Thursday, October 16, 2008

Comparison of Presidential Tax Plans and the FairTax

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_prestaxplans

Presidential Tax Plans
As the November elections near, there's lots of talk about change, but let's compare how much Obama or McCain's tax plans would really stack up against the FairTax, a real agent of change.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Obama's grandmother in Kenya, brother and sister claim they were present during Obama’s birth, IN KENYA??

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_ObamaMotionforTRO.pdf

If confirmed true, this would mean that Obama is a natural born citizen, OF THE UK. Perhaps we would then hear an outcry for a quick changing of the requirement, with RINO's telling Conservatives that having Schwarzeneggar for President would be some kind of great idea. Of course, that would bring Hillary back into the race.

developing...


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE :
:
Plaintiff :
vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO.
:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a :
BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a :
BARRY OBAMA , a/k/a : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BARACK DUNHAM, a/k/a :
BARRY DUNHAM, THE :
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL :
ELECTION COMMISSION AND :
DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE ::
Defendants :
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] and
respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant A Temporary Restraining Order and
for Expedited Discovery on the following grounds:
1. In order to be eligible and qualified to run for Office of the President you
must be a “natural born” citizen. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.
2. Barack H. Obama claims he was born in Hawaii however, his
grandmother in Kenya, brother and sister claim they were present during Obama’s birth
in Kenya.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Saturday, October 11, 2008

In case you missed it - Palin Interview w/ Charlie Gibson. Gibson was the Actual Gaffer Re: Bush Doctrine

Charles Krauthammer :: Townhall.com Columnist
Charlie Gibson's Gaffee
by Charles Krauthammer



Charles Krauthammer's Email | Author Archive | Author Biography

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of `anticipatory self-defense.'" -- New York Times, Sept. 12

WASHINGTON -- Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden ... to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about Bush's grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.


About The Author
Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

ACORN, DSA (Democratic Socialist of America), and others formed a political party, the New Party. Gained funding from Catholic Bishops.

http://www.wandererforum.org/publications/focus025.html
Click here to read all.

Incredible information here. Will the MSM pick this up and report it?

Excerpts:
"
Bronx ACORN operates a New Party chapter out of its headquarters."

"
To accomplish its goals, as outlined in the People's Platform, ACORN has developed a political alliance with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Together with others, ACORN and the DSA have formed a political party, the New Party."

"JEDI Women is also part of the Utah Progressive Network, which includes Planned Parenthood, Utahns [sic] for Choice, and Utah NOW."


"E. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP): $40,000/1992; The NCRP was given a special acknowledgment at the Feminist Expo '96: "And we salute all of our co-sponsors who work to fund feminism, such as the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy." NCRP has a long history of attacking the pro-life movement and of directing charitable giving to abortion groups. "Consider NCRP's efforts in workplace giving drives, specifically its attempt to make political advocacy groups eligible for inclusion in the federal government's Combined Federal Campaign. According to NCRP literature, the following pro-abortion groups benefited from its work: the NARAL Foundation, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Planned Parenthood-World Population, Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights Education Fund…""

"
II. COMMUNITY ORGANIZING: During the funding period of 1992-1995, CHD gave significant grants to community organizing efforts that implement many of the organizational techniques recommended by Saul Alinsky. Many community organizations patterned after Alinsky's recommendations recruit their membership either entirely or partially by institution. Included among this class of grantees are four national organizations: the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), Gamaliel, Pacific Institute for Community Organizing (PICO), and Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART). The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) which is also patterned on Alinsky's organizational recommendations, recruits individual members. These five national organizations alone account for approximately 33% of current CHD expenditures annually. For purposes of illustration, it will be useful to note here some aspects of the operation of ACORN and the IAF.

A. ACORN

1. ACORN received approximately 5% of the national CHD annual budget between 1992-1995. Between the years of 1992-1995, ACORN received $1,493,000 in national CHD grants."

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Friday, October 10, 2008

Mike Huckabee, Dennis Kucinich, Jim Inhofe, Andrew Rice, and a Couple of Oklahoma Liberal Bloggers AGREE: Oppose Bailout

http://www.okiefunk.com/node/448

This is an interesting post from an Oklahoma Liberal Blog, OkieFunk, (by: Dr. Kurt Hochenauer - Professor at University of Central Oklahoma) and shows that many liberal Democrats are in agreement with many conservative Republicans in opposing the bailout plan.

Democrats Should Oppose Bailout
Submitted by dochoc on Mon, 2008-09-29 18:01.

House Democrats should unite and defeat the massive $700 billion financial bailout of Wall Street.
Not only does it make sense to refocus the bailout on middle-class taxpayers it would also ensure sweeping Democratic wins in the November elections.
President George Bush and the members of his ruling junta, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, are proposing taxpayers put their money on the line for Wall Street investment firms and banks. This committed money will mean fewer programs for the middle-class in the future. It will almost certainly jeopardize the government programs Social Security and Medicare.
It will also affect state government budgets, as well, because the federal government will have to slash funding to state programs that help the vast majority of Americans.
Those who support the measure, and this includes many leading Democrats, say the measure has safeguards, that Americans are actually buying a stake of these financially insolvent companies. If the companies rebound, then taxpayers could benefit, they argue. Do you actually believe this?
But the bottom line is the people who were wrong about the subprime mortgage crisis and housing bubble are the ones now pushing this radical solution. Why do it so quickly? What are the political bigwigs and investment bankers trying to hide from the public? How will this bailout affect you in years to come? No one can answer that.
Here are some issues and questions raised by Ohio's U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich about the bailout:
The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, is driven by fear not fact. This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren't we having hearings on the plan we have just received? Why aren't we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers' money? Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren't we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess? Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this? Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors? How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?
Why aren't we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren't we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn't it time for fundamental change in our debt based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs? Wall Street is a place of bears and bulls. It is not smart to force taxpayers to dance with bears or to follow closely behind the bulls.
In a press release today, state Sen. Andrew Rice, a Democrat running against U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe in Oklahoma this year, said, "This bill gives too much away to the people who created these problems without guaranteeing that it won't happen again. Any bill would need to require much tougher consequences for Wall Street in order to earn my support."
That is a good stance for Democrats, though I would go further and suggest party leaders completely shred the Bush plan and start over. First, we should implement a bailout for the middle class, then we can worry about Wall Street. We should work from the bottom up, not the top down.
The House is supposed to vote on the measure today. Watch as leading national Democrats capitulate one-by-one to Bush’s last bit of thievery and then actually try to take credit for it.
Public opinion is against the bailout. Democrats should seize the day and create a bailout plan that forces many Wall Street investment firms to face the consequences of their own reckless decisions and greed as it helps ordinary Americans keep their homes. Democrats are risking the viability of their party if they go along with the Bush plan.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Jerome Corsi arrested in Kenya - Deported

Hotel claims that they cannot allow a, "smear campaign" because they are, "law-abiding".

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Video shows Obama connected to Socialist Kenyan, Raila Odinga.

Videon shows Obama campaigning on behalf of Raila Odinga in 2006.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Saturday, October 4, 2008

ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) Info from Neal Boortz

http://boortz.com/nuze/200809/09302008.html

THE ANTICS OF ACORN

A listener, William, sent us a compellation of various times when ACORN has resorted to voter fraud, just to get their Messiah, Barack Obama, elected. Here's a synopsis of some of the different cases against ACORN, just in this election season alone. Are you starting to understand what is going on here, folks? These are not isolated incidents. Now as you read of these incidents remember, please, that during Obama's days as a community organizer he was deeply involved with ACORN. That ought to set of some alarm bells with the media ... ought to, but it won't.

Washington
July 26, 2007,Seattle Times
Felony charges filed against 7 in state's biggest case of voter-registration fraud. The defendants, who were paid employees and supervisors of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Michigan
September 14, 2008, Detroit Free Press
Several municipal clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ...

Florida
Oct. 13, 2007, PRNewswire
A Florida state attorney is investigating thousands of potentially fraudulent voter registrations associated with the leading organizer of Florida's Amendment 5 ballot initiative. But this is just the tip of an iceberg of illegalities, fraud and contradictions connected to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) ... Former ACORN Miami-Dade field director Mac Stuart has declared an intent to sue ACORN and has made charges of rampant voter fraud operations. Stuart was employed and specifically tasked by ACORN to generate 103,000 new voter registrations from Dade County. He reports that ACORN threw out Republican registrations while paying for Democratic ones. Stuart also charges that ACORN targeted ex-cons and that he personally set up registration tables outside the Miami police department and Dade County jail.

New Mexico
Sept. 18, 2008, Judicial Watch Blog
This week officials in New Mexico's most populous county (Bernalillo) notified federal authorities that more than 1,000 fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted to the clerk's office. ACORN, which pays workers for each registration, is the prime suspect since it has handled thousands of new voter registrations in New Mexico since January. County workers subsequently discovered that at least 1,100 new registrations list Social Security numbers for people already in the county's database of registered voters, names of registered voters with different birth dates and addresses that don't exist.

Wisconsin
Aug. 6, 2008, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Criminal investigations could be launched against at least six voter registration workers who tried to add dead, imprisoned or imaginary people to the voter rolls, according to the Milwaukee Election Commission and the organization that employed them. "One woman called us to complain because her husband has been dead for 10 years and a voter registration was submitted," Edman said. In about 12 cases, deputy registrars paid by ACORN were "making people up or registering people that were still in prison," said Carolyn Castore, ACORN's state political director. And in other cases, workers used the same address for numerous voters or used driver's license numbers that did not fit the voters' birth dates, Edman said. But most of the fraud involved submitting duplicate cards for voters who were already registered, and forging the voters' signatures, Castore said.

Ohio
August 27, 2008, The Plain Dealer
A national organization that conducts voter registration drives for low-income people has curtailed its push in Cuyahoga County after the Board of Elections accused its workers of submitting fraudulent registration cards. Board employees said ACORN workers often handed in the same name on a number of voter registration cards, but showing that person living at different addresses. Other times, cards had the same name listed, but a different date of birth. Still another sign of possible fraud showed a number of people living at an address that turned out to be a restaurant. ACORN has submitted about 75,000 voter registration cards to the Cuyahoga board this year.

Pennsylvania
Sept. 18, 2008, The Bulletin: Philadelphia's Family Newspaper
A community organization, with longstanding ties to Barack Obama, has, according to numerous reports, repeatedly run afoul of voter registration laws both locally and nationally. Philadelphia election officials recently accused ACORN, of filing multiple fraudulent voter registrations during the 2008 Pennsylvania primary. The case has been referred to the U.S. Attorney's office, according to Philadelphia Deputy Election Commissioner Fred Voight. Delaware County election officials have made similar allegations against the group, and criminal indictments are pending. This past July 24, Dauphin County detectives offered a $2,000 reward for information about the whereabouts of Luis R. Torres-Serrano, an ACORN worker, who was accused of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registrations.

Nevada
July 7,2008, Las Vegas Review Journal
ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claims to have collected 60,000 new voter registrations in Clark County since February ... Lomax said while he supports the goal of getting more people registered to vote, he sees rampant fraud in the 2,000 to 3,000 registrations ACORN turns in every week.

SO WHAT DOES OBAMA HAVE TO DO WITH ACORN?

The answer is ... a lot. Stanley Kurtz has written another great piece about Barack Obama's days as a community organizer for ACORN. It is worth you taking the time to read. Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect any mainstream media outlets to mention this information, or put two and two together considering all of the stories just listed above.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Thursday, October 2, 2008

'Brilliant' Ifill Cousin Scours Palin As 'Offensive to Black Women'



From: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/10/02/brilliant-ifill-cousin-scours-palin-offensive-black-women

'Brilliant' Ifill Cousin Scours Palin As 'Offensive to Black Women'
Photo of Tim Graham.
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
October 2, 2008 - 06:48 ET

Here are more signs Sarah Palin could face an uphill battle with PBS host Gwen Ifill. Professor Sherrilyn Ifill of the University of Maryland Law School, whom Gwen Ifill has lauded as "my brilliant baby cousin," has written that black women are not buying Sarah Palin’s "false claims to feminism" and is portrayed as too perfect: "when women who are privileged present as though they have it all together, it’s offensive to black women." (Photo from Soros.com)

The Community Times, a suburban Maryland newspaper, found Professor Ifill was ardently opposed to the Alaska governor when they did an e-mail interview:

"From the first day, Palin presented herself as shooting a bear in the morning, field dressing it, cooking up the breakfast, diapering the babies, passing legislation in the afternoon, cleaning the house, satisfying her husband, etc., etc., etc. And it's just not true," she wrote in an e-mail interview. "It's hard to be an average working mom, really hard. And when women who are privileged present as though they have it all together, it's offensive to black women."

She said, "black women are not easily confused by false claims to feminism. When women like Palin lay claims to ‘representing' average women, I think that black women have a visceral reaction to it."

Ifill added that Palin "missed her opportunity when she announced Bristol's pregnancy to explicitly talk about how painful it was to her as a mother - instead of making it as though this too was also part of her perfect life.

"Hillary has the sympathy of women because of what she went through with Bill in front of the whole country. Michelle [Obama] takes pains to be self-deprecating and to talk about her concerns and fear about her girls. She insists that she couldn't do what she does without the help of her mother. Most importantly, both champion issues that affect the lives of real, average women - universal health care, equal pay, choice, etc. To do so is a recognition that real working women (not political wives or politicians) need policies that will help them maintain their families. What's the point of Palin's brand of feminism if it doesn't translate into real returns for average women?"

It can be noted that the professor is so passionate an Obama supporter that she also denounced Hillary Clinton as a phony feminist: "When she knocked back a shot and a beer in that bar in Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton ended any pretense of running as a feminist." She compared it to Michael Dukakis in a tank, a failed "macho stunt."

Gwen Ifill’s family pride came through in her monthly washingtonpost.com online chat on October 4, 2007:

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Is Professor Sherrilyn Ifill at the University of Maryland Law School, who's spoken out so eloquently and thoughtfully on symbols of racial hatred lately, any relation to you?

Gwen Ifill: She is indeed my brilliant baby cousin, and the author of an excellent book "On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the 20th Century."

Cousin Gwen supported that book at an event at the liberal D.C. bookstore Politics and Prose. As The Politico reported in February of 2007:

Ifill's reading illustrates how decisions are made. She had everything you need: a name to draw a crowd (her cousin, moderator of PBS's "Washington Week," introduced her); a friendship with Jim Lehrer of "The News Hour," also on PBS; and a book with a liberal, social-justice bent, about lynchings that took place outside the Deep South.

"Jim Lehrer's a great friend of the store," Meade said, adding that the store probably would have held the reading anyway, given the content of Ifill's book. "If it's something that involves civil rights, civil liberties, we're pretty interested in it usually."

The idea that Politics and Prose has a liberal bias has caused the store some consternation, but it's rooted in reality. The bookstore draws a graying, turtleneck crowd in a neighborhood known for its liberal politics in a city that gave George W. Bush fewer than 22,000 votes in 2004. Would you expect the shelves to be buckling under the weight of Sean Hannity and Co.'s latest books?

The bookstore's most well-known snub went to Matt Drudge, a conservative and the creator of The Drudge Report. Cohen reportedly called him "a rumormonger and a troublemaker" in 2000 when the store rejected his request for a reading.

(Hat tip: Chris R.)

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Huck-a-Book Carousel

Please Support These Sponsors of 'OK for Huckabee'.

For info about being a sponsor on 'OK for Huckabee', send e-mail to OKforHuckabee (at) yahoo (dot) com