konane's Blog

"GAFFNEY: Treasury submits to Shariah

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 

COMMENTARY:

"The U.S. Treasury Department is submitting to Shariah - the seditious religio-political-legal code authoritative Islam seeks to impose worldwide under a global theocracy.

As reported in this space last week, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt set the stage with his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. His stated purpose was to promote the recycling of petrodollars in the form of foreign investment here.

Evidently, the price demanded by his hosts is that the U.S. government get with the Islamist financial program. While in Riyadh, Mr. Kimmitt announced: "The U.S. government is currently studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis."

"Islamic banking" is a euphemism for a practice better known as "Shariah-Compliant Finance (SFC)." And it turns out that this week the Treasury will be taking officials from various federal agencies literally to school on SFC.

The department is hosting a half-day course entitled "Islamic Finance 101" on Thursday at its headquarters building. Treasury's self-described "seminar for the policy community" is co-sponsored with the leading academic promoters of Shariah and SCF in the United States: Harvard University Law School's Project on Islamic Finance. At the very least, the U.S. government evidently hopes to emulate Harvard's success in securing immense amounts of Wahhabi money in exchange for conforming to the Islamists' agenda. Like Harvard, Treasury seems utterly disinterested in what Shariah actually is, and portends.

Unfortunately, such submission - the literal meaning of "Islam" - is not likely to remain confined long to the Treasury or its sister agencies. Thanks to the extraordinary authority conferred on Treasury since September, backed by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the department is now in a position to impose its embrace of Shariah on the U.S. financial sector. The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Treasury's purchase of - at last count - 17 banks and the ability to provide, or withhold, funds from its new slush-fund can translate into unprecedented coercive power.

Concerns in this regard are only heightened by the prominent role Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari will be playing in "Islamic Finance 101." Mr. Kashkari, the official charged with administering the TARP fund, will provide welcoming remarks to participants. Presumably, in the process, he will convey the enthusiasm about Shariah-Compliant Finance that appears to be the current party line at Treasury.

As this enthusiasm for SCF ramps up in Washington officialdom, it is worth recalling a lesson from "across the pond." Earlier this year, the head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, provoked a brief but intense firestorm of controversy with his declaration that it was "unavoidable" that Shariah would be practiced in Britain. Largely unremarked was the reason he gave for such an ominous forecast: The U.K. had already accommodated itself to Shariah-Compliant Finance.

This statement provides an important insight for the incumbent U.S. administration and whomever succeeds it: Shariah-Compliant Finance serves as a leading edge of the spear for those seeking to insinuate Shariah into Western societies.

Regrettably, SCF is not the only instrument of the stealth jihad by which Shariah-promoting Islamists are seeking to achieve "parallel societies" here and elsewhere in the West. The British experience is instructive on this score, too. Her Majesty's government has allowed the establishment of at least five Shariah courts to hear (initially) family law cases. Polygamists in the U.K. can get welfare for each of their wives (as long as all the marriages beyond the first were performed overseas).

Thus far, we in this country may not have reached the point where evidence of this sort of creeping Shariah is so manifest. But Treasury's accommodation to SCF demonstrates that we are on the same trajectory - the one ordained and demanded by the promoters of Shariah, one to which we serially accommodate ourselves at our extreme peril.

After all, the object of Shariah is the supplanting of our government and Constitution, through violent means if possible and, until then, through stealthy ones. Islamists, having secured footholds via their parallel societies, inevitably use those to extend their influence over Muslims who have no more interest in living under authoritative Islam's Shariah than the rest of us do. Inexorably, it becomes the turn of non-Muslims to accommodate themselves to ever more intrusive demands from the Islamists. It is known as submission, or dhimmitude.

Soon - possibly as early as this Wednesday - the Treasury Department and the other federal agencies will be taking orders from representatives of Barack Obama or John McCain. It may be that the outgoing administration's determination to advance the Islamist agenda via "Islamic Finance 101," and what flows from it, may be the first, far-reaching policy decision inherited by the new president-elect. If he does not want to have his transition saddled with an implicit endorsement of submission to Shariah, the winner of the White House sweepstakes would be well-advised to pull the plug on Thursday's indoctrination program and the insidious industry it is meant to foist on the "policy community," our capital markets and our country. "

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/04/treasury-submits-to-shariah/

I mentioned documents proven forged in Rather-gate in TigerAngel's blog entry here.   

"Supreme Court to Obama: Prove It"
https://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?i=25429

Have sifted through archives showing events and major players who exposed a smear campaign based on obvious forgeries and why they were forged.   

Proportional spacing is the first clue, spotted by Atlanta attorney Harry MacDougald whose screen name was "Buckhead."

Quotes are directly lifted, links provided for verification.

Some embedded links are no longer valid.

____________

"Hurricane Dan: Get serious

September 12, 2004 Posted by Scott at 8:22 AM

Source Powerlineblog.com

"Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten meticulously reconstructs the events of this past Thursday following the CBS 60 Minutes broadcast Wednesday evening that have led to the exposure of the "new" documents featured in the Air National Guard story as forgeries: "No disputing it: Blogs are major players." Wallsten prominently credits our role in the development of the story:

Early Thursday morning, Minneapolis lawyer Scott Johnson was in his basement home office, preparing to link some morning news reports to the site he co-authors, when a reader sent an e-mail about Buckhead.

Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine Blog.com, to Buckhead's post.

Then the floodgates opened.

"Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post," Johnson wrote in an early update. "Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970s.

"Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer," he continued. "However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle: The 'Memo To File' of August 18, 1973, also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript 'th' in 187th, and consistent ' (right single quote) all parentheses in original used instead of a typewriter's generic {minute} (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart correction in things like Microsoft Word."

Soon Charles Johnson, a Los Angeles musician-turned-conservative-blogger who hosts the site LittleGreenFootballs.com, posted the results of his own investigation. He wrote that he had opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Times New Roman and used the program's default settings to retype a purported Killian memo from August 1973.

"My Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as 'authentic,' " Johnson wrote, posting images of his creation and the CBS document. (The Times New Roman font itself predates computers; it was designed in 1932.)

Within 90 minutes of that post, the Power Line site was linked to perhaps the best-known conservative site of all ? the Drudge Report, made famous when Matt Drudge took a lead role in the first reports on the relationship between then-President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

"That was a quantum jump in awareness," said Scott Johnson. "It was wildly circulating in the blogosphere until Drudge linked us. Then it was instantly known to a million people, and it was all of a sudden a legitimate story."

Suddenly, the story line shifted from the question Democrats had been trying to ask ? whether Bush received special treatment in the Guard ? to whether a network long detested by conservatives had been duped in its quest to air a report critical of the president in the midst of the reelection campaign.

Wallsten's article does not raise any question that we might have erred in doubting the authenticity of the documents or offer any support for their authenticity. Rather, it gives voice to desperate Democratic operatives imputing right-wing lunacy or conspiratorial machinations to those raising the issues:

"It was amazing Thursday to watch the documents story go from FreeRepublic.com, a bastion of right-wing lunacy, to Drudge to the mainstream media in less than 12 hours," said Jim Jordan, a strategist for independent Democratic groups opposed to Bush. [Ed. note: C'mon Peter, he's Kerry's former campaign manager.]

"That's not to say the documents didn't deserve examination. But apparently the entire thing was cooked up by a couple of amateurs on Free Republic. The speed with which it moved was breathtaking."

Wallsten then notes that "Rather opened his evening news broadcast Friday with a defense of his report, producing an analyst who vouched for the memos." Wallsten omits to mention that the analyst was a purported handwriting expert who could not authenticate the documents. Wallsten quotes a professor articulating the dark fears of the MSM:

Media experts said the role of the bloggers illustrated a significant development in the relationship between mainstream news and the still-nascent phenomenon of blogging.

This was the first time, some said, that the Web logs were engaging in their own form of investigative journalism ? and readers, they warned, should be cautious.

"The mainstream press is having to follow them," said Jeffrey Seglin, a professor at Emerson College in Boston. [Ed. note: C'mon, Peter, Seglin is a columnist for the New York Times Syndiicate, whose owner is the same company that owns the Boston Globe -- which has avidly promoted the 60 Minutes story. (Thanks to Hobbs Online.)] "The fear I have is: How do you know who's doing the Web logs?

"And what happens when this stuff gets into the mainstream, and it eventually turns out that the '60 Minutes' documents were perfectly legitimate, but because there's been so much reporting about what's being reported, it has already taken on a life of its own?"

Put to one side the fact that we have been doing our own brand of investigative journalism since we started this site over Memorial Day weekend in 2002 (and for the previous ten years in newspapers and magazines). In our case, Professor Seglin might "know who's doing the Web logs" by clicking on the "About Us" logos over on our left margin, or giving us a call, as Peter Wallsten did. The same applies to Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs.

Seglin appears not to be familiar with the Internet or the development of the evidence throughout the blogosphere relating to the 60 Minutes documents. We acted as a clearinghouse for information, freely quoting correspondents and linking to sources. We named names and identified sources. We included evidence that might tell against the points we raised; when a correspondent wrote to point out that the White House had itself released copies of the 60 Minutes documents, we posted that. It turned out that the documents released by the White House had been provided to it by 60 Minutes.

We awaited some word from CBS that would allow us to verify the authenticity of the documents. When Dan Rather offered his pathetic apologia Friday night, we noted his report and discussed its almost unbelievable weakness in the face of the issues raised.

Contrast the behavior of the blogosphere with that of CBS. While we have disclosed sources and responded to all inquiries from reporters like Wallsten, CBS has taken its plays from the old Watergate playbook. Stonewalling and misdirection are the order of the day. To the extent that CBS has cited sources, they have not supported the authenticity of the documents. All in all, CBS has behaved like a criminal caught redhanded in a fraud of monumental proportions.

Wallsten concludes the story by quoting a Free Republic commenter who facetiously asks, in the spirit of the Democratic operatives, "How do we know Buckhead is not really Karl Rove?" But the story Wallsten tells raises a serious question that belies Wallsten's conclusion and that Wallsten declines to entertain.

It is time to draw the obvious inferences from CBS's behavior and from the circumstances of the case. The 60 Minutes documents purportedly derive from the "personal file" of a long-deceased superior officer of President Bush. The family of the deceased officer denies that they are the source of the documents or that the officer would have written them.

CBS refuses to identify the source of the documents or otherwise to disclose how they came into its possession. The reporter who vouches for the authenticity of the documents is himself no expert, but a long-time antagonist of conservatives in general and the Bushes in particular, with close ties to Texas Democrats. The documents discredit President Bush consistent with a key Democratic theme in the midst of a presidential campaign.

Substantial evidence of the fraudulent nature of the documents is produced. The reporter demands that we take his word for the authenticity of the documents. CBS fails to identify a single document analyst who supports the authenticity of the documents. CBS fails to produce a single authentic document with an appearance like the documents in issue.

CBS refuses to disclose the copies of the documents for independent examination by a neutral third party. Evidence of the fraudulent nature of the documents continues to mount. See, for example, this morning's Washington Times story, "Bush Guard papers 'forged,'" and this morning's New York Times story, "An ex-officer now believes Guard memo isn't genuine."

Drawing the reasonable inferences implicit in these circumstances, the serious question that must be asked at this point is what happens when a media monolith acts as a front for Democratic operatives peddling forgeries calculated to smear a Republican president and presidential candidate?

UPDATE: Click here for a brilliant recap (and more) by Hugh Hewitt.

UPDATE 2: Just One Minute and Ace of Spades offer further thoughts on the possible source of the documents (not a Democratic operative). See also Ace's screaming update. (Courtesy of Instapundit.)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/09/007746.php

_______

"Meet Buckhead

September 17, 2004 Posted by Scott at 6:25 PM

"Peter Wallsten follows up his September 12 reconstruction of the genesis of Hurricane Dan with an article on his discovery of Buckhead's identity, Atlanta attorney Harry MacDougald: "Blogger who faulted CBS documents is conservative activist." Liz MacDougald wrote us Thursday morning to make sure we knew that the email we had been sent by a reader whom we named actually reflected points Buckhead had raised in Free Republic post no. 47 and we revised our initial post consistent with the information provided by Mrs. (I assume) MacDougald.

Courtesy of Hugh Hewitt. And please check out Ernest Miller's "Incompetent or Unethical? The story of CBS News' response to Killian memos" over at Corante -- with thanks for redirecting traffic from my originally mistaken link.

UPDATE: Don't miss Charles Johnson's expert commentary: "LA Times slimes Buckhead, bloggers."  "

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/09/007809.php

______________

Assume all posts below enclosed in quotes taken directly from archives.

"Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard [post 47]

I really like Powerlineblog.com and their opinions based on their knowledge of law and the Constitution  .... all three are practicing attorneys.

Two of their blog entries quoted as written.   

___________________

"Sarah Palin Was Right

Posted by John at 4:51 PM

In today's New York Times, Glenn Reynolds takes on the tricky issue of the proper role of the Vice President. Sarah Palin's comments on the Veep's constitutional role in the Vice Presidential debate have been denounced by some, but Reynolds says she was right to emphasize the Vice President's role as part of the legislative branch. As we noted here, (artlcle in full below) it was Joe Biden, not Palin, who mangled the Vice President's constitutional status.

So far, that's not controversial. But Glenn goes further: he argues that the Vice President is properly viewed only as part of the legislative branch, and that it is unconstitutional for the President to delegate executive duties to the Vice President, as has happened routinely in recent administrations.

Glenn's argument is that the old-timers had it right. The Vice Presidency, properly viewed, is as insignificant an office--unless and until the President dies or is removed from office--as it was considered through most of our history. He adds policy arguments to the effect that entangling the Vice President in executive policy can be problematic. Possibly so. But I think the modern approach to the office is here to stay.

We should consider ourselves lucky if it's only Vice Presidents who exercise arguably-unconstitutional executive powers. At least they are elected officials. A far more disturbing phenomenon was Bill Clinton's delegating executive authority to his wife. That didn't work out so well, which doesn't necessarily mean we've seen the last of the idea. "

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021896.php

________

"Biden Mangles the Constitution

This isn't what's conventionally described as a gaffe, and it won't swing any votes, but last night Joe Biden garbled the Constitutional role of the Vice President. I wanted to read the transcript before commenting; here was Gwen Ifill's question:

Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

Here is Biden's answer, in full:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

For a man of Biden's experience, this is a surprising series of misstatements. First of all, he gets wrong one of the most basic facts about the Constitution: Article 1 establishes the legislative branch, not, as Biden said, the executive branch. This is not exactly an obscure fact; my 17-year-old daughter pointed it out at the time.

Second, it simply isn't true that the Constitution treats the Vice President only as a member of the executive branch. The Vice President is mentioned in Article II as part of the executive branch, but he is also given legislative powers by Section 3 of Article 1, which establishes the Senate:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Vice President Cheney's "bizarre notion" is in keeping with the plain text of the Constitution.

Finally, Biden misstated the Vice President's role in the Senate. It isn't true that he "preside[s] over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote." The Constitution contemplates that the Vice President will be the full-time President of the Senate, replaced by a President pro tempore "in the absence of the Vice President." It's true that the Vice President only gets to vote in case of a tie; but, of course, that's the only time it matters.

If Joe Biden were a high school student taking a test on the Constitution in a government course, he would get a C or a D. Some would say his mistakes were minor, and, as I said, they certainly won't swing any votes. But it is distinctly odd that a man who has been in the Senate for more than three decades doesn't understand the Constitutional role of the Vice President with respect to that body.  "

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021676.php

Bringing forward TigerAngel's blog entry, for however the Supreme Court rules below are links provided thusfar. 

"Supreme Court to Obama: Prove It

https://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?i=25429

____________

PDF of document filed before Supreme Court

http://www.obamacrimes.us/documents/050_US%20Supreme%20Court%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20.pdf

_____________

Shows on the Supreme Court docket, Case Nos.:(08-4340)

"Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)"

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a391.htm

Interesting lack of decorum, no excuse for public display of crudeness.  Wonder if voters get saluted the same way?

Read comments by Hillary supporters of McCain making comments about Obama flipping Hillary, just found video last night.

____________________

"Barack Obama flips off McCain and Hillary Combo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYlz9EYnaug

From Powerlineblog.com, live links

________________

"The Arrogance of Barack Obama

Source Powerlineblog.com

"Maybe the American people just didn't have quite enough time to get to know Barack Obama. It seems inconceivable to me that a candidate as arrogant as Obama could be ahead in the polls if the voters had fully absorbed how out of touch he can be. A case in point is this MTV interview, where Obama says that the tax increase he proposes on people who earn $250,000 or more is "chump change, that's nothing." But wait! If it's "chump change," how is it going to fund the hundreds of billions in new spending that Obama wants?

Likewise with Obama's casual declaration that he intends to bankrupt the coal industry, which currently supplies around one-half of all electricity produced in the United States. Today Mike Carey, President of the Ohio Coal Association, issued this statement:

Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.

It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio,Virginia, West Virginia,Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short-sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation's long-term energy security - a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability.

Where will the "little people" get electricity if Obama's environmental policies destroy the coal industry? That, apparently, is of no concern to "The One." It would have been nice if this news had come out more than a couple of days before the election.  "

"WHERE DO YOU START

"I chose that opening line rather than "what's the use." Election day is tomorrow, so there's definitely a chance here to prevent perhaps irreparable harm to our Republic ... maybe not a huge chance ... but a chance.

Never in the last 100 years has someone so completely inexperienced and so far to the left been so close to becoming our president. It is beyond imagination that we've come to this.

I really don't have the time before I go on the air to craft (if that's the word) a lengthy narrative on this campaign and the importance of our vote tomorrow ... so we go with bullet points. They don't necessarily flow together all that well ... but each gets a point across that is, I think, important.

Who knows ... maybe someone will read some of these points and tell themselves that they just can't pull the trigger for this dangerous leftist when they get into the voting booth. Others will read this and just have their feelings about how much trouble freedom and economic liberty in this country are in totally reinforced.

• One question about Obama that has never been satisfactorily answered is "What has he ever accomplished?" The best his supporters can come up with is "He was elected to the U.S. Senate." So was John McCain ... several times. Besides, take a look at his election. He had two opponents self-destruct with scandal. The GOP had to go to Maryland and talk Alan Keyes into moving to Illinois to run against Obama. Trust me, that win was no sterling accomplishment.
• Don't argue with me here. You'll lose. There is NO constitutional right to vote in a presidential election. We're going to learn in a few days just how smart our founding fathers were in this regard.
• Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. Several times during his political career Obama had a chance to either cast a vote or make a statement against the corruption that permeates Chicago's machine. Never – not on one occasion – did he do so.
• The fact is, Obama has benefited from corruption (Tony Rezko?) but has never fought it.
• Do you know how Obama won his first election in Illinois? He had campaign operatives go to the voting office and work hundreds of hours pouring over petitions to have his opponents thrown off the ballot. I guess that means that this is the first real election battle he's ever been in!
• I guess it's just me, but all this time I thought that the government used its power to seize property ... i.e., to tax ... in order to fund the necessary and appropriate functions of government. Now, under Obama, we've learned that one of the appropriate functions of government is to take from those who have and give to those who have not. I prefer a different phraseology: Take from those who achieve, and give to those who achieve not. Karl Marx was of a like mind.
• Obama's "spread the wealth around" mantra means that he believes that we do not leave our homes every morning to work for ourselves and our families. We leave our homes to work for the government. We belong to government, not to ourselves. The government will determine how much of the money we earn we deserve to keep .. the rest goes to people the government believes to be even more deserving of the fruits of our labors.
• Obama's candidacy would have faltered before an educated electorate. Why do you think Democrats love government schools so much? Do you want examples? I've got examples.
• Obama says he's going to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans. Americans don't realize that over 40% of their numbers don't pay income taxes; and since they don't realize that, they aren't asking themselves how Obama can give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes.
• Obama has effectively change the definition of "tax cut." From now on any government handout to any worker is a tax cut. Changing this definition may well be one of their greatest accomplishments in this election and that new definition will cause us problems for decades.
• Obama constantly rants about those dirty corporations who shipped "our jobs overseas." An educated voter knows that those jobs belong to the employers, not the employees. Workers look for jobs. Employers with jobs look for workers. Pretty simple, really.
• Obama also tells us that 95% of small businesses out there will not have their taxes increased. The only reason this line works is because our government educated voters cannot grasp the idea that it isn't the percentage of small businesses hit with tax increases that counts; it's the percentage of small business employees represented by the unfortunate 5% that counts. Tomorrow thousands of workers – perhaps tens of thousands of workers – employed by what we call "small businesses" will cast a vote that, a year or so down the road, will cost them their jobs.
• Over the weekend Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry if they tried to build any more coal-fired power plants. Can any of you think of a time when any president has ever made an overt threat to bankrupt a large American industry?
• Obama says that his "cap and trade" policy for controlling greenhouse gas emissions is going to cost electricity prices to "skyrocket." Oops ... there goes some of that middle class "tax cut." Guess he'll have to transfer some more wealth to help his constituents pay the increased price.
• There are literally millions of Obama supporters out there who think that once Obama becomes the president their lives are going to become sweetness, roses and light. One woman at an Obama rally
• Remember Obama's 30-minute infomercial? If a foreigner with no knowledge of our country or our people were to see that program they would think that America was a country mired in abject misery and depravation. Thanks, Obama, for the nice positive message.
• How long after the election, whether Obama wins or loses, do you think it will take for that America-hater Jeremiah Wright to surface?
• The top 10% of income earners in this country pay over 70% of all income taxes. The top 1% of income earners earn around 19% of all income, but they pay almost 39% of all income taxes. When these people don't want to give up a larger share of their earnings Obama call's them "selfish."
• When someone is content to sit on their butts and wait for Obama to transfer some wealth from someone else to their pockets they are not "selfish."
• Every one of the points I am bringing up here is "hate speech" to an Obamacon.
• The great Democrat goal is to have more than 50% of the voters living, at least in part, on the efforts of the minority of voters. When we pass that tipping point ... and we're nearly there ... game over.
• In every election since 1952 Democrats have told the voters "vote for the Republicans and they'll take your Social Security away." In every election after 2008 the Democrats will say "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay taxes." Then if Obama wins again, in every election after 2012 Democrats will say "Vote for the Republicans and they'll make you pay for your own Social Security and Medicare." How long before we hear: "Vote for the Republicans and they'll make you work for a living!"
• Obama will definitely destroy your right to be armed outside of your own home for your own protection. The question is whether we count the time until he accomplishes this in days, weeks, months or years.
• Do you see now why politicians, especially Democrats, aren't fond of the FairTax? Without playing his tax scam and wealth envy card Obama would have been toast by Super Tuesday.
• Surveys in Israel show that 76% of Israeli citizens want McCain to win. American Jews will vote for Obama by pretty much the same percentage. What do Jews in Israel know that Jews in America do not?
• Peter Nicholas is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He has been traveling with Obama for almost the entire campaign. Nicholas writes "After all this time with him, I still can't say with certainty who he is." Nicholas doesn't know him, but so many voters are so sure they do.
• Obama wants a national civilian security force that, in his words, is "just as strong as our military." Who would they serve under? What would their mandate be? Would they be unionized? (oh HELL yes!). Would this be like the Soviet Union under Communism where neighbors ratted on neighbors for anti-government statements? And what does he mean "as strong as our military?" Would this national civilian security force have nukes? Tanks? Fighter planes? Are we just talking about a glorified national police? (Show us your papers!)
• Obama has talked about reducing spending on our military. One leading Democrat Senator has suggested a 25% spending cut on defense. Do you feel comfortable with that? You do know that all of the savings would be spent on buying votes, don't you?
• Do you home school your children? Obama has called home schooling a fraud. Put him in office and you'll be putting your kids back in government schools for their indoctrination.
• Do you run a small business? If Obama wins start planning immediately to lower your work force. The best way to do this would be through efficiency measures and temporary staffing agencies. Not only is Obama going to make it easier for your workers to unionize ... he's going to expand onerous measures such as the Family Leave Act. You will end up paying your employees a good portion of their salary to lay out for weeks on end.
• Maybe you shop at Wal-Mart. Get ready for higher prices. Obama's instant unionization bill will surely result in the unionization of Wal-Mart's workforce. In fact, as much as Democrat politicians hate Wal-Mart, it's safe to say that Wal-Mart is target number one. The result? Higher prices for you. If Obama can call a government handout a tax cut, we can call higher prices a tax increase. This will be Obama's tax increase on the poor and the middle class.

OK ... run with those. We'll come up with more. In the meantime ... some details:  "

http://boortz.com/nuze/200811/11032008.html#election

A follow-up to the video Todd posted. 

____________________

"BTW I'm Voting For Mccain / Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A&feature=rec-fresh

I'm not posting the entire article hered due to graphic details given by conditions found so if you click the link be warned.  Shows a whole nother side to Fergie I was not aware of, very courageous, very selfless and humanitarian.

__________

"Fergie undercover: The Duchess of York bluffs her way into orphanages in Turkey

By Chris Rogers

Source Daily Mail UK
Last updated at 5:24 PM on 02nd November 2008

"In a dark wig and a headscarf, the Duchess of York has bluffed her way into orphanages in Turkey. The profoundly shocking scenes she found have made her - and her daughters, who went with her - determined to fight for change.

Nothing could have prepared us for this. The member of staff had been reluctant when I asked her to unlock the door of the building. Now it was clear why.

Before us was a sea of red and blue cribs - hundreds of them. Toddlers and teenagers alike were confined, many tied by hands or ankles to the cribs' metal bars. In a far corner, one little boy peered over the edge of the 5ft-high box in which he was kept. According to staff, he was too hyperactive for a crib.

This wasn't an orphanage. This was a warehouse for abandoned children.

Two months ago, I travelled to Turkey to film a documentary about conditions inside state-run institutions for unwanted and disabled children.

It was an unusual and affecting trip. Not least because my travelling companion and fellow witness to some truly horrific scenes was the Duchess of York.

Sarah Ferguson had contacted me a few months earlier to say she had been moved by my investigations into inhumane institutions - as an ITN correspondent, I had visited and secretly filmed these bleak places across the world.

The Duchess herself has worked to improve the lives of children over the past 15 years, using funds from her commercial work and private donations to help care for children with Aids and build schools for deprived children in Africa.

Now she wanted to come with me on my next venture and lend her profile to a cause in need of exposure. More than that, her teenage daughters Beatrice and Eugenie wanted to join us for sections of the journey and all had agreed to allow ITV1's Tonight cameras to follow our progress. ..........."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1082355/Fergie-undercover-The-Duchess-York-bluffs-way-orphanages-Turkey.html

"Barack Obama victory will hurt US firms - and world economy

By Janet Daley
Source Telegraph UK
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/11/2008

"Well, it's nearly over - this presidential election campaign that has gone on for so long I can scarcely remember what life was like before it started. So long has it been running that the world has actually gone through two tumultuous transformations of political reality during its span.

First there was the emergence of Russia as a threat to international stability in a form that should not have, but nevertheless did, come as a startling revelation to a complacent free world: a phenomenon which, in cynical partisan terms, played heavily in John McCain's favour. But that was followed, and almost totally eclipsed, by the economic implosion that brought every earlier assumption about the electorate crashing down with it.

So, in one of those bizarre jokes that history sometimes plays, the United States is apparently about to choose as president the most inexperienced, untried and virtually unknowable (because there is so little to know) candidate who has ever run for that office at a time of unquantifiable international risk and unprecedented economic instability: a candidate who, as Bill Clinton revealed in a wonderfully back-handed "tribute", responded to the banking collapse by ringing every expert he could find (including Bill) to ask them what he should be saying.  

And not only does it seem likely that Barack Obama will be elected president, but that he will arrive in office accompanied by a legion of new Democratic senators and congressmen which will give his party a lock on both the executive and legislative branches of government, thus permitting it to do precisely anything it wants.

A week ago in New York, I talked to senior Republicans who were dividing their time between conference calls to the White House to discuss the economic crisis and exasperated confrontations with the McCain campaign team over the ineffectiveness of its strategy. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the state of dissension and dissatisfaction within the higher ranks of the Republican Party - which is why the Obama claim that a McCain White House would simply be George Bush by other means is so ludicrous and disingenuous.

In truth, McCain's status as an outlaw within his own party ("maverick" is much too mild a word) has meant that he has had only the most ambivalent relationship with what was once a very professional Republican campaigning machine. Those members of the Bush team who have been involved with the McCain-Palin ticket have been accused of being so out of sympathy with its message and tone as to be positively counter-productive.

Combine this with the fact that McCain has been running against not just a super-financed Obama machine but the most monolithically hostile media barrage in electoral history, which forced him to spend most of his time and energy on defensive fire-fighting, and you get a sense of why the Republican effort has so often seemed at cross-purposes with itself.

This media phenomenon may yet prove double-edged. There is just a possibility (maybe I am clutching at straws here, but we shall see) that the relentless onslaught from the mainstream press and television networks has made support for McCain unsayable rather than impossible and that this is producing seriously skewed opinion-polling results. This could mean, to put it in British historical terms, that this election will be 1992 (complete with premature victory celebrations) rather than 1997. Interestingly, in the 1992 election it was the issue of tax that brought about Labour's defeat in the face of resounding leads in the polls. And it is tax policy that is Obama's most dangerous ground. It must be surprising to British observers that his proposal to cut taxes for the 95 per cent of people who earn less than $200,000 a year (down, incidentally, from his initial figure of $250,000) has not straightforwardly won the day in the American national debate.

In Britain, such a promise (if believed) would be an electoral free pass to Downing Street. But in the US, voters are aware that the largest category of people who would be hit by Obama's higher tax would be those who own small businesses, as Joe the Plumber famously aspired to do and as many, many of his countrymen already do. Ordinary working-class people in America do not automatically expect to be low earners, or even employees, all of their lives: they believe that through hard work and resourcefulness, they are as likely as anyone to rise in the world. And so they do not necessarily take kindly to someone who wants to penalise them as soon as they break through an income ceiling in order, as Obama fatally put it, to "spread the wealth around".

But there is another facet of Obama taxation with even more serious consequences for the US. In order to pay for his tax cut for 95 per cent of the population (half of whom do not pay income tax and whose "cut" would be in the form of a cash rebate), President Obama and his Democratic Congress would raise the US rate of corporation tax - already the second highest in the world - from 15 to 20 per cent. They also plan to punish through taxation companies that employ people overseas rather than "creating American jobs". These measures would have the almost immediate effect of driving companies and capital out of the US.

In the same "help the little guy" spirit, Obama proposes to raise capital gains tax, thus penalising those whose investment is desperately needed for market recovery. As my economist friends always tell me when I advocate tax cuts for the low-paid: it may seem a morally and politically attractive policy but it doesn't do a damn thing for economic growth. The tiny amounts that the lower-paid receive in such wide-ranging cuts make little difference as a stimulus and if they are balanced by penalties on business and on the investing classes, they are worse than useless.

So what will happen? For what it is worth, I think it will be a close presidential race with the favourite, Obama, winning by a squeak (which is what happened in 1960 when the then favourite, John Kennedy, was the voice of the "future"). Whoever gets the White House, America will eventually return to being what it must be: the economic engine of the world and the greatest testimony to the power of human initiative in history. On both of those counts, it will once again be resented. But it will take a while longer to reach that point under Barack Obama."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/03/do0301.xml 

"OBAMA CAUGHT SAYING ACORN AND FRIENDS WILL SHAPE HIS PRESIDENTIAL AGENDA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

Jarasan said early on if the press calls this wrong they're toast.

__________

"Asteroid!

Inescapable cataclysm! Total destruction! Nowhere to hide! Make peace with your God!

By Bill Whittle

Source NationalReviewOnline

Prepare yourselves, sayeth the news. This thing is coming and you can’t stop it. You’ve seen the numbers. Banks of supercomputers refining to the eighth significant figure the precise moment of impact; the location down to a half mile. The giant Obamaroid bearing down on us: unstoppable by mere puny earthlings; a rock the size of Ireland, immutable, inevitable, crushing and final. Run all you want; you’ll just die tired. This is it. The end of all we hold dear.

And what advice do we hear from political-science advisers, our best and brightest stalwarts rallied to stave off this disaster? What say these wise men in white coats, men that spend decades in labs, dissecting every trend and poll, crunching numbers and assaying intentions to the milligram? What help might we look to them for?

Ah! Some instructions! Something at last, some hope to cling to! Let me just check the official printout here…

    On the morning of impact, grab the sturdiest chair you can find. Move it away from all doors and windows. A basement is your best bet, if you have one. Place the chair in any doorway underneath a load-bearing beam — a steel I-beam is ideal. Sit down and place your feet about two feet apart, firmly pressing down on the floor. Open your mouth slightly to relieve the overpressure from the impact, and the instant you see the flash of light, close you eyes immediately, lean forward as far as you can, put your hands over your ears and kiss your ass goodbye.

You know, I love cheap sci-fi. And one of my favorite lines from an absolutely terrific little cheap sci-fi film is this: History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.

This attitude of despair is being trumpeted from the Left for the sensible and understandable reason that if they lose this election — with all the advantages they have at this precise point in time — then they can never win. Not ever. And the media is pulling with their teeth now, because if Obama loses they will have destroyed their credibility — for nothing.

That’s all fine with me. I know what they and the press sayeth. Sayeth I:

      If we are mark’d to lose, we are enow
      To do our party loss; and if to live,
      The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
      God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
      Let he which hath no stomach to this fight,
      Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
      And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
      We would not vote in that man’s company
      That fears his fellowship to vote with us.
      This day is call’d the eve of Elect-ian.
      He that votes this day, and comes safe home,
      Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
      And rouse him at the name of Republican
      He that shall live this day, and see old age,
      Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
      And say ‘To-morrow is the fourth of November’
      Then will he strip his sleeve and show his hands,
      And say ‘With these I moved yon levers on election day.’
      Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
      But he’ll remember, with advantages,
      What votes he did cast that day. 

      We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
      For he to-day that shares his vote with me
      Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
      This day shall gentle his condition;
      And gentlemen and lady pundits now-a-bed
      Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
      And hold their book deals cheap whilst any speaks
      That voted with us upon election day.

The original is a speech promising glory in the face of overwhelming defeat. King Henry V went on to win perhaps the most miraculous victory in the history of mankind.

This is not an asteroid we face. It is not preordained, unstoppable, inevitable. It is a choice made by human men and women, an individual decision made a hundred million times and not the cold, precise product of gravity and mass.

I am new to The Show. So perhaps you will let me point out two of my friends from back in the minors, because they have something to say on the matter.

My friend Iowahawk writes some of the most brilliant satire I have ever read. He likes to come across as a beer-swilling gearhead — because he is — but look at this analysis of what probability and polling is and isn’t, which I will proceed to steal a graph or two from, simply so that I may bask in its reflected glory:

    You take a simple random sample of 1000 balls from an urn containing 120,000,000 red and blue balls, and your sample shows 450 red balls and 550 blue balls. Construct a 95% confidence interval for the true proportion of blue balls in the urn.

    …Works pretty well if you’re interested in hypothetical colored balls in hypothetical giant urns, or survival rates of plants in a controlled experiment, or defects in a batch of factory products. It may even work well if you’re interested in blind cola taste tests. But what if the thing you are studying doesn’t quite fit the balls & urns template?

        * What if 40% of the balls have personally chosen to live in an urn that you legally can’t stick your hand into?
        * What if 50% of the balls who live in the legal urn explicitly refuse to let you select them?
        * What if the balls inside the urn are constantly interacting and talking and arguing with each other, and can decide to change their color on a whim?
        * What if you have to rely on the balls to report their own color, and some unknown number are probably lying to you?
        * What if you’ve been hired to count balls by a company who has endorsed blue as their favorite color?
        * What if you have outsourced the urn-ball counting to part-time temp balls, most of whom happen to be blue?
        * What if the balls inside the urn are listening to you counting out there, and it affects whether they want to be counted, and/or which color they want to be?

(And what, I wonder, if all around you, every day, you are told by all of the coolest, hippest, prettiest balls that your color is mean, irrelevant, unpopular, un-cool, evil, old, incompetent, and probably racist? Would you stick to your guns in the face of that, or keep your mouth shut and show ‘em when the curtain closes?)

Iowahawk concludes:

    If one or more of the above statements are true, then the formula for margin of error simplifies to

    Margin of Error = Who the hell knows?

    The moral of this midterm for all would-be pollsters: if you are really interested in how many of us red and blue balls there are in this great big urn, sit back and relax until Tuesday, and let us show our true colors.

Well said, buddy. And finally, this, from Zombietime.com:

    It may very well be that an army of glum, dispirited and pessimistic conservatives will reluctantly trudge to the polls on November 4, each one imagining they are the only remaining person in the entire country voting for McCain, and lo and behold — they’ll turn out to be a silent majority after all.

That may be the most prophetic sentence of the year.

I don’t want to be the person who sat home and missed being a part of that. And I won’t be.

See you there.  "

  — Bill Whittle lives in Los Angeles and is an on-air commentator for www.pjtv.com. You can find him online at www.ejectejecteject.com "

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2FhYzkwYmQ5ZjI2ZmQ4OGY0NGFiOWNjYmQzYTViMDM=&w=MQ==

"SHOCK Audio Unearthed OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ