would be available in theory but not in practice; we would have to wait months or years for treatment, because we simply do not have enough doctors and facilities to treat every American resident (including illegal aliens and legal welfare slackers) for every hiccup and sore throat, not to mention the tests that are needed for proper diagnosis of every ailment and potential ailment that every American resident would demand. It is said that "justice delayed is justice denied."

The same applies to health care. Delaying operations that are needed immediately will not just inconvenience the recipients, but will cause many of them to die or suffer irreparable setbacks before they will be able to be treated.
How to Respond to Obama on Iraq

Had the United States followed Obama's prescription for surrender when he said we should have pulled out of Iraq long before the surge took place, we would have lost the war, and set a precedent of failure so that Al Quaeda and other terrorist entities would have been emboldened and enabled to take over Iraq and every other country the United States needs as an ally and an oil supplier. Were this to have happened, the United States would have been unable to import any oil, and would have become a third rate country in short order, completely unable to implement any other part of the agenda of Obama or any other candidate. Because our generals in Iraq did not heed Obama's call for surrender, America and the Iraqi government are now winning the peace, so that our troops will be able to return to America with honor and victory.

As to sending troops into harm's way, nobody can be more sensitive to the significance of such actions than a national hero who was tortured for years as a prisoner of war and then gave up an opportunity to leave because he felt duty-bound to honor his commitment to America and to the prisoners who preceded him.

How to Respond to Obama on Off Shore Drilling and Anwar

The off shore and Anwar drilling proposals are not instead of alternate energy but in addition to it, as a bridge not to nowhere but to the time when we will have enough alternative means of energy to sustain our economy. Speaking of bridges, the "Bridge to Nowhere" has gotten a lot of press. But the pipeline that already exists in Anwar leads directly a good part of the distance from the oil fields to the locations from which the oil can be shipped to the other states in our union, so the estimates of 10 to 20 years to reach their destinations are far in excess of the time that will be needed. Some experts have estimated close to 3 years for the additional oil to start flowing. And of course, let us not forget that Clinton's veto of off shore drilling on the basis that it would take 10 years for the oil to reach its destinations took place more than 10 years ago. You can fill in the blanks-and the barrels of oil. Allowing off shore drilling only 50 miles out, as cynically proposed by the Democrats, is absurd, in light of the waste of time and resources it would require and in light of the modern technology enabling drilling to be much closer to shore without danger of significant leakage. It has even been pointed out that there is natural leakage of oil from the ocean floor, and were we to set up drills in these locations, we could actually REDUCE oil leakage into the ocean. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of off shore drilling is that not only wouldn't it necessarily take a decade or more to have a positive effect, but it could have a positive effect almost immediately since if the oil producers in the Middle East would realize that we are serious about drilling locally and thereby lowering the price of oil and possibly reducing or eliminating future orders for Mideast oil, the Middle East producers would increase their production to lower the prices so that we in America will no longer have the incentive to drill locally!

How to Respond on the Issue of Palin's Experience

Governor Palin arguably had more traditional significant executive experience after her first day as governor than the other major candidates combined, and she has been the chair of INTERSTATE energy entities despite her youthfulness and lack of seniority, and has had some dealings with Canada as well. What does Biden have to show for his seniority besides the chairmanship of a Congressional committee on foreign affairs, based on how many years he served with old timers of the past, many of them now dead and forgotten. He was against the first Iraq war, which most of our Congress people and allies supported, and then FOR the second Iraq war, which Obama and many other Democrats opposed. Biden has made more gaffes per month on the campaign trail than all the other candidates combined; not just cumulatively; so his experience does not exactly stand him in good stead. Nor does his experience as a plagiarist which contributed to his pulling out of an earlier campaign. He has experience accumulating the confidence of less than 1% of the electorate in the first presidential caucuses this year, and an even more negligible percentage after that; he has conceded he was not the best person for the job. As for Obama, since most of his time in the Senate has been spent campaigning and shaking people's hands rather than shaking up Washington, his experience represents under-achievement in the Senate, whereas Governor Palin by all accounts has been a high achiever as governor, with the highest approval rate of any governor, junior or senior, man or woman. This also indicates she wasn't chosen merely because of her gender or as a gimmick, but rather because she is a conservative maverick with a great track record; the fact that she happens to be a woman is a plus rather than a primary or only reason for being selected for a place on the ticket.

Above all, those who believe that Palin's alleged lack of experience is a drawback have to concede that Obama has a dearth of traditional experience as well, but the difference is that Palin can afford to learn on the job as vice president, but Obama, and all of America, can't afford to have a president who has to learn on the job as of Day One. Biden himself, and Hillary, have noted that Obama will not have the necessary experience on Day One. Pollsters have been asking whether Palin is ready to serve as president NOW. What they SHOULD be asking is whether Governor Palin, a proven "quick study," will be ready to serve as Vice President as of January of 2009. Other governors such as Clinton and Reagan vaulted directly into the presidency after only serving as governor. Palin will be more experienced than they were-in terms of experience that matters - if she will ever become president because she will first have served as a vice-president with on-the-job training in the White House itself.

How to Respond to Those Who Say Aye to Ayers

The mainstream press has been echoing Obama in ridiculing the claim that Obama has or had ties to anti-American terrorists such as William Ayers. They point out that Obama was just a boy when Ayers was a terrorist, and that Obama has condemned the terrorism against the United States. What the press fails to point out is that:

    (1) as recently as in 2001, Ayers went on record that his only regret was that he didn't cause more damage in his terrorism; (2) Obama was on not one but two Boards together with Ayers, and not as mere members of a huge Board but as co-leaders of these Boards;

    (3) Purportedly, they remain friends despite Obama's suddenly announced differences about Ayers' terrorist acts, and, above all,

    (4) as pointed out by Stanley Kurtz in the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 23, 2008, as posted on the Internet, based on documents in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois), Obama launched his first run for the Illinois State Senate at a gathering in Ayers' house; from 1995 to 1999, Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of a radical education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), which was the brainchild of Ayers, who co-chaired the the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy. Obama and Ayers weaved a web of "external partners" like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn, referred to in the discussion of the bailout scandal, above, as a proposed recipient of funds indirectly), the South Shore African Village Collaborative, and the Dual Language Exchange, the latter two of which focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. "CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement."

    According to Kurtz, The Daley documents show that Ayers was a member of the board that Obama chaired through the CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee wit h Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Obama. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. I agree that Palin was wrong in merely saying that Obama "palled around" with Ayers and his cohorts; she was "guilty" of understatement. As Kurtz concluded his article: "This is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

How to Respond to Those Who Say Obama Was Wrong about Reverend Wright

Obama gave a few conflicting excuses about Reverend Wright and Obama's relationship to him, but Obama's final excuse, that he didn't know what Wright stood for despite sitting in his pew for 20 years indicates that Obama, unlike Palin, is a pathologically slow learner, at best. Obama's record of 100 votes of "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" likewise is unacceptable for a person who might have to press the button for a nuclear attack on a moment's notice.

How to Respond to This Article

The best response to this article will be to bring it to the attention of Republicans in high places, immediately if not sooner, as well as people of all parties in all walks of life. The life of our great country as we know it is on the line-a life line. Every responsible American should do what he or she can to keep the reins of power away from a person who, if elected, even if he has the best of intentions (which is subject to doubt) will change the United States of America into a really bankrupt third rate country, and will take liberty away from every inhabitant of the land of the free and the home of the brave



Ted Belman

+1 416 256 7597

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE visit this link

To update your preferences visit this link

Forward a Message to Someone this link

To subscribe visit this link

Powered by PHPlist2.10.4, © tincan ltd





E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.383)
Database version: 5.10840
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (165)  

Come ON AMericans! we are smarter than this!!

Posted on Oct 27th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie

How does a man who has NO respect for America so that he will even deny the court so arrogantly a VALID US Birth certificate get away with running for President? He is NOT  american!!
This is a man WHO THINKS AND ACTS AS THOUGH HE IS ABOVE THE LAW!  I DON'T WANT SUCH AN ARROGANT . Godless, no integrity, no honor of a man to run for president even if he WAS a citizen, which now it seems obvious that he isn't.  How can a man who isn't even an AMERICAN CITIZEN think he can pull this off!
HE CANNOT!! Come on, lets think! This is a nightmare. This man thinks he can buy, steal, connive and bully this country for his own ego and his own agenda and GET AWAY
WITH IT!

NO GOOD! This isn't the quality of man that is eligible for Presidency or honorable enough to vote for. Really, folks, come on....check it out, he isn't even AMERIOAN.! What will he do for US? You and ME? Spread the wealth, give from us hard workers to the lazier elements? Hello?? spread terrorism?? Bring more illegals and spread our incomes to pay for their needs. What else?? Negotiate with terrorists Cause he is supported by them...all evil he will bring to this country,. WAKE UP AMERICANS! don't let him! You want Bill Ayers running your school?>? WAKE UP!!


yaffa

Devastating Video, Obama talks about job Ayers gave him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up


Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (192)  

OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS A FRAUD!

Posted on Oct 27th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie
New Revelations on Obama's Birth Certificate


Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (90)  

ALL HONORABLE CITIZENS, PLEASE WAKE UP! READ!

Posted on Oct 27th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie
Barack Obama's Homosexual Past: Will the Media Cover This?


Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (74)  

Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud

Posted on Oct 27th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie

Monday, October 27, 2008 10:45 AM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Article Font Size  


With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: "I told you so."


Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.


Obama's surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama's victory in Iowa and in 12 other caucus states was no miracle. "It was fraud," she told Newsmax.


Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.


"After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process," she said.


In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. "The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud," Long said.


In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.


In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party because of the massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign's actions "amount to criminal violations" and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.


In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn't vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.


Obama's win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention.


Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Clinton would be the Democrats' nominee running against John McCain.


Citing a detailed report on the voting results and delegate accounts by accountant Piniel Cronin, "there were only four pledged delegates between Hillary and Obama once you discount caucus fraud," Long said.


Long has compiled many of these eyewitness reports from the 14 caucus states in a 98-page, single-spaced report and in an interactive Web site: www.caucusanalysis.org.


ACORN involvement


The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,000 for "voter turnout" work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on "staging, sound and light" and "advance work."


State and federal law enforcement in 11 states are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud against the Obama campaign. ACORN workers repeatedly registered voters in the name of "Mickey Mouse," and registered the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys twice: once in Nevada, and again in Minnesota.


A group that has worked with ACORN in the past registered a dead goldfish under the name "Princess Nudelman" in Illinois. When reporters informed Beth Nudelman, a Democrat, that her former pet was a registered voter, she said, "This person is a dead fish."


ACORN was known for its "intimidation tactics," said independent scholar Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., who has researched Obama's long-standing ties to the group.


Fully 30 percent of 1.3 million new voters ACORN claims to have registered this year are believed to be illegitimate.


Long shared with Newsmax some of the emails and sworn affidavits she received from Hillary supporters who witnessed first-hand the thuggish tactics employed by Obama campaign operatives in Iowa and elsewhere.


Jeff, a precinct captain for Clinton from Davenport, Iowa, thought his caucus was in the bag for his candidate, until just minutes before the voting actually began.


"From 6-6:30 p.m., it appeared as I had expected. Young, old males, females, Hispanics, whites, gay and lesbian friends arriving. Very heavily for Ms. Clinton, a fair amount for Edwards and some stragglers for Obama," he said.


That makeup corresponded to what he had witnessed from many precinct walks he had made through local neighborhoods.


"My mind began to feel victory for my lady,' he said. "THEN: at 6:50 p.m., over 75 people of African-American descent came walking in, passed the tables and sat in the Obama section. I knew one of them from my canvassing. I knew another one who did not live in this precinct. And aside from four or five families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct. And one of those black couples were in my Hillary section," he said.


Thanks to the last-minute influx of unknown Obama supporters, Obama won twice the number of delegates from the precinct as Hillary Clinton.


After it was over, "a very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back" to Illinois, Jeff said.


Obama's flagrant busing of out-of-state caucus participants from Illinois was so obvious that even Joe Biden - today his running mate, then his rival - pointed it out at the time.


At a campaign stop before the Jan. 3 caucus at the JJ Diner in Des Moines, Biden "said what we were all thinking when he got on stage and said, ‘Hello Iowa!' and then turned to Barack's crowd and shouted, ‘and Hello Chicago!'" another precinct captain for Hillary told Long.


Thanks to Illinois campaign workers bused across the border into Iowa, all the precincts in eastern Iowa went for Obama, guaranteeing his win in the caucuses, Long said.


Obama supporters were also bused into northeast Iowa from Omaha, Nebraska, where Obama campaign workers were seen handing out "i-pods and free stuff: T-shirts, clothes, shoes, and free meals" to students and people in homeless shelters," according to eyewitness reports Long collected.


In Iowa City, red and white chartered buses with Illinois license plates arrived from Illinois packed with boisterous African-American high school students, who came to caucus for Obama in Iowa after being recruited by Obama campaign workers.


2,000 complaints in Texas


In a change in the Democratic National Committee rules for this year's election season, four states had caucuses and primaries: Washington, Nebraska, Idaho, and Texas. "But Texas is the only one that counted both the caucus result and the primary result," Long told Newsmax. "The others didn't count the primary at all, calling it a ‘beauty contest.'"


Because caucuses are more informal, and can last hours, they tend to favor candidates with a strong ground operation or whose supporters use strong-arm tactics to intimidate their rivals.


"There is inherent voter disenfranchisement in the caucuses," Long said. "Women are less likely to go to caucuses than men, because they don't like the public nature of the caucus. The elderly are less likely to go to a caucus. People who work shifts can't go if they work the night shift. And parents with young children can't go out for four hours on a week night. All these people are traditionally Clinton supporters," she said.


But Obama's victories in the caucuses weren't the result of better organization, Long insists. "It was fraud."


In state after state, Hillary was leading Obama in the polls right up until the last minute, when Obama won a landslide victory in the caucuses.


The discrepancies between the polls and the caucus results were stunning, Long told Newsmax. The most flagrant example was Minnesota. A Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute poll just one week before the Feb. 5 caucus gave Hillary a 7-point lead over Obama, 40-33.


But when the Minnesota caucus results were counted, Obama won by a landslide, with 66.39 percent to just 32.23 percent for Hillary, giving him 48 delegates, compared with 24 for Clinton.


"No poll is that far off," Long told Newsmax.


Similar disparities occurred in 13 of 14 caucus states.


In Colorado and Idaho, Obama had a 2-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the polls, but won by more than 2-1 in the caucuses, sweeping most delegates.


In Kansas, Hillary had a slight edge over Obama in the polls, but Obama won 74 percent of the votes in the caucus and most of the delegates. In nearly every state, he bested the pre-caucus polls by anywhere from 12 percent to more than 30 percent.


This year's primary rules for the Democrats favored the caucus states over the primary states.


"Caucus states made up only 1.1 million (3 percent) of all Democratic votes, but selected 626 (15 percent) of the delegates," says Gigi Gaston, a filmmaker who has made a documentary on the caucus fraud.


In Texas alone, she says, there were more than 2,000 complaints from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supporters of Obama's strong-arm tactics.


One Hillary supporter, who appears in Gaston's new film, "We Will Not Be Silenced," says she received death threats from Obama supporters after they saw her address in an online video she made to document fraud during the Texas caucus. "People called me a whore and a skank," she said.


John Siegel, El Paso Area Captain for Hillary, said, "Some people saw outright cheating. Other people just saw strong-arm tactics. I saw fraud."


Another woman, who was not identified in the film, described the sign-in process. "You're supposed to sign your names on these sheets. The sheets are supposed to be controlled, and passed out - this is kind of how you maintain order. None of that was done. The sheets were just flying all over the place. You could put in your own names. You could add your own sheets or anything. It was just filled with fraud."


Other witnesses described how Obama supporters went through the crowds at the caucus telling Hillary supporters they could go home because their votes had been counted, when in fact no vote count had yet taken place.


"I couldn't believe this was happening," one woman said in the film. "I thought this only happened in Third World countries."


On election day in Texas, Clinton campaign lawyer Lyn Utrecht issued a news release that the national media widely ignored.


"The campaign legal hot line has been flooded with calls containing specific accusations of irregularities and voter intimidation against the Obama campaign," she wrote. "This activity is undemocratic, probably illegal, and reflects a wanton disregard for the caucus process."


She identified 18 separate precincts where Obama operatives had removed voting packets before the Clinton voters could arrive, despite a written warning from the state party not to remove them.


The hot line also received numerous calls during the day that "the Obama campaign has taken over caucus sites and locked the doors, excluding Clinton campaign supporters from participating in the caucus," she wrote.


"There are numerous instances of Obama supporters filing out precinct convention sign-in sheets during the day and submitting them as completed vote totals at caucus. This is expressly against the rules," she added.


But no one seemed to care.


Despite Clinton's three-and-a-half point win in the Texas primary - 50.87 percent to 47.39 percent -Obama beat her in the caucus the same day by 56 to 43.7 percent, giving him a 38-to-29 advantage in delegates.


Linda Hayes investigated the results at the precinct level in three state Senate districts. Under the rules of the Texas Democratic Party, participants in the caucuses had to reside in the precinct where they were caucusing, and had to have voted in the Democratic primary that same day.


When she began to see the results coming in from the precincts that were wildly at variance with the primary results, "I could see that something was wrong," Hayes said.


Hayes says she found numerous anomalies as she went through the precinct sign-in sheets.


"Many, many, many Obama people either came to the wrong precinct, they did not sign in properly, they did not show ID, or they did not vote that day." And yet, their votes were counted.


In a letter to Rep. Lois Capps, a Clinton supporter calling himself "Pacific John," described the fraud he had witnessed during the caucuses.


"On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see," he wrote.


"We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time, like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 am."


The story of how Obama stole the Democratic Party caucuses - and consequently, the Democratic Party nomination - is important not just because it prefigures potential voter fraud in the Nov. 4 presidential election, which is under way.


It's important because it fits a pattern that Chicago journalists and a few national and international commentators have noticed in all of the elections Obama has won in his career.


NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher described Obama's first election victory, for the Illinois state Senate, in a recent commentary that appeared in the London Telegraph.


"Mr. Obama won a seat in the state Senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified," Fletcher wrote.


Obama's election to the U.S. Senate "was even more curious," conservative columnist Tony Blankley wrote in The Washington Times.


Citing an account that appeared in The Times of London, Blankley described how Obama managed to squeeze out his main Democratic rival, Blair Hull, after divorce papers revealed allegations that Hull had allegedly made a death threat to his former wife.


Then in the general election, "lightning struck again," Blankley wrote, when his Republican opponent, wealthy businessman Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw in extremis after his divorce papers revealed details of his sexual life with his former wife.


Just weeks before the election, the Illinois Republican party called on Alan Keyes of Maryland to challenge Obama in the general election. Obama won a landslide victory.


"Mr. Obama's elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means," Blankley wrote, while "the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment."


Hillary Clinton supporters, belatedly, now agree.














© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us


Related Links:


 

Top News


Sponsors 
Building Strength and Muscle Without Illegal Substances
Obama Stealing the Election?
Get Your McCain/Palin Gear Here!
Change Your Financial Situation-Act Now And Take Control Of Your Life!
This little blue pill is amazing! Ladies love guys that take it.
Download a free Audiobook to your iPod or MP3 player. Over 50,000 titles.
 Home Jokes Links Advertise Cartoons Contact Shop Archives RSS
© 2008 Newsmax.com All Rights Reserved
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (99)  

Prophecies of our day for all God Seekers!

Posted on Oct 28th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/Player.htm#0#202
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (69)  

Pay Now or Pay Later!

Posted on Oct 28th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie


An urgent message from our sponsor,
The Republican National Trust PAC


Dear Newsmax Reader:

Obama made it crystal clear to Joe the Plumber that he plans a massive redistribution of wealth - taking your wealth!

Oh, just so you know, Obama's plan defines 'rich' anyone making over $90,000 a year, because that's when his FICA tax cap comes off and you start paying an addition 7% of tax on each and every dollary you earn above the cap!

And if you are making just $50,000 a year or more - expect to pay another 4.5% on each and every dollar you earn starting in 2010. That's when the Bush tax cuts expire.

'President Obama' has emphatically states he will expire those cuts for "rich" people like you.

Obama's crazy plan must be stopped. It will not only cost you money, it will throw the U.S. economy into a depression.

Recently, I asked a wealthy Republican to make a donation to our National Republican Trust PAC and our important cause to expose Obama's plans.

He said, "No."

I was surprised by the terse response.

He agreed with us that our cause was absolutely vital and that Barack Obama poses a real threat to America's national and economic security.

He then told me his stock portfolio was way down and he just felt "tapped out."

We understand that not everyone can donate and that the financial crisis is hurting most Americans - even people who are well off.

But here's what I told our friend, "Pay now or pay later."

He asked, "What do you mean?"

"Well, you can donate to us - and $5000 is not a huge amount considering your wealth," I said.

I added, "Or you can pay the IRS a fortune if Obama gets elected."

I then rattled off all the taxes our potential benefactor was going to almost immediately begin paying if Barack Obama gets elected president:

- removal of the FICA tax cap, meaning all ordinary income above $97,000 will be taxed an additional 7%!

- the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed in 2010 - meaning everyone in the upper tax brackets will have an immediate almost 5% increase in income taxes

- an increase in the dividend tax from 15% to at least 20%

- an increase of the capital gains tax from 15% to as high as 28%

- and estate taxes will skyrocket.

I told my friend that Obama has stated very clearly he will do all this and more.

Indeed, Obama has risked his whole election by promoting these tax proposals because he wants to claim a "mandate" for such "change."

He wants to, as he told Joe the Plumber, "spread the wealth around" by taking your hard earned money!

You can stop Obama - Go Here Now.

I then explained to the potential donor: "Wouldn't placing a $5000 bet on McCain by helping us at the National Republican Trust PAC be a wise move considering you will keep, at the very least, hundreds of thousands of dollars you would have paid in new taxes?"

My friend didn't have to answer. He got the message.

The good news, he donated, albeit reluctantly!

We know not everyone is happy when they donate to us. But it's the right thing to do.

We can't promise that we will defeat Barack Obama. But we sure will try.

And with your help, we might just accomplish our mission. The race is still close in almost every battleground state.

Even Dick Morris, the noted political guru, has stated that we at the National Republican Trust are doing more positive work for McCain than the RNC and the McCain committee itself.

Help us in our work and efforts to defeat Barack Obama - Donate Here Now.

Thank you.

Yours for America,

Scott Wheeler
Executive Director

P.S. This week marks the final stretch of the campaign. With your generosity we now have TV ads airing in three battleground states exposing Obama. But we need to do more. Help us - Go Here Now or call our donation line toll free 1-866-957-1467.

Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized
by any candidate or candidate's committee.
2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233

Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not
deductible as charitable contributions for federal income
tax purposes. No corporate funds are accepted.




This e-mail is never sent unsolicited. You have received this Newsmax e-mail because you subscribed to it or someone forwarded it to you. To opt out, see the links below.


TO ADVERTISE
For information on advertising at Newsmax.com, please contact Newsmax Advertising Sales via e-mail.

TO SUBSCRIBE
If this News Alert has been forwarded to you and would like a subscription, please sign up for Newsmax e-mail alerts.

Remove your e-mail address from our list or modify your profile. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy.

This e-mail was sent by:
Newsmax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114
Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA

433496





E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386)
Database version: 5.11000
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (83)  

The Judiac - Christian View

Posted on Oct 30th, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie

http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001Wf17fZm_qb80kIybNTcV9-KFenIWIFUwQnuRjKWydrexb_3Zdr96g-9XO8duUTS50AWSx7icyPbM0I9O3Iv6dd3hXFZCGiyoFT7cH0KgNRJHkPueHeQfOYiN8UbP0i8MCYreTddQOsE=

TO: Churchgoers, synagogue members, religious laity

FR:  Rabbi Yehuda Levin and Dr. O'Neal Dozier


Has your Pastor, Rabbi or Priest yet explained to your congregation that Sen. Obama supports U.S. EXPANSION of tax-funded Partial Birth Abortion , a barbaric procedure that involves piercing the skull of an infant at full-term delivery and vacuuming-out the child's brains?   Why is he silent?

If Herod were running for King today, if your religious leader knew of the slaughter ahead, and recognizing that it is perfectly SAFE and LEGAL to speak out in the USA...   Would he or she say even one word?

Has your worship leader told your congregation what Sen. Obama's new "Sexual Orientation" law will mean?  Why not?  

Has your Shepherd explained that Sen. Obama favors full REPEAL of the Defense of Marriage Act? -- which protects your state from forced recognition of Same-Sex "Marriages" from other states?   What's his excuse?

Has your Shepherd explained that Sen. Obama favors full integration of flagrant, practicing homosexuals into the U.S. armed forces and military barracks? Our military women aren't required to bunk and bathe with male soldiers; is it appropriate to force this kind of intimacy on any of our troops? What about morale and U.S. security?  Is your pastor saying anything about this?

Has your Pastor/Rabbi/Priest shown your congregation the tasteful Interfaith Video Sermon which connects these facts and Scripture -- or shown the graphic version? (He got a DVD by mail and can download either brief video by clicking here! )    Why would a congregational leader NOT apply the Bible so?

Has your Shepherd seen and relayed the EYEWITNESS VIDEO ACCOUNT regarding Obama and the killing of infant abortion survivors in Illinois? How, in Heaven's name, can pulpit silence on this possibly be rationalized?

Has your clerical leadership bothered to get the facts, to verify the documentation Does your Shepherd even care about the truth -- or about shepherding his flock?

Has your pastor or bishop tacitly rejected Martin Luther King's plea to judge by the content of a man's character, rather than by the color of his skin?  Is "Reverse Racism" or "White Guilt" inspiring shameful pulpit silence on the Torah, Tanakh and New Testament issues of Same-Sex Unions and Child Sacrifice?

Does your Pastor/Rabbi have even a clue regarding his First Amendment, Free Exercise, Free Speech rights to teach the Bible and Tradition from pulpit to pew -- while CLEARLY explaining policies of political leaders and NAMING NAMES?  Is there any reason he or she would prefer ignorance?

Has your Pastor/Rabbi/Father joined the courageous Signatories yet?   Has he offered up a single prayer seeking Sen. Obama's repentance for these policies, so desperately at odds with Scripture?  Has your Shepherd spoken even one clear word on these monumental matters from the pulpit?   Is your Shepherd a man of God... or just a "holy pontificator", a church mouse or... a wimp?

And, if your Shepherd IS indeed serving as a dutiful Watchman , if he IS boldly speaking up, preaching out, teaching clearly and NAMING NAMES according to the mandate of conscience and the Jewish or Christian Testaments... have you THANKED him yet with a FREE SUBSCRIPTION to The Judeo-Christian View?

I certainly hope so, because your Pastor/Rabbi/Priest truly needs YOUR ENCOURAGEMENT RIGHT NOW to say and do what he knows to be right in the eyes of Heaven.

Your leader is a good person, but only human.

ENCOURAGE YOUR LEADER TODAY. Forward this email to him/her and to all of your fellow church/synagogue members, with a kind word!

And, please put them all onto The Judeo-Christian View !

Lord Almighty, hear our prayer, help our Shepherds, and help us all, your Sheep.   dozier_sm 

Shalom,

Rabbi Yehuda Levin                     Dr. O'Neal Dozier
Congregation Mevakshai             General Publisher


Go to: http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001Wf17fZm_qb80kIybNTcV9-KFenIWIFUwQnuRjKWydrexb_3Zdr96g-9XO8duUTS50AWSx7icyPbM0I9O3Iv6dd3hXFZCGiyoFT7cH0KgNRJHkPueHeQfOYiN8UbP0i8MCYreTddQOsE=

________________________________________________________________________________    

Other Vital Resources:

Liberty Counsel:  Many pastors, priests, rabbis and boards do not understand that they can freely preach/teach the Bible AND clearly explain to their congregations where NAMED political leaders stand on public policy issues informed by the Bible, distinct from any talk of endorsements.  For example, because churches are not granted tax-exempt status by the IRS but acquire it automatically when they come into existence, the IRS has never been able to take it away from any church.  Click here for a video discussion (toward bottom of linked page) on this by Prof. Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law and Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel -- a nonprofit legal defense organization for congregational leaders and their houses of worship, upholding First Amendment freedoms for all Americans via litigation, education and policy work.  Established in 1989, Liberty Counsel is a nationwide organization of attorneys with offices in Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and hundreds of affiliate lawyers across the Nation.  Liberty Counsel's website is www.LC.org.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission: The CADC is a non-profit that aims to be the first-in-mind champion of Christian religious liberty, a first line of response to anti-Christian defamation, bigotry, and discrimination via public relations and, as necessary, litigation.   According to CADC, by declaring he is a Christian, yet denying Christianity's essential doctrines and morality, Barack Obama has associated the name of Jesus Christ with practices expressly condemned in the Torah, the Tanakh, and the New Testament.   To view CADC's brief and incisive videos on this and other vital topics, go to http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001Wf17fZm_qb-be20cFtHMIEaniuSDZq54O6p1Kxp6zOG_Rw8u9Fyf7KmI-bVOcOw7qcoPZ6P6MoYksi5htsLrpsnH5LrJeB1npVSdAxVlmaTksShc3Wbkow==

The Anti-Defamation League: The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, scrutinizing and exposing hate groups and offering expertise on domestic and international terrorism. ADL also seeks to foster interfaith relations, to safeguard religious liberty, while defending the security of Israel and Jews worldwide. Through the Bearing Witness program, a partnership with The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Archdiocese of Washington, provides religious educators with the training and resources necessary to teach their students about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.  For more, go to http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001Wf17fZm_qb_PGOXY-LmdY78YWWP8gTSJ5wA-icxNNnEc-f54JCv6_LXRW_NQpM5QHxevGH0RALy7oOGWgapce7LEObva8EGN37rxGT5PWs0= .

     

The Judeo-Christian View

P.O. Box 734, Vista, California 92085-0734







 

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (128)  

Obama's Anti-Israel Islamic Pals

Posted on Oct 31st, 2008 by yaffie : yaffinity yaffie
by Sammy Benoit

Khalidi is just one of many.

The controversy surrounding Senator Barack Obama's friendship with Rashid Khalidi, and the tape being suppressed by the Los Angeles Times, is overshadowing the important fact that Khalidi is just one of many Israel-hating Islamic characters that Obama has allied himself with.

For example, these people are connected directly to his Senate office or campaign:

  • Cynthia K. Miller, treasurer of his Senate campaign, is a member of a member Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

  • Jennifer Mason, Obama's Director of Constituent Services, is also a member of the Nation of Islam.

  • Other Nation of Islam members, including consultant Shakir Muhammad, held important roles in the Obama state Senate campaign.

And they had their influence. When Obama first ran for the US Senate, he gave militant responses to the Chicago Jewish News about Israel. Obama denounced Israel's fence, which he called a "wall" and "barrier to peace." He favored working with Yasser Arafat. When members of the Chicago Jewish community circulated his responses, Obama said that the answers were not his positions, but the work of a low-level intern. He submitted new answers. But that was a lie, an insider says. In fact, they were the work of Obama's Policy Director, Audra Wilson. Moreover, Obama told the insider that he blamed the Mideast conflict on the Jews: "Barack told me that he felt that the Jewish community was too inflexible, and that was why the situation in the Mideast could not be resolved." (Source: Debbie Schlussel)

There are also some "bigger fish" in Obama's Crew of Anti-Israel Friends:

  • The Khalid al-Mansour connection: According to former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton, Mansour "was raising money for" Obama's expenses at Harvard Law School. Mansour, a Black American (né Don Warden), became adviser to Saudi prince Al-Walid Bin-Talal, CAIR's largest individual donor. Mansour holds standard Islamist views: he absolves the Islamist government in Sudan of sponsoring slavery; he denies a Jewish tie to Jerusalem; and he wrote a booklet titled "Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against S. Arabia." (Both Obama and Mansour deny Sutton's account.)

  • The Kenny Gamble (also known as Luqman Abdul-Haqq) connection: Gamble, a once-prominent pop music producer, cut the ribbon to the Obama campaign headquarters housed in a South Philadelphia building he owns. Gamble is an Islamist who buys large swaths of real estate to create Muslim-only residential areas. Also, as the self-styled "emir" of the United Muslim Movement, he has many links to Islamist organizations, including CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America. (MANA's "emir" is Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.)

  • The Mazen Asbahi connection: The Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator resigned after it came to light that he had served on the board of a subsidiary of the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust with Jamal Said, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas funding trial. Asbahi has ties to CAIR's Chicago and Detroit offices, to the Islamic Society of North America, yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial, and to other Islamist organizations.

  • The Minha Husaini connection: The campaign's second Muslim outreach coordinator has an Islamist background, having served as an intern in the Muslim Public Service Network. Immediately upon her appointment by Obama, she met with a group of about 30 Muslims, including such notorious figures as CAIR's Nihad Awad, the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray, who has publicly supported Hamas and Hizbullah, and Johari Abdul Malik of the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, who has advised American Muslims: "You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work." (Source: Daniel Pipes)
    One prominent Palestinian-American will tell you that Obama is hiding his true feelings toward the Jewish State.

So, how can Senator Obama be pro-Israel and have so many anti-Israel buddies? Well, one prominent Palestinian-American will tell you that Obama is hiding his true feelings toward the Jewish State.

Ali Abunimah is a pro-Arab journalist and founder of the Electronic Intifada website. He will tell you that Senator Obama is full of crap when he says that he is pro-Israel: "If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected."

Abunimah says that Obama has long been a friend of the Palestinian community, but he knows where the money is. He has changed his position because those in the pro-Israel camp (American Jews?) have the money to get him elected.

So, folks, you see you really don't need the LA Times video to figure out what Senator Obama said at that dinner. It was probably something horribly anti-Israel, like, "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" or that there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis." Either way, it is clear that those who love the Jewish State should not be voting for him next Tuesday.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (113)  
Tagged with: DECEPTIONS, BETRAYAL, LIES