AFTER ACTION REPORT: Michigan Patriots Deliver Pink Slip to Liberal Debbie Stabenow

Grassroots in Michigan organized and was joined by Tea Party of West Michigan Southwest MI Tea Party Patriots and other patriots from across Michigan to protest and deliver a Pink Slip to liberal tool Debbie Stabenow with a message, "we will do everything in our power to make sure Sen. Stabenow does not return to office in 2012" Debbie Stabenow is a lock step liberal who was on the Senate Finance Committee that voted the Baucus Amendment out. Please take a minute to read the most egregious parts of the Baucus Amendment AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POST because you won't hear the truth from Debbie!

What is in the Baucus Health Care Amendment

Make Mine Freedom! Obama Resistance

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” - Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson


“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” - Thomas Jefferson

Vote-by-Vote on ACORN

Vote-by-Vote on ACORN

From Jeff Schreiber, excellent blog America's right

Jeff is a reformed liberal democrat with nearly a decade on the wagon, Jeff established America's Right in January 2008 in hopes to advance the conservative message and articulate the merits of conservatism to any who would listen.

The first vote came on Tuesday, when the Senate voted 83-7 to suspend funding to ACORN in Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Transportation appropriations bill. Seven senators voted in favor of continuing to fund ACORN, an organization already being investigated in more than a dozen states for voter fraud, and an organization which obviously should be investigated for tax fraud and much, much more. Those seven senators?

* Dick Durbin (D-IL)
* Roland Burris (D-IL)
* Robert Casey (D-PA)
* Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
* Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

One of them is mine. How positively lovely. Another is named "Whitehouse." How appropriate.

The second vote came yesterday in the House, which by a vote of 345-75 passed an amendment to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act that would deny all federal funds to ACORN. The amendment, if I'm correct, was brought forth by House Minority Leader John Boehner. (Actually, it was Daniel Issa.) Here are the 75 who voted against it:

* Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
* Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
* Bob Filner (D-CA)
* Mike Honda (D-CA)
* Barbara Lee (D-CA)
* Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
* Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
* Brad Sherman (D-CA)
* Pete Stark (D-CA)
* Maxine Waters (D-CA)
* Diane Watson (D-CA)
* Henry Waxman (D-CA)
* Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
* Diana DeGette (D-CO)
* Jared Polis (D-CO)
* Corrine Brown (D-FL)
* Kathy Anne Castor (D-FL)
* Robert Wexler (D-FL)
* John Lewis (D-GA)
* David Scott (D-GA)
* Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
* Danny Davis (D-IL)
* Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
* Bobby Rush (D-IL)
* Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
* Andre Carson (D-IN)
* Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
* Donna Edwards (D-MD)
* Michael Capuano (D-MA)
* Bill Delahunt (D-MA)
* Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
* Ed Markey (D-MA)
* Jim McGovern (D-MA)
* Richard Neal (D-MA)
* John Olver (D-MA)
* Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
* Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI)
* Ralph Ellison (D-MN)
* Betty McCollum (D-MN)
* Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
* Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
* Rush Holt (D-NJ)
* Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
* Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ)
* Donald Payne (D-NJ)
* Albio Sires (D-NJ)
* Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
* Eliot Engel (D-NY)
* Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
* Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
* Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
* Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
* Jose Serrano (D-NY)
* Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
* Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
* Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
* G.K. Butterfield, Jr. (D-NC)
* David Price (D-NC)
* Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
* Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
* Bob Brady (D-PA)
* Mike Doyle (D-PA)
* Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
* Jim Clyburn (D-SC)
* Al Green (D-TX)
* Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
* E.B. Johnson (D-TX)
* Jim Moran (D-VA)
* Bobby Scott (D-VA)
* Rick Larsen (D-WA)
* Jim McDermott (D-WA)
* Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
* Nick Rahall (D-WV)
* Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
* Gwen Moore (D-WI)

A few things to point out: First, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not vote by tradition; Second, take a gander at the first letter after these 75 names, and consider which party tolerates--if not endorses--corruption and lawlessness in the name of social justice; Third, keep in mind that the ACORN-related measure was an amendment on a much bigger bill, so many of these people could be otherwise committed to a vote on the Student Loan legislation.

Of course, that shouldn't be too much consolation. Unfortunately, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 also essentially nationalized the student loan industry -- but that's a matter for another time and place.

IT AIN'T AMERICA NO MORE!

Every picture tells a story don't it...in this case a video..coming to a town near you?

Good Dog!

I am an animal lover, especially dogs and us dog 'parents" know that sometimes the wisdom of our "furry kids" exceeds those of us humans.

This dog is obviously much smarter than our own Governor Jennifer Granholm who would take all the Federal strings attached so called "stimulus" bill money and other states "stimulus" money too!

Bad Jennifer, bad!

STOP HR 676!

Committee hopes to have healthcare bill passed by Oct. 1

Posted using ShareThis

Dissecting HR 676 Overview FINAL

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other Research bills stop hr 676

To get started right now, having an impact in stopping HR 676 by doing as many of the following as possible:

* Email, call, fax, or write your representatives
* Write a Letter to the Editor
* Post to opinion sections of newspaper websites
* Call talk radio.
* Send information to your entire email address book
* Talk to your friends, family, and neighbors about the facts

The Road Trip No One Wants to Take!

Cross posted from Lansing, MI Independence Day Tea Party

Obama cuts prayer-day service

Julia Duin (Contact)

The Washington Times

President Obama is distancing himself from the National Day of Prayer by nixing a formal early morning service and not attending a large Catholic prayer breakfast the following morning.

All Mr. Obama will do for the National Day of Prayer, which is Thursday, is sign a proclamation honoring the day, which originated in 1952 when Congress set aside the first Thursday in May for the event.

For the past eight years, President George W. Bush invited selected Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House East Room, where he typically would give a short speech and several leaders offered prayers.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that the president simply is reverting to pre-Bush administration practice.

"Prayer is something the president does every day," he said. "We're doing a proclamation, which I know that many administrations in the past have done."

Pressed by reporters as to the lack of a formal ceremony, Mr. Gibbs said the proclamation was Mr. Obama's choice.
"That's the way the president will publicly observe National Prayer Day -- privately he'll pray as he does every day," he said.

Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Committee, said the group was "disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration." "At this time in our country's history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer," said Mrs. Dobson, who occupied a prominent seat in the front row for the ceremonies during the Bush administration.

Well don't most Christains distance themselves from a celebration of prayer? I mean why put any special emphasis on prayer in these difficult times? Of course I am being sarcasic here. However, it is painfully obvious that our "dear leader" who calls himself a "christian" sees little value in a public support of the value pf prayer.

Doesn't it make you want to prayer even harder for our nation?

Gitmo's Ghosts

IBD
Friday, January 23, 2009

A Gitmo detainee released at Saudi Arabia's request has re-upped with al-Qaida and is now its chief of operations in Yemen. So, again, why do we want to empty the place?

If we bounce the rest of these terrorists out of Gitmo, as the president wants to do within a year, we risk recycling even more dangerous fanatics back into the jihad against us.

These people like to commit suicide. Why are we so anxious to do the same?

Gitmo terrorist Said Ali al-Shihri was released to Saudi in 2007. Within no time, he was back on the terror circuit. In fact, the FBI now suspects he helped plan last year's deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital.

He's one of at least 30 former Gitmo inmates who have resumed terrorist activities as part of the Taliban or al-Qaida, despite signing pledges to renounce violence. (Yes, we're really that dumb.)

The releases have come amid a steady stream of complaints from the media, the ACLU and the Saudis (who have a disproportionate number locked up there) about the treatment of the detainees, who are tortured daily with a limited menu of halal meals, paperback-only copies of the Quran and hard plastic soccer balls.

The Saudis assured us we could trust these hardened killers in their care, because they had a rehab program to turn them into nonviolent, productive members of society.

But the Saudi "reintegration program" for repatriated Gitmo terrorists conditions their release on an agreement not to attack the Kingdom. It's OK, however, for them to attack the West.

And that's exactly what al-Shihri did — after he went through the Saudi rehab program, which includes monthly stipends, cars, jobs and resortlike housing featuring pools and volleyball courts.

Sounds more like a resort: If we didn't know better, our ally is actually rewarding our enemies, and rehabbing them for future battle.

Many of the remaining 245-plus Gitmo detainees are Saudis and Yemenis. But fear not, Yemen also has a rehab program for terrorists that's similar to the Saudis. And one that's partly funded by the U.S. (as if these rich oil countries swimming in petro dollars can't finance their own anti-terror programs).

Yemen is the same government that secretly released a USS Cole bombing suspect not too long ago. "The lesson here is, whoever receives former Guantanamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them," a U.S. official was quoted saying.

That clearly is not going to happen. We can't even trust ally Kuwait, which recently freed a Gitmo terrorist we'd released to its custody only to watch him attack innocents in Iraq. Not long after renouncing jihad, Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi turned around and blew up a police station there in a suicide mission.

The real lesson is: Don't release these killers into anyone's care. Keep them locked up in Cuba or they'll just resurface with al-Qaida or the Taliban and attack us again.

Some argue that there's a new commander in chief now, and new rules in the war on terror. So deal with it.

While it is his prerogative to change the rules, the enemy is operating under old rules — 1,400-year-old rules, to be exact — and it's not changing its tactics. And it would like nothing better than to have 245 more of its battle-hardened dogs return to the front line.

If the new commander in chief is not careful, Gitmo's ghosts may come back to haunt us all.


I have one postscript to this article, I don't believe Gitmo's ghosts MAY come back to haunt us I believe they WILL come back to haunt us!

Think, if possible, like a terrorist for a moment, if you just heard that the new untested president thinks that releasing the enemy is the right thing to do, wouldn't that give you the green light to your next attack?

When Bill Clinton pulled out of Mogadishu after our troops were attacked and the dead bodies of our soldiers desecrated, Osama bin Laden saw this as a sign of weakness and began to plot 9/11.

In a October 2001 interview between Al-Jazeera television correspondent Tayseer Alouni and Osama Bin Laden just one month after 9/11 Bin Laden states:

BIN LADEN: We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America -- the United States -- that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.

America left faster than anyone expected.

Bin Laden never believed George Bush would respond with a show of force because Bill Clinton retreated as the response in Mogadishu.

After 9/11 Bin Laden knew he was wrong. However George Bush is longer our president. If you recall, during the election it was Joe Biden, Barack Obama's own running mate who said, that Barack Obama would be tested.

This is the first test on the WOT for his administration and to our enemies, he passed with flying colors!

Be on the alert, friends

Our New President and Abortion

Like many yesterday I didn't go near my TV. I found no reason to celebrate or even be "congratulatory". I will concede that it is an historical occasion as Barack Obama is the first person of color to be elected to the office of president of the United States.

However, I can offer no "Congratulations"
I can offer none to the *enemy (Eph 6:12) who uses Barack Obama

However, I will pray.

I'll pray for forgiveness **(2 Chr.7:14) for this nation who elected a pro-abort to be her "leader". I will pray also for Barack Obama's salvation and for the protection of my country and Israel.

As followers of Christ we pro-actively fight, in the world and on our knees.

That is why with the 36th anniversay of the Roe v Wade decision on January 22 we need to press in prayer and in action.
We need to give a voice and protection to the innocent. ***(Jeremiah 22:3)

So I am asking you to please sign the Fight FOCA Petition.

What is FOCA?

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.

FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.

Barack Obama made a promise to Planned Parenthood last year they expect him to keep.

"The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do."

The time to Fight FOCA is now.

Please add your name to the petition and tell Barack Obama that we oppose the sin of abortion.

The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause MUST be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America's spiritual heritage to our national affairs.

Then WITH God's help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.

Ronald Reagan, 1977
40th President of the United States


*For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

**If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land

***This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

How Foreign Liberals (and Jihadi's for that matter) Can Contribute Illegally to the Obama Campaign

I ran across this blog surfing the web. First person account from this blogger how he was able to ILLEGALLY contribute to the Obama campaign. It has been reported as the author states about that the Obama campaign gathered a never before total of 150 million in one month, in a down economy and how many of those contributions were illegal such as this article on Townhall.com

However the larger concern is what is being done about it? According to the Townhall blog,"The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions"

Outrageous!


Written by John Ronning
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
PBTS

How Foreign Liberals (and Jihadi's for that matter) Can Contribute Illegally to the Obama Campaign

It’s pretty easy — all you need is a credit card (foreign card is OK), a phony name, phony US address, phony telephone number, and just keep each contribution less than $200 so your illegal contribution never needs to be reported. As a foreigner you can even give more than Americans are allowed to legally contribute, by just using a different phony name each time you contribute, so that your contributions are never tallied, thus never exceed the limit.

And of course American supporters of Obama can also contribute more than the legal limit by following the same procedure. Not to mention the fact that you can easily steal someone else's credit card number and contribute through it, not needing the correct name etc. (yes it has happened), and just hope the victim doesn't notice it.

Last Friday I read on various web sites (e.g. NRO) that the Obama campaign was facilitating illegal credit card contributions by disabling standard security verification procedures. Normally, a credit card payment is rejected if the name you give does not match the name on the card. Duh. Not so the Obama campaign.

I said to myself, "If Americans can do this, I wonder if foreigners could too?" I’m a US citizen, but I have lived in South Africa for the last ten years and have a foreign credit card, from a South African bank. So I googled the Obama campaign web site and used my foreign credit card to contribute $5 (the minimum accepted) to his campaign. Sure enough, my account was charged $5 (54 Rand) on Monday. I assume that if I could do it, all those French who want Obama to be president could do it too.

Money translates into votes, because propaganda is effective, including obvious lies which are endlessly repeated.

Here, then, are the step by step instructions for fraudulently contributing to the Obama campaign, and participating in the mother of all campaign swindles:

Go to the Obama web site, find the page where contributions are accepted (I won’t link to it, but it’s not hard to find).

Listen to Obama’s spiel which automatically plays, telling you that since he’s not taking money from PAC’s or Lobbyists (nothing about foreigners), he’s depending upon you to contribute.

Fill in the name, address, etc., according to your imagination. Nothing needs to be correct except the credit card number. I used the name "Good Guess", a phony address etc., and got the message that my donation was accepted; three days later the money was charged to my account.

During those three days a couple of mainstream newspapers did some whitewashing work for Obama, failing to make clear the deliberateness of Obama’s disabling of standard security checks to prevent credit card fraud, failing to point out the obvious, that you cannot get away with such fraud on the McCain/Palin web site, etc.

Next I had the opportunity to have Obama e-mail my friends, inviting them to follow my example. I had them send an e-mail from "Good Guess" to one of my e-mail addresses, and a short time later the e-mail arrived.

I know from experience that the Obama web site could be set up to automatically detect if it is being accessed from a foreign country (South Africa, in my case). I know from experience that it could be set up to reject foreign credit cards, even if the names and addresses were correct (for example, I cannot use my American credit card for certain transactions in South Africa).

And by the way, you can also contribute to Obama anonymously through those pre-paid credit cards you buy at the drug store.
As another Republican candidate said 12 years ago, "Where is the outrage?"

P.S. I am asking for my money back.

Documentation:
Here is a screen shot of Obama’s "thanks" for my contribution.
Here is a screen shot of the e-mail I got from the Obama campaign, soliciting me to join in this fraudulent enterprise.
Here is a screen shot of my online bank statement (personal names blacked out).
No comments for this item

Disclaimer: I did not investigate this site as to the their doctrine of Christianity. As such I am not endorsing or not endorsing any articles devoted to doctrine on this blog

Obama-More terrorists-Rashid Khalidi

Obama worked with terrorist Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence
February 24, 2008
By Aaron Klein© 2008 WorldNetDaily


JERUSALEM – The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama.

Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president.

The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000. Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.

Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The $40,000 grant from Obama's Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the Arab group's reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN's reported grants for that year.

The AAAN, headquartered in the heart of Chicago's Palestinian immigrant community, describes itself as working to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities."

It reportedly has worked on projects with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which supports open boarders and education for illegal aliens. The AAAN in 2005 sent a letter to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson in which it called a billboard opposing a North Carolina-New Mexico joint initiative to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens a "bigoted attack on Arabs and Muslims."

Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line. The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948.

According to the widely discredited Nakba narrative, Jews in 1948 forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands - some Palestinians claim over one million - Arabs from their homes and then took over the territory.

Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded.

The theme of AAAN's Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was "the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life ... under [Israeli] occupation ... home demolition ... statelessness ... bereavement ... martyrdom, and ... the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom." Another AAAN initiative, titled, "Al Nakba 1948 as experienced by Chicago Palestinians," seeks documents related to the "catastrophe" of Israel's founding.

A post on the AAAN site asked users: "Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?" That posting was recently removed. The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction.

Pro-PLO advocate held Obama fundraiser, describes Obama as 'sympathetic' AAAN co-founder Rashid Khalidi was reportedly a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982, while the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group.

Khalidi's wife, AAAN President Mona Khalidi, was reportedly WAFA's English translator during that period. Rashid Khalidi at times has denied working directly for the PLO but Palestinian diplomatic sources in Ramallah told WND he indeed worked on behalf of WAFA.

Khalidi also advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991. During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state.

He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression." He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.

While the Woods Fund's contribution to Khalidi's AAAN might be perceived as a one-time run in with Obama, the presidential hopeful and Khalidi evidence a deeper relationship.

According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity.

Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004. Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.

Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor Show of New York's WABC Radio and Los Angeles' KFI Radio, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama. "I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician," Khalidi stated. Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause."

Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can't talk with the Iranians." Asked about Obama's role funding the AAAN, Khalidi claimed he had "never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago." He terminated the call when petitioned further about his links with Obama.

Contacted by phone, Mona Khalidi refused to answer WND's questions about the AAAN's involvement with Obama. Obama's campaign headquarters did not reply to a list of WND questions sent by e-mail to the senator's press office.

Obama, American terrorist in same circles Obama served on the board with Ayers, who was a Weathermen leader and has written about his involvement with the group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough,"

Ayers told the New York Times in an interview released on Sept. 11, 2001 "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers wrote in his memoirs, titled "Fugitive Days." He continued with a disclaimer that he didn't personally set the bombs, but his group set the explosives and planned the attack.

A $200 campaign contribution is listed on April 2, 2001 by the "Friends of Barack Obama" campaign fund. The two taught appeared speaking together at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002, entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"

The charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance. Ayers is married to another notorious Weathermen terrorist, Bernadine Dohrn, who has also served on panels with Obama. Dohrn was once on the FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted List and was described by J. Edgar Hoover as the "most dangerous woman in America."

Ayers and Dohrn raised the son of Weathermen terrorist Kathy Boudin, who was serving a sentence for participating in a 1981 murder and robbery that left 4 people dead.

The revelations about Obama's relationship with Khalidi follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.

Malley, a principal Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.

Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.

Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Bill Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure.

October Surprise

Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!
In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview
Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth!!!

DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT

New York Post
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON
October 20, 2008

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show.

Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones. Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn't been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real - and profoundly disturbing.

ACORN IN MI

Mlive.com
10/14/2008, 5:52 p.m. ET

Mich. AG charges ex-ACORN worker with forgery

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan's attorney general is charging a former employee of a community organizing group with forgery after he says the man falsely submitted six voter registration forms.

Antonio Johnson is being held in Jackson County on a parole violation. The 23-year-old is accused of falsifying the registration forms between May 20 and June 6 in Jackson.

He worked for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.

Jackson Clerk Lynn Fessel suspected a problem and asked police to investigate. Two residents said they didn't sign the forms and that some information used to complete the forms was incorrect.

Attorney General Mike Cox announced Johnson's arrest Tuesday. Johnson couldn't be reached immediately at the jail.

Another story from The Detroit Free Press
October 15, 2008

ACORN leader: Bogus voter applications get through

BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

LANSING -- The head of a group that promotes voter registration acknowledged Tuesday that members of his organization have submitted bogus applications to county election offices.

But David Lagstein, head Michigan organizer for ACORN, the Association for Community Reforms Now, defended the effort.

"It's our policy to hand in every single card," he said. "Sometimes we do get the occasional application with names like Mickey Mouse or some silly thing like that. However, we don't want to be the arbiter. Our job is to hand in the applications."

Lagstein's comments followed charges of falsifying voter registration documents filed Tuesday against an ex-ACORN worker from Jackson.

Antonio Johnson was charged with six counts of forgery of a public document, felonies each carrying a sentence of up to 14 years in prison, Attorney General Mike Cox said.

Cox said the documents submitted by Johnson were obvious forgeries, and that his "office will not stand by while criminals interfere with the voting rights of citizens."

Johnson has been convicted in the past of drunken driving and drug offenses and was in jail on a parole violation charge when the alleged forgeries were found.

Staff writer Joe Rossiter contributed to this report.


Walberg Campaign Intends Legal Action Against ACORN and Moveon.org Front Group

Press Release

Radical Liberal Group Supporting Mark Schauer is Using a Cancer Victim to Falsely Attack Congressman Walberg in a TV ad

Jackson, MI- A radical liberal group supporting Mark Schauer and funded by the voter fraud organization ACORN, radical left-wing Moveon.org, and the pro-illegal immigration National Council of La Raza is running a TV ad featuring a cancer victim attacking Congressman Walberg. However, the accusation made in the ad is untrue, and the Walberg campaign is intending legal action.

In the TV ad, the woman with cancer states:

"Republican Congressman Tim Walberg sponsored legislation that would let insurance companies make the rules. They could even deny coverage for preexisting conditions like cancer."

Facts:

· The bill cited in the TV ad gives consumers the option to purchase health insurance from other states. It has nothing to do with restricting health insurance for cancer victims; it simply lets consumers have more options when shopping for health insurance. [National Center for Policy Analysis, Congressman John Shaddegg, Congressional Research Service]

· The claim in the ad that the bill "would let insurance companies make the rules" is untrue. According to the Congressional Research Service and National Center for Policy Analysis, the insurance policies would be regulated by state and federal laws.

· According to a study by University of Minnesota economists presented at the American Enterprise Institute, if this legislation were to become law, 12 million more Americans would be able to afford health insurance.

"Congressman Walberg supports this health care reform because it will allow 12 million more Americans to afford health insurance. For radical liberal organizations supporting Mark Schauer to use a cancer victim to falsely attack Congressman Walberg is despicable and we are intending legal action," said Justin Roebuck, campaign manager.

O'S DANGEROUS PALS

John McCain's campaign is using Barack Obama's ties to a controversial low-income advocacy group to escalate his criticism of the Democratic nominee's character and judgment.

The McCain campaign released a Web video and rolled out surrogates Friday to question Obama's connection to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which is the subject of at least 11 investigations. Fox News

Well 'bout time! And what's more McCain's new video brings up Madeline Talbott.
Who is Madeline Talbott? Read on;

BARACK'S 'ORGANIZER' BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGES
By STANLEY KURTZ

Chutzpah: ACORN's drive to lower mortgage standards paved the way for the meltdown - yet last week, it was holding protests like this one in Florida, trying to get a cut of the financial-market-rescue bill.


September 29, 2008

WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.

In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Community Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.

In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.

By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.

And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."

What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."

Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.

It would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.

In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.

More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.

MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological.
Sound familiar?

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.


Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC

Media Silence on Abortion Aids Radical Obama

Not News?

In Illinois, Obama Voted Against Protecting Born Babies;
Later Smeared Pro-Lifers as 'Liars'"

Two of the three presidential debates have now passed without either candidate being asked about abortion, an issue that nearly four out of ten voters said was "very important" to them, according to an August Pew survey. See:
Pew survey

What makes the abortion issue especially salient this campaign year is Barack Obama's extremely liberal record which may also explain why the big broadcast networks have practically avoided the subject.

TV reporters barely mentioned Obama's pro-abortion stance during the
primaries from the launch of his candidacy in January 2007 through the end of the primaries in June 2008, just six out of 1,289 network evening news stories about Obama (0.46%) mentioned his position on abortion; none discussed it in any detail. It was thus unusual when ABC's Terry Moran pointed out, in a February 25, 2008 story on World News, that Obama was "considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois...opposing efforts to ban so-called 'partial birth abortions.'"

Obama's stance protecting partial birth abortions puts him to the left of many liberal Democrats -- 17 out of 47 Democratic Senators,including Obama's running-mate Joe Biden, voted to outlaw such abortions in 2003, a position backed by 75% of the public, according to a 2007 Pew survey.

Senate vote


Pew

But besides the Moran story, only two other network evening news stories mentioned Obama's support for the procedure, including an April 21, 2007 CBS Evening News story briefly noting Obama's condemnation of the Supreme Court for upholding the federal law banning such abortions.

But Obama's most extreme pro-abortion move came in Illinois, when he voted against a bill to protect babies born alive following unsuccessful abortions, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

A similar bill was brought before the U.S. Congress, bolstered by the testimony of a Chicago-area nurse named Jill Stanek, who described how a baby who survived an "induced labor abortion" was abandoned by the hospital staff. Stanek testified: "I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a soiled utility room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about half a pound, and was about 10 inches long."

In 2002, the federal law protecting born-alive babies passed on a voice vote without objection from any Democrat, including strong liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer.

But in Illinois, Obama helped kill a similar bill when it came before the Health and Human Services committee he chaired. Challenged about his vote this summer, Obama lashed out at pro-lifers, claiming the state bill he opposed lacked a "neutrality clause" protecting the status quo on abortion, something liberals demanded and received before agreeing to the federal law.

"I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely, fully in support of the federal bill," Obama told CBN on August 16. "That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."
CBN story

Four days later, the Chicago Tribune documented how Obama and his committee voted 10-to-zero to add the required "neutrality clause" to Illinois Senate Bill 1082 -- and then Obama and five other state senators voted to kill the bill later that same day. A CNN "fact check" on that day's Situation Room refused to conclude that Obama had unfairly attacked his critics as liars. "Looking at the bills, the language is similar, but the Obama camp says...there were concerns about undermining Illinois abortion law," reporter Mary Snow delicately suggested.

Chicago Tribune

NRLC post

As for the broadcast networks, none have yet mentioned this radical aspect of Obama's record. That silence helps the Democrat cast himself as more centrist than he really is, but shows how hopeless the media's "watchdogs" are when it comes to their liberal friends.

Archive with the previous editions

John MCain Rocks the Debate

If you didn't see it, John McCain rocked the debate last night, despite the many "Obamaruptions" showing "Professor Obama" to be a dangerous neophyte when it comes to foreign policy.
McCain is like Chuck Norris, he's been everywhere!

Was it just me or did you find "Professor Obama" lectures on foreign policies, desperately tiring to convince voters on how much he knows tiresome?

However, I had to hang in there because I am on the Detroit Free Press Voter Panel giving my opinion on the debates that are published in the paper and online.

If you recall I blogged about how the editor of the Free Press stacked the deck of the voter panel with left-wing and anti-war activists like Code Pink members which made the make up of the panel over 60% Democrats as reported by
Fox News

Of course the published comments to the Freep were overwhelming pro-Obama.

So I decided to e-mail the editor with the link to my blog challenging him to include me in his "balanced" voter panel.

And after being outed, he invited me to be on the voter panel and so I am.

My aim is not to comment but to raise questions in the mind of voters about Obama's rhetoric vs reality.

Next debate, Palin vs Biden October 2, 2008
The pitbull with lipstick vs the human gaffe machine

Should be fun!


P.S. Credit where credit is due, "Obamaruptions" was coined by a poster on RedState decribing the many interruptions Obama made when John McCain was speaking.

Obama's Global Tax

Part Two of the excellent IBD Series The Audacity Of Socialism

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world.

Speaking in Berlin, Obama said: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history."

What the 20th century really showed was a series of totalitarian threats — from fascism to Nazism to communism — defeated by the U.S. military. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan and the Soviet Union offered destinies we did not share.
Our destiny of peace and freedom through strength was not achieved by a transnationalist fantasy of buying the world a Coke and singing "Kumbaya."

Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want, one that challenges America's very sovereignty. The former "post-racial" candidate obviously intends to be a post-national president.

A statement from Obama's office says: "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter and clean drinking water."
These are worthy goals, but note there's no mention of spreading democracy, expanding free trade, promoting entrepreneurial capitalism or ridding the world of despots who rule and ravage countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish. Pledging to cut global poverty in half on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is a ridiculous and impossible goal.

His legislation refers to the "millennium development goal," a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton.
It calls for the "eradication of poverty" in part through the "redistribution (of) wealth of land" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources."

In other words: American resources.

It's a mantra of liberals that the U.S. is only a small portion of the world's population yet consumes an unseemly portion of the planet's supposedly finite resources. Never mentioned is the fact that America's population, just 5% of the world's total, also produces a stunning 27% of the world's GDP — to the enormous benefit of other countries.

Nonetheless, their solution is to siphon off the product of our free democracy and distribute it.We already transfer too much national wealth to the United Nations and its busybody agencies. Obama's bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty, spending well above the $16.3 billion in global poverty aid the U.S. already spends.

Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development Conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S is expected to meet its part of the U.N. Millennium goals, we would be spending an additional $65 billion annually for a total of $845 billion.

During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500.

If you're worried abut gasoline and heating oil prices now, think what they'll be like when the U.S. is subjected in an Obama administration to global energy consumption and production taxes. Obama's Global Poverty Act is the "international community's" foot in the door.

The U.N. Millennium declaration called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy production — oil, natural gas, coal . . . fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for the airplane use of the skies, fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

Co-sponsors of S. 2433 include Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. GOP globalists supporting the bill include Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Lugar has worked with Obama to promote more aid to Russia to promote nuclear nonproliferation. Lugar also promotes the Law of the Sea treaty, which turns over the world's oceans to an International Seabed Authority that would charge us to drill offshore and have veto power over the movements and actions of the U.S. Navy.

Obama's agenda sounds like defeated 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry's "global test" for U.S. foreign policy decisions where "you have to do it in a way that passes the test — that passes the global test — where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming and probably would submit to a Kyoto-like agreement that would sock Americans with literally trillions of dollars in costs over the next half century for little or no benefit.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama has said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Oh, really? Who's to say we can't load up our SUV and head out in search of bacon double cheeseburgers at the mall? China? India? Bangladesh? The U.N.?

In an Obama White House, American sovereignty will become an endangered species. The Global Poverty Act is the first toe in the water of global socialism

Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win

Speaking of Liberal Media Bias...


Monday, July 21, 2008
Rasmussen Reports

The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the New York Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

The New York Times’ refusal to run an op-ed piece by John McCain challenging an article in the paper less than a week ago by Barack Obama is sure to further fuel the belief that much of the major media is biased in favor of the Democratic candidate. At issue is McCain’s response to an article by Obama entitled, “My Plan for Iraq.” Obama was in Afghanistan over the weekend and in Iraq today attempting to build his foreign policy portfolio for the fall campaign.

A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this year found that just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. The paper’s ratings divided sharply along partisan and ideological lines, with liberals far more supportive of the paper than conservatives.
At the time of that survey, the paper was being criticized for an article it had run about McCain’s ties to lobbyists. Sixty-six percent (66%) of those who were aware of the story in question believed it was an attempt by the New York Times to hurt the McCain campaign.

In the latest survey, a plurality of Democrats—37%-- say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help the Republican candidate.

Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.

Republicans and unaffiliated voters are more likely to trust campaign information from family and friends than from reporters. Democrats are evenly divided as to who they would trust more.

A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.

A survey conducted earlier this year found that 30% of voters believe having a friendly reporter is more valuable than raising a lot of campaign contributions.. Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe contributions are more important and 40% are not sure.

These results are consistent with earlier surveys finding that large segments of the population believe the media is biased It is also clear that voters select their news sources in a partisan manner. During Election 2004, CNN viewers heavily favored John Kerry while Fox Fans preferred George W. Bush.


Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 19, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.