Archive for the ‘Presidential Race’ Category
By Thomas E. Brewton
As the proposed trade agreement with Colombia reveals, labor unions are organizations of self-centered greed, which disingenuously cloak themselves with pretense of God, country, and mom's apple pie.
President Bush, by calling for Congressional approval of the trade agreement with Colombia, is compelling liberal-progressives to choose between the high-flown, one-world internationalism to which they give lip service and kow-towing to organized labor.
Columnist Robert D. Novak described it this way in his April 4th article:
President Bush will send Congress a trade agreement next week forcing Democrats to make an unpleasant choice. Will they do the bidding of organized labor and reject a pact negotiated more than a year and a half ago with the country's strongest ally and best customer in South America?
…But to forget about a vote this year, as Pelosi wants, …would humiliate Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, a free-trader and a bulwark against the spreading influence in Latin America of Venezuela's leftist strongman, President Hugo Chávez.
Our liberal-progressive school system instructs callow youth that labor unions are agents of good and right. The facts are quite different.
The president of the United Auto Workers union has implicitly acknowledged the stark truth: industrial unions are killing American manufacturing jobs. Unions’ salvation, he says, must come from ukases promulgated by the commissars of a new socialistic, Democratic administration.
In a June 13, 2006, article by Jefrey McCracken, the Wall Street Journal reported:
United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, acknowledging that his union confronts the toughest challenges in its 71-year history, told delegates to the UAW’s leadership convention that solutions to problems such as rising health-care costs or the rash of auto suppliers filing bankruptcy-law protection must come largely through the political process.
Union leaders expect a Democrat-socialist to win the presidency, and they expect a payoff via protectionist legislation that will reduce business profits, throwing non-union workers out of jobs and augmenting inflation, to the cost of the vast majority of citizens who are non-union members of the labor force.
By Thomas E. Brewton
Believing apparently that specifics are not necessary, Senator Obama promises us that his election will bring us all together in one happy family via a miraculous transformation of society and its citizens.
Earthly perfection of human nature and human society, here and now, is what Senator Obama is promising us. This is his implicit message when tells us that he can, as President, bring us all together and move us beyond strife, aggression, and wars.
One thing we can state categorically in that regard is that what Senator Obama promises is emphatically, irreconcilably opposed to the Judeo-Christian foundations of Western Civilization. Parenthetically, the Senator's secular and socialistic mind-set may explain in part why he saw no problem with the unchristian hatred preached by his minister, the Rev. Wright.
Senator Obama is not necessarily painting himself as the Second Messiah who will personally effect the transformation. Rather, as a good socialist-progressive-liberal, he expects that structural changes in the political state will do the necessary work.
Such structural changes will include higher taxes, especially on capital gains which fuel business innovation and more efficient production, massive increases in Federal welfare-state spending programs, and crushing inflation, along with extensive increases in regulation of personal and business conduct (including stronger affirmative-action measures).
As the German Empire's Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck told the Reichstag in the 1880s, he was instituting the world's first welfare state in order to gain total control over the German people. Those who are dependent upon the political state for their benefits, he observed, can be herded like cattle.
In contrast, in the Old Testament, King Solomon tells us:
The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:
"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? (Ecclesiastes 1:1-3)
I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. (Ecclesiastes 1:12-14)
By Thomas E. Brewton
As prolongation of the 1930s Depression and stagflation in the 1970s demonstrated, Senator Obama’s announced policies are a prescription for economic disaster.
Keynesian economic doctrine, not under that name, but in substance, is back in the news in a truly menacing way. Senator Obama proposes to repeat the policies of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that turned an ordinary two-year recession into an eight-year disaster, with unemployment rates continuously in the high teens.
The key elements of Senator Obama’s proposed economic policies, as in the New Deal and the stagflation of the 1970s, are much higher taxes, along with a pervasive increase of business regulations and price controls in healthcare and energy (which sharply depress business activity and employment rates), full-frontal embrace of labor unions (which will push up wages and benefits to levels deterring profitable expansion of industrial production), and massive new government deficit spending (which will accelerate the already dangerously high rate of inflation and devaluation of the dollar). Carried out as he proposes, Senator Obama’s polices will lead us again into the swamp of stagflation.
The basic thrust of Keynesianism is the belief that control of the economy must be collectivized at the Federal level, because private business is incapable of providing full employment, and because the proper goal of economic policy must be thwarting greedy businessmen to attain so-called social justice: equal distribution of income and wealth, without regard to merit, capability, or hard work.
Not surprisingly the New York Times editorial board and the Times’s propagandist Paul Krugman are prominent Keynesian enthusiasts.
By Thomas E. Brewton
How indicative of his character and beliefs is Senator Obama's having launched one of his political campaigns at the home of his friends Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers?
Who are Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers? And why would Senator Obama wish to associate his political beliefs with those of Dohrn and Ayers?
Might his friendship with these Weatherman terrorists of the 1960s and 70s be a clue to the voting record that led National Journal to rate Mr. Obama the most liberal member of the Senate?
The New York Times reported on September 11, 2001, ironically, the day the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were bombed:
"Life With the Weathermen: No Regrets for a Love of Explosives"
By Dinitia Smith"I don't regret setting bombs," Bill Ayers said. "I feel we didn't do enough." Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings.
Read the rest of this entry »
By Alan Caruba
I really don’t care how many times Barack Hussein Obama says he is a Christian. I believe he is a Muslim and I believe he chosen to hide his true faith in the name of the jihad being waged by the militant branch of Islam through acts of terror and intimidation and the world.
Few in the West know of the doctrine of “taqiyya”, the concealment of a Muslim’s true faith. As Robert Spencer explained it in his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)”, there are “two enduring Islamic principles: the permissibility of political assassination for the honor of the Prophet and his religion and the allowance for the practice of deception in wartime.” Indeed, Mohammed is quoted as saying that, “War is deceit.”
Jihad is war. It is a holy war. It is central to the practice of Islam.
To put the practice of deception in its historic context, Spencer notes that, “When Shiite Muslims were persecuted by Sunnis, they developed the doctrine of taqiyya, or concealment: They could lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith that were offensive to Sunnis. This practice is sanctioned by the Koran warning Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell—except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly.”
In Iraq, Sunni Muslims, fearful of being attacked by the Shiite majority, shared information about how to make themselves and their homes appear to be Shiite. The practice of taqiyya was applied and with good reason. It is worth noting that Sunnis are the majority sect of Islam, whereas Shiites are concentrated in Iraq and in neighboring Iran.
This is why Obama’s profession of faith as a Christian permits the concealment of being a Muslim in his heart. What he does not deny is that he was raised and educated as a Muslim, attended a Muslim school for four years while living in Indonesia. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the school taught Wahhabism, a fundamentalist version of Islam that has it roots in Saudi Arabia. At age 10, his twice-divorced mother moved to Hawaii.
If he were truly an apostate, a Muslim who had renounced Islam, the penalty for that is death.
By Jim Kouri
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton finally agreed to appear on the highly-rated Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor. Her interview, which was taped earlier this
week while she was campaigning in South Bend, Indiana, was broadcast on The Factor over two consecutive nights.
On Thursday night, part two of “Hillary in the No Spin Zone” aired, and she was asked questions on the topics of foreign policy, the War on Terror, and illegal immigration. When Bill O’Reilly turned to the immigration debate, he asked, “Will you shut down sanctuary cities?” Hillary responded, “No, I will not.”
According to a new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the illegal immigrant population within the United States currently exceeds 13 million, an estimate that has almost doubled since 2000. Given this increasing trend, Hillary’s response should be frightening to American families, who are forced to live with frequent criminal activity committed by illegals in sanctuary cities. Even during the Senate debate of the Grand Amnesty bill last year, Senator Clinton voted against the Coleman Amendment which would have banned sanctuary cities (Roll Call 177).
“It is an outrage that Hillary Clinton is running to become President of the United States, yet she is openly admitting that she will not enforce America’s laws,” said Eagle Forum Executive Director Jessica Echard.
“Sanctuary city policies put all Americans in danger, and as an elected official, Hillary Clinton is well aware of that fact. Do we really want to elect someone who will enable criminal aliens to roam our streets?” she added
Last August, several African-American college-bound teenagers were brutally murdered while listening to music in a playground in Newark, New Jersey, one of many US sanctuary cities. Although Newark is no stranger to violence, the perpetrator was an illegal alien from Peru, who had been previously charged with raping a 5-year-old girl, but was released despite his obvious illegal presence in this country.
“If Hillary Clinton will not enforce the law against sanctuary cities, why should we believe she will enforce any other immigration laws or build the fence?” stated Echard. “She will simply continue the Bush open border policies which she pretends to condemn and that have allowed our illegal immigration population to nearly double since 2000.”
By Randall H. Nunn
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Senator Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor, believes, among other things, that merging Marxism with the Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The basis for the black liberation philosophies advocated by Reverend Wright is the work of James Cone, founder of the modern black liberation theology movement. Senator Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of Reverend Wright’s congregation for many years, surely knows the views of Reverend Wright and presumably the views of James Cone. Does Senator Obama believe that merging Marxism with the gospel will show the way to a better tomorrow? And, if not, why did he sit in Reverend Wright’s congregation for more than 20 years, listening to his anti-American tirades and soaking up philosophies incompatible with the views of the great majority of Americans?
If one disagrees with a philosophy disseminated from the pulpit, not in a subtle and devious fashion but in a blisteringly blatant bombardment by a loud and rabid activist, how likely is it that he or she would remain as a loyal attendee of the church? Yet, Senator Obama and his wife continued to attend Reverend Wright’s ranting sermons with no protest. None, that is, until Senator Obama realized that his attendance of Wright’s church and support for his “spiritual mentor” might become a political liability. And even then, Senator Obama was careful not to totally repudiate Reverend Wright. Obama said he “strongly disagreed” with “many” of Wright’s political views. It’s just that it took over 20 years for this Harvard-trained lawyer and aspirant to The White House to get worked up enough to register his disagreement. I have a feeling that the majority of Americans do not believe Obama’s remarks aimed, as they were, at carefully distancing himself from Wright’s more outrageous statements without antagonizing the far left wing of his party.
What does the Reverend Wright affair tell us about Senator Obama’s political views? It clearly tells us that Senator Obama is not just liberal—he is liberal to the point of being radical and on the very fringe of liberal political thinking in this country. Read the rest of this entry »
By Jim Kouri
There is a far-reaching scandal brewing for presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, thanks to a radio talk show host based in Oregon. Syndicated talk host Laurie Roth’s revelations make the news story about Obama’s relationship with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child’s play.
A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush’s Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.
Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department’s list of known terrorist groups.
“One source for this information was once a top military figure in the 1990s. He doesn’t take making allegations lightly. If he says something happened, believe me, it happened,” said syndicated radio talk show host Laurie Roth ( http://www.therothshow.com/ )
“Another source is a former agent for the Central Intelligence Agency, who is an expert in counterterrorism,” said Roth, who broke the story on her show Friday night.
“I certainly don’t want to demonize someone because they are a woman, black or liberal running for President. I love the idea that in our culture, a black and woman can now run. However, it does matter to me with any candidate, their consistency with good judgment, their voting record, their association with people with questionable backgrounds and commitment to our country,” she said during her show.
Here are the connections as described by very reliable sources, who possess impressive military, national security and intelligence backgrounds:
Allison Davis, who hired the young Obama into his small, Chicago law firm Davis, Miner, and Barnhill in 1993, left the firm in late 1999-2000 and became a housing developer. Davis went into business with Tony Rezko, the indicted businessman who’s scheduled to go on trial for corruption in Illinois, and who was a major fundraiser for Obama.
Davis met Rezko when he was a client of Davis, Miner, and Barnhill. Rezko is currently under indictment in Illinois for demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state government business contracts under Governor Blagojevich. Obama was identified as one of the politicians cited in the indictment as having received political contributions from Rezko out of his kickback funds.
ARLINGTON, Va. April 14 /Standard Newswire/ – U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on former President Carter's plans to meet with Hamas:
"It is a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader to meet with a terrorist organization like Hamas. Engaged in a campaign that deliberately targets innocent Israeli civilians, Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. President Carter is wrong to meet with Hamas, a terrorist group that has also killed innocent Americans.
"The very idea that a former President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief would meet with a terrorist organization demands a clear stance from all presidential candidates. Refusing to take a stand, as Senator Obama has done, is not the strong leadership we need today. If Senator Obama is not decisive enough to condemn former President Carter, how can he be strong enough to deal with the threat they pose to America and to our allies?"
Contact: Press Office, 703-650-5550; www.JohnMcCain.com
By Robert E. Meyer
The late Christian philosopher and apologist Francis Schaeffer was once asked by a colleague which cultural trend he feared most looking toward the future. Without hesitation, Schaeffer replied "statism."
Our presidential campaign thus far has shown us that Schaeffer's concerns from yesteryear were anything but indulgence in paranoia.
The democratic front runner, Barack Obama, has garnered much political capital on a vague platform template of "change." His swooning crowds of admirers reflexively applauding, or even fainting, at his every statement and gesture. Obama's campaign has been so emotionally hypnotic, that Schaeffer's son Frank is gushing giddily about supporting Barack with his heart. What candidate of the opposition party has ever offered anything unique to the theme of change?
What this "change" really connotes, amounts to more government programs, and increased dependence on government, resulting in greater learned helplessness by individual citizens.
People are now asking government to meet the needs that were once obligations of individuals themselves, family and neighbors, the public charity, church organizations, and Almighty God. A clear recipe for tyranny.
The Democratic platform, and to a lesser degree some Republican politicians, have forsaken individual accountability and initiative, while moving in a direction contrary to the roles of limited government delineated by our Founders. The best government is one that governs least.
Far too many people have stopped asking the question about what limited role in society our government should fulfill, but have hopped aboard the gravy train to paradise, never suspecting it to be the graveyard express to the ideological gulag.
In 1971, the English rock band, The Who, released an album that featured their anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again."