The Marxist socialist left, liberal Democrats, in this country have always attacked anyone that had the guts to speak out against their oppressive agenda. This attack by the Obama White House personal is one more in a series of attacks Democrats have launched against Conservative media personal.
Remember, character assignation is just one of the tools the Marxist use to destroy and silence opponents. The organization, Color of Change, is one of many inside the Obama administration.
Obama-Linked Activists Targeting Glenn Beck in Boycott Campaign
Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:10 PM
By: David A. Patten
Is a left-wing attempt to scare off advertisers from Fox News host Glenn Beck’s highly rated cable news show being orchestrated with some high level help from the Obama White House?
Perhaps.
Newsmax has learned that the co-founder of the African-American political organization Color of Change, which is calling for Beck's ouster, is civil rights attorney Van Jones.
In March, President Obama appointed Jones to serve as his so-called "green-jobs czar," responsible for stimulating job growth in the environmental sector. "I don’t have proof that the White House asked Color of Change to help it fight back against Glenn Beck," Matthew Vadum, the Capitol Research Center senior editor who has written extensively about Jones' activities, tells Newsmax. "But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn it had. Van Jones has the president’s ear. It’s a few hundred feet from his office at the Council on Environmental Quality to the Oval Office."
The other co-founder of Color of Change, James Rucker, confirmed to Newsmax that Jones' formal association with Color Of Change ended in December 2007. He states however that the organization continued to use Jones' name on their e-mails until May 2008.
Jones and Beck have had their run-ins before. Beck has described Jones as "a black nationalist who is also an avowed communist."
Color Of Change claims that it has pressured a growing roster of companies into pulling their ads from Beck's program: Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, RadioShack, GEICO, Progressive Insurance, Men's Wearhouse, State Farm, Sargento, Lawyers.com, and Procter & Gamble.
One company — SC Johnson of Racine, Wis. — is disputing statements that it has pulled its ads from the Beck show. "There is misinformation out there on the Web," Chris Beard, SC Johnson's director of public affairs, tells Newsmax. "We have not directed advertising toward the Glenn Beck show. Consequently, we have not pulled any advertising from the Glenn Beck show. Actually, that is misinformation."
The campaign against Beck stems from remarks he made on the July 28 Fox & Friends program, following Obama's assertion that the Cambridge Police Department had acted "stupidly" in its arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Obama later backed off from those words, and invited Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, to join him at the White House for a beer.
"This president I think has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again, who has a deep seated hatred for . . . white people? Or the white culture?" Beck asked. "I don't know what it is, but you can't sit in a pew with [former Obama pastor] Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff, have it wash over."
The show's co-host, Brian Kilmeade, replied to Beck: "But listen, you can't say he doesn't like white people. David Axelrod's white, Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff is white. I think 70 percent of the people we see every day are white. Robert Gibbs is white." "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people," Beck said. "I'm saying he has a problem. This guy, I believe, is a racist. Look at the things that he has been surrounded by."
Predictably, Beck’s off hand remarks created a storm of controversy in the leftwing blogosphere, the same group that had been apologists for the Rev. Wright’s statements of hate against whites and Jews.
Color of Change, which claims to be the largest African-American political organization online with 600,000 members, has seized on Beck's comment to mount a campaign to discourage companies from advertising on the program.
Color of Change Executive Director James Rucker spoke with Newsmax, and made clear his organization's goal is for Beck's voice to be silenced.
"It's preposterous and absurd," Rucker says of Beck's opinion. "It's insulting to black Americans; and it corrupts honest debate. Anyone who uses such a platform to spew such vitriol, whether Glenn Beck or anyone else, has no place on the air, and we at Color Of Change would use every resource available to us to remove corporate sponsorship from their platform." The group is asking its member to sign a petition urging companies who advertise on Beck's program to pull their ads from the show, and claims that 150,000 members have signed the petition. And it says its anti-Beck campaign is working.
In a Tuesday press release, Color of Change quoted an e-mail sent to the group from GEICO: "On Tuesday, August 4, GEICO instructed its ad buying service to redistribute its inventory of rotational spots on Fox TV to their other network programs, exclusive of the Glenn Beck program. As of August 4, GEICO no longer runs any paid advertising spots during Mr. Beck's program."
A Fox spokesman confirmed that GEICO is dropping its ads from the show, Brandweek reported, but noted: "The advertisers referenced have all moved their spots from Beck to other programs on the network so there has been no revenue lost."
It's not the first time Color of Change, which was founded in 2005, has sought to quell political speech from the right. It lobbied the Congressional Black Caucus not to host a Democratic presidential debate co-sponsored by Fox, arguing that it "consistently marginalizes . . . black leaders and the black community." Marching in lockstep, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton shunned the debate.
Grass-roots leaders find news of the group's ties to the Obama administration alarming, however.
They see the anti-Beck campaign as part of a clear pattern of Democratic efforts to stifle free expression from the right, ranging from the recent labeling of town hall protesters as "un-American," to openly mocking talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, to flirting with back-door ways of reinstating federal controls over radio content, such as "localism" and the Fairness Doctrine.
Now they are answering back.
"We have put out the word among our grass-roots members," Everett Wilkinson, a national leader of the Tea Party Patriots, tells Newsmax. Wilkinson tells Newsmax that the Tea Party Patriots have joined forces with a similar group, the National 912 Coalition, to beseech their members to contact Beck's sponsors, and encourage them to continue underwriting The Glenn Beck Program. He says members are even hosting Glenn Beck popcorn nights to watch the program together and have an open debate about its topics.
"It's about principles not parties," Wilkinson says. "Perhaps you disagree with him, but at least we're getting America to talk."
Wilkinson says Tea Party Patriots holds Beck "in high regard as a journalist" adding, "We also understand a large amount of his show is entertainment. But we support any kind of independent journalist, be it Glenn Beck, Cavuto, Hannity. And we see that anyone who is independent or who puts out an independent perspective is being attacked by the liberal left."
Rich Noyes, research director for the Media Research Center, points out there wasn't much hue and cry when President Bush was labeled a racist in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But the political left is far more inclined than the rest of America's body politic, he says, to attack and punish individuals for their views.
"If the left wants to clean up hate speech, they can start in their own ranks," Noyes says. "We had a syndicated radio host Mike Malloy go on the air after this, and say he hoped Glenn Beck would commit suicide on live TV. A few days later he said he hoped Rush Limbaugh choked to death on his own fat. There are hate-filled things coming out of the left-wing media all the time, but it doesn't seem to get the left riled up or upset."
Newsmax made several attempts to reach some of the companies that reportedly dropped their support for the Beck program. As of Tuesday evening, those calls had not been returned.
One thing that's clear is the controversial hasn't dented the popularity of Beck's program. On Tuesday, for example, overnight Nielsen's showed The Glenn Beck Program attracted over 2.3 million viewers — more than CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News combined.
Beck supporters are distributing the contact information for officials at two companies that have stopped their advertising.
They are:
Progressive Insurance
Mr. Glenn Renwick, President & CEO
440-461-5000
Ms. Linda Harris, Advertising & Sponsorships
E-mail: linda_j._harris@progressive.com
GEICO
Mr. Tony Nicely
Chairman, President & CEO, Insurance Operations
E-mail: tnicely@geico.com
301-986-2462
Chris Tasher, GEICO Media Relations
301-986-3271
E-mail: ctasher@geico.com
Some Beck supporters say they're also calling his current advertisers, encouraging them to continue supporting the program.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Video - Doctor Shortage Coming With ObamaCare
Little wonder with some 66 million new patients demanding care from a static or diminishing number of doctors that our quality of heath care will will begin to fail everyone.
Also given some doctors are opting to not continue in the trade as the paper work and the liability costs can only get worse, over head is still the most restrictive aspect of the profession, the number of new doctors coming on line in this environment will determine whether the system works at all or will ultimately collapse under the weight of new government involvement, regulation and the demands of millions of new people in the system.
If you think we can make this new system work for everyone getting the same care from a diminishing number of care givers that have no reason to 'care' anymore, then I have a bridge that I want to sell you.
Doctor Shortage Looms Amid Healthcare Reform
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:38 PM
Policy analysts are hammering President Barack Obama's drive for healthcare reform, citing the massive $1 trillion price tag of his plan as well as the very real likelihood that America will be confronted with a disastrous doctor shortage.
According to a Newsmax.TV Special Report on the healthcare debate, critics are wondering where America's healthcare system will get the doctors for tens of millions of new patients, while others are fearful that the government will turn physicians into servants of the state.
“There aren't going to be any doctors around – doctors are going to bail out,” says Kathryn Serkes of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons. “You may have an insurance policy from the government, you may have a piece of paper, but you won't be able to get an appointment or get into a hospital and get an actual doctor to take care of you.”
See Video: A Newsmax.TV Special Report examines how the healthcare debate impacts you - Click Here Now
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Also given some doctors are opting to not continue in the trade as the paper work and the liability costs can only get worse, over head is still the most restrictive aspect of the profession, the number of new doctors coming on line in this environment will determine whether the system works at all or will ultimately collapse under the weight of new government involvement, regulation and the demands of millions of new people in the system.
If you think we can make this new system work for everyone getting the same care from a diminishing number of care givers that have no reason to 'care' anymore, then I have a bridge that I want to sell you.
Doctor Shortage Looms Amid Healthcare Reform
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:38 PM
Policy analysts are hammering President Barack Obama's drive for healthcare reform, citing the massive $1 trillion price tag of his plan as well as the very real likelihood that America will be confronted with a disastrous doctor shortage.
According to a Newsmax.TV Special Report on the healthcare debate, critics are wondering where America's healthcare system will get the doctors for tens of millions of new patients, while others are fearful that the government will turn physicians into servants of the state.
“There aren't going to be any doctors around – doctors are going to bail out,” says Kathryn Serkes of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons. “You may have an insurance policy from the government, you may have a piece of paper, but you won't be able to get an appointment or get into a hospital and get an actual doctor to take care of you.”
See Video: A Newsmax.TV Special Report examines how the healthcare debate impacts you - Click Here Now
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Bill Clinton's Aide 'Douglas Band' Guides Bill in North Korea
Just what was Bill Clinton role in the release of the journalists in North Korea? Knowing Bill as we do, probably nothing, but yet the press just love this guy and so do the communists. All of the world tyrants and despots love a good liberal - just look what the Hugo Chavez and Castro said about Obama that he was farther left then they are. Little wonder he is center stage again.
With Obama looking more and more like a losing lottery ticket, the press will be looking for another liberal socialist icon to take his place - who knew? - - here comes Bill - in politics timing is everything.
Bill Clinton's Mystery Aide in North Korea
Who is the Bill Clinton aide who played a key role along with the former president on his recent rescue mission of two American journalists in North Korea? The answer is no mystery to Washington insiders.
His name is Douglas J. Band, the man who played a behind-the-scenes role to help free the American women. His image was captured on video as he assisted the two Americans with their luggage on the final steps to freedom from the tarmac of the North Korean airport.
Band carries the title Counselor to President Clinton, but he is much more than an aide to the former president. He is, in fact, Bill Clinton's chief advisor and right hand.
President Clinton with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Counselor to President Clinton Doug Band stands behind Kim.
Band has served as the key architect of Clinton's post-Presidency, arguably the most successful of any former president. The Clinton post-presidency has become a model for other leaders. Reportedly, several leading heads of state have sought out Band's advice as they transitioned into private life.
He created and organized the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), a project of the William J. Clinton Foundation. Since its inception in 2005, CGI has raised $46 billion dollars for 1,200 philanthropic projects that have impacted an estimated 200 million people in 150 countries.
As on their recent visit to Pyongyang, Band typically takes a back seat to the public role played by his boss. But his fingerprints and influence on unfolding events are everywhere. When President Clinton deals with world leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Nicolas Sarkozy in France or the Pope, Band is always present behind the scenes. He also negotiated the agreement with President Obama that made Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. Bill Clinton makes no secret of Band's role.
"I couldn't have accomplished half of what I have in my post-presidency without him. Doug epitomizes the CGI ideals of not just talking about the problems and challenges facing our world but taking action to solve them," Clinton has stated. "I couldn't get through the day without him. Doug has been the key to helping me realize my visions to create a forum to inspire and engage people from all walks of life to give of themselves in order to improve our world and help others."
A Georgetown graduate and Law School graduate, Band has been with the president for 14 years. During the Clinton administration he served in the White House Counsel's office, becoming a Special Assistant to the President. Later he was tapped as Deputy Assistant to the President, becoming one of the youngest ever appointed to that position. When President Clinton left office, Band served as the President's Aide.
In addition to his duties at the Clinton Foundation, Band also serves on the the Coca Cola company International Advisory Board, Vote Vets and as a trustee of the Oklahoma City National Memorial.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
With Obama looking more and more like a losing lottery ticket, the press will be looking for another liberal socialist icon to take his place - who knew? - - here comes Bill - in politics timing is everything.
Bill Clinton's Mystery Aide in North Korea
Who is the Bill Clinton aide who played a key role along with the former president on his recent rescue mission of two American journalists in North Korea? The answer is no mystery to Washington insiders.
His name is Douglas J. Band, the man who played a behind-the-scenes role to help free the American women. His image was captured on video as he assisted the two Americans with their luggage on the final steps to freedom from the tarmac of the North Korean airport.
Band carries the title Counselor to President Clinton, but he is much more than an aide to the former president. He is, in fact, Bill Clinton's chief advisor and right hand.
President Clinton with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Counselor to President Clinton Doug Band stands behind Kim.
Band has served as the key architect of Clinton's post-Presidency, arguably the most successful of any former president. The Clinton post-presidency has become a model for other leaders. Reportedly, several leading heads of state have sought out Band's advice as they transitioned into private life.
He created and organized the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), a project of the William J. Clinton Foundation. Since its inception in 2005, CGI has raised $46 billion dollars for 1,200 philanthropic projects that have impacted an estimated 200 million people in 150 countries.
As on their recent visit to Pyongyang, Band typically takes a back seat to the public role played by his boss. But his fingerprints and influence on unfolding events are everywhere. When President Clinton deals with world leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Nicolas Sarkozy in France or the Pope, Band is always present behind the scenes. He also negotiated the agreement with President Obama that made Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. Bill Clinton makes no secret of Band's role.
"I couldn't have accomplished half of what I have in my post-presidency without him. Doug epitomizes the CGI ideals of not just talking about the problems and challenges facing our world but taking action to solve them," Clinton has stated. "I couldn't get through the day without him. Doug has been the key to helping me realize my visions to create a forum to inspire and engage people from all walks of life to give of themselves in order to improve our world and help others."
A Georgetown graduate and Law School graduate, Band has been with the president for 14 years. During the Clinton administration he served in the White House Counsel's office, becoming a Special Assistant to the President. Later he was tapped as Deputy Assistant to the President, becoming one of the youngest ever appointed to that position. When President Clinton left office, Band served as the President's Aide.
In addition to his duties at the Clinton Foundation, Band also serves on the the Coca Cola company International Advisory Board, Vote Vets and as a trustee of the Oklahoma City National Memorial.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
High Corporate Profits AND High Unemployment : Recovery?
Good article on how our financial system has changed and is continuing to change in the new world economy.
According to Mr. Karbell, we are not out of the woods as many in the "know" say we are, especially the politicians and their cohorts in the financial markets. These New Socialists pundits want the markets to recover, if only temporarily so they can say the 'new thinking' is working because they want the New Marxist Socialist party to succeed. So at the first sign of anything that might resemble recovery, they proclaim success of their agenda.
Cooler heads say not so.
Keep the faith and powder dry, the battle has only begun.
Corporate Earnings Are No Sign of Recovery
AUGUST 10, 2009 WSJ
By ZACHARY KARABELLhttp://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=ZACHARY+KARABELL&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND
Despite grim predictions, most major U.S. companies have reported positive earnings for the second quarter of 2009. Given how wrong past predictions have been, the fact that earnings have blown away expectations shouldn’t be so surprising. Still, the numbers are genuinely impressive: More than 73% of the companies that have reported so far have beaten earnings estimates—and stocks have rightly rallied.
Yes, profits are down sharply from a year ago, but this is in the context of an overall global economy that is shrinking. If a company made $30 million on $100 million in revenue a year ago, and made “only” $20 million this quarter, it’s accurate to have a headline that says its profits fell 33%. But making $20 million, or a 20% margin, in an economy that contracted is nonetheless startling, or should be.The same Wall Street culture that failed to anticipate the tipping point in the financial system is just as prone to a herd mentality of negativity.
Having overlooked the gaping fissures in the system last year, most analysts went to the other extreme in their analysis of what would happen this year. A similar process occurred in 2002 and 2003, as views whipsawed from unrealistic optimism to irrational pessimism.This time, the slew of better earnings has also led to the conviction that the worst of the economic travails are behind us.
As the stock market has soared, many have declared the recession either over or ending. These voices range from public officials at the Federal Reserve to notable pessimists such as New York University economist Nouriel Roubini. This rosy view assumes a connection between how listed companies are fairing and how the national economy will fair. That assumption is wrong.
The delinkage of the fate of corporate profits from that of the overall economy is not new. Beginning earlier in this decade, profits began to accelerate far in excess of either global or U.S. economic growth. In 2004, for instance, earnings for the S&P 500 grew 22%; in 2005 and 2006 they grew just under 20%. Those same years global growth barely exceeded 3%. As we now know, some of those elevated earnings were due to the leverage-fueled profits of the financial-service industry.
And there’s little doubt that mortgage-laced derivatives artificially elevated growth.
But even discounting those factors, the growth of corporate profits would have substantially exceeded the expansion of national economies. Then, in the second half of last year and the first months of this year, profits plunged along with U.S. and global economic activity. That gave succor to the belief that companies can only grow as much as the economies in which they function grow.
For years, most analysts argued that if there was too wide a variance between the two, something had to give. Either profits had to descend or national economic growth had to accelerate. As profits shrank over the past nine months, those who argued that a reversion to the mean was inevitable seemed to be vindicated. But that belief is wrong. Companies are increasingly less constrained by any national economy, and their success is no harbinger of national economic growth or sustained economic health for the United States.
First, companies have been profiting because they can cut costs aggressively. It’s not as if demand in the U.S. or Europe has picked up. Take Starbucks, which reported a surprising surge in profits. Little of that was due to American consumers suddenly becoming comfortable with $5 grande mocha lattes. Instead, it was because Starbucks—faced with weak demand and sluggish sales—closed stores and laid off workers. That has been a trend across industries.
Second, many larger companies have been profiting because they can focus on where the growth is around the globe. Companies such as Intel, Caterpillar, Microsoft and IBM now derive a majority of their revenues from outside the U.S., with the dynamic economies of the Asian rim and above all China assuming an ever-larger role. Companies are thriving in spite of economic activity in the U.S., not because of it. That suggests the connection between corporate profits and robust economic recovery in the U.S. is tenuous at best.
In fact, the financial crisis hastened the trend toward efficiencies, toward leaner inventories, and towards integrating both technology and global supply chains that has been taking place over the past decade. That has led to severe pressure on the American working class and eroding employment. As these companies profit from global expansion and greater efficiency, they have little or no reason to rehire fired workers, or to expand their work force in a U.S. that is barely growing.
If you are a global company, you want to hire and expand where the most dynamic growth is. Unfortunately for Americans, that’s not the U.S.
So we are facing a conundrum: Companies can grow by leaps and bounds—by double-digits—and yet unemployment can skyrocket and remain high. There is nothing on the horizon that would lead one to expect a turnaround in the employment picture. Job losses slowed slightly last month as the unemployment rate fell to 9.4% in July from 9.5% in June, but that’s a far cry from any sign of job creation.
The weight of more than 20 million marginally employed or unemployed, combined with the increasing pace of economic activity outside the U.S., presents the prospect of permanent change in the American economic landscape: high unemployment, moderate to weak growth, and soaring corporate profits.
The ability of companies—large ones especially, but even more modest ventures that assemble and source globally—to become more efficient and go where the growth is has never been greater. This is undoubtedly good for stocks and positive for investors, but it is also a challenge for American society that we have not even begun to confront.—
Mr. Karabell is president of River Twice Research. His new book, “Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World’s Prosperity Depends on It,” will be published by Simon & Schuster in October.Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A11Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
According to Mr. Karbell, we are not out of the woods as many in the "know" say we are, especially the politicians and their cohorts in the financial markets. These New Socialists pundits want the markets to recover, if only temporarily so they can say the 'new thinking' is working because they want the New Marxist Socialist party to succeed. So at the first sign of anything that might resemble recovery, they proclaim success of their agenda.
Cooler heads say not so.
Keep the faith and powder dry, the battle has only begun.
Corporate Earnings Are No Sign of Recovery
AUGUST 10, 2009 WSJ
By ZACHARY KARABELLhttp://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=ZACHARY+KARABELL&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND
Despite grim predictions, most major U.S. companies have reported positive earnings for the second quarter of 2009. Given how wrong past predictions have been, the fact that earnings have blown away expectations shouldn’t be so surprising. Still, the numbers are genuinely impressive: More than 73% of the companies that have reported so far have beaten earnings estimates—and stocks have rightly rallied.
Yes, profits are down sharply from a year ago, but this is in the context of an overall global economy that is shrinking. If a company made $30 million on $100 million in revenue a year ago, and made “only” $20 million this quarter, it’s accurate to have a headline that says its profits fell 33%. But making $20 million, or a 20% margin, in an economy that contracted is nonetheless startling, or should be.The same Wall Street culture that failed to anticipate the tipping point in the financial system is just as prone to a herd mentality of negativity.
Having overlooked the gaping fissures in the system last year, most analysts went to the other extreme in their analysis of what would happen this year. A similar process occurred in 2002 and 2003, as views whipsawed from unrealistic optimism to irrational pessimism.This time, the slew of better earnings has also led to the conviction that the worst of the economic travails are behind us.
As the stock market has soared, many have declared the recession either over or ending. These voices range from public officials at the Federal Reserve to notable pessimists such as New York University economist Nouriel Roubini. This rosy view assumes a connection between how listed companies are fairing and how the national economy will fair. That assumption is wrong.
The delinkage of the fate of corporate profits from that of the overall economy is not new. Beginning earlier in this decade, profits began to accelerate far in excess of either global or U.S. economic growth. In 2004, for instance, earnings for the S&P 500 grew 22%; in 2005 and 2006 they grew just under 20%. Those same years global growth barely exceeded 3%. As we now know, some of those elevated earnings were due to the leverage-fueled profits of the financial-service industry.
And there’s little doubt that mortgage-laced derivatives artificially elevated growth.
But even discounting those factors, the growth of corporate profits would have substantially exceeded the expansion of national economies. Then, in the second half of last year and the first months of this year, profits plunged along with U.S. and global economic activity. That gave succor to the belief that companies can only grow as much as the economies in which they function grow.
For years, most analysts argued that if there was too wide a variance between the two, something had to give. Either profits had to descend or national economic growth had to accelerate. As profits shrank over the past nine months, those who argued that a reversion to the mean was inevitable seemed to be vindicated. But that belief is wrong. Companies are increasingly less constrained by any national economy, and their success is no harbinger of national economic growth or sustained economic health for the United States.
First, companies have been profiting because they can cut costs aggressively. It’s not as if demand in the U.S. or Europe has picked up. Take Starbucks, which reported a surprising surge in profits. Little of that was due to American consumers suddenly becoming comfortable with $5 grande mocha lattes. Instead, it was because Starbucks—faced with weak demand and sluggish sales—closed stores and laid off workers. That has been a trend across industries.
Second, many larger companies have been profiting because they can focus on where the growth is around the globe. Companies such as Intel, Caterpillar, Microsoft and IBM now derive a majority of their revenues from outside the U.S., with the dynamic economies of the Asian rim and above all China assuming an ever-larger role. Companies are thriving in spite of economic activity in the U.S., not because of it. That suggests the connection between corporate profits and robust economic recovery in the U.S. is tenuous at best.
In fact, the financial crisis hastened the trend toward efficiencies, toward leaner inventories, and towards integrating both technology and global supply chains that has been taking place over the past decade. That has led to severe pressure on the American working class and eroding employment. As these companies profit from global expansion and greater efficiency, they have little or no reason to rehire fired workers, or to expand their work force in a U.S. that is barely growing.
If you are a global company, you want to hire and expand where the most dynamic growth is. Unfortunately for Americans, that’s not the U.S.
So we are facing a conundrum: Companies can grow by leaps and bounds—by double-digits—and yet unemployment can skyrocket and remain high. There is nothing on the horizon that would lead one to expect a turnaround in the employment picture. Job losses slowed slightly last month as the unemployment rate fell to 9.4% in July from 9.5% in June, but that’s a far cry from any sign of job creation.
The weight of more than 20 million marginally employed or unemployed, combined with the increasing pace of economic activity outside the U.S., presents the prospect of permanent change in the American economic landscape: high unemployment, moderate to weak growth, and soaring corporate profits.
The ability of companies—large ones especially, but even more modest ventures that assemble and source globally—to become more efficient and go where the growth is has never been greater. This is undoubtedly good for stocks and positive for investors, but it is also a challenge for American society that we have not even begun to confront.—
Mr. Karabell is president of River Twice Research. His new book, “Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World’s Prosperity Depends on It,” will be published by Simon & Schuster in October.Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A11Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Congressional 'Cimate Change' Junket A Total Fraud : $500,000
What in the world are these people thinking when the decide to take a $500,000 vacation and call it business? Do they think all they have to do is just say it isn't so? Everyone knows that no matter what they find out on these 'fact finding missions' the out come will be the same, especially for the Democrats, " the world is coming to end, all is lost. We must have more taxes to save the world from global warming".
What duplicity! What absolute insanity that these Congressional idiots use to rationalize their very existence. They've lost any sense of proportion. Reality escapes them.
Need more proof? What about the $250 million for luxury jets for members of congress!! But Oh No you don't - those evil CEO's and their jets are wrong - after all, they are taking tax payer's money to keep them afloat - we, on the other hand, have to have these new aircraft to do our job. The tax payers understand this. It's not really tax payers money when congress squanders the money on self indulgence. Right? Right?
What is going on here? Our government is not our government anymore. It exists only to reward the fortunately few that make inside the beltway while the rest of us pick up the tab.
Come on taxpayers - hit the town halls and as Obama says, "get in their faces" .
Lawmakers Took Exotic 'Climate Change' Junket
Sunday, August 9, 2009 6:23 PM
By: Chris Wessling
Diving and snorkeling at Australia's Great Barrier Reef, watching New Year's fireworks in New Zealand, and sleeping in a luxury Hawaiian hotel is the vacation of a lifetime — unless you're a member of Congress. Then it's a fact-finding mission to study climate change.
Ten lawmakers — six Democrats and four Republicans — spent 11 days on an international junket in some of the most breathtaking spots on Earth. Then they stuck taxpayers with the $500,000-plus bill.
According to the Wall Street Journal, six spouses also made the journey at the end of 2007, and their expenses for lodging and travel also came out of taxpayers' pockets.
“The trip we made was more valuable than 100 hearings," Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., told the Journal. “Are there members of Congress who take trips somewhat recreationally? Perhaps. Is this what this trip was about? Absolutely not.”
Baird, the lead congressman on the exotic junket, was chairman of the House Science Committee's subcommittee on research and science education at the time. The trip ostensibly was to gather information on global warming and how federal funds are used for scientific projects.
Joining Baird were Reps. Frank Lucas, R-Okla.; Mike Ross, D-Ark.; Russ Carnahan, D-Mo.; Charlie Melancon, D-La.; John Tanner, D-Tenn.; Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Bob Inglis, R-S.C.; Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif.; and Adrian Smith, R-Neb. Spouses accompanied Ross, Carnahan, Melancon, Tanner, Neugebauer, and Lucas.
During their adventure, the 10 lucky lawmakers visited the Great Barrier Reef, Australia's rain forest, a research station at the South Pole, a penguin colony, and the Royal Hawaiian Hotel on Waikiki Beach. The final tab? The lawmakers reported the total cost at merely $103,000, according to the Journal. But that figure doesn't include flight costs because commercial airlines were not used. Instead, Air Force jets ferried the participants to their far-flung destinations. The Journal used Pentagon figures to estimate that the flight expenses brought the overall cost of the junket to more than $500,000.
In defending the trip, Baird told the Journal that what he learned while on the 11-day adventure was “profoundly important to how I do this job.”
Lucas told the newspaper: “There are a lot more glamorous things to do than hang out on the South Pole. I never want to wear that many clothes again.” According to a Journal analysis of taxpayer-funded travel for members of Congress, lawmakers spent about $13 million on international trips in 2008 — nearly 10 times the cost in 1995.
The delegation's journey began on Dec. 29, 2007, at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where participants boarded an Air Force Boeing 737, known as a C-40 and modified for business-class travel. First stop? Christchurch, New Zealand, where Baird watched fireworks to ring in the new year.
On Jan. 2, 2008, lawmakers left their spouses behind and flew to the Antarctic research center McMurdo Station and were advised not to forget their cameras. On Jan. 3, they headed to the South Pole Station research center, where they were encouraged to bring any mail that they might want postmarked by the South Pole post office.
After returning to McMurdo Station, the lawmakers toured a penguin colony, or rookery, and met with NASA scientists. “Some of the most important science in the world is being done down there,” Baird told the Journal.
The congressional contingent then left the frozen bottom of the world for a more inviting locale: Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Baird went diving, while Sanchez snorkeled. Just two days in Australia cost U.S. taxpayers more than $50,000, the Journal reported.
When the lawmakers finally headed back to America, they made sure their itinerary included Hawaii, where they visited Hickam Air Force Base. They also enjoyed a night at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel on Oahu's famed Waikiki Beach.
The hotel's Web site describes the resort as the “Pink Palace of the Pacific” and “an exclusive enclave for luxury and romance.” When Newsmax checked the hotel's online reservation center, the cheapest room at the Royal Hawaiian was priced at an average rate of $300 a night.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved
What duplicity! What absolute insanity that these Congressional idiots use to rationalize their very existence. They've lost any sense of proportion. Reality escapes them.
Need more proof? What about the $250 million for luxury jets for members of congress!! But Oh No you don't - those evil CEO's and their jets are wrong - after all, they are taking tax payer's money to keep them afloat - we, on the other hand, have to have these new aircraft to do our job. The tax payers understand this. It's not really tax payers money when congress squanders the money on self indulgence. Right? Right?
What is going on here? Our government is not our government anymore. It exists only to reward the fortunately few that make inside the beltway while the rest of us pick up the tab.
Come on taxpayers - hit the town halls and as Obama says, "get in their faces" .
Lawmakers Took Exotic 'Climate Change' Junket
Sunday, August 9, 2009 6:23 PM
By: Chris Wessling
Diving and snorkeling at Australia's Great Barrier Reef, watching New Year's fireworks in New Zealand, and sleeping in a luxury Hawaiian hotel is the vacation of a lifetime — unless you're a member of Congress. Then it's a fact-finding mission to study climate change.
Ten lawmakers — six Democrats and four Republicans — spent 11 days on an international junket in some of the most breathtaking spots on Earth. Then they stuck taxpayers with the $500,000-plus bill.
According to the Wall Street Journal, six spouses also made the journey at the end of 2007, and their expenses for lodging and travel also came out of taxpayers' pockets.
“The trip we made was more valuable than 100 hearings," Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., told the Journal. “Are there members of Congress who take trips somewhat recreationally? Perhaps. Is this what this trip was about? Absolutely not.”
Baird, the lead congressman on the exotic junket, was chairman of the House Science Committee's subcommittee on research and science education at the time. The trip ostensibly was to gather information on global warming and how federal funds are used for scientific projects.
Joining Baird were Reps. Frank Lucas, R-Okla.; Mike Ross, D-Ark.; Russ Carnahan, D-Mo.; Charlie Melancon, D-La.; John Tanner, D-Tenn.; Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Bob Inglis, R-S.C.; Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif.; and Adrian Smith, R-Neb. Spouses accompanied Ross, Carnahan, Melancon, Tanner, Neugebauer, and Lucas.
During their adventure, the 10 lucky lawmakers visited the Great Barrier Reef, Australia's rain forest, a research station at the South Pole, a penguin colony, and the Royal Hawaiian Hotel on Waikiki Beach. The final tab? The lawmakers reported the total cost at merely $103,000, according to the Journal. But that figure doesn't include flight costs because commercial airlines were not used. Instead, Air Force jets ferried the participants to their far-flung destinations. The Journal used Pentagon figures to estimate that the flight expenses brought the overall cost of the junket to more than $500,000.
In defending the trip, Baird told the Journal that what he learned while on the 11-day adventure was “profoundly important to how I do this job.”
Lucas told the newspaper: “There are a lot more glamorous things to do than hang out on the South Pole. I never want to wear that many clothes again.” According to a Journal analysis of taxpayer-funded travel for members of Congress, lawmakers spent about $13 million on international trips in 2008 — nearly 10 times the cost in 1995.
The delegation's journey began on Dec. 29, 2007, at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where participants boarded an Air Force Boeing 737, known as a C-40 and modified for business-class travel. First stop? Christchurch, New Zealand, where Baird watched fireworks to ring in the new year.
On Jan. 2, 2008, lawmakers left their spouses behind and flew to the Antarctic research center McMurdo Station and were advised not to forget their cameras. On Jan. 3, they headed to the South Pole Station research center, where they were encouraged to bring any mail that they might want postmarked by the South Pole post office.
After returning to McMurdo Station, the lawmakers toured a penguin colony, or rookery, and met with NASA scientists. “Some of the most important science in the world is being done down there,” Baird told the Journal.
The congressional contingent then left the frozen bottom of the world for a more inviting locale: Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Baird went diving, while Sanchez snorkeled. Just two days in Australia cost U.S. taxpayers more than $50,000, the Journal reported.
When the lawmakers finally headed back to America, they made sure their itinerary included Hawaii, where they visited Hickam Air Force Base. They also enjoyed a night at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel on Oahu's famed Waikiki Beach.
The hotel's Web site describes the resort as the “Pink Palace of the Pacific” and “an exclusive enclave for luxury and romance.” When Newsmax checked the hotel's online reservation center, the cheapest room at the Royal Hawaiian was priced at an average rate of $300 a night.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved
Liberal Socialist Democrats Unemployment Figure Wrong : Reality IS 16.3%
Under George Bush the unemployment was 4.8% with the creation of 2.5 million new jobs and GDP growth for more than five years. The stock market hit historic highs and peoples 401k's soared in value.
But the Marxist socialist left in our country, liberal Democrats in government and media, said unemployment was much higher because of the people that had given up looking for work. It was the agenda of the left that they would use on a continuing bases to convince the public that things were worse than they were. In reality country was roaring ahead.
According to the liberal Democrats, this was a situration that must not stand. After all, the liberal Democrats have to lie to stall and good news when it's a conservative agenda that is making it happen.
Now, when the shoes is on the other foot, with unemployment raging out of control and getting worse every week, the liberals lie about the unemployment figures to mask their insane economic policies that have driven this country into the worst financial disaster in 60 years.
When applying the same accounting technique to the Democrats economic agenda, we find the unemployment figure at 16.3%. If there ever was a reason to not vote for a Democrat ever again, it is the duplicity they display on everything. When things are going well for the Republicans, the liberals lie to make them look bad. When things go badly for the liberals they lie to make them look good.
The good news is the general public isn't buying their lying agenda anymore, at least for the most part. Of course there will always be loyal believers, sitting in the front pew of the church of Obama, that will vote for anything that will make their personally lives easier, especially if it means others will suffer because of it. Even when the roof comes crashing down on their heads as a result of the failed policies, the true believer will always find someone else to blame.
Further good news though, the Republicans, Conservatives and some "uncommitted" have taken to the streets, so to speak, to protest the insanity of the socialist Democrats new agenda of "changing" America from "Individual Freedom" to a Marxist government control of all our lives.
Keep the faith - call everyone in government - go to all 'town hall' meetings and let them know how you feel about their 'hope and change' for America.
Guess What? Unemployment's Really at 16.3 Percent
John LottAugust 07, 2009
How is it possible for the unemployment rate to essentially remain unchanged when 247,000 jobs have been lost? Because the number of people who gave up and stopped looking for work rose dramatically.foxnews_190x107 <http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/07/john-lott-unemployment/%3EAP
The announcement today that the unemployment rate declined slightly to 9.4 percent in July while only 247,000 additional jobs were lost has been greeted as good news. The change in the unemployment rate puts the rate at what it was in May. Yet, even a rough look at the numbers indicates that the true unemployment rate has been getting significantly worse over the last few months.
How is it possible for the unemployment rate to essentially remain unchanged when 247,000 jobs have been lost? The reason is simple -- the number of people who stopped looking for work rose dramatically.
Six hundred thirty-seven thousand (630,000) additional people no longer consider themselves looking for work. This is by far the largest drop in the number of people who consider themselves in the labor force during the last year. -- It is almost twice the 358,000 increase in the people who left the labor force during June and almost four times the average monthly increase of 167,333 over the last year.
Jobs are sufficiently scarce and the prospects of people finding them at wages that they are willing to work for so low that many individuals don't think that it is worth their time to even look for a job. Part of the drop in unemployment is also due to the fact that some people are running out of unemployment benefits and taking part-time jobs. There is usually a big increase in the rate that people find jobs during the last few weeks that they have unemployment benefits.
In July 102,670 people saw their unemployment benefits run out. That number rose to 141,538 in August and is expected to soar to 486,049 in September. It will keep on rising each month hitting 1.5 million in just December alone. This past Sunday on ABC's "This Week" Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner only promised "to look very carefully at [these lost benefits] as we get closer to the end of this year."
Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economic advisor, was similarly noncommittal when he was interviewed that same day on CBS's "Face the Nation." If we include the normally counted number of unemployed as well as those who have recently given up looking for work and those who have taken a part-time low paying job because they can't find full-time work, the implication is that the unemployment rate for July would be at *"16.3 percent"* These discouraged workers will again look for work once the economy starts to improve, but this 6.9 percentage point gap between publicly discussed unemployment rate and these discouraged workers is unusually large.
The changes in unemployment also mask the large drops that are still occurring in private employment -- construction, manufacturing, retail trade, and professional and business services all suffered large declines. The two of the three areas where employment has increased are government related, either education and health services or general government employment.These changes do coincide with what is happening with GDP.
During the second quarter the private sector kept on shrinking at an annual rate of 3 percent. Overall, GDP declined by "only" 1 percent at an annual rate, but that was because real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment soared by 11 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased, too, but by a more modest 2.4 percent.The large and growing number of discouraged workers will make the real unemployment rate hard to bring down in the future.
John Lott is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics."
But the Marxist socialist left in our country, liberal Democrats in government and media, said unemployment was much higher because of the people that had given up looking for work. It was the agenda of the left that they would use on a continuing bases to convince the public that things were worse than they were. In reality country was roaring ahead.
According to the liberal Democrats, this was a situration that must not stand. After all, the liberal Democrats have to lie to stall and good news when it's a conservative agenda that is making it happen.
Now, when the shoes is on the other foot, with unemployment raging out of control and getting worse every week, the liberals lie about the unemployment figures to mask their insane economic policies that have driven this country into the worst financial disaster in 60 years.
When applying the same accounting technique to the Democrats economic agenda, we find the unemployment figure at 16.3%. If there ever was a reason to not vote for a Democrat ever again, it is the duplicity they display on everything. When things are going well for the Republicans, the liberals lie to make them look bad. When things go badly for the liberals they lie to make them look good.
The good news is the general public isn't buying their lying agenda anymore, at least for the most part. Of course there will always be loyal believers, sitting in the front pew of the church of Obama, that will vote for anything that will make their personally lives easier, especially if it means others will suffer because of it. Even when the roof comes crashing down on their heads as a result of the failed policies, the true believer will always find someone else to blame.
Further good news though, the Republicans, Conservatives and some "uncommitted" have taken to the streets, so to speak, to protest the insanity of the socialist Democrats new agenda of "changing" America from "Individual Freedom" to a Marxist government control of all our lives.
Keep the faith - call everyone in government - go to all 'town hall' meetings and let them know how you feel about their 'hope and change' for America.
Guess What? Unemployment's Really at 16.3 Percent
John LottAugust 07, 2009
How is it possible for the unemployment rate to essentially remain unchanged when 247,000 jobs have been lost? Because the number of people who gave up and stopped looking for work rose dramatically.foxnews_190x107 <http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/07/john-lott-unemployment/%3EAP
The announcement today that the unemployment rate declined slightly to 9.4 percent in July while only 247,000 additional jobs were lost has been greeted as good news. The change in the unemployment rate puts the rate at what it was in May. Yet, even a rough look at the numbers indicates that the true unemployment rate has been getting significantly worse over the last few months.
How is it possible for the unemployment rate to essentially remain unchanged when 247,000 jobs have been lost? The reason is simple -- the number of people who stopped looking for work rose dramatically.
Six hundred thirty-seven thousand (630,000) additional people no longer consider themselves looking for work. This is by far the largest drop in the number of people who consider themselves in the labor force during the last year. -- It is almost twice the 358,000 increase in the people who left the labor force during June and almost four times the average monthly increase of 167,333 over the last year.
Jobs are sufficiently scarce and the prospects of people finding them at wages that they are willing to work for so low that many individuals don't think that it is worth their time to even look for a job. Part of the drop in unemployment is also due to the fact that some people are running out of unemployment benefits and taking part-time jobs. There is usually a big increase in the rate that people find jobs during the last few weeks that they have unemployment benefits.
In July 102,670 people saw their unemployment benefits run out. That number rose to 141,538 in August and is expected to soar to 486,049 in September. It will keep on rising each month hitting 1.5 million in just December alone. This past Sunday on ABC's "This Week" Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner only promised "to look very carefully at [these lost benefits] as we get closer to the end of this year."
Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economic advisor, was similarly noncommittal when he was interviewed that same day on CBS's "Face the Nation." If we include the normally counted number of unemployed as well as those who have recently given up looking for work and those who have taken a part-time low paying job because they can't find full-time work, the implication is that the unemployment rate for July would be at *"16.3 percent"* These discouraged workers will again look for work once the economy starts to improve, but this 6.9 percentage point gap between publicly discussed unemployment rate and these discouraged workers is unusually large.
The changes in unemployment also mask the large drops that are still occurring in private employment -- construction, manufacturing, retail trade, and professional and business services all suffered large declines. The two of the three areas where employment has increased are government related, either education and health services or general government employment.These changes do coincide with what is happening with GDP.
During the second quarter the private sector kept on shrinking at an annual rate of 3 percent. Overall, GDP declined by "only" 1 percent at an annual rate, but that was because real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment soared by 11 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased, too, but by a more modest 2.4 percent.The large and growing number of discouraged workers will make the real unemployment rate hard to bring down in the future.
John Lott is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics."
Monday, August 10, 2009
President Obama : Transparent? No Way!
Barack Obama knows if we find out just who he is, it will scare us to death. What other reason could there be to hide all of his past life? He is hiding something from us and I know what it is but I can't come to grips it.
Life in these United States has always been a dream - what I fear now is that when we have the information on Obama it will turn into a nightmare. Some of the nightmare is already coming true.
We are finding out first hand that he isn't what or who he said he was during the campaign, and this information has started a grass roots anger that has not been seen in this country for decades. So having the actual documentation might not mean that much now but would only confirm what we know to be the real Obama.
Keep the faith - attend the Town House meeting and express your thoughts and dreams.
Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate: Why It Matters
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 3:54 PM
By: Christopher Ruddy
Where was Barack Obama born? It’s a fair question.
But we still don’t know the answer because Obama won’t tell us, because he remains the most mysterious man ever to sit in the Oval Office.
This week I appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s No. 1 rated “The O’Reilly Factor” to discuss the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate, along with syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher. [See the video of my appearance — Click Here Now.]
Let me make clear that I believe Obama was born somewhere in the state of Hawaii. Days after his birth, a small legal notice was printed in the local newspaper announcing his birth.
And the head of Hawaii's Health Department has stated that he reviewed pertinent documents and that Obama was indeed born in that state.
So, those who believe Obama was born outside the United States, such as in Kenya, are simply out to lunch. But the real story here is about Obama’s failure to release his birth certificate.
As the state of Hawaii has made clear, the actual birth certificate has never been released.
Obama has released another document, the certification of live birth. This document does not provide basic information, such as the place of Obama’s birth or the doctor who conducted the procedure.
My brother Dan, a presidential historian who has a book coming out next year on Theodore Roosevelt, pointed out to me how rare Obama is among presidents. He says we have no idea of his birthplace.
Dan notes that, of our unbroken line of 43 men who have served as president, only Zachary Taylor and Andrew Jackson, both born on the frontier, have disputed birth sites. All others have some commemoration for their place of birth — except Obama.
In Manhattan, you can stroll down to 28 E. 20th St., between Park Avenue South and Broadway, and visit the quaint brownstone that Theodore Roosevelt was born and raised in.
For Obama there is no plaque, nothing. (His family has given two different hospitals in Hawaii he was alleged to have been born in.)
We should know where our president was born. There is nothing conspiratorial in having an answer to that question. President Obama is no longer a private citizen. He is part of a chain of history that stretches back to George Washington.
His birth site is just as relevant as those of the 42 men who came before him, and if these sites are not relevant, than why do we as a nation go out of our way to commemorate all of them?
When I asked Bill O’Reilly where in Honolulu Obama was born, he replied: “Chris, if I wanted to know I’d find out tomorrow . . .” Good luck, Bill. The Obama White House is the most secretive ever.
Since Obama announced his candidacy, much of his life has been shrouded in secrecy.
He still has never released his college transcripts, his records as a state legislator in Illinois, his full medical records, even the names of donors who reportedly contributed hundreds of millions of dollars that helped make him president.
In the past, the disclosure of such documents has been de rigueur for presidential candidates.
When Sen. John McCain was questioned about his birth outside the United States in the Panama Canal Zone, he released his birth certificate quickly. When McCain was questioned about his health, he released 1,500 pages of medical records. When questions arose about donations to his campaign, McCain put his full donor file, even names he didn’t have to disclose, online for anyone to see.
So, let me be clear. The issue over Obama’s birth certificate is not about President Obama’s citizenship. It is about his honesty and his promise to be the most transparent president ever.
Releasing his birth certificate and other personal records that presidents have traditionally released to the public would go a long way toward bolstering those claims.
P.S. I am listing below all of our presidents and details of their places of birth.
1. George Washington — Address: George Washington Birthplace National Monument; Rural Route 1; Box 717; Washington's Birthplace, Va. 22443
2. John Adams — Address: 133 Franklin St.; Quincy, Mass. 02669
3.Thomas Jefferson — Address: U.S. 250; 3 miles east of Charlottesville, Va.
4. James Madison — Address: Monroe Hall; Virginia SR 205; Westmoreland County near Colonial Beach, Va. 22443
5.James Monroe — Address: Monroe Hall; Virginia SR 205; Westmoreland County near Colonial Beach, Va. 22443
6.John Quincy Adams — Address: 141 Franklin St.; Quincy, Mass. 02169
7.Andrew Jackson — Address: 14 miles south of Rock Hill on South Carolina State Route 5. The Park is on Route 1. Address:196 Andrew Jackson Park Road; Lancaster, S.C. 29720
8.Martin Van Buren — Address: 46 Hudson St.; Kinderhook, New York 12106
9.William Henry Harrison — Address: 12602 Harrison Landing Road; Charles City, Va. 23030
10. John Tyler — Address: John Tyler Memorial Highway; Charles City, Va. 23030
11. James Polk — Address: Box 475; Pineville, N.C. 28134
12. Zachary Taylor — Address: Highway 33; 5 miles west of Gordonsville, Va., and just over 20 miles from Charlottesville, Va.
13. Millard Fillmore — Address: Millard Fillmore Birthplace; Locke, N.Y. 13092
14. Franklin Pierce — Address: The Pierce Homestead; Routes 9 and 31; Hillsboro, N.H. 03244
15. James Buchanan — Address: Buchanan Historic Site; Mercersburg, Pa. 17236
16. Abraham Lincoln — Address: Sinking Spring Farm; 2995 Lincoln Farm Road; Hodgenville, Ky. 42748
17. Andrew Johnson — Address: Mordecai Historic Park; Wake Forest Road; Raleigh, N.C. 27601
18. Ulysses Grant — Address: Grant's Birthplace; Routes 52E and 322; Point Pleasant, Ohio 45143
19. Rutherford Hayes — Address: Rutherford B. Hayes Birthplace; East William Street; Delaware, Ohio 43015
20. James Garfield — Address: James A. Garfield Birthplace; 4350 S.O.M Center Road; Moreland Hills (now Chagrin Falls); Cuyahoga County, Ohio 44022
21. Chester Arthur — Address: Chester A. Arthur State Historic Site; Route 36; Fairfield, Vt. 05455
22. Grover Cleveland — Address: Grover Cleveland Birthplace State Historic Site; 207 Bloomfield Avenue; Caldwell, N.J. 07006
23. Benjamin Harrison — Address: Benjamin Harrison Birthplace; William Henry Harrison Home; Symmes and Washington Avenues; North Bend, Ohio 45052
24. Grover Cleveland — Address: Grover Cleveland Birthplace State Historic Site; 207 Bloomfield Avenue; Caldwell, N.J. 07006
25. William McKinley — Address: William McKinley Birthplace; 36 S. Main St.; Niles, Ohio 44446
26. Theodore Roosevelt — Address: Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site; 28 East 20th St.; New York, N.Y. 10003
27. William Taft — Address: 2038 Auburn Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45219
28. Woodrow Wilson — Address: 18-24 Coalter Street, Staunton, Va. 24401
29. Warren Harding — Address: Highways 97 and 288, Blooming Grove, Ohio 44878
30. Calvin Coolidge — Address: P.O. Box 247, Plymouth, Vermont 05056
31. Herbert Hoover — Address: West Branch, Iowa 52538
32. Franklin Roosevelt — Address: 519 Albany Post Road, Hyde Park, N.Y. 12538
33. Harry Truman — Address: 1009 Truman Ave., Lamar, Mo. 64759
34. Dwight Eisenhower — Address: 208 East Day St., Denison, Texas 75020
35. John Kennedy — Address: 83 Beals St., Brookline, Mass. 02146
36. Lyndon Johnson — Address: Box 329 Johnson City, Texas 78636
37. Richard Nixon — Address: 18001 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Calif. 92686
38. Gerald Ford — Address: 3202 Woolworth Ave, Omaha, Neb. 68103
39. James Carter — Address: 300 North Bond St., Plains, Ga. 31780
40. Ronald Reagan — Address: 119 S. Main St., Tampico, Ill. 61283
41. George H.W. Bush — Address: 173 Adams St, Milton, Mass. 02187
42. Bill Clinton — Address: Bill Clinton was born at the Julia Chester Hospital in Hope, Ark. The hospital has been demolished.
43. George W. Bush — Address: George W. was born to Barbara and George Bush in what was then Grace-New Haven Community Hospital and is now Yale-New Haven Hospital.
44. Barack Obama — Address: Unknown.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Life in these United States has always been a dream - what I fear now is that when we have the information on Obama it will turn into a nightmare. Some of the nightmare is already coming true.
We are finding out first hand that he isn't what or who he said he was during the campaign, and this information has started a grass roots anger that has not been seen in this country for decades. So having the actual documentation might not mean that much now but would only confirm what we know to be the real Obama.
Keep the faith - attend the Town House meeting and express your thoughts and dreams.
Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate: Why It Matters
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 3:54 PM
By: Christopher Ruddy
Where was Barack Obama born? It’s a fair question.
But we still don’t know the answer because Obama won’t tell us, because he remains the most mysterious man ever to sit in the Oval Office.
This week I appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s No. 1 rated “The O’Reilly Factor” to discuss the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate, along with syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher. [See the video of my appearance — Click Here Now.]
Let me make clear that I believe Obama was born somewhere in the state of Hawaii. Days after his birth, a small legal notice was printed in the local newspaper announcing his birth.
And the head of Hawaii's Health Department has stated that he reviewed pertinent documents and that Obama was indeed born in that state.
So, those who believe Obama was born outside the United States, such as in Kenya, are simply out to lunch. But the real story here is about Obama’s failure to release his birth certificate.
As the state of Hawaii has made clear, the actual birth certificate has never been released.
Obama has released another document, the certification of live birth. This document does not provide basic information, such as the place of Obama’s birth or the doctor who conducted the procedure.
My brother Dan, a presidential historian who has a book coming out next year on Theodore Roosevelt, pointed out to me how rare Obama is among presidents. He says we have no idea of his birthplace.
Dan notes that, of our unbroken line of 43 men who have served as president, only Zachary Taylor and Andrew Jackson, both born on the frontier, have disputed birth sites. All others have some commemoration for their place of birth — except Obama.
In Manhattan, you can stroll down to 28 E. 20th St., between Park Avenue South and Broadway, and visit the quaint brownstone that Theodore Roosevelt was born and raised in.
For Obama there is no plaque, nothing. (His family has given two different hospitals in Hawaii he was alleged to have been born in.)
We should know where our president was born. There is nothing conspiratorial in having an answer to that question. President Obama is no longer a private citizen. He is part of a chain of history that stretches back to George Washington.
His birth site is just as relevant as those of the 42 men who came before him, and if these sites are not relevant, than why do we as a nation go out of our way to commemorate all of them?
When I asked Bill O’Reilly where in Honolulu Obama was born, he replied: “Chris, if I wanted to know I’d find out tomorrow . . .” Good luck, Bill. The Obama White House is the most secretive ever.
Since Obama announced his candidacy, much of his life has been shrouded in secrecy.
He still has never released his college transcripts, his records as a state legislator in Illinois, his full medical records, even the names of donors who reportedly contributed hundreds of millions of dollars that helped make him president.
In the past, the disclosure of such documents has been de rigueur for presidential candidates.
When Sen. John McCain was questioned about his birth outside the United States in the Panama Canal Zone, he released his birth certificate quickly. When McCain was questioned about his health, he released 1,500 pages of medical records. When questions arose about donations to his campaign, McCain put his full donor file, even names he didn’t have to disclose, online for anyone to see.
So, let me be clear. The issue over Obama’s birth certificate is not about President Obama’s citizenship. It is about his honesty and his promise to be the most transparent president ever.
Releasing his birth certificate and other personal records that presidents have traditionally released to the public would go a long way toward bolstering those claims.
P.S. I am listing below all of our presidents and details of their places of birth.
1. George Washington — Address: George Washington Birthplace National Monument; Rural Route 1; Box 717; Washington's Birthplace, Va. 22443
2. John Adams — Address: 133 Franklin St.; Quincy, Mass. 02669
3.Thomas Jefferson — Address: U.S. 250; 3 miles east of Charlottesville, Va.
4. James Madison — Address: Monroe Hall; Virginia SR 205; Westmoreland County near Colonial Beach, Va. 22443
5.James Monroe — Address: Monroe Hall; Virginia SR 205; Westmoreland County near Colonial Beach, Va. 22443
6.John Quincy Adams — Address: 141 Franklin St.; Quincy, Mass. 02169
7.Andrew Jackson — Address: 14 miles south of Rock Hill on South Carolina State Route 5. The Park is on Route 1. Address:196 Andrew Jackson Park Road; Lancaster, S.C. 29720
8.Martin Van Buren — Address: 46 Hudson St.; Kinderhook, New York 12106
9.William Henry Harrison — Address: 12602 Harrison Landing Road; Charles City, Va. 23030
10. John Tyler — Address: John Tyler Memorial Highway; Charles City, Va. 23030
11. James Polk — Address: Box 475; Pineville, N.C. 28134
12. Zachary Taylor — Address: Highway 33; 5 miles west of Gordonsville, Va., and just over 20 miles from Charlottesville, Va.
13. Millard Fillmore — Address: Millard Fillmore Birthplace; Locke, N.Y. 13092
14. Franklin Pierce — Address: The Pierce Homestead; Routes 9 and 31; Hillsboro, N.H. 03244
15. James Buchanan — Address: Buchanan Historic Site; Mercersburg, Pa. 17236
16. Abraham Lincoln — Address: Sinking Spring Farm; 2995 Lincoln Farm Road; Hodgenville, Ky. 42748
17. Andrew Johnson — Address: Mordecai Historic Park; Wake Forest Road; Raleigh, N.C. 27601
18. Ulysses Grant — Address: Grant's Birthplace; Routes 52E and 322; Point Pleasant, Ohio 45143
19. Rutherford Hayes — Address: Rutherford B. Hayes Birthplace; East William Street; Delaware, Ohio 43015
20. James Garfield — Address: James A. Garfield Birthplace; 4350 S.O.M Center Road; Moreland Hills (now Chagrin Falls); Cuyahoga County, Ohio 44022
21. Chester Arthur — Address: Chester A. Arthur State Historic Site; Route 36; Fairfield, Vt. 05455
22. Grover Cleveland — Address: Grover Cleveland Birthplace State Historic Site; 207 Bloomfield Avenue; Caldwell, N.J. 07006
23. Benjamin Harrison — Address: Benjamin Harrison Birthplace; William Henry Harrison Home; Symmes and Washington Avenues; North Bend, Ohio 45052
24. Grover Cleveland — Address: Grover Cleveland Birthplace State Historic Site; 207 Bloomfield Avenue; Caldwell, N.J. 07006
25. William McKinley — Address: William McKinley Birthplace; 36 S. Main St.; Niles, Ohio 44446
26. Theodore Roosevelt — Address: Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site; 28 East 20th St.; New York, N.Y. 10003
27. William Taft — Address: 2038 Auburn Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45219
28. Woodrow Wilson — Address: 18-24 Coalter Street, Staunton, Va. 24401
29. Warren Harding — Address: Highways 97 and 288, Blooming Grove, Ohio 44878
30. Calvin Coolidge — Address: P.O. Box 247, Plymouth, Vermont 05056
31. Herbert Hoover — Address: West Branch, Iowa 52538
32. Franklin Roosevelt — Address: 519 Albany Post Road, Hyde Park, N.Y. 12538
33. Harry Truman — Address: 1009 Truman Ave., Lamar, Mo. 64759
34. Dwight Eisenhower — Address: 208 East Day St., Denison, Texas 75020
35. John Kennedy — Address: 83 Beals St., Brookline, Mass. 02146
36. Lyndon Johnson — Address: Box 329 Johnson City, Texas 78636
37. Richard Nixon — Address: 18001 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Calif. 92686
38. Gerald Ford — Address: 3202 Woolworth Ave, Omaha, Neb. 68103
39. James Carter — Address: 300 North Bond St., Plains, Ga. 31780
40. Ronald Reagan — Address: 119 S. Main St., Tampico, Ill. 61283
41. George H.W. Bush — Address: 173 Adams St, Milton, Mass. 02187
42. Bill Clinton — Address: Bill Clinton was born at the Julia Chester Hospital in Hope, Ark. The hospital has been demolished.
43. George W. Bush — Address: George W. was born to Barbara and George Bush in what was then Grace-New Haven Community Hospital and is now Yale-New Haven Hospital.
44. Barack Obama — Address: Unknown.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
President Obama Fears Discovery : No Past Records Released
As we are finding out, too late, this guy we have in the White House is not who or what he says he is. We are finding out the hard way he doesn't like America or it's people. We have found out he does like tyrants and dictators.
We haven't found out where he was born, a Constitution requirement, and we haven't found out what his past education tells us about what he believes. But we have found out that he doesn't like Christians, George Town and Notre Dame confrontation's with Christians' belief in Christ, but we also know, now, he does like the Muslim religion as he sides with anything the Arab world wants to do.
So there are a few things that tell us who and what this new man is but, unfortunately, it too late to make a difference. What is not good for Obama is that a little information might be more dangerous then a lot. hmmmmm Time will tell.
Keep the faith - a ground swell of anger is rising to confront the "One" stealing out heritage and our country.
Lou Dobbs Right on Obama Birth Certificate
Monday, August 3, 2009 9:48 AM*
By:* Newsmax Staff
The Associated Press is wrong and Lou Dobbs is right. This past weekend, the AP published a story entitled "CNN's Dobbs Under Fire for Hosting 'Birthers'" <http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_dobbs_cnn_birthers/2009/08/02/242980.html>.
The AP began their highly critical story on Dobbs: "He's become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's 'no bias' brand." And what is Dobbs' "crime?" He has said on air that Obama should release his birth certificate and has had on his show guests who suggested Obama was born outside the U.S.
Dobbs does not believe Obama was born outside the U.S., nor does Newsmax. The evidence indicates he was born in Hawaii. But the indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. The AP implies that Obama has not released a "long version of his birth certificate."
But Obama has never released either a long or short version of his birth certificate. Instead, Obama's campaign last year released only his Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate. Even state residents born outside the U.S. can get one.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama. Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the Certification of Live Birth.
As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth. Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.
Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life. Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.
Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:
• Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
• Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
• Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
• Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.
• Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
• Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
• Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.
• During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
We haven't found out where he was born, a Constitution requirement, and we haven't found out what his past education tells us about what he believes. But we have found out that he doesn't like Christians, George Town and Notre Dame confrontation's with Christians' belief in Christ, but we also know, now, he does like the Muslim religion as he sides with anything the Arab world wants to do.
So there are a few things that tell us who and what this new man is but, unfortunately, it too late to make a difference. What is not good for Obama is that a little information might be more dangerous then a lot. hmmmmm Time will tell.
Keep the faith - a ground swell of anger is rising to confront the "One" stealing out heritage and our country.
Lou Dobbs Right on Obama Birth Certificate
Monday, August 3, 2009 9:48 AM*
By:* Newsmax Staff
The Associated Press is wrong and Lou Dobbs is right. This past weekend, the AP published a story entitled "CNN's Dobbs Under Fire for Hosting 'Birthers'" <http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_dobbs_cnn_birthers/2009/08/02/242980.html>.
The AP began their highly critical story on Dobbs: "He's become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's 'no bias' brand." And what is Dobbs' "crime?" He has said on air that Obama should release his birth certificate and has had on his show guests who suggested Obama was born outside the U.S.
Dobbs does not believe Obama was born outside the U.S., nor does Newsmax. The evidence indicates he was born in Hawaii. But the indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. The AP implies that Obama has not released a "long version of his birth certificate."
But Obama has never released either a long or short version of his birth certificate. Instead, Obama's campaign last year released only his Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate. Even state residents born outside the U.S. can get one.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama. Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the Certification of Live Birth.
As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth. Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.
Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life. Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.
Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:
• Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
• Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
• Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
• Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.
• Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
• Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
• Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.
• During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Metal of Freedom Tarnished by Mary Robinson
The frustration level with Obama seems to never stop. The Presidential Metal of Freedom being awarded to Robinson is just one more step in that direction. When even Colin Powell, as secretary of state, could not stomach the anti-Israel tirade of the United Nations Dublin conference on racism by walking out, you know it's bad.
Robinson's UN commission voted to condone suicide bombing as a legitimate means to establish a Palestinian state.
Yet Obama is true to form for siding those that find Israel at fault for everything that's wrong in the Mideast.
The Republican Jewish Coalition is a small organization as the last election proved, 80% of the Jewish vote went for Obama, still they have a voice and they are correct in their dismay with Obama's choice for this award.
Obama Under Attack by Jewish Coalition Over Medal Nominee
The Republican Jewish Coalition has issued a statement criticizing President Barack Obama's decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson.
Robinson, president of Ireland from 1990 to 1997, served as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and was secretary-general of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa.
"Mary Robinson, who was one of the people responsible for the 2001 Durban conference against racism descending into an anti-Israel propaganda forum, is not an appropriate recipient for one of our nation's highest honors," said Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director Matt Brooks in the statement.
"In fact, awarding the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson does great dishonor to the many outstanding men and women who have received it in the past."
The U.S. withdrew from the Durban conference in protest of its staunchly anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic declarations. Secretary of State Colin Powell said at the time: "I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of 'Zionism equals racism'; or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse."
Brooks said, "We're troubled that the White House chooses to minimize the very real controversy about Mary Robinson. It's wrong for the United States to honor someone who led a meeting that our nation boycotted. "She had the opportunity to fight for good — by resisting the effort to turn the Durban conference into a swamp of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. She not only failed to resist it, she facilitated it. That President Obama wishes to honor Mary Robinson in this way is profoundly disturbing."
In announcing that Robinson, now a professor at Columbia University, would receive the medal along with 15 others on Aug. 12, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said: "Mary Robinson has dedicated her career to human rights . . . As with any public figure, we don't necessarily agree with every statement she has ever made, but it's clear that she has been an agent of change and a fighter for good."
Past recipients of the Medal of Freedom include Rosa Parks, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Elie Wiesel, Mother Teresa, Simon Wiesenthal, Natan Sharansky, Tony Blair, and Margaret Thatcher.
The RJC statement also noted that in April 2002, Robinson's U.N. commission voted to condone suicide bombings as a legitimate means to establish a Palestinian state.
Robinson's UN commission voted to condone suicide bombing as a legitimate means to establish a Palestinian state.
Yet Obama is true to form for siding those that find Israel at fault for everything that's wrong in the Mideast.
The Republican Jewish Coalition is a small organization as the last election proved, 80% of the Jewish vote went for Obama, still they have a voice and they are correct in their dismay with Obama's choice for this award.
Obama Under Attack by Jewish Coalition Over Medal Nominee
The Republican Jewish Coalition has issued a statement criticizing President Barack Obama's decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson.
Robinson, president of Ireland from 1990 to 1997, served as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and was secretary-general of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa.
"Mary Robinson, who was one of the people responsible for the 2001 Durban conference against racism descending into an anti-Israel propaganda forum, is not an appropriate recipient for one of our nation's highest honors," said Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director Matt Brooks in the statement.
"In fact, awarding the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson does great dishonor to the many outstanding men and women who have received it in the past."
The U.S. withdrew from the Durban conference in protest of its staunchly anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic declarations. Secretary of State Colin Powell said at the time: "I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of 'Zionism equals racism'; or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse."
Brooks said, "We're troubled that the White House chooses to minimize the very real controversy about Mary Robinson. It's wrong for the United States to honor someone who led a meeting that our nation boycotted. "She had the opportunity to fight for good — by resisting the effort to turn the Durban conference into a swamp of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. She not only failed to resist it, she facilitated it. That President Obama wishes to honor Mary Robinson in this way is profoundly disturbing."
In announcing that Robinson, now a professor at Columbia University, would receive the medal along with 15 others on Aug. 12, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said: "Mary Robinson has dedicated her career to human rights . . . As with any public figure, we don't necessarily agree with every statement she has ever made, but it's clear that she has been an agent of change and a fighter for good."
Past recipients of the Medal of Freedom include Rosa Parks, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Elie Wiesel, Mother Teresa, Simon Wiesenthal, Natan Sharansky, Tony Blair, and Margaret Thatcher.
The RJC statement also noted that in April 2002, Robinson's U.N. commission voted to condone suicide bombings as a legitimate means to establish a Palestinian state.
Jewish Democrats Support Israel - Reject Obama's Agenda
I find it all most impossible to believe most Jews can reject Obama's pro-Arab agenda but still think he is doing a good job as president. Where have they lost their way? Why is this so clear to me but completely lost on so many other people?
And why are so many Jews Democrats when the Democrat left have always hated Israel and have never whole heartily support Israel in congress? And Obama has shown this to be true with his high profile actions when meeting with Arab leaders and not even stopping in Israel!
How blind can the American Jews be?
Obama Breaks From Jews
Friday, August 7, 2009 9:57 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Jewish Democrats strongly agree with the Israeli position and disagree with President Barack Obama's on issues such as a Palestinian state, settlement construction, and trading land for peace.
Does the president realize he's at risk of a break with an important part of his base?
A phone survey (sponsored by the Traditional Values Coalition and conducted by Global Marketing Research Services on July 22-24) of 500 American Jews who self-identified as Democrats exposes broad disagreement with Obama's Middle East policies.
Asked to choose between the Obama view that "if Israel could settle its dispute with the Palestinian refugees and give them a nation of their own, that the Arabs would live in peace with Israel" and the Israeli government view that "the Arabs will never live in peace with Israel and that giving them a nation of their own will just make them stronger," Jewish Democrats sided with the Israeli view by 52 percent to 20 percent.
On the contentious issue of construction in existing West Bank settlements, Democratic Jews also sided with Israel more than with Obama. The survey asked for agreement with Obama when he "says that it is very important that Israel not expand its settlements on the West Bank so as not to alienate the Palestinians," or with Israel that "it should be allowed to build new homes in existing settlements but not to start new ones" — and got 52-37 backing for the Israeli view.
Democratic Jews still strongly back Obama in general, with 92 percent reporting that they approve of the job he is doing as president. But 44 percent feel that "Obama is naive in thinking he can make peace with the Arabs," while only 37 percent disagree.
Nearly half of Jewish Democrats still reject the idea that Obama is biased against Israel: In all, 49 percent said he wasn't and 16 percent said he was — but a significantly large number, 35 percent, said they were undecided.
By 58-16, Jewish Democrats agree that "Obama is doing a good job of promoting peace in the Middle East." But they share Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's skepticism about trading land for peace, the cornerstone of the "road map" to a settlement laid out in the 1990s.
Only 27 percent feel that "President Obama is right that Israel should agree to let the Palestinians form their own country and return the West Bank to them. This would defuse the hatred in the Middle East, reduce terrorism and help America, the Palestinians, and Israel live in peace."
But 55 percent disagree, preferring the statement: "President Obama is naive in thinking that the Palestinians would make peace, whatever they say. They will just use the new land as a base to attack Israel like they did in Gaza."
On the issue of Iran, Jewish Democrats are confused. While they agree, by 67-8, that "if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will use them to destroy Israel," only 14 percent said it was "very likely" that "Israel could be destroyed by an Iranian nuclear attack in the next 10 years."
Another 37 percent called it "somewhat likely" and 40 percent said "unlikely."
Only 40 percent said they thought Obama is doing a good job in his efforts to "stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons." At the same time, by 15-62, they disagree that "Israel should bomb Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons."
Yet, only 38 percent felt that there "is a real chance that Iran can be stopped from developing a bomb without an Israeli attack."
Jewish Democrats heartily approve of Israel and most of its policies and emphatically reject any moral equivalence between the Jewish state and the Palestinian refugees:
92 percent have a favorable opinion of Israel; just 17 percent have a positive view of the Palestinian refugees.
By 81-6, they agree that "Israel is a democracy and has a free political system."
They agree that "it is very important that Jews have a country of their own, considering their history of persecution" by 86-7.
Emphatically, by 9-75, they reject the claim that "Israel has become a bully, pushing its Arab neighbors around."
By 14-55, they disagree with the accusation that "the Israeli Army and Mossad are guilty of human-rights abuses." Rather, they say by 59-14 that "the Israeli Army and Mossad go out of their way to avoid hurting civilians."
Asked if "Israel is always trying to grab more land and throw out the Palestinians who live there," Jewish Democrats disagree by 11-73. And they also disagree with the charge that "Israel is intolerant of its neighbors and does not do enough to get along with them in peace" by 13-70.
The pro-Israeli mindset of Jewish Democrats is most evident on the basic question of who's to blame for the Arab-Israeli conflict. By 60-20, they agree that "if the Arabs lay down their weapons, there would be no more war. It is just their desire to destroy Israel that creates the conflict." Likewise, they agree by 83-6 that "if Israel were to lay down its weapons, the Arabs would destroy it."
The fervency of their support for Israel suggests that Obama may suffer real political damage among a core Democratic constituency if he continues his current policies.
© 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
And why are so many Jews Democrats when the Democrat left have always hated Israel and have never whole heartily support Israel in congress? And Obama has shown this to be true with his high profile actions when meeting with Arab leaders and not even stopping in Israel!
How blind can the American Jews be?
Obama Breaks From Jews
Friday, August 7, 2009 9:57 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Jewish Democrats strongly agree with the Israeli position and disagree with President Barack Obama's on issues such as a Palestinian state, settlement construction, and trading land for peace.
Does the president realize he's at risk of a break with an important part of his base?
A phone survey (sponsored by the Traditional Values Coalition and conducted by Global Marketing Research Services on July 22-24) of 500 American Jews who self-identified as Democrats exposes broad disagreement with Obama's Middle East policies.
Asked to choose between the Obama view that "if Israel could settle its dispute with the Palestinian refugees and give them a nation of their own, that the Arabs would live in peace with Israel" and the Israeli government view that "the Arabs will never live in peace with Israel and that giving them a nation of their own will just make them stronger," Jewish Democrats sided with the Israeli view by 52 percent to 20 percent.
On the contentious issue of construction in existing West Bank settlements, Democratic Jews also sided with Israel more than with Obama. The survey asked for agreement with Obama when he "says that it is very important that Israel not expand its settlements on the West Bank so as not to alienate the Palestinians," or with Israel that "it should be allowed to build new homes in existing settlements but not to start new ones" — and got 52-37 backing for the Israeli view.
Democratic Jews still strongly back Obama in general, with 92 percent reporting that they approve of the job he is doing as president. But 44 percent feel that "Obama is naive in thinking he can make peace with the Arabs," while only 37 percent disagree.
Nearly half of Jewish Democrats still reject the idea that Obama is biased against Israel: In all, 49 percent said he wasn't and 16 percent said he was — but a significantly large number, 35 percent, said they were undecided.
By 58-16, Jewish Democrats agree that "Obama is doing a good job of promoting peace in the Middle East." But they share Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's skepticism about trading land for peace, the cornerstone of the "road map" to a settlement laid out in the 1990s.
Only 27 percent feel that "President Obama is right that Israel should agree to let the Palestinians form their own country and return the West Bank to them. This would defuse the hatred in the Middle East, reduce terrorism and help America, the Palestinians, and Israel live in peace."
But 55 percent disagree, preferring the statement: "President Obama is naive in thinking that the Palestinians would make peace, whatever they say. They will just use the new land as a base to attack Israel like they did in Gaza."
On the issue of Iran, Jewish Democrats are confused. While they agree, by 67-8, that "if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will use them to destroy Israel," only 14 percent said it was "very likely" that "Israel could be destroyed by an Iranian nuclear attack in the next 10 years."
Another 37 percent called it "somewhat likely" and 40 percent said "unlikely."
Only 40 percent said they thought Obama is doing a good job in his efforts to "stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons." At the same time, by 15-62, they disagree that "Israel should bomb Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons."
Yet, only 38 percent felt that there "is a real chance that Iran can be stopped from developing a bomb without an Israeli attack."
Jewish Democrats heartily approve of Israel and most of its policies and emphatically reject any moral equivalence between the Jewish state and the Palestinian refugees:
92 percent have a favorable opinion of Israel; just 17 percent have a positive view of the Palestinian refugees.
By 81-6, they agree that "Israel is a democracy and has a free political system."
They agree that "it is very important that Jews have a country of their own, considering their history of persecution" by 86-7.
Emphatically, by 9-75, they reject the claim that "Israel has become a bully, pushing its Arab neighbors around."
By 14-55, they disagree with the accusation that "the Israeli Army and Mossad are guilty of human-rights abuses." Rather, they say by 59-14 that "the Israeli Army and Mossad go out of their way to avoid hurting civilians."
Asked if "Israel is always trying to grab more land and throw out the Palestinians who live there," Jewish Democrats disagree by 11-73. And they also disagree with the charge that "Israel is intolerant of its neighbors and does not do enough to get along with them in peace" by 13-70.
The pro-Israeli mindset of Jewish Democrats is most evident on the basic question of who's to blame for the Arab-Israeli conflict. By 60-20, they agree that "if the Arabs lay down their weapons, there would be no more war. It is just their desire to destroy Israel that creates the conflict." Likewise, they agree by 83-6 that "if Israel were to lay down its weapons, the Arabs would destroy it."
The fervency of their support for Israel suggests that Obama may suffer real political damage among a core Democratic constituency if he continues his current policies.
© 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
