For four long years we've waited, hoped and prayed that some young comic would break free of the politically correct demands of The State and mock Obama the way all presidents and all people in power should be mocked. But for four long years (with a few exceptions) all we've seen instead are cowardly toadies of The State: Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, David Letterman, Chris Rock, the cast of "Saturday Night Live"…
Since Obama won the presidency, comedy has pretty much gone straight to hell as our Entertainment Overlords morphed into pathetic lapdogs to The State; begging for scraps of attention and affection from Obama, and in the process becoming stale, lazy, dull, predictable, painfully unfunny, and like a needy poodle -- more than a little annoying.
Who would've ever thought that one of the men who would display enough backbone and "edge" to finally take it to Obama with wicked mockery on about 30 million live television screens would be 82 year-old Clint Eastwood?
Once we learned Eastwood was the night's mystery guest, no one knew what to expect. And anyone who took a guess most certainly didn’t guess that the Oscar-winning American icon would use his opportunity to relentlessly and hilariously mock Barack Obama in front of the entire free world.
You can watch the highlights here:
It was glorious! And everyone I've talked to who was in the hall absolutely loved it.
Eastwood hit Obama in every sweet spot we've been waiting for him to get hit on: The incompetence; the lies; the empty, pretentious rhetoric; the inexperience; and that roaring blowhard of a moron Obama chose to be a heartbeat away.
Oh, and the empty chair. Other than an empty suit, there is no sharper metaphor.
Eastwood also made one of the very best points of the night: WE own this country, and when someone doesn't do the job "we have to let them go."
The media, naturally, is furious. They don’t like to see Their Precious One mocked and they also understand the power of mockery -- which is why they keep Stewart and Colbert on such a tight leash. This is why the media has already written 25 stories (5 from Politico) mocking Eastwood.
Had Eastwood said the things the media likes to hear with the same nervousness and hesitation, they would've called him wizened and seasoned. But because he mocked Their Precious One, suddenly he's some kind of embarrassment.
And now Politico, Ben Smith and CNN are all talking about how they intend to use Eastwood as way to overwhelm Mitt Romney's speech in the coming days.
Like they wouldn't have found another reason.
All I can say in response is: Go to hell you Obama-shilling crybabies. Eastwood showed more grit and honestly in those few minutes than you water carriers have during your entire propaganda-for-the-collective careers.
What Eastwood did tonight was funnier, fresher, edgier, and braver than anything those comedy cowards Chris Rock, Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert have done in 15 years.
82 years-old, and Dirty Harry is still pissing all the right people off.
Posted 08/30/2012 06:58 PM ET
Journalism: If media "fact checkers" are just impartial guardians of the truth, how come they got their own facts wrong about Paul Ryan's speech, and did so in a way that helped President Obama's re-election effort?
Case in point was the rush of "fact check" stories claiming Ryan misled when he talked about a shuttered auto plant in his home state.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — "Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown" — saying Ryan "appeared to suggest" that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.
"That's not true," Kessler said. "The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in."
What's not true are Kessler's "facts." Ryan didn't suggest Obama was responsible for shuttering the plant. Instead, he correctly noted that Obama promised during the campaign that the troubled plant "will be here for another hundred years" if his policies were enacted.
Also, the plant didn't close in December 2008. It was still producing cars until April 2009.
An AP "fact check" also claimed that "the plant halted production in December 2008" even though the AP itself reported in April 2009 that the plant was only then "closing for good."
CNN's John King made the same claim about that plant closure. But when CNN looked more carefully at the evidence, it — to its credit — concluded that what Ryan said was "true."
Media fact-checkers also complained about Ryan's charge that Obama is cutting $716 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Not true, they said. Medicare's growth is just being slowed.
But Obama achieves that slower growth by making real cuts in provider payments. And in any case, the media always and everywhere call a reduction in the rate of federal spending growth a "cut." So why suddenly charge Ryan with being misleading for using that same term?
In any case, Obama himself admitted that he's doing what Ryan says. In a November 2009 interview with ABC News, reporter Jake Tapper said to Obama that "one-third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare," to which Obama's response was: "Right."
The rest of Ryan's alleged factual errors aren't errors at all; it's just that the media didn't like how he said it. But since when is it a fact-checker's job to decide how a politician should construct his arguments?
This isn't to say that journalists shouldn't check facts. Of course they should.
The problem is that the mainstream press is now abusing the "fact check" label, using it to more aggressively push a liberal agenda without feeling the need to provide any balance whatsoever. And, as the reaction to the Ryan speech shows, they are now blatantly using it to provide air support for Obama.
Is it any wonder that soon after Ryan's speech ended, the Obama campaign rushed out an ad using the media's "fact check" stories as its source?
Published: 19 hours ago
Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?"More ↓Less ↑
Barack Obama’s step-grandmother in Kenya, Sarah Oyango Obama, has a 2005 poster calendar on the wall of her home that proclaims “The Kenyan Wonder-Boy in the U.S.: Senator Barrack Obama,” according to a British documentary film.
Mentions of the calendar on the Web date back to 2008, but the documentary film provides an exceptionally clear image of the wall poster.
Born in Mombasa?
In the documentary, “Obama’s Kenyan Roots,” Sarah mentions, according to a translation, it was a “happy occasion” for her to “meet her grandson” when Obama came to Kenya for a visit in 1987.
Much has been made, nevertheless, of a taped transatlantic telephone conversation between a minister in the U.S. and Sarah in 2009 in which the grandmother is purported to have said Barack Obama Jr. was born in Mombasa, Kenya, and she was present at the birth.
Philip J. Berg, the former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general who was among the first to pursue eligibility claims against Obama in the courts, included a transcript of the tape and sworn affidavits in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court after lower courts dismissed as frivolous his complaint filed on Aug. 21, 2008, alleging that Obama was born in Mombasa.
American Christian minister Ron McRae, who described himself in his affidavit as an overseer of the Anabaptist Churches in North America and a “Presiding Elder on the African Presbytery,” conducted the telephone interview with Sarah.
McCrae, who called from Detroit, said Sara Obama was in a public setting with several hundred people listening to the telephone call on a speakerphone.
The interpreter was Vitalis Akech Ogombe, the community chairman of Sarah Obama’s village of Kyang’oma Kogelo in Western Kenya, 30 miles west of the Lake Victoria-city of Kisumu.
“In the ensuing public conversation, I asked Ms. Obama specifically, ‘Were you present when your grandson was born in Kenya?’” McRae testified in his sworn statement. “This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she replied, “Yes! Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.”
Critics pointed out many reasons to be skeptical of the claim, including the possibility something was lost in the translation between an American minister who presupposed Obama was born in Kenya and an elderly African woman who reportedly knows no English.
Amid cross talk in a combination of English, Swahili and the local Luo tribal dialogue, could she have understood McRae simply to be asking where she was when Barack Obama Jr. was born. Moreover, the critics argue, her interpreter immediately clarified that her famous grandson was born in Hawaii, not Kenya.
See the clip of the Journeyman Pictures documentary:
Many versions of the tape posted on the Internet by bloggers who contend it is evidence Obama was born in Kenya are cut off immediately after the point where the grandmother apparently affirms her presence at the birth. The truncated versions leave out the section in which the interpreter insists she actually meant the birth took place in Hawaii.
In addition, a March 27, 2007, story by Tim Jones published in the Chicago Tribune recounted how Sarah Obama received a letter from Barack Obama Sr. telling of his plan to marry Stanley Ann Dunham.
Sarah Obama’s husband, Hussein Onyango Obama, was said to be angered by the news.
Six months later, Jones reported, the Kenyan family received a letter announcing that Barack Obama Jr. had been born on Aug. 4, 1961.
The Tribune reporter noted an interview with Sarah Obama in which she said she was “so happy to have a grandchild in the United States.”
Aside from the inference that the grandmother first learned of the birth through a letter, the Kenyan patriarch’s anger over the marriage makes it even more unlikely Ann Dunham would have traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy.
Sarah Obama, who is not a blood relative of the president, is the third wife of Obama’s paternal grandfather. According to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who visited her village during the 2008 presidential campaign, the grandmother is illiterate and does not know when she was born. Several news reports say she was born in 1922.
The controversy over the tape centers on the interpreter present in Kenya during the interview. At the end of the tape, the interpreter can be clearly heard interjecting repeatedly that the grandmother said Obama was born in Hawaii.
However, two members of Sarah Obama’s Luo tribe who are fluent in the local Luo dialect, Swahili and English told WND that after carefully listening to the tape, they believe she declared Barack Obama Jr. was born in Mombasa, Kenya, and that she was present at the birth.
One of Kenyans who listened to the tape for WND has known Sarah Obama personally over many years. He has met with her repeatedly in her home village. The other Kenyan who listened to the tape for WND holds a respected position in the Kenyan government.
The WND source who knows Sara reported: “I have keenly and attentively listened to the tape over and over again, and I can confirm from Sarah’s own confession that Barack Obama was born in Kenya in her presence.”
He continued: “She was asked of his actual birthplace, and she affirmed she was actually there, present in person at his birth.”
He said that while the people in the room with Sarah Obama “tried as much as they could to change the tone of the whole story… to me it seems someone is coaching her from the background and seemingly trying to guide her on what to say.”
“I have listened to the tape,” he said. “The preacher asked whether Barack Obama was born in Mombasa and the translator asked the same. When she said Mombasa, it was like a surprise and those there thought she could not have meant to say Mombasa.”
The source said that at that point “they began insisting Hawaii was where Barack Obama was born.”
Sarah Obama can be heard uttering “Mombasa” in response to McRae’s questions about where Obama was born.
At the time, Alex Koppelman, the senior editor on Salon.com’s political “War Room” blog jumped into the fray to contend, “No, Obama’s grandmother didn’t say he was born in Kenya.”
In a column that attacked former CNN host Lou Dobbs and radio talk show host G. Gordon Liddy, Koppelman characterized Sarah Obama’s statement that Obama was born in Mombasa as “a mistake, a confusion in translation” that the family in Kenya attempted to correct, multiple times.
Dismissing the story a just another “birther myth,” Koppelman explained that “people who believe in a conspiracy theory simply hear what they want to hear.”
I think the people pulling King Obama’s strings may know what the big picture is, but Obama himself is genuinely surprised that the Middle East hasn’t greeted him with open arms.
Part of the reason I believe this is because the Left-wing media have worked so hard to deny or bury reports coming out of Egypt and Syria. If all were going according to plan, the White House would be crowing.
Obama’s backdoor funding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria was supposed to net him another “democracy” that he could claim credit for. As we’ve seen in Egypt and other countries, though, claims of democratic revolution aren’t worth the teleprompter they’re flashed on.
As the Muslim Brotherhood has secured its power and moved more toward shariah law in Egypt, stories have emerged of violence against Christians, Jews and members of the media, including a story reported in WorldNet Daily about crucifixions outside the presidential palace. There are also reports that Coptic Christian women are being kidnapped by Muslims and sold into slavery.
Whether it’s crucifixions, slavery or plans to blow up the pyramids, liberal media and websites such as Snopes have gone out of their way to claim such things never happened, despite multiple accounts in Arabic media.
Now from Yemen, where al Qaida has established a base for raiding Saudi Arabia, there comes a video of a man crucified in the street as a suspected U.S. spy, accused of planting tracking devices for U.S. military drones on terrorist vehicles.
WARNING: This video is extremely graphic and disturbing. View with caution here.
In Syria, despite months of fighting, the government seems to be hanging on, with help from Russia and Iran. Obama, whose secret support of the rebels was reported by Reuters on Aug. 1, has enlisted help from his allies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.
Author Dinesh D’Souza has said he believes Obama is hoping to establish a “United States of Arabia” with the Muslim Brotherhood as partners in some sort of democracy. Reality, unfortunately, has a way of asserting itself over the best-laid plans of mice and mental patients.
The real nature of the Brotherhood, which has tendrils in the Obama Administration as high up as the secretary of state’s aide Huma Abedeen, is becoming clearer with each passing day. With recent overtures by Egypt toward Iran, it’s very possible that Obama may find “his” United States of Arabia being formed, but with Russia in the role of benefactor.
The Brotherhood, beyond any merely nationalistic goals, has its eyes on the prize of a restored Muslim Caliphate that could make Islam a true world power. To that end, watch for the Brotherhood to be willing to overlook past differences with Iran and Syria, only to turn on Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and its allies.
If that happens, the entire Middle East and North Africa will be solidly Islamic, with Shariah the only law.
The first outcome will be that Europe will be cut off from much of the Southern Hemisphere and will find it exceedingly difficult to conduct any trade with India or the rest of Asia.
The Muslims will resume their historic practice of widespread piracy, hijacking, robbing and capturing ships that fall within their grasp, enslaving or ransoming passengers depending on their financial resources.
Russia will be happy to help out Europe with overland and flyover permissions, for a price.
The biggest danger, though, will be to European sovereignty as nations weakened by decades of moonbeam liberalism will suddenly face the choice to fight, convert or die as they face the double Muslim threat of invasion and internal rebellion.
Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a release on August 9, 2012, "Freshwater from the sun," detailing a new development in nanotechnology paired with the use of solar energy that could help solve water shortages in under-developed and under-resourced regions including Africa. The research was undertaken at the Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research at Ben Gurion University of the Negev and central Arava R&D.
The new innovation uses solar energy panels to power the pumps of a desalination unit that generates clean water for crops. More importantly, the technology utilizes unique nanofiltration membranes that enable farmers to decide which minerals should be retained from the water to feed various types of crops, a method which requires much less energy.
According to experts, water is going to be an increasingly scarce resource. Bloomberg quotes Dow Chemical Chief Executive Officer Andrew Liveris saying "Water right now is a strain on this planet more than carbon. We mismanage water terribly. It's going to be a big issue."
Even so, few in the media have seen fit to report on Israel's breakthrough technology. A Google News search for "Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research" turned up only five mentions -- and none of them in a mainstream media outlet.
Though criticism of Israel is ubiquitous in the media, including on the front pages of America's leading newspapers, when it comes to good news about Israel… Where's the coverage?
Oh boy. A "one time" WEALTH tax. Not an income tax.
This was proposed here by the Clinton Administration but met its deserved fate. It's come up time and again, though… in 2008 it took the form of a proposed Federal seizure of 401k and other private retirement assets. That died too.
Looks like it might have a chance in the UK though.
As part of the global push to tax the rich, Britain is now debating an “emergency” wealth tax. But the idea has hit fierce opposition from conservatives, who say the “politics of envy” hasn’t made the country rich.
Deputy Prime Minster Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal-Democrat Party, has proposed a one-time tax on the wealth (rather than the incomes) of high-net-worth Britons. The details aren’t clear, but Clegg says the country is facing an economic war caused by a prolonged recession, and needs to tax the rich in order to avoid social unrest.
He told the Guardian that unless the country “hardwired fairness” into the budget, “I don't think the process will be either socially or politically sustainable or acceptable."
Chancellor George Osborne shot back, saying the plan would chase out the rich and make the odds of full recovery even worse. Bernard Jenkin, the chair of the House of Commons' public administration committee, told the BBC that the tax could strangle the golden geese of Britain. “If the politics of envy made a country rich, we'd be very rich … Most rich people are contributing far more in tax than other people." (Read more: How 'Lynching' the Rich May Hurt Stocks)
Britain has already hiked taxes on the rich to 50 percent but amid a weak economy and reports of wealth flight, the tax was ratcheted down in April to 45 percent.
Baroness Susan Kramer, a member of Clegg’s party in the House of Lords, said that a wealth tax could be more effective than an income tax, and that the wealthy won’t move away.
"You have to be part of the society in which you live,” she told the Guardian. “"If we're going to be a coherent society, and that is absolutely fundamental to our success and our prosperity, everyone has to carry a share of it."
The debate in Britain mirrors the central debate in America’s presidential election: how much to tax the rich. Obama has called for raising their taxes. Romney calls for cutting them.
Britain's tax distribution is less progressive than America's, with the top 1 percent paying about 24 percent of the total income taxes in the U.K. In the United States, the same group pays more than 35 percent. The top 10 percent in Britain pays 55 percent of income taxes, while in America the top 10 percent pays 59 percent. (Read more: Wealthy Voters May Like Romney Even More Now)
But Britain’s example can be used by both Republicans and Democrats as fuel for their arguments. Republicans can argue that Britain’s tax hike on high incomes didn’t help their recovery, since their economy is still weak. Democrats can argue that the austerity measures imposed in Britain have prolonged their recession and that the tax hike was abandoned too quickly.
Either way, the debate over taxing the rich is starting to sound familiar around the world.
-By CNBC's Robert Frank
Once again the Demcorats prove that they are the party of the enemy, the traitor, the jihad. Despite public outcry, the jihadist Jumah will tale place at the DNC. The event has in its crosshairs the Patriot Act, the NYPD, the National Defense Authorization Act, and anti-Shariah sentiment.
"I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." Barack Hussein Obama, page 261, The Audacity of Hope
A couple of weeks back, I posted about the Jumah jihad at the DNC, an event led by an imam who urged the overthrow of the "filthy" U.S. government and who was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade center bombings. Obama's DNC lists the assembly as an “official function." The group is hardly “mainstream,” being represented by Siraj Wahhaj, who will be the “Grand Imam” for the gathering.
Wahhaj and the co-leader of the Charlotte event, Jibril Hough, are both heavily involved in the separatist American Islamist movement. Many of the participants in the “Jumah at the DNC” will most likely represent radical networks that have long-time, but little-known, operations in the Charlotte region.
Eyewitness News asked Hough about his views on several topics, including the war on terror.
"American troops are actually the insurgents. It's not the people who live there. The people who live there are defending their country," Hough said.
Hough does not consider himself to be a supremacist, but believes Muslims have not received the credit they deserve.
"This is a fact: Muslims have visited America prior to Columbus. It was a Muslim who guided Columbus on his voyage to the new world," Hough said.
He insisted he is not a radical, and said his beliefs are shared by mainstream Muslims.
At a speech in 1995, Siraj Wahhaj informed the world that it was his “duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”
Looks like Obama is engaging in his own holy war.
News of the jihad Jumah has sent shock waves through the American street. The revelations about the supremacist and jihadist agenda ought to have sent shock waves through Democrat leadership. Clearly this treasonous gathering should be given no sanction by one of the nation's two political parties.
But, once again, the Democrats side with those who are vowing to destroy our country. They are incapable of doing the fundamental right thing. The Democrats would rather spit in the eye of fallen soldier, 3,000 victims of September 11th and Major Hasan's Fort Hood jihad, and every 911 family member than insult the jihadist constituency, which is clearly their base.
Bad enough, it was going to be jihad CENTCOM at the DNC (channelling Anwar Awlaki, no doubt), but President Obama turned down a chance to have Timothy Cardinal Dolan deliver a prayer at the Democratic National Convention after Dolan told Democrats he would be “grateful” to deliver a blessing in Charlotte.
Dolan — considered the top Catholic official in the nation, as head of the Archdiocese of New York and president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops — tipped off Democrats a few weeks ago that he had agreed to deliver the prime-time benediction at the Republican convention in Tampa next week, Dolan’s spokesman Joseph Zwilling told The Post.
“He wanted to make sure that they knew that this was not a partisan act on his part and that he would be just as happy and grateful to accept an invitation from the Democrats as he would to have received one from the Republicans,” said Zwilling.
That, too, struck the heart of most Americans, and after huge public pressure, the DNC reluctantly did an about-face and accepted Cardinal Timothy Dolan's offer. Dolan will deliver the closing prayer at the Democratic National Convention, despite his disagreement with the Obama administration over birth control mandates.
It's a story all too familiar.
A government responsible for mass murder, crushing democratic dissent, or engaging in nuclear, chemical, or biological shenanigans gets elected to the U.N. institution responsible for policing just that -- whether upholding human rights, democracy, or disarmament.
Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir stands charged by the International Criminal Court with orchestrating a campaign of genocide in Darfur. So what better place to defend oneself than with a seat on the Geneva-based Human Rights Council?
A couple of months back, Sudan was quietly included on a slate of five African countries -- the others are Ethiopia, Gabon, Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone -- due to run unchallenged for seats on the 47-member council this November.
The selection of Sudan as a candidate has provided U.N. critics with another example of the U.N.'s abject moral state. In Washington,Ileana Ros-Lehtinen(R-FL), the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs committee issued a statement Monday, saying Sudan's candidacy shows the U.N. is broken. "As Sudan appears poised to win a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, the UN has hit a new low," she said. "The UN has surrendered to despots and rogue regimes as it allows the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Chavez, and now Sudan's Omar al-Bashir to corrupt the system and use it to further their own oppressive and despotic schemes."
Human Rights groups agree that Sudan's election would be disastrous but they have focused their efforts on persuading African government to drop Sudan. Previous campaigns by Western governments and human rights advocates have succeeded in preventing Azerbaijan, Belarus, Iran, and Syria from getting seats on the council.
"Sudan is as unfit candidate as they get, with a horrendous record of mass abuses against civilians in Darfur, Blue Nile, and South Kordofan," said Philippe Bolopion, the U.N. representative for Human Rights Watch. "Its election would be a blow to both the victims of the Sudanese regime and the credibility of the Human Rights Council."
The real culprit in this unfolding spectacle is the U.N. system of regional voting blocs, which generally pre-select a list of candidates based on which country is next in line. The practice ensures that everyone gets their chance -- whether they deserve it or not -- and there are no messy elections. Sudan, which has previously been blocked from serving on the U.N. Security Council, has been waiting in line a long time for a choice committee appointment. And African states appear unwilling to deny them their chance, even if it may prove embarrassing.
Asked how the Africans could put forward a country so clearly unsuited for the job, one African ambassador told Turtle Bay, "Even if we believe deep down that Sudan, whose president has been indicted, shouldn't be elected, nobody wants to jeopardize their relations by telling Sudan you don't qualify because you have a human rights problem. We will be sitting at the table with them in future."
The United States -- which has often benefited itself from the system of regional slates -- has for the moment joined an informal coalition of governments and human rights organizations that are seeking to upend Sudan's candidacy. They have urged Kenya to break ranks with the African group and run a campaign against Sudan's inclusion.
"Sudan, a consistent human rights violator, does not meet the Council's own standards for membership," said Kurtis A. Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations. "It would be inappropriate for Sudan to have a seat on the Council while the Sudanese head of State is under International Criminal Court indictment for war crimes in Darfur and the government of Sudan continues to use violence to inflame tensions along its border with South Sudan."
Diplomats and other observers say Sudan's mission in Geneva has signaled that it may be willing to pull out of the competition, but it is not prepared to do so publicly at this stage. In exchange, they expect that Sudan will seek assurances from other African states to oppose a U.S. and European effort to strengthen the Human Rights Council's scrutiny of its human rights conduct.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Wow! This is pretty amazing that a Black man would use his influence to do this. As you consider and pray about his exodus call, pray for safety for him and his family. The opposition, after all, doesn’t play fair.
1:00PM EDT 8/8/2012 Charisma News Staff
Bishop E.W. Jackson is making a war cry: “Let God’s people go!”
Jackson, a Marine Corps veteran, graduate of Harvard Law School and adjunct professor of law, is echoing the words of Moses in a campaign to persuade Christians of all races that the time has come for a wholesale exodus of Christians from the Democrat Party.
The former candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia points to what he calls the Democrat party's “cult-like devotion” to abortion; the rejection of the traditional biblical model of family; the hostility hurled at those who express a Christian viewpoint such as Chick-fil-A president and Chief Operating Officer Dan Cathy; the actions of organizations such as the ACLU and the Foundation For Freedom From Religion in suing cities and towns for displaying crosses at memorials or mentioning the name Jesus in prayer at official events.
Beyond all of this, Jackson says, Democrat operatives are also attacking Gabrielle Douglas, the 16-year old black American who won the 2012 gold medal in gymnastics.
“The accomplished young lady had the nerve to give glory to God for her win,” Jackson says. “This apparently offended liberals.”
Case in point: Mary Elizabeth Williams, journalist for the progressive online magazine Salon.com, wrote, “I've often wondered what it is about Christians like Douglas that unnerves me so ... Douglas and her ilk seem to espouse a faith based on what is commonly referred to as 'The God of Parking Spaces.'”
Jackson, founder and president of STAND (Staying True to America's National Destiny), responds: “Progressives are indeed 'unnerved' by devout Christians. That's why they resort to ridicule, even of a 16-year-old Olympic medal winner. Williams says we worship 'The God of Parking Spaces,' but I would prefer Gabby's God of grace and kindness to the leftist's god of ridicule and persecution.
“Our Heavenly Father loves us and helps those who are humble enough to ask Him.”
Later this month when Democrats make same-sex marriage part of their official Party Platform, the former practicing attorney says they will be spitting in the face of every Bible-believing Christian in America: “They will be saying, 'We don't care what you think, what you believe, or what the Bible or the God of the Bible says. We know better than God.'”
Jackson's message to Christians is, “The Democrat Party has turned its back on Christians. It is time to turn our backs on the Democrat Party.”
“If not us, who? If not now, when?” – Ronald Reagan
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
by John Nolte25 Aug 2012
It's 8:21 on a Saturday morning and according to this photo snapped by Sharon Broadie, this is the size of the crowd that showed up in Powell, Ohio, (just outside of Columbus) to see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan:
Meanwhile, President FailureTeleprompter is relegated to rationalizing his lack of turnout into a "deliberate" desire for smaller, more intimate crowds. Yeah, that sounds like the Mr. Greek Column we've all come to know and grow tired of.
Meanwhile, the media refuses to report on the size of either side's crowds.
Meanwhile, across the country, the documentary film "2016" has just opened wide on over 1,000 screens and in the heart of Hollywood's biggest season hit #3 at the box office.
Meanwhile, though their Media Palace Guards assure us this is not the case, the Obama campaign's increasingly desperate and shrill campaign is acting more and more like a campaign so far behind and so in fear of losing, they feel they have nothing to lose. From "felon" to "chains" to "Mitt killed my wife" to one bald-faced lie after another, President Obama has forsaken the dignity of the office and -- should he win a second term -- all hope of bringing the country together after the kind of scorched-earth campaign only the terrified wage.
Meanwhile, the media is behaving in a manner no less shrill and desperate than their Presidential Master. When the unemployment rate increases, the media tells us that's a good thing. When the economy shrinks from 4.1 to 1.5%, the media still call it "the recovery." When an idiot in Missouri says something stupid about rape and abortion, the media launches into a week-long narrative accusing Republicans of being soft on rape.
Meanwhile, Obama supports infanticide. Romney opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is at risk. Yesterday CNN released a poll showing 62% of the American people agree with Romney and only 32% with Obama.
This morning the media was still painting Romney-Ryan as the out-of-touch extremists on this issue.
Meanwhile, yesterday, Mitt Romney made a birth certificate quip and within thirty-minutes those few words received more media attention (and phony outrage) than the record number of American casualties currently mounting in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, as the clock runs down and campaign days grow more and more precious, three days ago, the Obama campaign felt it was a good use of the Vice President to send him to the supposedly safe state of Minnesota.
Meanwhile, yesterday, Mitt Romney was in the true blue state of Michigan.
Something is happening in this country -- something both the Obama campaign and its media cronies know is happening but won't acknowledge.
What's happening is on the ground and not yet quantifiable in polling that doesn’t yet have its sea legs. But it's out there and it's real and before the media and President Obama are forced to acknowledge it, they're spending every bit of their dignity and credibility and integrity to kill it.
Red State's Erick Erickson senses it too.
Craig Karpel is a recovering addict. He says so himself. His addiction is to Barack Obama, and his recovery inspires him to write a book. He offers a 12-step program, patterned after the program that has rescued thousands of town drunks.
He’s a confirmed Obamaholic, but he doesn’t blame the president. He absolves Mr. Obama of blame for the addiction to the messiah from the south side of Chicago that turned so many healthy Americans into junkies. His book has created a bit of a buzz already.
“My name is Craig K.,” he says in the opening line of the “12-Step Guide for the Recovering Obama Voters,” published by HarperCollins Broadside Books.
“I’m an Obamaholic. Welcome to what Alcoholics Anonymous would call a ‘meeting in print.’ We’re here to admit to each other and to ourselves that the Obama presidency isn’t Obama’s fault - it’s ours. We should be impeached for having elected him.”
Though the collective stupor induced by Mr. Obama’s speechifying four years ago is finally dissolving, little by little, there’s still a lot of stupor out there. Gallup only this week said Mitt Romney has edged ahead of the president in a national poll of voters, but what is remarkable to the sober observer is that Mr. Obama is keeping it close, given the unholy mess he has made of the economy.
The president offers words, pretty enough but not much consolation to someone desperate for a job. He correctly figured in 2008 that since few voters in his left-wing base had ever been to church or heard good preaching, his own skill with words would be taken for seductive eloquence. He adopted the pitch and cadence of the black pulpit, and though there are hundreds of black (and white) pulpitmasters who can preach rings around him, the swindle worked. Addiction, particularly among those who imagine themselves the elite, blossomed like the deadly nightshade.
Only a 12-step program, writes Craig Karpel, can free the naïve and clueless from an imprisoned mind. Mr. Karpel is no rightwing zealot. His book is neither rave nor rant. He was once, like the president, a left-wing community organizer. He once wrote speeches for Abby Hoffman. He mocks the soft, gooey language of quackery, of the frauds who have turned once-sturdy verbs into the soggy language of academics, therapeutics and charlatans. “We urgently need to embark on a 12-step program that will enable us to heal.”
He argues that the election of Barack Obama was the triumph of biography over achievement, of empty promise over performance, the result of aspiring to elitism. “Outside of technical fields, proverbially brain surgery and rocket science,” he says, “academic credentials are an indication not of achievement, but of promise.” Mr. Obama posed as Harvard scholar, but since he has resolutely refused to release any evidence of student prowess we don’t know whether he was the academic genius he assures us he was, or a fraud laughing at how easy it was to fool so many people.
Only by taking 12 measured steps can voters cure themselves of addiction to the idea that there’s a solution for every problem, to the temptation to find someone to blame for frustration and disappointment, for the addiction to denial, and finally to recognize the importance of attaining what he calls voting sobriety.
“Even when we realized this president was incompetent,” he writes, “we were in denial about our own incompetence as voters.”
Mr. Carpel, eager though he is to repent and make amends, may well be embarked on a fool’s errand. The elites are unlikely to see their practiced error in judgment; how can anyone with a Ph.D be so wrong when he’s so sincere? But there may be hope for enough of the rest of us.
Obamania, in this view, has the classic features of addiction: the buzz, the rush, the flush, the high, the euphoric contentment. “And now we’re experiencing the inevitable comedown: the crash, the craving when the addiction isn’t satisfying, the misery of withdrawal.”
Only with recovery can addicts begin to cast sober ballots. No more dream of being delivered into a fairytale kingdom of Arthurian legend. “The president’s job isn’t to pull a sword out of a stone. It’s to manage the nation’s government and to inspire Americans to be their best selves.”
Mr. Carpel is correct that we’ve become a culture addicted to wishes and dreams, where celebrity reigns and entertainment is all. The circus is fun, and addiction feels good for a little while. But there may be hope for change. Who wants to be the town drunk forever?
By Jill W. Tallman
The latest expedition to recover possible evidence of Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Model 10 Electra has video footage that shows man-made objects in deep water off the uninhabited atoll where she is believed to have landed.
The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) said last week that a review of high-definition underwater video footage taken during its July expedition has revealed “a scattering of man-made objects on the reef slope off the west end of Nikumaroro.” TIGHAR sailed from Hawaii to Nikumaroro to investigate a clue spotted in an original negative of a photo of the western shoreline of the atoll. The negative showed a protrusion from a reef that appears to resemble an aircraft landing gear.
Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, disappeared July 2, 1937, during an attempt to fly around the world. At the time of their disappearance, Earhart was trying to find Howland Island, an atoll 356 nautical miles north of Nikumaroro that been equipped as a refueling station.
The debris field is in deep water offshore the location where an object “thought to be Lockheed Electra landing gear appears in a photo taken three months after Amelia Earhart disappeared,” TIGHAR said on its website. “Items in the debris field appear to be consistent with the object in the 1937 photo.”
TIGHAR’s announcement preceded the Aug. 19 airing of a Discovery Channel documentary on the most recent expedition to Nikumaroro, “Finding Amelia Earhart: Mystery Solved?”
The organization admitted in July that its initial findings were not conclusive, but said that forensic specialists would be analyzing the sonar data and high-definition footage obtained through the use of an autonomous underwater vehicle and a remotely operated vehicle. TIGHAR Executive Director Ric Gillespie told Discovery News that he believes early media reports “rushed to judgment in saying that the expedition didn’t find anything.” He said the “severe underwater environment” at Nikumaroro indicated that “we would be looking for debris from an airplane that had been torn to pieces 75 years ago.”
TIGHAR’s forensic experts will continue to analyze the video. According to Discovery News, forensic imaging specialist Jeff Glickman has reviewed less than 30 percent of the footage. If further analysis continues to support the hypothesis that TIGHAR has indeed found the object that appears in the 1937 photo, “we’ll certainly want to recover it,” Gillespie told Discovery News.
posted 8/27/2012 11:14:20 AM |
If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."That is exactly what Web sites like To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
August 27, 2012: 12:01 PM ET
FORTUNE -- It's well-known that government spending has grown rapidly in the three-and-a-half years since Barack Obama succeeded George W. Bush as president. It's also clear that since GDP hit bottom in early 2009, economic growth has proven exceedingly weak compared with the rapid ascent from past downturns.
Now, a debate is raging over whether the big jump in outlays filled a hole that saved economy from a cataclysm, as everyone from columnist-economist Paul Krugman and Obama himself argue, or merely stunted the "recovery" by diverting job-creating, growth-enhancing capital from America's businesses.
Although it's impossible to settle the issue definitively, it is enlightening to examine where all that new spending is going. In crunching the numbers, I was amazed that most of the increase isn't flowing into goods and services the government provides, and nor is it fulfilling the fabled priority for building and upgrading our roads, tunnels and bridges.
So where are the new trillions in spending really going? To find out, let's start with the total increase in outlays. Since the fourth quarter of 2008, total government spending -- federal, state and local -- has risen by 17.8%, to $6.3 trillion. That's 12.6% adjusted for inflation. In those 11 quarters, outlays have swelled from 37.9% to 40.3% of GDP, the highest number since the mid-1940s.
The official GDP accounts, assembled by the government's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), show how much of that almost $1 trillion increase actually flowed into government services and investments. It's important to recognize that the government spending included in GDP is not total spending, but the expenditures on two categories. The first is called "government consumption," consisting of payments that provide such products and services as education and national defense, and encompassing everything from salaries for teachers, to pay for soldiers to costs for running state DMVs.
The second category is "government investment," mainly comprising outlays on construction and maintenance of America's infrastructure from federal, state and county highways to school facilities to dams. From late 2008 until today, spending on government goods and services rose just .1% annually, adjusted for inflation. The real shocker is investment: It dropped 3.71% a year in real terms. So the almost 18% rise in spending failed to provide substantially more government services, and furnished a lot less money for the highly touted necessity of rebuilding America's infrastructure.
The extra spending -- the difference between the total and the shrinking share going to services plus investment -- went to an explosive category called "transfer payments." Government transfer payments are defined as expenditures for which no good, service or upgrade in infrastructure is expected in return. The government collects the money in the form of taxes and new borrowing, then writes the checks to consumers and, to a lesser extent, companies in the form of subsidies. Naturally, all of the money funding the rise in transfer payments has come from new borrowing, since the U.S. is running gigantic deficits.
By the way, the transfer payments do get counted indirectly in GDP, chiefly as "personal consumption" of cars, TVs, restaurant meals and sundry other expenditures by the folks who get the checks.
Since late 2008, transfer payments have ballooned by 34% or almost $800 billion a year, rising from 17.3% to 20.1% of GDP. Remember, we're not counting programs that were part of the Obama "stimulus" and have since expired, such as the Making Work Pay program. We're looking at the net of what's been added and subtracted since 2008, and it's a big positive. The largest category of transfer payments, of course, consists of the three major entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Indeed, they rose in total by 28% since the fourth quarter of 2008. What's surprising is that other transfer payments, all told, rose even faster, by 38%, and accounted for over half of the total increase.
Among the fast-growing categories: unemployment insurance and food stamps, which together expanded by 120% to $211 billion, and environmental and energy spending, including subsidies for solar panels, windmills, ethanol and other green products, which grew 76% combined to $61 billion. Job training, housing subsidies and many other line items also saw rapid increases.
The big question is whether all the new spending on transfer payments made the economy grow faster than if that spending had been far more modest. Two leading economists are highly skeptical, John Cochrane of the University of Chicago, and John Taylor of Stanford. "The Keynesians will tell you that except for the 'multiplier magic' of all the spending, the private economy would have been even worse," says Cochrane. He counters that the money for those transfer payments had to come from somewhere else, specifically by shrinking the savings available for private companies. "To do all that spending, the government has to borrow the money, and the people who bought government bonds would otherwise have provided companies with more capital for expansion by purchasing their bonds or stocks."
The GDP accounts give credence to his argument. Private investment is lagging. Since the start of the downturn in 2008, spending on plant and equipment fallen by 6.3% adjusted for inflation. The most recent CBO report concludes that "net investment as a fraction of GDP remains unusually low."
Taylor agrees that "all the borrowing is crowding out private investment." But he cites a second, generally overlooked problem as well: the damaging impact on public investment. "It's clear that budget constraints on state and local governments are squeezing the amount available for investment," states Taylor. "The result is that both private and public investment is getting crowded out by government spending." Among the transfer payments hammering state and local budgets are public pensions, which once again, provide neither government services nor improvements to roads or tunnels.
Taylor insists that "the economy would be growing a lot faster without all the spending." It's certain that America is now swamped with the debt that financed that spending, without getting much extra torque in return. Was the great splurge worth it? The voters will register their opinion on November 6th.