Feb 28, 2008
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Democrat Barack Obama on Wednesday for saying he would take action as president "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."
"When you examine that statement, it's pretty remarkable," McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas.
"I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'" McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. Sen McCain, Tyler, Texas, Feb 28
AND the latest answer from Obama:
"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying ,'Well let me give you some news Barack, al Qaeda is in Iraq,' like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on." Barack Obama, Feb 27, 2008
******
Why is a US Senator getting his information on the war from newspapers? Doesn't he have better intel than that available to him? I would hate to think that Obama would base his decisions as president on what he reads in the NY Times or the Chicago Tribune.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Islamic Links on Obama Web Site Stir Criticism
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 25, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - A page for Muslim supporters of Sen. Barack Obama -- hosted on Obama's presidential campaign Web site -- promotes events sponsored by controversial Islamic groups.
Muslim Americans for Obama '08, found on Obama's main campaign site, allows users to create their own page through a "My Obama" option. The Muslim Americans for Obama page also links to a Web site that features lectures by people who have expressed radical Islamic views in the past.
A portion of the "Muslim Americans for Obama" page lists proposals to establish a Muslim American advisory group on U.S. foreign policy; provide prayer areas in public places such as malls, airports, universities and government buildings; institute a law to allow Muslim employees to take time from their work day for prayer; and institute a law against harassment of Muslim women in public areas.
The Obama campaign's press office did not respond to numerous phone calls and e-mail messages from Cybercast News Service on this matter.
Throughout the campaign, Obama has professed his Christian faith, although his father is a Muslim.
Late last year, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a supporter of Obama's Democratic rival New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, caused a stir in Iowa when he said, "It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim."
"Muslim Americans for Obama '08 is a grassroots initiative to support the presidential campaign for Barack Obama 2008," the Web page says. "Our sincere intention is to serve as a resource for Muslim and non-Muslim Americans to get involved and learn more about the political process and Barack Obama as a person and presidential candidate."
Other "My Obama" pages on the campaign's Web site include "Jews for Obama," "Christians for Obama" and "Gay Christians for Obama."
But it is a link and a list of events on the Muslim Americans for Obama page that has prompted critics that consider themselves watchdogs of Islamist groups to take notice.
The list of events on the Muslim Americans for Obama page includes voter registration drives at conventions sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), held last April and August in Rosemont, Ill., and the convention co-sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS).
These groups routinely inject themselves into political causes, said M. Zhudi Jasser, chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He thinks all political candidates should stay clear of mixing religion and politics, saying the root of terror is political Islam.
"Any candidate that engaged American Islamist organizations without any ideological litmus test about their stances regarding the transnational goals of Islamism, I think that is going to be a major liability," Jasser, a Muslim, told Cybercast News Service.
"I wouldn't specifically say Obama. I would say any candidate that doesn't identify that Muslim organizations should be leading the effort against political Islam and its impact on the ends of that terrorists seek. I think it will be a liability," he said.
The MAS has faced intense scrutiny in recent years.
In the appeal of Sabri Benkhala, a man convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice last year after being acquitted of trying to help the Taliban, the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia filed a brief that referenced to MAS as an "overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood for the United States."
The Muslim Brotherhood is a militant Islamic group in Egypt. The government has not brought any charges against MAS.
"We are an American Muslim organization, and we don't take orders from anybody oversees," MAS Executive Director Mahdi Bray told Cybercast News Service. "We were established in America, and we are not an overt or covert arm of the Muslim Brotherhood."
In 2004, after the Israeli military killed Hamas spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin, the MAS Freedom Foundation announced it would push Congress to enforce provisions of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act against Israel, which forbids the use of U.S. weapons from being used against civilian targets.
Bray said other human rights organizations and the United Nations also opposed the action by Israel.
In 2006, the Minnesota chapter of MAS issued a fatwa, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, proclaiming that "Islamic jurisprudence" would prohibit Muslim taxi cab drivers from transporting anyone carrying alcohol "because it involves cooperating with sin, according to Islam."
The group tried and failed to get the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to create a two-tier system for Muslim and non-Muslim cab drivers. In this case, Bray said, the state chapter was "out of line" and not acting on behalf of the national organization.
As for the Obama candidacy, Bray anticipates his Muslim heritage could be smeared.
"After the tragedy of 9/11, Republicans might politically exploit this for fear and smear," Bray said. "He's a Christian, but the right-wing bloggers are already talking about his name Obama Hussein.
"Can you believe we live in such a bigoted country that people would denounce him for his name? It wouldn't matter if he were a Christian or a Mormon or Jewish. It's unfair to denounce someone because of their name and connect that to their Muslim heritage," he added.
Bray stressed there is no monolithic support for any single candidate among Muslim voters.
ICNA and MAS, which co-sponsor conventions, are non-profit religious organizations and thus do not endorse any candidates, said Azeem Khan, assistant secretary general for ICNA.
"We don't have a problem with people having tables" at our conventions, Khan told Cybercast News Service. "In '04, Kerry had a table. In 2000, the ISNA convention had a table of Muslims for Bush."
Khan has his doubts about the electoral impact the Muslim community can have in the presidential race.
"Muslims are less than 2 percent of the population in the U.S. and are not a category weighed heavily," Khan said. "Muslims are naturally close to the Republican Party on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The difference comes on foreign policy and other issues."
Khan said President George W. Bush, a Republican, won overwhelmingly among Muslim voters in 2000, but the pendulum swung to the Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.
ISNA promotes itself as a civil rights group seeking interfaith dialogue, but the group has had to weather controversy in past years.
ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in a case, declared a mistrial, against the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation. The government accused the Holy Land Foundation but did not convict it of raising more than $12 million for individuals and groups linked the terrorist group Hamas.
J. Michael Waller, an Annenberg professor of international communication at the Institute of World Politics, told a Senate panel in 2003 that ISNA provides training for Wahhabi-trained imams. Wahhabiism is a form of Sunni Islam that includes radical adherents.
An ISNA spokesperson could not be reached for comment for this story.
Jasser was also concerned that the Muslim Americans for Obama site contained a "Qaran (Audio) English Translation." Clicking on that brings a user to the Web site "The Sounds of Islam." At this site users can listen to numerous lectures regarding Islam, including those from people who have expressed radical views in the past.
One of the more controversial lecturers on the site is the Islamic preacher Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who has advocated suicide bombings.
"Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do," the BBC quoted him as saying.
The "Sounds of Islam" site also includes lectures by Abdul Rahman Al Sudais, the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, who has used inflammatory rhetoric against people of different faiths.
The BBC quoted him as saying, "The worst ... of the enemies of Islam are those ... whom he ... made monkeys and pigs, the aggressive Jews and oppressive Zionists and those that follow them: the callers of the trinity and the cross worshippers ... those influenced by the rottenness of their ideas, and the poison of their cultures the followers of secularism .... How can we talk sweetly when the Hindus and the idol worshippers indulge in their overwhelming hatred against our brothers."
Jasser said it's not a stretch to show concern about such a link on the pro-Obama site.
"That's the problem with Islamism," he said. "It's an insinuating, permeating, political ideology that utilizes this political activism to bring forth the political agenda of Islamists. Unless you deal with organizations that separate religion and politics, you're going to find yourself one or two steps away from the international Muslim Brotherhood."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200802/NAT20080225a.html
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 25, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - A page for Muslim supporters of Sen. Barack Obama -- hosted on Obama's presidential campaign Web site -- promotes events sponsored by controversial Islamic groups.
Muslim Americans for Obama '08, found on Obama's main campaign site, allows users to create their own page through a "My Obama" option. The Muslim Americans for Obama page also links to a Web site that features lectures by people who have expressed radical Islamic views in the past.
A portion of the "Muslim Americans for Obama" page lists proposals to establish a Muslim American advisory group on U.S. foreign policy; provide prayer areas in public places such as malls, airports, universities and government buildings; institute a law to allow Muslim employees to take time from their work day for prayer; and institute a law against harassment of Muslim women in public areas.
The Obama campaign's press office did not respond to numerous phone calls and e-mail messages from Cybercast News Service on this matter.
Throughout the campaign, Obama has professed his Christian faith, although his father is a Muslim.
Late last year, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a supporter of Obama's Democratic rival New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, caused a stir in Iowa when he said, "It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim."
"Muslim Americans for Obama '08 is a grassroots initiative to support the presidential campaign for Barack Obama 2008," the Web page says. "Our sincere intention is to serve as a resource for Muslim and non-Muslim Americans to get involved and learn more about the political process and Barack Obama as a person and presidential candidate."
Other "My Obama" pages on the campaign's Web site include "Jews for Obama," "Christians for Obama" and "Gay Christians for Obama."
But it is a link and a list of events on the Muslim Americans for Obama page that has prompted critics that consider themselves watchdogs of Islamist groups to take notice.
The list of events on the Muslim Americans for Obama page includes voter registration drives at conventions sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), held last April and August in Rosemont, Ill., and the convention co-sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS).
These groups routinely inject themselves into political causes, said M. Zhudi Jasser, chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He thinks all political candidates should stay clear of mixing religion and politics, saying the root of terror is political Islam.
"Any candidate that engaged American Islamist organizations without any ideological litmus test about their stances regarding the transnational goals of Islamism, I think that is going to be a major liability," Jasser, a Muslim, told Cybercast News Service.
"I wouldn't specifically say Obama. I would say any candidate that doesn't identify that Muslim organizations should be leading the effort against political Islam and its impact on the ends of that terrorists seek. I think it will be a liability," he said.
The MAS has faced intense scrutiny in recent years.
In the appeal of Sabri Benkhala, a man convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice last year after being acquitted of trying to help the Taliban, the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia filed a brief that referenced to MAS as an "overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood for the United States."
The Muslim Brotherhood is a militant Islamic group in Egypt. The government has not brought any charges against MAS.
"We are an American Muslim organization, and we don't take orders from anybody oversees," MAS Executive Director Mahdi Bray told Cybercast News Service. "We were established in America, and we are not an overt or covert arm of the Muslim Brotherhood."
In 2004, after the Israeli military killed Hamas spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin, the MAS Freedom Foundation announced it would push Congress to enforce provisions of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act against Israel, which forbids the use of U.S. weapons from being used against civilian targets.
Bray said other human rights organizations and the United Nations also opposed the action by Israel.
In 2006, the Minnesota chapter of MAS issued a fatwa, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, proclaiming that "Islamic jurisprudence" would prohibit Muslim taxi cab drivers from transporting anyone carrying alcohol "because it involves cooperating with sin, according to Islam."
The group tried and failed to get the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to create a two-tier system for Muslim and non-Muslim cab drivers. In this case, Bray said, the state chapter was "out of line" and not acting on behalf of the national organization.
As for the Obama candidacy, Bray anticipates his Muslim heritage could be smeared.
"After the tragedy of 9/11, Republicans might politically exploit this for fear and smear," Bray said. "He's a Christian, but the right-wing bloggers are already talking about his name Obama Hussein.
"Can you believe we live in such a bigoted country that people would denounce him for his name? It wouldn't matter if he were a Christian or a Mormon or Jewish. It's unfair to denounce someone because of their name and connect that to their Muslim heritage," he added.
Bray stressed there is no monolithic support for any single candidate among Muslim voters.
ICNA and MAS, which co-sponsor conventions, are non-profit religious organizations and thus do not endorse any candidates, said Azeem Khan, assistant secretary general for ICNA.
"We don't have a problem with people having tables" at our conventions, Khan told Cybercast News Service. "In '04, Kerry had a table. In 2000, the ISNA convention had a table of Muslims for Bush."
Khan has his doubts about the electoral impact the Muslim community can have in the presidential race.
"Muslims are less than 2 percent of the population in the U.S. and are not a category weighed heavily," Khan said. "Muslims are naturally close to the Republican Party on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The difference comes on foreign policy and other issues."
Khan said President George W. Bush, a Republican, won overwhelmingly among Muslim voters in 2000, but the pendulum swung to the Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.
ISNA promotes itself as a civil rights group seeking interfaith dialogue, but the group has had to weather controversy in past years.
ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in a case, declared a mistrial, against the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation. The government accused the Holy Land Foundation but did not convict it of raising more than $12 million for individuals and groups linked the terrorist group Hamas.
J. Michael Waller, an Annenberg professor of international communication at the Institute of World Politics, told a Senate panel in 2003 that ISNA provides training for Wahhabi-trained imams. Wahhabiism is a form of Sunni Islam that includes radical adherents.
An ISNA spokesperson could not be reached for comment for this story.
Jasser was also concerned that the Muslim Americans for Obama site contained a "Qaran (Audio) English Translation." Clicking on that brings a user to the Web site "The Sounds of Islam." At this site users can listen to numerous lectures regarding Islam, including those from people who have expressed radical views in the past.
One of the more controversial lecturers on the site is the Islamic preacher Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who has advocated suicide bombings.
"Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do," the BBC quoted him as saying.
The "Sounds of Islam" site also includes lectures by Abdul Rahman Al Sudais, the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, who has used inflammatory rhetoric against people of different faiths.
The BBC quoted him as saying, "The worst ... of the enemies of Islam are those ... whom he ... made monkeys and pigs, the aggressive Jews and oppressive Zionists and those that follow them: the callers of the trinity and the cross worshippers ... those influenced by the rottenness of their ideas, and the poison of their cultures the followers of secularism .... How can we talk sweetly when the Hindus and the idol worshippers indulge in their overwhelming hatred against our brothers."
Jasser said it's not a stretch to show concern about such a link on the pro-Obama site.
"That's the problem with Islamism," he said. "It's an insinuating, permeating, political ideology that utilizes this political activism to bring forth the political agenda of Islamists. Unless you deal with organizations that separate religion and politics, you're going to find yourself one or two steps away from the international Muslim Brotherhood."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200802/NAT20080225a.html
George Soros and the Alchemy of 'Regime Change'
February 27, 2008
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
What does a very aged multi-billionaire do after he spends $25 million dollars to force a presidential election his way, and still falls flat on his face? Well, of course, he tries and tries again.
When George Soros failed to obtain the election of his candidate, John Kerry, in 2004, he brooded for a while, even said he might get out of politics altogether, but he just couldn't stop himself. He has stated publicly that he wishes to burst the "bubble of American supremacy," because he says our preeminence in the world is a detriment to global "equilibrium." So far, he has failed, but he keeps on trying.
And Mr. Soros has made no secret either of the fact that he sees the shortest way to effect political shake-ups, what he terms "regime changes," is through very difficult economic conditions.
America has not yet felt the full force of Soros style economic shock treatment. But others have.
Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically in comparative worth almost overnight.
When the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 threatened to spread globally, George Soros was right in the thick of it. Soros was accused by the Malaysian Prime Minister of causing the collapse with his monetary machinations, and he was branded in Thailand as an "economic war criminal" who "sucks the blood from the people." Right in the middle of this crisis, Soros dashed off his book, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, which demanded a "third way" toward economic stability.
Coincidentally, or not, during the height of the fears of worldwide recession, then President Clinton told the New York Times that he was proposing a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately for Soros, U.S. markets rebounded quickly, his predicted catastrophe was forestalled, and his brave new global economic plans receded for a bit.
This may have been to Soros' own good, though, because he was by 1998 up to his neck in the collapse of the Russian ruble, and buying up valuable East European resources at fire-sale prices.
And why not?
He had already been widely proclaiming that it was his own machinations that brought down the Soviet Empire. When asked about his sphere of influence in the Soviets' demise for a New Republic interview in 1994, Mr. Soros humbly replied that the author ought to report that "the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire."
When our House Banking Committee investigated the Russia-gate scandal in 1999, trying to determine just how $100 billion had been diverted out of Russia, forcing the collapse of its currency and the default of its enormous loans from the International Monetary Fund, Soros was even called to testify. He denied involvement of course, but finally admitted that he had used insider access in a deal that was barred to foreign investors to acquire a huge chunk of Sidanko Oil.
The Russia scandal was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee to be "one of the greatest social robberies in human history." (Shadow Party; David Horowitz and Richard Poe; p. 96)
Of course, Russia-gate was quickly hushed up and pushed aside in the public's lurid, and quite insatiable, interest in Monica-gate.
Then, George Soros did some more shady economic fooling around in France. And he actually got caught and charged with illegal insider trading in his attempt to takeover the Societe Generale bank. He was convicted and the conviction was upheld in 2 separate appeals, the last in June of 2006. They let him off, however, with a piddling $2.9 million fine.
Mere chicken feed to a multi-billionaire.
Of course, since George Soros is a naturalized American citizen, it is difficult to imagine just why he would intentionally want to bring about our own economic collapse.
But from all appearances, that might be exactly what he has on his mind.
By 2003, Soros was already predicting the downfall of the dollar. In a CNBC interview, amid a slump in the dollar's value against the Euro, Soros added fuel to that fire by stating that he was already selling dollars. His statement, in turn, caused a further decline in the international worth of the dollar.
When George Soros speaks, hedge fund managers and world financiers listen.
Unfortunately, he wasn't able to bring about the "October Surprise" U.S. economic downturn in time for the 2004 election. Our economy proved too resilient for him then.
But he hasn't stopped predicting that yearned-for recession that would spoil things for his political foes, the Republicans.
Just after he failed in 2004 to bring about Bush's demise, he went right on trying to force a conclusion to his self-fulfilling prophecy of doom for the U.S. And this year, it appears as though he may have finally hit pay dirt in the sub-prime meltdown which threatens to actually bring on that long hoped-for recession.
In Davos this year, at the World Economic Forum, Soros even went so far as to say that the current housing "bust" would signal the end of the dollar as the world's default currency. "The current crisis is not only the bust that follows the housing boom," Soros said. "It's basically the end of a 60-year period of continuing credit expansion based on the dollar as the reserve currency."
Being that Mr. Soros' stated goal for more than a decade has been to burst the "bubble of American supremacy," it stands to reason that the financial gloom he is predicting for us would be precisely his own little cup of tea.
And if the economic picture is bleak in this election year, who stands to benefit? Why, the Democrats, of course, the beneficiaries of Soros' 527 largesse.
And Mr. Soros, along with his "progressive" friends may stand at the ready to issue in their vision of America by strategically re-writing the Constitution.
In April 2005, Soros' Open Society Institute was the primary sponsor of a conference at Yale Law School, called, "The Constitution in 2020." The conference's task was to produce "a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be." (Emphasis mine.) When one sees references in progressive speak about the "evolutionary character of constitutional law," they are talking about changing the Constitution to formally enshrine their policy preferences so they can avoid the messy necessity of having to win elections. (Shadow Party; Horowitz and Poe; p. 71)
It would seem, then, that progressives stand at the threshold of fulfilling their wildest dreams right here on American shores. With a Republican Party in disarray, the economy seemingly poised on the brink of recession, one candidate with the charisma of a snake charmer and another master schemer as backup, and a new Constitution already being planned, what will stand in their way?
These folks have designs not only on a reinvention of America, but on the whole world. Both Democrat candidates for the presidency have plans for an American cure for global poverty that make our current, quite generous, foreign aid look like a tiny Band-Aid.
Hillary's utopian plan is of a global village, where the role of America is that of supreme benefactor, with herself as our beneficent queen. Hillary's plans for the redistribution of American wealth extend benefits not just to other Americans, but to every other country in need.
Obama, too, sees global poverty as the root cause of all evil in the world, including crime, war and terrorism. His single piece of signature legislation in the Senate is a bill that would authorize an additional $845 billion from American tax payers to eradicate global poverty, and legislate a demand on future presidents to bring America in line with UN mandates on percentage of national GDP given to fight global poverty.
These plans are in perfect sync with Soros' own support for the Tobin Tax, a global tax on currency transactions. This taxation would be forced on sovereign nations by an international body, coercing capitalist economies into sharing their wealth with poor nations for the eradication of poverty and the myriad problems associated with it.
So, that which we and our ancestors have sacrificed to build and maintain will be stolen from us and our offspring and given away by the new Robin Hoods, George Soros and the Democratic Party, who seem to envision global perfection at last, with every single soul living happily ever after in absolute peace and harmony, together singing kumbaya in the same language...the language of love.
And only God knows what can save America from being the sacrificial fodder for their grand, megalomaniacal delusion.
Saner heads prevailing, perhaps?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/george_soros_and_the_alchemy_o.html
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
What does a very aged multi-billionaire do after he spends $25 million dollars to force a presidential election his way, and still falls flat on his face? Well, of course, he tries and tries again.
When George Soros failed to obtain the election of his candidate, John Kerry, in 2004, he brooded for a while, even said he might get out of politics altogether, but he just couldn't stop himself. He has stated publicly that he wishes to burst the "bubble of American supremacy," because he says our preeminence in the world is a detriment to global "equilibrium." So far, he has failed, but he keeps on trying.
And Mr. Soros has made no secret either of the fact that he sees the shortest way to effect political shake-ups, what he terms "regime changes," is through very difficult economic conditions.
America has not yet felt the full force of Soros style economic shock treatment. But others have.
Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically in comparative worth almost overnight.
When the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 threatened to spread globally, George Soros was right in the thick of it. Soros was accused by the Malaysian Prime Minister of causing the collapse with his monetary machinations, and he was branded in Thailand as an "economic war criminal" who "sucks the blood from the people." Right in the middle of this crisis, Soros dashed off his book, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, which demanded a "third way" toward economic stability.
Coincidentally, or not, during the height of the fears of worldwide recession, then President Clinton told the New York Times that he was proposing a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately for Soros, U.S. markets rebounded quickly, his predicted catastrophe was forestalled, and his brave new global economic plans receded for a bit.
This may have been to Soros' own good, though, because he was by 1998 up to his neck in the collapse of the Russian ruble, and buying up valuable East European resources at fire-sale prices.
And why not?
He had already been widely proclaiming that it was his own machinations that brought down the Soviet Empire. When asked about his sphere of influence in the Soviets' demise for a New Republic interview in 1994, Mr. Soros humbly replied that the author ought to report that "the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire."
When our House Banking Committee investigated the Russia-gate scandal in 1999, trying to determine just how $100 billion had been diverted out of Russia, forcing the collapse of its currency and the default of its enormous loans from the International Monetary Fund, Soros was even called to testify. He denied involvement of course, but finally admitted that he had used insider access in a deal that was barred to foreign investors to acquire a huge chunk of Sidanko Oil.
The Russia scandal was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee to be "one of the greatest social robberies in human history." (Shadow Party; David Horowitz and Richard Poe; p. 96)
Of course, Russia-gate was quickly hushed up and pushed aside in the public's lurid, and quite insatiable, interest in Monica-gate.
Then, George Soros did some more shady economic fooling around in France. And he actually got caught and charged with illegal insider trading in his attempt to takeover the Societe Generale bank. He was convicted and the conviction was upheld in 2 separate appeals, the last in June of 2006. They let him off, however, with a piddling $2.9 million fine.
Mere chicken feed to a multi-billionaire.
Of course, since George Soros is a naturalized American citizen, it is difficult to imagine just why he would intentionally want to bring about our own economic collapse.
But from all appearances, that might be exactly what he has on his mind.
By 2003, Soros was already predicting the downfall of the dollar. In a CNBC interview, amid a slump in the dollar's value against the Euro, Soros added fuel to that fire by stating that he was already selling dollars. His statement, in turn, caused a further decline in the international worth of the dollar.
When George Soros speaks, hedge fund managers and world financiers listen.
Unfortunately, he wasn't able to bring about the "October Surprise" U.S. economic downturn in time for the 2004 election. Our economy proved too resilient for him then.
But he hasn't stopped predicting that yearned-for recession that would spoil things for his political foes, the Republicans.
Just after he failed in 2004 to bring about Bush's demise, he went right on trying to force a conclusion to his self-fulfilling prophecy of doom for the U.S. And this year, it appears as though he may have finally hit pay dirt in the sub-prime meltdown which threatens to actually bring on that long hoped-for recession.
In Davos this year, at the World Economic Forum, Soros even went so far as to say that the current housing "bust" would signal the end of the dollar as the world's default currency. "The current crisis is not only the bust that follows the housing boom," Soros said. "It's basically the end of a 60-year period of continuing credit expansion based on the dollar as the reserve currency."
Being that Mr. Soros' stated goal for more than a decade has been to burst the "bubble of American supremacy," it stands to reason that the financial gloom he is predicting for us would be precisely his own little cup of tea.
And if the economic picture is bleak in this election year, who stands to benefit? Why, the Democrats, of course, the beneficiaries of Soros' 527 largesse.
And Mr. Soros, along with his "progressive" friends may stand at the ready to issue in their vision of America by strategically re-writing the Constitution.
In April 2005, Soros' Open Society Institute was the primary sponsor of a conference at Yale Law School, called, "The Constitution in 2020." The conference's task was to produce "a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be." (Emphasis mine.) When one sees references in progressive speak about the "evolutionary character of constitutional law," they are talking about changing the Constitution to formally enshrine their policy preferences so they can avoid the messy necessity of having to win elections. (Shadow Party; Horowitz and Poe; p. 71)
It would seem, then, that progressives stand at the threshold of fulfilling their wildest dreams right here on American shores. With a Republican Party in disarray, the economy seemingly poised on the brink of recession, one candidate with the charisma of a snake charmer and another master schemer as backup, and a new Constitution already being planned, what will stand in their way?
These folks have designs not only on a reinvention of America, but on the whole world. Both Democrat candidates for the presidency have plans for an American cure for global poverty that make our current, quite generous, foreign aid look like a tiny Band-Aid.
Hillary's utopian plan is of a global village, where the role of America is that of supreme benefactor, with herself as our beneficent queen. Hillary's plans for the redistribution of American wealth extend benefits not just to other Americans, but to every other country in need.
Obama, too, sees global poverty as the root cause of all evil in the world, including crime, war and terrorism. His single piece of signature legislation in the Senate is a bill that would authorize an additional $845 billion from American tax payers to eradicate global poverty, and legislate a demand on future presidents to bring America in line with UN mandates on percentage of national GDP given to fight global poverty.
These plans are in perfect sync with Soros' own support for the Tobin Tax, a global tax on currency transactions. This taxation would be forced on sovereign nations by an international body, coercing capitalist economies into sharing their wealth with poor nations for the eradication of poverty and the myriad problems associated with it.
So, that which we and our ancestors have sacrificed to build and maintain will be stolen from us and our offspring and given away by the new Robin Hoods, George Soros and the Democratic Party, who seem to envision global perfection at last, with every single soul living happily ever after in absolute peace and harmony, together singing kumbaya in the same language...the language of love.
And only God knows what can save America from being the sacrificial fodder for their grand, megalomaniacal delusion.
Saner heads prevailing, perhaps?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/george_soros_and_the_alchemy_o.html
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
NY Times Book review of "Dreams from my Father" by Obama
Obama’s Foursquare Politics, With a Dab of Dijon
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: October 17, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/books/17kaku.html
His 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” written before Mr. Obama entered politics, provided a revealing, introspective account of his efforts to trace his family’s tangled roots and his attempts to come to terms with his absent father, who left home when he was still a toddler. That book did an evocative job of conjuring the author’s multicultural childhood: his father was from Kenya, his mother was from Kansas, and the young Mr. Obama grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia.
And it was equally candid about his youthful struggles: pot, booze and “maybe a little blow,” he wrote, could “push questions of who I was out of my mind,” flatten “out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.”
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: October 17, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/books/17kaku.html
His 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” written before Mr. Obama entered politics, provided a revealing, introspective account of his efforts to trace his family’s tangled roots and his attempts to come to terms with his absent father, who left home when he was still a toddler. That book did an evocative job of conjuring the author’s multicultural childhood: his father was from Kenya, his mother was from Kansas, and the young Mr. Obama grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia.
And it was equally candid about his youthful struggles: pot, booze and “maybe a little blow,” he wrote, could “push questions of who I was out of my mind,” flatten “out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.”
IRS Investigates Obama's Denomination
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
(02-26) 16:36 PST New York (AP) --
The IRS is investigating the United Church of Christ over a speech Barack Obama gave to its national meeting last year after he became a candidate for president.
Obama is a member of the church.
A spokesman for the denomination says it received notice of the inquiry on Monday.
The IRS says there is reason to believe the speech violated restrictions on political activity for nonprofit groups. The denomination denies any wrongdoing.
Church officials say they had consulted with lawyers before the Democrat's June 2007 speech and made clear before Obama's address that he was speaking as a church member, not a political candidate.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/26/politics/p163622S12.DTL
(02-26) 16:36 PST New York (AP) --
The IRS is investigating the United Church of Christ over a speech Barack Obama gave to its national meeting last year after he became a candidate for president.
Obama is a member of the church.
A spokesman for the denomination says it received notice of the inquiry on Monday.
The IRS says there is reason to believe the speech violated restrictions on political activity for nonprofit groups. The denomination denies any wrongdoing.
Church officials say they had consulted with lawyers before the Democrat's June 2007 speech and made clear before Obama's address that he was speaking as a church member, not a political candidate.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/26/politics/p163622S12.DTL
Obama's Chicago-style Politics (FEC fiasco)
Monday, February 25, 2008
Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at 3:53 PM
Howard Dean is upset that John McCain wants out from public matching funds for the primary. So much so that's he's filed a complaint with the FEC.
Very well. If that's how he really feels about it, he'll tell Senate Democrats to give up their extraordinary block against the President's FEC nominees -- a block that is preventing the FEC from holding a pro-forma vote to allow McCain out of the system.
And who put the hold on Hans Von Spakovsky, one of the FEC nominees in limbo?
Barack Obama.
(In fact, this left-wing blogger asserts that Obama is THE key reason there is no working FEC right now.)
This is extraordinary. Obama is using his Senate office to limit his likely November opponent's spending to $9 million between now and the convention. Incidentally, Obama's actions would have been responsible for cutting John Edwards off at the knees had he stayed in the race and required an infusion of federal funds.
The FEC must vote to approve any such transfers, and partly because of the Obama-led block, it can't. That also means John McCain hasn't seen any Federal money yet. I don't see how you can be in a federal matching funds system and not receive any matching funds.
Is this "change we can believe in" or just Chicago-style politics?
Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at 3:53 PM
Howard Dean is upset that John McCain wants out from public matching funds for the primary. So much so that's he's filed a complaint with the FEC.
Very well. If that's how he really feels about it, he'll tell Senate Democrats to give up their extraordinary block against the President's FEC nominees -- a block that is preventing the FEC from holding a pro-forma vote to allow McCain out of the system.
And who put the hold on Hans Von Spakovsky, one of the FEC nominees in limbo?
Barack Obama.
(In fact, this left-wing blogger asserts that Obama is THE key reason there is no working FEC right now.)
This is extraordinary. Obama is using his Senate office to limit his likely November opponent's spending to $9 million between now and the convention. Incidentally, Obama's actions would have been responsible for cutting John Edwards off at the knees had he stayed in the race and required an infusion of federal funds.
The FEC must vote to approve any such transfers, and partly because of the Obama-led block, it can't. That also means John McCain hasn't seen any Federal money yet. I don't see how you can be in a federal matching funds system and not receive any matching funds.
Is this "change we can believe in" or just Chicago-style politics?
Military fears 'unknown quantity'
February 26, 2008
By Rowan Scarborough -
Members of Washington's military and defense establishment are expressing trepidation about Sen. Barack Obama, as the Illinois senator comes closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination and leads in national polls to become commander in chief.
But his backers, including a former Air Force chief of staff, say the rookie senator believes in a strong military, and with it, a larger Army and Marine Corps. "
Any military person who concludes he's a left-wing, hair-on-fire, Kumbaya child of the '60s has sadly misunderestimated him, to use George Bush's term," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak. (See comments below about Gen McPeak and his time as AF Chief of Staff - Sam)
Still, the mostly conservative retired officers, industry executives and current defense officials interviewed by The Washington Times cite Mr. Obama's lack of experience in national security. They also point to his determination to pull American combat units from Iraq at a time when a troop surge has reduced violence, damaged al Qaeda and allowed the Iraqi government to progress toward Sunni-Shia-Kurd reconciliation.
"We're very concerned about his apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the United States," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who is pro-Iraq war and a Fox News analyst. "A lot of retired senior officers feel the same way."
Mr. Obama also has stirred concern in national security circles by pledging to talk to the leaders of rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, without preconditions.
His urging of the Bush administration to conduct air strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan without its approval is privately derided inside the Pentagon as the way to ruin relations with a good ally. Pakistan will not allow U.S. combat troops to operate on its soil. Questions about Mr. Obama's commander-in-chief qualifications have reached the campaign trail.
[snip]
No other Obama proposal brings more military criticism than his plan to bring home one to two combat brigades per month from Iraq — meaning all such units would be out by the end of 2009, his first year in office.
A senior Pentagon official said an Obama swearing-in "will give the Arab street the final victory, the best optics, and the ultimate in bragging rights.
They win. We lose." Retired Army Gen. John Keane, an architect of the Iraq troop surge, worries that talk of a U.S. pullout makes reconciliation more difficult. Gen. Keane has not endorsed any presidential candidate. "
Anyone who is advocating a precipitous pullout of U.S. forces, believing this will be a catalyst for political progress, does not understand the realities of Iraq and the minds of the key political leaders," Gen. Keane told The Washington Times. "The U.S. military presence is the glue that is holding things together in Iraq and is the fundamental reason for the recent political progress. If you remove this presence, the political leaders in Iraq will believe they are on their own and will fall prey to their own fears and paranoia. ... They will bunker down and the political progress will come to a dead stop."
Mr. Korb said Mr. Obama has a "technically sound" proposal for withdrawing troops. He said that the candidate realized before the war, unlike many politicians in Washington, that things would go wrong in Iraq.
"If you go back and you look at the speech he gave on Iraq before the war, I think that it was very well reasoned and well argued," the adviser said. As a state senator in 2002, Mr. Obama said, "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Gen. McPeak, who is an Obama campaign co-chairman, said the senator's intelligence will dazzle the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
[snip]
Defense industry executives worry that Mr. Obama will end six years of defense budget increases and, as he has repeatedly said on the campaign trail and in debates, tap into war and military funds to support his plan for universal health care. "We've got some trepidation.
There is no track record," said an industry executive of the first-term senator. "He's an unknown quantity and that scares us a little bit."
The National Journal ranked Mr. Obama as the Senate's most liberal member in 2007, based partly on his string of votes in favor of amendments that mandated a combat troop pullout from Iraq.
Mr. Obama does, however, acknowledge that America is in a war against extremists.
"The terrorists are at war with us," he said in "The War We Need to Win," a major policy speech. "They seek to create a repressive caliphate.
To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for." One of his five pillars for winning is, "getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
The Obama campaign has assembled a team of national security advisers, most of whom worked in the Clinton administration, including former national security adviser Anthony Lake. To date, Mr. Obama has attracted few retired admirals and generals as supporters.
[snip]
For complete article see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080226/NATION/476716884/1001&template=printart
Note: Bold is from blog owner
By Rowan Scarborough -
Members of Washington's military and defense establishment are expressing trepidation about Sen. Barack Obama, as the Illinois senator comes closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination and leads in national polls to become commander in chief.
But his backers, including a former Air Force chief of staff, say the rookie senator believes in a strong military, and with it, a larger Army and Marine Corps. "
Any military person who concludes he's a left-wing, hair-on-fire, Kumbaya child of the '60s has sadly misunderestimated him, to use George Bush's term," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak. (See comments below about Gen McPeak and his time as AF Chief of Staff - Sam)
Still, the mostly conservative retired officers, industry executives and current defense officials interviewed by The Washington Times cite Mr. Obama's lack of experience in national security. They also point to his determination to pull American combat units from Iraq at a time when a troop surge has reduced violence, damaged al Qaeda and allowed the Iraqi government to progress toward Sunni-Shia-Kurd reconciliation.
"We're very concerned about his apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the United States," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who is pro-Iraq war and a Fox News analyst. "A lot of retired senior officers feel the same way."
Mr. Obama also has stirred concern in national security circles by pledging to talk to the leaders of rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, without preconditions.
His urging of the Bush administration to conduct air strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan without its approval is privately derided inside the Pentagon as the way to ruin relations with a good ally. Pakistan will not allow U.S. combat troops to operate on its soil. Questions about Mr. Obama's commander-in-chief qualifications have reached the campaign trail.
[snip]
No other Obama proposal brings more military criticism than his plan to bring home one to two combat brigades per month from Iraq — meaning all such units would be out by the end of 2009, his first year in office.
A senior Pentagon official said an Obama swearing-in "will give the Arab street the final victory, the best optics, and the ultimate in bragging rights.
They win. We lose." Retired Army Gen. John Keane, an architect of the Iraq troop surge, worries that talk of a U.S. pullout makes reconciliation more difficult. Gen. Keane has not endorsed any presidential candidate. "
Anyone who is advocating a precipitous pullout of U.S. forces, believing this will be a catalyst for political progress, does not understand the realities of Iraq and the minds of the key political leaders," Gen. Keane told The Washington Times. "The U.S. military presence is the glue that is holding things together in Iraq and is the fundamental reason for the recent political progress. If you remove this presence, the political leaders in Iraq will believe they are on their own and will fall prey to their own fears and paranoia. ... They will bunker down and the political progress will come to a dead stop."
Mr. Korb said Mr. Obama has a "technically sound" proposal for withdrawing troops. He said that the candidate realized before the war, unlike many politicians in Washington, that things would go wrong in Iraq.
"If you go back and you look at the speech he gave on Iraq before the war, I think that it was very well reasoned and well argued," the adviser said. As a state senator in 2002, Mr. Obama said, "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Gen. McPeak, who is an Obama campaign co-chairman, said the senator's intelligence will dazzle the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
[snip]
Defense industry executives worry that Mr. Obama will end six years of defense budget increases and, as he has repeatedly said on the campaign trail and in debates, tap into war and military funds to support his plan for universal health care. "We've got some trepidation.
There is no track record," said an industry executive of the first-term senator. "He's an unknown quantity and that scares us a little bit."
The National Journal ranked Mr. Obama as the Senate's most liberal member in 2007, based partly on his string of votes in favor of amendments that mandated a combat troop pullout from Iraq.
Mr. Obama does, however, acknowledge that America is in a war against extremists.
"The terrorists are at war with us," he said in "The War We Need to Win," a major policy speech. "They seek to create a repressive caliphate.
To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for." One of his five pillars for winning is, "getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
The Obama campaign has assembled a team of national security advisers, most of whom worked in the Clinton administration, including former national security adviser Anthony Lake. To date, Mr. Obama has attracted few retired admirals and generals as supporters.
[snip]
For complete article see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080226/NATION/476716884/1001&template=printart
Note: Bold is from blog owner
Mansion 'mistake' piles the pressure on Obama
From The Times
February 26, 2008
James Bone in New York and Dominic Kennedy in London
The key players Timeline: Barack and the billionaire
A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.
The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.
Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.
Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.
Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.
Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.
Mrs Rezko’s purchase and sale of the land to Mr Obama raises many unanswered questions.
It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave.
In a sworn statement a year later, Mrs Rezko said she got by on a salary of $37,000 and had $35,000 assets. Mr Rezko told a court he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations."
Mrs Rezko, whose husband goes on trial on unrelated corruption charges in Chicago on March 3, refused to answer questions about the case when she spoke by telephone to The Times.
Asked if she used money from her husband to buy the land next to Mr Obama's house, she said: "I can't answer these questions, I'm sorry."
Asked how long she and her husband had known Mr Auchi, she replied: "I will not be able to answer this question."
Mr Auchi's lawyer, asked whether the Fintrade Services loan was used to buy the land which became Mr Obama's garden, stated: "No, not as far as my client is aware."
Mr Auchi's links with Mr Rezko are a new political headache for Mr Obama, the charismatic Illinois senator vying to become America’s first African-American president.
Hillary Clinton has sought to make Mr Rezko, who has bankrolled Mr Obama's political career since his first run for the Illinois state senate in the mid-1990s, into an election issue by calling him a "slum landlord" in a televised debate. She has repeatedly suggested that Mr Obama has effectively not been "vetted" by media scrutiny and will not withstand "the Republican attack machine".
See the London Times for complete article at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece?token=null&offset=24
February 26, 2008
James Bone in New York and Dominic Kennedy in London
The key players Timeline: Barack and the billionaire
A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.
The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.
Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.
Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.
Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.
Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.
Mrs Rezko’s purchase and sale of the land to Mr Obama raises many unanswered questions.
It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave.
In a sworn statement a year later, Mrs Rezko said she got by on a salary of $37,000 and had $35,000 assets. Mr Rezko told a court he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations."
Mrs Rezko, whose husband goes on trial on unrelated corruption charges in Chicago on March 3, refused to answer questions about the case when she spoke by telephone to The Times.
Asked if she used money from her husband to buy the land next to Mr Obama's house, she said: "I can't answer these questions, I'm sorry."
Asked how long she and her husband had known Mr Auchi, she replied: "I will not be able to answer this question."
Mr Auchi's lawyer, asked whether the Fintrade Services loan was used to buy the land which became Mr Obama's garden, stated: "No, not as far as my client is aware."
Mr Auchi's links with Mr Rezko are a new political headache for Mr Obama, the charismatic Illinois senator vying to become America’s first African-American president.
Hillary Clinton has sought to make Mr Rezko, who has bankrolled Mr Obama's political career since his first run for the Illinois state senate in the mid-1990s, into an election issue by calling him a "slum landlord" in a televised debate. She has repeatedly suggested that Mr Obama has effectively not been "vetted" by media scrutiny and will not withstand "the Republican attack machine".
See the London Times for complete article at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece?token=null&offset=24
ABC News Discovers Obama Liberal Who Loves Raising Taxes
ABC News sent Terry Moran to Springfield, the capital of Illinois, to explore Barack Obama's record as a state Senator and, deep in his Monday story on World News, Moran acknowledged a reality rarely mentioned in network campaign coverage: "Obama was...considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois, voting for most gun control measures, opposing efforts to ban so-called 'partial birth abortions,' and supporting hundreds of tax increases." Moran then showed a soundbite of Republican State Senator Kirk Dillard, who declared: "Senator Obama certainly is a liberal."
Earlier in the story, without applying any liberal label, Moran trumpeted how "before he left for Washington, Obama did rack up some accomplishments -- a major overhaul of the state's death penalty system, an ethics reform bill, expanded health care for the state's children."
[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Tuesday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Moran's recognition of Obama's liberal ideology aired just a day after Cokie Roberts, in the roundtable on Sunday's This Week on ABC, pegged Obama as "squarely on the left of the Democratic Party" and contended that the Illinois Senator, "oddly enough given the rhetoric, has not reached across the aisle and worked with people in the other party to get things done, which she [Hillary Clinton] has done." See Brad Wilmouth's NewsBusters item: newsbusters.org
A longer version of Moran's World News story led Monday's Nightline with an added portion about Obama's "sweetheart" real estate deal with Tony Rezko.
A transcript of the February 25 World News story:
CHARLES GIBSON: Well Barack Obama during his campaign has made much of his ability to bring people together, to accomplish compromise, to change the tone of Washington. The bulk of his political career was as a state senator in the Illinois legislature. Was he able to bring people together there? Terry Moran went to Springfield, Illinois to look at the Obama record.
TERRY MORAN: Before there was this [crowds cheering Obama] -- there was this, the workaday legislative world of young Illinois state Senator Barack Obama. Obama was 35 years old when he began serving in Springfield in 1997. And even Republican colleagues say he stood out from the start. SENATOR KIRK DILLARD (R): From the minute I met Senator Obama, I knew he was on to bigger and better things.
MORAN: He was clearly ambitious. Just after Illinois Democrats took over the state senate in 2002, Obama approached party leader Emil Jones, who's now running the chamber. EMIL JONES, JR.: And he said to me, he said, "you're the Senate President, now with that you have a lot of power. I said, "Barack, what kind of power do you think I have?" He said, "you have the power to make a United States Senator."
MORAN: But before he left for Washington, Obama did rack up some accomplishments -- a major overhaul of the state's death penalty system, an ethics reform bill, expanded health care for the state's children. OBAMA: I did all these things by getting Democrats and Republicans to work together.
MORAN: But his former colleagues say the picture is more mixed. For instance, Obama voted not for or against but "present" on 129 bills, including a bill to ban sex shops and strip clubs near schools, churches, and day-care centers, and a bill to allow juveniles who committed a crime with a gun near a school to be tried as adults. Voting present is a common tactic in the Illinois legislature. The Obama campaign says he was trying to avoid burdening local authorities on the sex shop measure and did not think the other bill would reduce crime.. But others say his votes should be an issue. SENATOR DAN CRONIN (R): Whatever it is, he didn't want to stick his neck out. He didn't want to risk alienating some group.
MORAN: And Obama was also considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois, voting for most gun control measures, opposing efforts to ban so-called "partial birth abortions," and supporting hundreds of tax increases. Republican State Senator Kirk Dillard worked closely with Obama on some issues. DILLARD: Senator Obama certainly is a liberal. I guess what I show is that you can respect somebody like Senator Obama, work with him, like him, but you don't necessarily have to vote for him for President.
MORAN: Now the Obama campaign responded to our story in a statement tonight, saying "distorting a few votes out of a thousands is the kind of old politics that the American people are tired of and we believe voters care about Senator Obama's record of bipartisan leadership," unquote. One thing everyone agrees on: Obama's record in Illinois is bound to increasing scrutiny from here on in.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080226.asp#1
Earlier in the story, without applying any liberal label, Moran trumpeted how "before he left for Washington, Obama did rack up some accomplishments -- a major overhaul of the state's death penalty system, an ethics reform bill, expanded health care for the state's children."
[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Tuesday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Moran's recognition of Obama's liberal ideology aired just a day after Cokie Roberts, in the roundtable on Sunday's This Week on ABC, pegged Obama as "squarely on the left of the Democratic Party" and contended that the Illinois Senator, "oddly enough given the rhetoric, has not reached across the aisle and worked with people in the other party to get things done, which she [Hillary Clinton] has done." See Brad Wilmouth's NewsBusters item: newsbusters.org
A longer version of Moran's World News story led Monday's Nightline with an added portion about Obama's "sweetheart" real estate deal with Tony Rezko.
A transcript of the February 25 World News story:
CHARLES GIBSON: Well Barack Obama during his campaign has made much of his ability to bring people together, to accomplish compromise, to change the tone of Washington. The bulk of his political career was as a state senator in the Illinois legislature. Was he able to bring people together there? Terry Moran went to Springfield, Illinois to look at the Obama record.
TERRY MORAN: Before there was this [crowds cheering Obama] -- there was this, the workaday legislative world of young Illinois state Senator Barack Obama. Obama was 35 years old when he began serving in Springfield in 1997. And even Republican colleagues say he stood out from the start. SENATOR KIRK DILLARD (R): From the minute I met Senator Obama, I knew he was on to bigger and better things.
MORAN: He was clearly ambitious. Just after Illinois Democrats took over the state senate in 2002, Obama approached party leader Emil Jones, who's now running the chamber. EMIL JONES, JR.: And he said to me, he said, "you're the Senate President, now with that you have a lot of power. I said, "Barack, what kind of power do you think I have?" He said, "you have the power to make a United States Senator."
MORAN: But before he left for Washington, Obama did rack up some accomplishments -- a major overhaul of the state's death penalty system, an ethics reform bill, expanded health care for the state's children. OBAMA: I did all these things by getting Democrats and Republicans to work together.
MORAN: But his former colleagues say the picture is more mixed. For instance, Obama voted not for or against but "present" on 129 bills, including a bill to ban sex shops and strip clubs near schools, churches, and day-care centers, and a bill to allow juveniles who committed a crime with a gun near a school to be tried as adults. Voting present is a common tactic in the Illinois legislature. The Obama campaign says he was trying to avoid burdening local authorities on the sex shop measure and did not think the other bill would reduce crime.. But others say his votes should be an issue. SENATOR DAN CRONIN (R): Whatever it is, he didn't want to stick his neck out. He didn't want to risk alienating some group.
MORAN: And Obama was also considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois, voting for most gun control measures, opposing efforts to ban so-called "partial birth abortions," and supporting hundreds of tax increases. Republican State Senator Kirk Dillard worked closely with Obama on some issues. DILLARD: Senator Obama certainly is a liberal. I guess what I show is that you can respect somebody like Senator Obama, work with him, like him, but you don't necessarily have to vote for him for President.
MORAN: Now the Obama campaign responded to our story in a statement tonight, saying "distorting a few votes out of a thousands is the kind of old politics that the American people are tired of and we believe voters care about Senator Obama's record of bipartisan leadership," unquote. One thing everyone agrees on: Obama's record in Illinois is bound to increasing scrutiny from here on in.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080226.asp#1
Monday, February 25, 2008
Obama changed my mind about McCain
JR Dieckmann
February 24, 2008
On Tuesday night, Feb. 19, 2008, Barack Obama let the cat out of the bag for the first time, when he gave a 45 minute, off the cuff speech after his victory in Wisconsin. For the first time in his campaign, he talked to some extent on substance, rather than in just empty platitudes and feel good rhetoric. For the first time he talked of more than just "hope for change" and "change for hope" and leave the rest to the fantasies of his supporters' imaginations.
What he was proposing was pure socialism, correction — communism, straight out of the teachings of Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx. It all centered around government control over everything from the energy industry, to home mortgages subsidized with our tax money, to government run healthcare. Some will say it was just extreme left wing liberalism but I call it what it is — communism. Take money from the rich and give it to the poor, not only within America but internationally, all in the interest of global equality, paid for by the American taxpayers.
Clinton's speech wasn't much different but she was cut off when Obama took the stage. Americans need to realize that what these two charlatans are trying to do is to lead America straight into communism. And they are no longer being subtle about it. Whenever questioned about it, they dance around it and divert the subject to something else, never answering the question, or giving two completely opposite answers in the same statement. Only liberal politicians being interviewed by the liberal media can get away with this. It's like having a conversation with an automated phone tree.
The communist threat to America has been brewing for decades right here in our own country and now it's coming to a head. It is now trying to take over the highest office in the land. It's time we started calling it exactly what it is and stop this political correctness that has us referring to communism as simply "progressive" or harmless "liberalism." Some call it American socialism but it has it's roots in pure communism.
Clinton and Obama don't have a clue what America is all about. Their idea of America is everyone living on welfare with their lives supervised by government social workers, and all business regulated by a government that can't even regulate itself in compliance with the Constitution. They see big government as the solution to America's problems when, in fact, in most cases the government is the cause of them. When has the government ever solved a problem without creating three more? Or solving a problem for one group by taking away the rights of another?
[snip]
For the first time in my life I realized that as much as I dislike John McCain, I will have to vote for him in November. There has been much discussion between myself and my fellow writers and publishers over this as I contended that a vote for McCain would violate my principles and values, and validate the left turn of the Republican party. But the platforms of both Obama and Clinton make McCain almost look like a conservative. They are even worse than I had thought, once you get past the platitudes and rhetoric. Not that I would ever have considered voting for either one of them, but neither would I have considered voting for McCain.
Tuesday night I realized that nothing, not even McCain, could be as harmful to our country as those two "Democrats" still in the race for president, and perhaps even worse, their respective spouses. I use the term "Democrats" loosely for they are Democrats only in party registration. Philosophically, they are both communists. Obama is a "Chicago Union Mafia" communist while Clinton is a Soviet Marxist communist. Both would destroy American liberty and the free enterprise system, and laugh about it.
When have either of these two candidates ever spoken favorably about the free market, entrepreneurship, or American business and industry? When have they ever paid due respect to the U.S. Constitution, or praised it? To them, these institutions are evil and must be eradicated. All we ever hear from them is how poor Americans really are and how much they need government assistance from Democrats. Aren't we all getting a little sick of hearing these isolated stories of the misery of the downtrodden, of how Americans are living hand to mouth and unable to pay for both food and medicine, and how they're losing their homes (that they couldn't afford to buy in the first place)?
Do you know anyone who fits these descriptions? I don't. They attempt to create a false picture of America, then offer their socialist solutions for it. It's the same old propaganda game of creating a false premise, then a solution to fix it. The only people who relate to this hysteria are the people who show up at Obama and Clinton rallies simply because they have no place better to be, like at a job. In the case of Obama, he seems to be advocating for only the poor black community without actually saying so, but that is where you find the conditions he describes. His solution to the problem is to keep them dependent on big government with the taxpayers' money and somehow, that will lead them to the American dream.
[snip]
On National Defense, Obama proposes the immediate withdrawal of troops from the "war on terror" (which is also improperly named due to political correctness — is actually the "war against Islamic aggression" or the "war on Islamofascism"). He would replace the fight against Islamic terrorist organizations and their sponsors in Iran with "negotiations" and "diplomacy." He is so ignorant on foreign policy and affairs that he doesn't even understand that the enemy we face today has no interest in, and nothing to gain from, negotiating with the U.S. other than the forestallment of their own demise.
Negotiations will produce no advantage for the U.S. but only give the enemy more time to conquer us which is their only real interest and objective in this war. What is there to negotiate over? Will Obama offer them one million detached heads instead of 300 million? Will he approve of Iran building nuclear weapons in exchange for their word not to use them on us? Will he sell out Iraq to al Qaeda in exchange for no more threatening videos from bin Laden?
I do not make the decision to poke the hole (or "pull the lever" in some states) next to McCain's name lightly. I would rather poke him in the eye. At least McCain is not a communist, and fighting this war against communism in America is just as important as fighting the war against Islamofascism.
For complete article, please visit:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/dieckmann/080224
February 24, 2008
On Tuesday night, Feb. 19, 2008, Barack Obama let the cat out of the bag for the first time, when he gave a 45 minute, off the cuff speech after his victory in Wisconsin. For the first time in his campaign, he talked to some extent on substance, rather than in just empty platitudes and feel good rhetoric. For the first time he talked of more than just "hope for change" and "change for hope" and leave the rest to the fantasies of his supporters' imaginations.
What he was proposing was pure socialism, correction — communism, straight out of the teachings of Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx. It all centered around government control over everything from the energy industry, to home mortgages subsidized with our tax money, to government run healthcare. Some will say it was just extreme left wing liberalism but I call it what it is — communism. Take money from the rich and give it to the poor, not only within America but internationally, all in the interest of global equality, paid for by the American taxpayers.
Clinton's speech wasn't much different but she was cut off when Obama took the stage. Americans need to realize that what these two charlatans are trying to do is to lead America straight into communism. And they are no longer being subtle about it. Whenever questioned about it, they dance around it and divert the subject to something else, never answering the question, or giving two completely opposite answers in the same statement. Only liberal politicians being interviewed by the liberal media can get away with this. It's like having a conversation with an automated phone tree.
The communist threat to America has been brewing for decades right here in our own country and now it's coming to a head. It is now trying to take over the highest office in the land. It's time we started calling it exactly what it is and stop this political correctness that has us referring to communism as simply "progressive" or harmless "liberalism." Some call it American socialism but it has it's roots in pure communism.
Clinton and Obama don't have a clue what America is all about. Their idea of America is everyone living on welfare with their lives supervised by government social workers, and all business regulated by a government that can't even regulate itself in compliance with the Constitution. They see big government as the solution to America's problems when, in fact, in most cases the government is the cause of them. When has the government ever solved a problem without creating three more? Or solving a problem for one group by taking away the rights of another?
[snip]
For the first time in my life I realized that as much as I dislike John McCain, I will have to vote for him in November. There has been much discussion between myself and my fellow writers and publishers over this as I contended that a vote for McCain would violate my principles and values, and validate the left turn of the Republican party. But the platforms of both Obama and Clinton make McCain almost look like a conservative. They are even worse than I had thought, once you get past the platitudes and rhetoric. Not that I would ever have considered voting for either one of them, but neither would I have considered voting for McCain.
Tuesday night I realized that nothing, not even McCain, could be as harmful to our country as those two "Democrats" still in the race for president, and perhaps even worse, their respective spouses. I use the term "Democrats" loosely for they are Democrats only in party registration. Philosophically, they are both communists. Obama is a "Chicago Union Mafia" communist while Clinton is a Soviet Marxist communist. Both would destroy American liberty and the free enterprise system, and laugh about it.
When have either of these two candidates ever spoken favorably about the free market, entrepreneurship, or American business and industry? When have they ever paid due respect to the U.S. Constitution, or praised it? To them, these institutions are evil and must be eradicated. All we ever hear from them is how poor Americans really are and how much they need government assistance from Democrats. Aren't we all getting a little sick of hearing these isolated stories of the misery of the downtrodden, of how Americans are living hand to mouth and unable to pay for both food and medicine, and how they're losing their homes (that they couldn't afford to buy in the first place)?
Do you know anyone who fits these descriptions? I don't. They attempt to create a false picture of America, then offer their socialist solutions for it. It's the same old propaganda game of creating a false premise, then a solution to fix it. The only people who relate to this hysteria are the people who show up at Obama and Clinton rallies simply because they have no place better to be, like at a job. In the case of Obama, he seems to be advocating for only the poor black community without actually saying so, but that is where you find the conditions he describes. His solution to the problem is to keep them dependent on big government with the taxpayers' money and somehow, that will lead them to the American dream.
[snip]
On National Defense, Obama proposes the immediate withdrawal of troops from the "war on terror" (which is also improperly named due to political correctness — is actually the "war against Islamic aggression" or the "war on Islamofascism"). He would replace the fight against Islamic terrorist organizations and their sponsors in Iran with "negotiations" and "diplomacy." He is so ignorant on foreign policy and affairs that he doesn't even understand that the enemy we face today has no interest in, and nothing to gain from, negotiating with the U.S. other than the forestallment of their own demise.
Negotiations will produce no advantage for the U.S. but only give the enemy more time to conquer us which is their only real interest and objective in this war. What is there to negotiate over? Will Obama offer them one million detached heads instead of 300 million? Will he approve of Iran building nuclear weapons in exchange for their word not to use them on us? Will he sell out Iraq to al Qaeda in exchange for no more threatening videos from bin Laden?
I do not make the decision to poke the hole (or "pull the lever" in some states) next to McCain's name lightly. I would rather poke him in the eye. At least McCain is not a communist, and fighting this war against communism in America is just as important as fighting the war against Islamofascism.
For complete article, please visit:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/dieckmann/080224
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Raw Story 
Posts
