Says issue could decide if 'we are a Constitutional Republic'
Posted: February 24, 2009
8:30 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
Another U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq is joining a challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be commander-in-chief, citing WND's report on 1st Lt. Scott Easterling, who has agreed to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit over the issue, as his inspiration.
"I was inspired by 1LT Easterling's story and am writing you to inform you that I would like to be added as a plaintiff against Obama as well if you feel it would help your case," the soldier, identified for this report only as a reservist now on active duty in Iraq.
His letter was directed to California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Easterling, who confirmed separately to WND that he is questioning Obama's authority, wrote to Taitz that, "As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States."
The second soldier wrote, "I am an Army reservist who was activated last August and am currently serving with a military police battalion in Camp Bucca, Iraq. I will be here until at least June 2009."
He continued, "When I enlisted last year I had to show my birth certificate, as well as my driver's license, high school diploma, college transcripts, social security card; I also filled out loads of paperwork to include listing the names, addresses and phone numbers of my family members and had to answer any questions regarding foreign travel.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 270,000 others and sign up now!
"I think it is reasonable for Obama to prove his citizenship status thus certifying his eligibility. I too raised my right hand and swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States," he told Taitz. "I believe the case you are filing could very well determine if we are in fact a Constitutional Republic or a nation of mob rule. I would be honored to be a part of your efforts."
Perhaps anticipating a wave of outrage from Obama supporters, he asked that he be given no "unnecessary publicity," although his name eventually would become public when a case is filed.
Taitz told WND she was making contingency plans that could include her travel to Iraq should a military case be brought against the soldiers who are speaking their minds about Obama.
"I told him if there is any prosecution, he can get in touch with me. I would even fly to Iraq and work with the attorney there to provide his defense," she told WND.
She said undoubtedly a part of the defense would be a demand for documentation on Obama's actual qualifications to serve as U.S. president.
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." While representatives for Obama has called such claims "garbage," the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined to hear arguments. According to a report from the Associated Press today, another such case has been rejected. The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski alleged Obama was a British subject at birth and, therefore, ineligible to be president.
There was no comment from the court, the same treatment the justices have given cases brought by several other lawyers, including Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.
WND reported yesterday when Easterling agreed to be a plaintiff in Taitz' case.
Soldier Scott Easterling
Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.
Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.
Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.
"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," Easterling's statement said.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
Verse:
John 3:16; Jn 3:16; John 3
Keyword:
Salvation, Jesus, Gospel
With Operators:
AND, OR, NOT, “ â€
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Quote of the Day
"He thinks he can really do anything — he does. With his own power and will, he can fix it,"
-Michelle Obama
-Michelle Obama
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Like Father, Like Son
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama's economic blueprint sounds like one his communist father tried to foist on Kenya 40 years ago, with massive taxes and succor shrouded as "investments."
IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. advised the pro-Western Kenyan government there to "redistribute" income through higher taxes. He also demonized corporations and called for massive government "investment" in social programs.
Barack Obama Sr., who died in 1982 at age 46 in a Kenya car crash.
Writing in a 1965 scholarly paper, Obama's late father slammed the administration of then-President Jomo Kenyatta for moving the Third World country away from socialism toward capitalism. He chafed at the idea of relying on private investors — who earn "dividends" on their venture capital — to develop the country's fledgling economy.
"What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all," said the senior Obama, a Harvard-educated economist. "This is the government's obligation." The "means" he had in mind were confiscatory taxes on a scale that redefines the term "progressive taxation."
"Theoretically," he wrote, "there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."
Therefore, he added, "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."
As Obama's father saw it, taxes couldn't be high enough, so long as the collective benefited. "Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay," he said. "It is a fallacy to say that there is this limit, and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."
His son is also pushing massive taxes and "investments" in social programs — at the expense of free enterprise. Sen. Obama wants to raise the top marginal income-tax rate to at least 39%, while increasing Social Security taxes on those with higher incomes by completely removing the payroll cap. That means many entrepreneurs would be paying 12.4% (6.2% on employer and 6.2% on employee) on Social Security payroll taxes alone, plus the 2.9% on Medicare taxes, for a total federal tax rate of 54%.
In addition, Obama wants to jack up the capital-gains tax rate and reinstate the death tax.
Echoing his father, he argues that the government should impose "tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation's wealth."
And likewise, he asserts that the nation's wealth ought to be rechanneled by government into "investments" in the economy and welfare programs that create "a new American social compact."
"We can only compete if our government makes the investments that give us a fighting chance" in the global economy, the Democrat presidential hopeful said in his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope." "And if we know that our families have some net beneath which they cannot fall."
"Training must be expanded," his father proposed as one of his government "investments." Likewise, Sen. Obama wants to "invest" billions more in federal jobs retraining.
His father's critique of Kenya's economic policy was published in the East Africa Journal under the title "Problems Facing Our Socialism." One discovers — after reading just a few pages into his eight-page tract, where he waxes quixotic about "communal ownership of major means of production" — that he wasn't criticizing the government for being too socialistic, but not socialistic enough.
Obama Sr. described his own economic plan, his counterproposal, as it were, as "scientific socialism — inter alia — communism." Yes, Obama's father was a communist who wanted to put socialist theory into action — by "force."
He trusted the collective over the individual, a theme he successfully instilled in his son, also Harvard-educated, with whom he visited once for a full month in Hawaii, even speaking to his prep school class. He kept up correspondence with his son through his college years.
(Media accounts portray Obama's father as being completely out of his life after leaving his mother and him at age 2. But Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that he remained an influential force in his life. Obama's first autobiography was devoted to "my father.")
Listen to what "the Old Man," as Obama and his siblings called him, wrote in proposing government-run farms: "If left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society, and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."
He explained that "the government should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country."
More evil than individuals, Obama's father believed, are heads of corporations. More evil still are the bankers and investors, who conspire to control the world through their evil capitalist system.
"One who has read Marx cannot fail to see that corporations are not only what Marx referred to as the advanced stage of capitalism," he wrote. "But Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many, and through this, have not only economic power but political power as well."
It's clear from Sen. Obama's own writings and speeches that he too is no fan of business or our system of "chaotic and unforgiving capitalism," as he wrote in "Audacity." He's fond of bashing Wall Street "greed" and the post-Reagan rise of individual investing over government investing. He wants to roll back the "Ownership Society." He resents the profit motive and individuals "on the make."
"Rather than vilify the rich," he laments, "we hold them up as role models, and our mythology is steeped in stories of men on the make."
This is no small point. The man who wants to be the nation's CEO actually believes we're living in a feudal society where the rich plunder the poor. And he thinks they should not only be vilified but punished.
"The problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed are rooted in the desire among those at the top of the social ladder to maintain their wealth and status whatever the cost," he wrote. "Solving these problems will require changes in government policy."
That is, massive taxation, among other things (or "inter alia," as his "brilliant" father would say).
Obama wrote in "Dreams From My Father" that he was trying to impress his father by taking a low-paying job organizing and agitating in the Chicago ghetto right out of college. "I did feel that there was something to prove to my father," he said.
Yet, suspiciously, he does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory. No doubt he wanted to keep that hidden. All he tells readers is that his father was pushed out of the Kenyatta administration. He does not explain why.
"Word got back to Kenyatta that the Old Man was a troublemaker and he was called in to see the president," Obama wrote, quoting his half-sister, "because he could not keep his mouth shut." About what, we aren't told.
However, Obama writes sympathetically of a comrade of his father, Oginga Odinga, who stepped down as vice president and tried to start his own party. He too was angry that President Kenyatta was letting private investors buy up businesses and land "that should be redistributed to the people," Obama said.
By 1967, two years after Obama Sr. penned his paper, Odinga had been placed under house arrest for holding a rally that turned into a riot.
Like Obama's father, Odinga was a member of the Luo tribe of Kenya. His son, Raila Odinga, ran for president in 2006. That year, Obama traveled to Kenya and appeared with Odinga at rallies where he criticized the pro-U.S. government Odinga wanted to oust.
When he lost the election the next year, despite Obama's tacit endorsement, angry Odinga supporters crying fraud sparked riots that resulted in some 1,500 deaths. Amid his ancestral country's civil unrest, Obama took time out from the campaign trail to phone Odinga to voice his support.
After weeks of violence, Odinga was granted a power-sharing deal. He's now acting prime minister.
He's also a something of a communist like his father. An East German-trained engineer, he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro. Paralleling him, Sen. Obama wants to open dialogue with Cuba and once proposed lifting the trade embargo.
The two sons have much in common. However, the son who would lead the U.S. learned from his father's mistakes and keeps his "mouth shut." Obama learned that revealing his real beliefs can jeopardize his quest for the power needed to put his "redistribution" plans into action.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama's economic blueprint sounds like one his communist father tried to foist on Kenya 40 years ago, with massive taxes and succor shrouded as "investments."
IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. advised the pro-Western Kenyan government there to "redistribute" income through higher taxes. He also demonized corporations and called for massive government "investment" in social programs.
Barack Obama Sr., who died in 1982 at age 46 in a Kenya car crash.
Writing in a 1965 scholarly paper, Obama's late father slammed the administration of then-President Jomo Kenyatta for moving the Third World country away from socialism toward capitalism. He chafed at the idea of relying on private investors — who earn "dividends" on their venture capital — to develop the country's fledgling economy.
"What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all," said the senior Obama, a Harvard-educated economist. "This is the government's obligation." The "means" he had in mind were confiscatory taxes on a scale that redefines the term "progressive taxation."
"Theoretically," he wrote, "there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."
Therefore, he added, "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."
As Obama's father saw it, taxes couldn't be high enough, so long as the collective benefited. "Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay," he said. "It is a fallacy to say that there is this limit, and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."
His son is also pushing massive taxes and "investments" in social programs — at the expense of free enterprise. Sen. Obama wants to raise the top marginal income-tax rate to at least 39%, while increasing Social Security taxes on those with higher incomes by completely removing the payroll cap. That means many entrepreneurs would be paying 12.4% (6.2% on employer and 6.2% on employee) on Social Security payroll taxes alone, plus the 2.9% on Medicare taxes, for a total federal tax rate of 54%.
In addition, Obama wants to jack up the capital-gains tax rate and reinstate the death tax.
Echoing his father, he argues that the government should impose "tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation's wealth."
And likewise, he asserts that the nation's wealth ought to be rechanneled by government into "investments" in the economy and welfare programs that create "a new American social compact."
"We can only compete if our government makes the investments that give us a fighting chance" in the global economy, the Democrat presidential hopeful said in his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope." "And if we know that our families have some net beneath which they cannot fall."
"Training must be expanded," his father proposed as one of his government "investments." Likewise, Sen. Obama wants to "invest" billions more in federal jobs retraining.
His father's critique of Kenya's economic policy was published in the East Africa Journal under the title "Problems Facing Our Socialism." One discovers — after reading just a few pages into his eight-page tract, where he waxes quixotic about "communal ownership of major means of production" — that he wasn't criticizing the government for being too socialistic, but not socialistic enough.
Obama Sr. described his own economic plan, his counterproposal, as it were, as "scientific socialism — inter alia — communism." Yes, Obama's father was a communist who wanted to put socialist theory into action — by "force."
He trusted the collective over the individual, a theme he successfully instilled in his son, also Harvard-educated, with whom he visited once for a full month in Hawaii, even speaking to his prep school class. He kept up correspondence with his son through his college years.
(Media accounts portray Obama's father as being completely out of his life after leaving his mother and him at age 2. But Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that he remained an influential force in his life. Obama's first autobiography was devoted to "my father.")
Listen to what "the Old Man," as Obama and his siblings called him, wrote in proposing government-run farms: "If left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society, and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."
He explained that "the government should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country."
More evil than individuals, Obama's father believed, are heads of corporations. More evil still are the bankers and investors, who conspire to control the world through their evil capitalist system.
"One who has read Marx cannot fail to see that corporations are not only what Marx referred to as the advanced stage of capitalism," he wrote. "But Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many, and through this, have not only economic power but political power as well."
It's clear from Sen. Obama's own writings and speeches that he too is no fan of business or our system of "chaotic and unforgiving capitalism," as he wrote in "Audacity." He's fond of bashing Wall Street "greed" and the post-Reagan rise of individual investing over government investing. He wants to roll back the "Ownership Society." He resents the profit motive and individuals "on the make."
"Rather than vilify the rich," he laments, "we hold them up as role models, and our mythology is steeped in stories of men on the make."
This is no small point. The man who wants to be the nation's CEO actually believes we're living in a feudal society where the rich plunder the poor. And he thinks they should not only be vilified but punished.
"The problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed are rooted in the desire among those at the top of the social ladder to maintain their wealth and status whatever the cost," he wrote. "Solving these problems will require changes in government policy."
That is, massive taxation, among other things (or "inter alia," as his "brilliant" father would say).
Obama wrote in "Dreams From My Father" that he was trying to impress his father by taking a low-paying job organizing and agitating in the Chicago ghetto right out of college. "I did feel that there was something to prove to my father," he said.
Yet, suspiciously, he does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory. No doubt he wanted to keep that hidden. All he tells readers is that his father was pushed out of the Kenyatta administration. He does not explain why.
"Word got back to Kenyatta that the Old Man was a troublemaker and he was called in to see the president," Obama wrote, quoting his half-sister, "because he could not keep his mouth shut." About what, we aren't told.
However, Obama writes sympathetically of a comrade of his father, Oginga Odinga, who stepped down as vice president and tried to start his own party. He too was angry that President Kenyatta was letting private investors buy up businesses and land "that should be redistributed to the people," Obama said.
By 1967, two years after Obama Sr. penned his paper, Odinga had been placed under house arrest for holding a rally that turned into a riot.
Like Obama's father, Odinga was a member of the Luo tribe of Kenya. His son, Raila Odinga, ran for president in 2006. That year, Obama traveled to Kenya and appeared with Odinga at rallies where he criticized the pro-U.S. government Odinga wanted to oust.
When he lost the election the next year, despite Obama's tacit endorsement, angry Odinga supporters crying fraud sparked riots that resulted in some 1,500 deaths. Amid his ancestral country's civil unrest, Obama took time out from the campaign trail to phone Odinga to voice his support.
After weeks of violence, Odinga was granted a power-sharing deal. He's now acting prime minister.
He's also a something of a communist like his father. An East German-trained engineer, he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro. Paralleling him, Sen. Obama wants to open dialogue with Cuba and once proposed lifting the trade embargo.
The two sons have much in common. However, the son who would lead the U.S. learned from his father's mistakes and keeps his "mouth shut." Obama learned that revealing his real beliefs can jeopardize his quest for the power needed to put his "redistribution" plans into action.
Obama Redefines Christianity and Socialism As Election Nears -
Bill Wilson
By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst
WASH—Oct 28—KIN-- A recent poll of voters indicated that Christians were about evenly split between supporting Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Hussein Obama for President. It seems that McCain has convinced most Christians that he is a Christian, but not necessarily a strong enough Christian. Obama has convinced many that he is a Christian, however, his commitment to his faith by his actions is sorely lacking. Hence, its about 50/50 among Christians, who essentially determined the last two presidencies by their strong vote en masse for George W. Bush.
McCain tried to solidify the conservative Christian base by choosing Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. While this solidified some of the most conservative Christians, it appears McCain still has not closed the deal. Meanwhile, there are many Christians who are voting for change no matter what. Obama represents that change. But Christians are warned in Philippians 2:12-13 to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” If Christians are to do of God’s good pleasure, then they had better be forewarned of the ramifications of voting for Obama.
First off, Obama is not a Christian. Obama explained his Christianity in a March 27, 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani, author of "The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People." Obama told Falsani, "I am rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are a connected people." Then he used a more traditional Muslim description of Jesus, saying he was a "historical figure," a “bridge between God and man," and "a wonderful teacher." Christians believe the words of Jesus when he says in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.”
So if Obama is not a Christian, what is he? He was once a Muslim and his campaign has declared that he is not a practicing Muslim. But more recently, it has been revealed that in 2001 Obama said that the US Constitution was flawed and that the Founding Fathers were wrong by not writing into it a means for wealth redistribution. This is consistent with his October 13th declaration to Joe the Plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." This is Marxism. Obama was mentored by Communist Party USA leader Frank Marshall Davis and was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago dedicated to electing socialists as Democrats. Marxism is the replacement of God with government.
By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst
WASH—Oct 28—KIN-- A recent poll of voters indicated that Christians were about evenly split between supporting Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Hussein Obama for President. It seems that McCain has convinced most Christians that he is a Christian, but not necessarily a strong enough Christian. Obama has convinced many that he is a Christian, however, his commitment to his faith by his actions is sorely lacking. Hence, its about 50/50 among Christians, who essentially determined the last two presidencies by their strong vote en masse for George W. Bush.
McCain tried to solidify the conservative Christian base by choosing Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. While this solidified some of the most conservative Christians, it appears McCain still has not closed the deal. Meanwhile, there are many Christians who are voting for change no matter what. Obama represents that change. But Christians are warned in Philippians 2:12-13 to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” If Christians are to do of God’s good pleasure, then they had better be forewarned of the ramifications of voting for Obama.
First off, Obama is not a Christian. Obama explained his Christianity in a March 27, 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani, author of "The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People." Obama told Falsani, "I am rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are a connected people." Then he used a more traditional Muslim description of Jesus, saying he was a "historical figure," a “bridge between God and man," and "a wonderful teacher." Christians believe the words of Jesus when he says in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.”
So if Obama is not a Christian, what is he? He was once a Muslim and his campaign has declared that he is not a practicing Muslim. But more recently, it has been revealed that in 2001 Obama said that the US Constitution was flawed and that the Founding Fathers were wrong by not writing into it a means for wealth redistribution. This is consistent with his October 13th declaration to Joe the Plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." This is Marxism. Obama was mentored by Communist Party USA leader Frank Marshall Davis and was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago dedicated to electing socialists as Democrats. Marxism is the replacement of God with government.
RAND Lobbies Pentagon: Start War To Save U.S. Economy
Paul Joseph Watson & Yihan Dai
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, October 30, 2008
According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.
A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression.
The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets.
The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.
Current directors of RAND include Frank Charles Carlucci III, former Defense Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA, Ronald L. Olson, Council on Foreign Relations luminary and former Secretary of Labor, and Carl Bildt, top Bilderberg member and former Swedish Prime Minister.
Carlucci was chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1989-2005 and oversaw gargantuan profits the defense contractor made in the aftermath of 9/11 following the invasion of Afghanistan. The Carlyle Group has also received investment money from the Bin Laden family.
Reportedly, the RAND proposal brazenly urged that a new war could be launched to benefit the economy, but stressed that the target country would have to be a major influential power, and not a smaller country on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq.
The reports have prompted a surge of public debate and tension in China about the possibility that a new global conflict is on the horizon.
China’s biggest media outlet, Sohu.com, speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country. Japan was also mentioned as a potential target for the reason that Japan holds the most U.S. debt.
North Korea was considered as a target but ruled out because the scale of such a war would not be large enough for RAND’s requirements.
The reported RAND proposal dovetails with recent comments made by Joe Biden, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and others, concerning the “guarantee” that Barack Obama will face a major “international crisis” soon after taking office.
It also arrives following a warning from Michael Bayer, chairman of a key Pentagon advisory panel, who echoed the statement that the next administration will face an international crisis within months of taking office.
One would hope that good people, or at least sane people who don’t wish to start a global nuclear war, will oppose the RAND proposal, such as top the military generals who threatened to quit if Bush ordered an attack on Iran. Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, quit in March last year as a result of his opposition to Bush administration policy on Iran.
Translations from Chinese provided by Yihan Dai.
SOURCES
Sohu.com - http://news.sohu.com/20081030/n260330741.shtml
Ifeng.com - http://news.ifeng.com/mil/4/200810/1029_342_851523.shtml
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, October 30, 2008
According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.
A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression.
The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets.
The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.
Current directors of RAND include Frank Charles Carlucci III, former Defense Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA, Ronald L. Olson, Council on Foreign Relations luminary and former Secretary of Labor, and Carl Bildt, top Bilderberg member and former Swedish Prime Minister.
Carlucci was chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1989-2005 and oversaw gargantuan profits the defense contractor made in the aftermath of 9/11 following the invasion of Afghanistan. The Carlyle Group has also received investment money from the Bin Laden family.
Reportedly, the RAND proposal brazenly urged that a new war could be launched to benefit the economy, but stressed that the target country would have to be a major influential power, and not a smaller country on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq.
The reports have prompted a surge of public debate and tension in China about the possibility that a new global conflict is on the horizon.
China’s biggest media outlet, Sohu.com, speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country. Japan was also mentioned as a potential target for the reason that Japan holds the most U.S. debt.
North Korea was considered as a target but ruled out because the scale of such a war would not be large enough for RAND’s requirements.
The reported RAND proposal dovetails with recent comments made by Joe Biden, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and others, concerning the “guarantee” that Barack Obama will face a major “international crisis” soon after taking office.
It also arrives following a warning from Michael Bayer, chairman of a key Pentagon advisory panel, who echoed the statement that the next administration will face an international crisis within months of taking office.
One would hope that good people, or at least sane people who don’t wish to start a global nuclear war, will oppose the RAND proposal, such as top the military generals who threatened to quit if Bush ordered an attack on Iran. Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, quit in March last year as a result of his opposition to Bush administration policy on Iran.
Translations from Chinese provided by Yihan Dai.
SOURCES
Sohu.com - http://news.sohu.com/20081030/n260330741.shtml
Ifeng.com - http://news.ifeng.com/mil/4/200810/1029_342_851523.shtml
Monday, October 27, 2008
At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. "The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."
The candidates have said little about their plans for the United Nations, but Obama has highlighted his desire to pursue diplomacy more assertively than the Bush administration, whereas McCain has called for the establishment of a league of democracies, which many here fear is code for sidelining the United Nations.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has avoided showing a public preference about the presidential campaign -- although he has hinted at a soft spot for Obama in private gatherings, according to U.N. officials. His top advisers say they think McCain and Obama would support many of Ban's priorities, including restraints on production of greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.
"The secretary general and the Secretariat of the United Nations take no position on the U.S. election," said Ban's chief spokeswoman, Michele Montas. "The secretary general deeply respects the democratic process, and he looks forward to working with whomever the American people choose."
Many U.N. rank and file are less circumspect, saying they see in Obama's multicultural background -- a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas -- a reflection of themselves. "We do not consider him an African American," said Congo's U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. "We consider him an African."
One U.N. official threw a party over the summer and asked guests to place stickers of either an elephant or a donkey on the front door to show their political preference. At the end of the night, the door was covered with about 30 donkeys and two elephants. "We found out that one of the Republicans was an American and the other couldn't vote," according to a U.N. official who attended. "So we convinced the American to vote for Obama."
"I have not heard a single person who will support McCain; if they do, they are in hiding," said another U.N. Obama booster from an African country. "The majority of people here believe in multilateralism," he said. "The Republicans were constantly questioning the relevance of the United Nations."
For the small minority of U.N. officials who have stuck with McCain -- only two of 28 U.N. officials and diplomats questioned said they favored the Arizona senator -- life in Turtle Bay can seem lonely. "I keep my mouth shut," said one American official here who plans to vote for McCain. "Everyone is knocking on wood, counting the days to the elections. Some Americans here are planning to move to Washington," in search of jobs in an Obama administration.
"It will be devastating if Obama loses," the official said. "There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome."
The official, who like all other Secretariat staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled that Democrats have not always been so supportive of the United Nations, citing the Clinton administration's lone 1996 campaign to block the reelection of then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And some foreign delegations, including Georgia, have been outspoken in their support of the foreign policy approach of McCain, who reacted quickly and sharply to Russian intervention in Georgia.
Still, the Obama candidacy has enormous emotional resonance among delegates from developing countries, particularly for what it says about race in America. They recall that one of the United Nations' most famous civil servants, Ralph Bunche -- an African American who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his Middle East mediation -- could never have risen to the same heights in U.S. foreign policy circles. And Kofi Annan, the first black U.N. secretary general, said the prospect of an Obama presidency would be "phenomenal."
Even while critics of the Bush administration here root for Obama, they acknowledge that the U.S. attitude toward the United Nations has improved dramatically in recent years, citing cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
They say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history. And they expect that whichever candidate prevails will be compelled by the United States' falling financial fortunes to work more cooperatively with foreign governments.
"We don't have voting rights," said Yukio Takasu, Japan's ambassador to the United Nations.
But, he added, "We expect whoever [wins] in Washington will have a fresh look at the U.N. and the utility of working through the U.N. And, of course, we have to adjust to them."
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. "The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."
The candidates have said little about their plans for the United Nations, but Obama has highlighted his desire to pursue diplomacy more assertively than the Bush administration, whereas McCain has called for the establishment of a league of democracies, which many here fear is code for sidelining the United Nations.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has avoided showing a public preference about the presidential campaign -- although he has hinted at a soft spot for Obama in private gatherings, according to U.N. officials. His top advisers say they think McCain and Obama would support many of Ban's priorities, including restraints on production of greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.
"The secretary general and the Secretariat of the United Nations take no position on the U.S. election," said Ban's chief spokeswoman, Michele Montas. "The secretary general deeply respects the democratic process, and he looks forward to working with whomever the American people choose."
Many U.N. rank and file are less circumspect, saying they see in Obama's multicultural background -- a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas -- a reflection of themselves. "We do not consider him an African American," said Congo's U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. "We consider him an African."
One U.N. official threw a party over the summer and asked guests to place stickers of either an elephant or a donkey on the front door to show their political preference. At the end of the night, the door was covered with about 30 donkeys and two elephants. "We found out that one of the Republicans was an American and the other couldn't vote," according to a U.N. official who attended. "So we convinced the American to vote for Obama."
"I have not heard a single person who will support McCain; if they do, they are in hiding," said another U.N. Obama booster from an African country. "The majority of people here believe in multilateralism," he said. "The Republicans were constantly questioning the relevance of the United Nations."
For the small minority of U.N. officials who have stuck with McCain -- only two of 28 U.N. officials and diplomats questioned said they favored the Arizona senator -- life in Turtle Bay can seem lonely. "I keep my mouth shut," said one American official here who plans to vote for McCain. "Everyone is knocking on wood, counting the days to the elections. Some Americans here are planning to move to Washington," in search of jobs in an Obama administration.
"It will be devastating if Obama loses," the official said. "There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome."
The official, who like all other Secretariat staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled that Democrats have not always been so supportive of the United Nations, citing the Clinton administration's lone 1996 campaign to block the reelection of then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And some foreign delegations, including Georgia, have been outspoken in their support of the foreign policy approach of McCain, who reacted quickly and sharply to Russian intervention in Georgia.
Still, the Obama candidacy has enormous emotional resonance among delegates from developing countries, particularly for what it says about race in America. They recall that one of the United Nations' most famous civil servants, Ralph Bunche -- an African American who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his Middle East mediation -- could never have risen to the same heights in U.S. foreign policy circles. And Kofi Annan, the first black U.N. secretary general, said the prospect of an Obama presidency would be "phenomenal."
Even while critics of the Bush administration here root for Obama, they acknowledge that the U.S. attitude toward the United Nations has improved dramatically in recent years, citing cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
They say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history. And they expect that whichever candidate prevails will be compelled by the United States' falling financial fortunes to work more cooperatively with foreign governments.
"We don't have voting rights," said Yukio Takasu, Japan's ambassador to the United Nations.
But, he added, "We expect whoever [wins] in Washington will have a fresh look at the U.N. and the utility of working through the U.N. And, of course, we have to adjust to them."
America's new French connection
Commentary: Sarkozy and Obama prepare combination to save the world -- at least for a while
By David Marsh, MarketWatch
Last update: 12:01 a.m. EDT Oct. 27, 2008
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Franco-American presidential combinations have frequently stirred the blood, but they produce a cocktail that has mostly been laced with venom.
Charles de Gaulle challenged John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson over gold; François Mitterrand tried to stand up to Ronald Reagan over Star Wars; Jacques Chirac defied George W. Bush on Iraq.
In the future, such acrimony could all be forgotten. If Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidency, expect an extraordinary love-in with French President Nicolas Sarkozy across a broad range of economic and monetary issues. Franco-American relations may never be the same again.
The ingredients are all in place. The French president swept to power in May 2007, burning with Americanophilia -- and with ill-concealed passion for hyper-active political management.
Sarkozy spent much of his first 15 months in office nursing grievances that the rest of the world was not taking much notice of his demands for high-level measures to improve the international economy.
Since the beginning of October, however, Sarkozy has burst into the headlines with a vengeance. Presiding over European affairs while France takes its six-month turn in the chair of the European Union, Sarkozy played a leading role in a series of high-profile measures to coordinate the continent's attempt to climb back from the economic abyss.
Provided he wins, Obama seems to be just the man to join a duet with Sarkozy that could complete the French president's transformation.
Problem: Freshly-elected American leader promises to change the world, but lacks any kind of foreign policy experience. Solution: Find a successful and energetic mentor with similar inspirational ideas.
What better candidate than the enfant terrible in the Elysée Palace? Six years Obama's senior, Sarkozy can dispense advice with the aura, by comparison with the Democrat leader, of an elder statesman. The alternative sources of wisdom for Obama -- the U.K.'s Gordon Brown and Germany's Angela Merkel -- look pale and tired by comparison, and both face difficult elections in the next two years.
The two men's similarities are striking.
Like Obama, Sarkozy has managed to build a brilliant political career that has overcome his "outsider" status as the son of an immigrant father. Like Obama, Sarkozy exudes missionary fervor. Like Obama, Sarkozy presides over ample reserves of innovative thinking. The potential list of issues on which both men would like to spend time could hardly be wider-ranging.
Reforming the International Monetary Fund? Expanding public spending on infrastructure? Improving coordination between the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank? Establishing new mechanisms for banking supervision? Safeguarding domestic companies against aggressive sovereign wealth funds? Whatever the questions, the Sarkozy & Obama combination can be relied upon to come up with the answers.
All these topics can be expected to make the agenda when Sarkozy attends the planned world economic summit to be convened by George W. Bush and his designated successor on Nov. 14 in Washington. A fine opportunity to put the world to rights.
With the right kind of American at his side, Sarkozy can escape the cares of recession, high unemployment and low competitiveness at home, and open up a new front for an improved transatlantic alliance in a troubled world.
The stuff of dreams -- and there's just a chance that the anticipated new bond between Paris and Washington will last longer than a honeymoon period.
By David Marsh, MarketWatch
Last update: 12:01 a.m. EDT Oct. 27, 2008
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Franco-American presidential combinations have frequently stirred the blood, but they produce a cocktail that has mostly been laced with venom.
Charles de Gaulle challenged John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson over gold; François Mitterrand tried to stand up to Ronald Reagan over Star Wars; Jacques Chirac defied George W. Bush on Iraq.
In the future, such acrimony could all be forgotten. If Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidency, expect an extraordinary love-in with French President Nicolas Sarkozy across a broad range of economic and monetary issues. Franco-American relations may never be the same again.
The ingredients are all in place. The French president swept to power in May 2007, burning with Americanophilia -- and with ill-concealed passion for hyper-active political management.
Sarkozy spent much of his first 15 months in office nursing grievances that the rest of the world was not taking much notice of his demands for high-level measures to improve the international economy.
Since the beginning of October, however, Sarkozy has burst into the headlines with a vengeance. Presiding over European affairs while France takes its six-month turn in the chair of the European Union, Sarkozy played a leading role in a series of high-profile measures to coordinate the continent's attempt to climb back from the economic abyss.
Provided he wins, Obama seems to be just the man to join a duet with Sarkozy that could complete the French president's transformation.
Problem: Freshly-elected American leader promises to change the world, but lacks any kind of foreign policy experience. Solution: Find a successful and energetic mentor with similar inspirational ideas.
What better candidate than the enfant terrible in the Elysée Palace? Six years Obama's senior, Sarkozy can dispense advice with the aura, by comparison with the Democrat leader, of an elder statesman. The alternative sources of wisdom for Obama -- the U.K.'s Gordon Brown and Germany's Angela Merkel -- look pale and tired by comparison, and both face difficult elections in the next two years.
The two men's similarities are striking.
Like Obama, Sarkozy has managed to build a brilliant political career that has overcome his "outsider" status as the son of an immigrant father. Like Obama, Sarkozy exudes missionary fervor. Like Obama, Sarkozy presides over ample reserves of innovative thinking. The potential list of issues on which both men would like to spend time could hardly be wider-ranging.
Reforming the International Monetary Fund? Expanding public spending on infrastructure? Improving coordination between the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank? Establishing new mechanisms for banking supervision? Safeguarding domestic companies against aggressive sovereign wealth funds? Whatever the questions, the Sarkozy & Obama combination can be relied upon to come up with the answers.
All these topics can be expected to make the agenda when Sarkozy attends the planned world economic summit to be convened by George W. Bush and his designated successor on Nov. 14 in Washington. A fine opportunity to put the world to rights.
With the right kind of American at his side, Sarkozy can escape the cares of recession, high unemployment and low competitiveness at home, and open up a new front for an improved transatlantic alliance in a troubled world.
The stuff of dreams -- and there's just a chance that the anticipated new bond between Paris and Washington will last longer than a honeymoon period.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The Standard of Living Bubble (And Why It’s About to Go Pop!)
Karen De Coster
Taki’s Magazine
October 26, 2008
Our representatives in Washington, alongside the easy-credit Federal Reserve and its Wise Leader, “Helicopter Ben,” have essentially subsidized a rash of misguided investments and profligate spending-sprees by consumers who’ve bought into the illusion of endless prosperity. Everyone knows about the Housing Bubble. Well, get ready for the even bigger Standard of Living Bubble, whose bursting is now upon us.
Because real wages have not been rising, the growth in consumer spending could only have been financed through borrowed money. Debt, which allows consumers to have cash on hand that hasn’t been earned or saved, has given Boobis Americanus the ability to live beyond his means, at least for a little while. And a great many have taken up this “pay later” lifestyle, accumulating a great many houses, cars, and other things.
A favored form of debt for funding extraneous purchases has been the home equity line. During the housing bubble, homes became virtual ATMs. Whereas home equity was once used for purposes of improving the home for the long-term, it became a source of quick cash for reckless buyers eager to turn their home into an instant showplace. First there’s the actual house, then comes the Martha Stewartization, followed by the furniture, the landscaping, the lighting, the additions, the appliances, and on and on.
The government’s mantra since the days of the New Deal has been the “right to own a home.” In the modern version of “the American Dream,” a starter home is treated as a humiliation, as everyone has the right to own a great, big home in an esteemed neighborhood, and preferably one of new construction and with all the bells and whistles. The term “being house poor” used to be a negative connotation. During the bubble it became a bragging right.
Even worse, home equity has been funding the purchase of everyday consumer durables, especially those items that tend to be discretionary in nature. Home equity has funded the kind of purchases that should be funded from earned, saved monies. A perpetually (and rising) line of credit induces consumers to “bite” at the availability of easy money at low rates, and thus they take the cash and spend their way to a perceived prosperity.
For the average person, “things” have become identical to wealth. They equate the accumulation of “stuff” with “being loaded.” Accordingly, everybody has been well-heeled in these bubble times. The availability of debt at bargain rates and the glory of immediate accumulation due to debt quickly erodes the values and common sense of people.
Some of the more pompous—and truly false—signs of prosperity can be seen within the automobile bubble. With the onset of the have-pulse-will-loan credit market, auto consumers have been bypassing common sense for a bloated sense of reality. Everyone deserves the biggest, the best, and the most custom vehicle they could dream up—and one’s income shouldn’t mater. People with mediocre wages purchased Escalades, Lexus SUVs, and other luxury-type vehicles, with many of these cars costing far more than the purchasers earned in a year. Additionally, the roads are now littered with brand new cars that have expensive aftermarket wheel sets, tires, boom-boom stereo systems, and gaudy-but-costly custom trim. In fact, stock, solid-transportation vehicles are no longer sufficient for the spoiled masses enjoying an overdrawn standard of living. Debt has funded the majority of these extravagant purchases, yet we call it “prosperity.”
Auto consumers have not been compelled to pay market rates for their cars because they lease perpetually at discounted rates or get ultra-incentives from automakers desperate to keep the assembly lines moving with the UAW gang breathing down their necks. Leases have been a financial disaster for the auto companies, but the wild impulses of buyers, fueled by below-market interest rates, propped up that racket long enough so that Lexus and Mercedes dealers were popping up in wholly middle-class neighborhoods. Both Chrysler and General Motors have discontinued or cut back their unworkable lease programs. Additionally, buyers have not been required to put substantial down payments on new vehicle purchases. Cars have come on the cheap, with pushed-down interest rates, no down payments, and terms extending the payment plan to six or seven years.
Accordingly, with the housing market imploding and the entire banking system resting on wilted stilts, Americans are left with a devalued dollar, escalating costs of living, a massive federal bailout of Wall Street’s derelict financial management, and the nationalization of some of the country’s largest banks. The standard-of-living squeeze has made its way to Main Street, slowing down the spend-o-rama of the middle class, as retail sales numbers are starting to hit the skids.
The bursting of this bubble and its unwinding could result in some unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. People—especially younger folks—who have been reared on the splendiferous way of life that debt offers, will be resistant to changes which will require lower time preferences (longer term views) and more careful planning in terms of shuffling around priorities. As Main Street endures a stifling credit crunch; inflation; increasing interest rates; scores of home foreclosures; cut-off of home equity lines; a job market squeeze; soaring federal, state, and local taxes; and the inability to manipulate low-interest credit cards to cover shoddy financial decisions, there will be restlessness amongst the masses, especially from those people who have never had to live within their bona fide financial means.
Some of this anxiety has been witnessed already, as lenders who are taking back homes in foreclosure have been dealt some vile vengeance from bitter homeowners who take to vandalizing their homes before they vacate the premises. This problem is said to be present in almost half of all foreclosure cases nationwide. The response from lenders has been to take the most economical path and actually pay the vacating ex-homeowner to refrain from leaving behind a trail of destruction as leaves his property.
The worst part of the contraction will clobber Main Street with a shortage of the consumer credit that became an addiction for so many individuals. The price we pay will be oodles of socialistic legislation aimed at containing the fallout in order to further sustain the fictitious prosperity a bit longer. Central planners act on the notion that the unhappy reality of hitting bottom can be delayed indefinitely. Thus the cycle of fiction will be lengthened, turning a headache into a migraine, and perhaps even worse.
The central planners in Washington, along with the Federal Reserve, planned and fueled an unsustainable standard of living across the country, from the neighborhoods of McMansions to the ghettos. The impending bust will affect us all, regardless of whether or not we partook in any of those easy-credit orgies sponsored by our leaders in Washington.
Taki’s Magazine
October 26, 2008
Our representatives in Washington, alongside the easy-credit Federal Reserve and its Wise Leader, “Helicopter Ben,” have essentially subsidized a rash of misguided investments and profligate spending-sprees by consumers who’ve bought into the illusion of endless prosperity. Everyone knows about the Housing Bubble. Well, get ready for the even bigger Standard of Living Bubble, whose bursting is now upon us.
Because real wages have not been rising, the growth in consumer spending could only have been financed through borrowed money. Debt, which allows consumers to have cash on hand that hasn’t been earned or saved, has given Boobis Americanus the ability to live beyond his means, at least for a little while. And a great many have taken up this “pay later” lifestyle, accumulating a great many houses, cars, and other things.
A favored form of debt for funding extraneous purchases has been the home equity line. During the housing bubble, homes became virtual ATMs. Whereas home equity was once used for purposes of improving the home for the long-term, it became a source of quick cash for reckless buyers eager to turn their home into an instant showplace. First there’s the actual house, then comes the Martha Stewartization, followed by the furniture, the landscaping, the lighting, the additions, the appliances, and on and on.
The government’s mantra since the days of the New Deal has been the “right to own a home.” In the modern version of “the American Dream,” a starter home is treated as a humiliation, as everyone has the right to own a great, big home in an esteemed neighborhood, and preferably one of new construction and with all the bells and whistles. The term “being house poor” used to be a negative connotation. During the bubble it became a bragging right.
Even worse, home equity has been funding the purchase of everyday consumer durables, especially those items that tend to be discretionary in nature. Home equity has funded the kind of purchases that should be funded from earned, saved monies. A perpetually (and rising) line of credit induces consumers to “bite” at the availability of easy money at low rates, and thus they take the cash and spend their way to a perceived prosperity.
For the average person, “things” have become identical to wealth. They equate the accumulation of “stuff” with “being loaded.” Accordingly, everybody has been well-heeled in these bubble times. The availability of debt at bargain rates and the glory of immediate accumulation due to debt quickly erodes the values and common sense of people.
Some of the more pompous—and truly false—signs of prosperity can be seen within the automobile bubble. With the onset of the have-pulse-will-loan credit market, auto consumers have been bypassing common sense for a bloated sense of reality. Everyone deserves the biggest, the best, and the most custom vehicle they could dream up—and one’s income shouldn’t mater. People with mediocre wages purchased Escalades, Lexus SUVs, and other luxury-type vehicles, with many of these cars costing far more than the purchasers earned in a year. Additionally, the roads are now littered with brand new cars that have expensive aftermarket wheel sets, tires, boom-boom stereo systems, and gaudy-but-costly custom trim. In fact, stock, solid-transportation vehicles are no longer sufficient for the spoiled masses enjoying an overdrawn standard of living. Debt has funded the majority of these extravagant purchases, yet we call it “prosperity.”
Auto consumers have not been compelled to pay market rates for their cars because they lease perpetually at discounted rates or get ultra-incentives from automakers desperate to keep the assembly lines moving with the UAW gang breathing down their necks. Leases have been a financial disaster for the auto companies, but the wild impulses of buyers, fueled by below-market interest rates, propped up that racket long enough so that Lexus and Mercedes dealers were popping up in wholly middle-class neighborhoods. Both Chrysler and General Motors have discontinued or cut back their unworkable lease programs. Additionally, buyers have not been required to put substantial down payments on new vehicle purchases. Cars have come on the cheap, with pushed-down interest rates, no down payments, and terms extending the payment plan to six or seven years.
Accordingly, with the housing market imploding and the entire banking system resting on wilted stilts, Americans are left with a devalued dollar, escalating costs of living, a massive federal bailout of Wall Street’s derelict financial management, and the nationalization of some of the country’s largest banks. The standard-of-living squeeze has made its way to Main Street, slowing down the spend-o-rama of the middle class, as retail sales numbers are starting to hit the skids.
The bursting of this bubble and its unwinding could result in some unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. People—especially younger folks—who have been reared on the splendiferous way of life that debt offers, will be resistant to changes which will require lower time preferences (longer term views) and more careful planning in terms of shuffling around priorities. As Main Street endures a stifling credit crunch; inflation; increasing interest rates; scores of home foreclosures; cut-off of home equity lines; a job market squeeze; soaring federal, state, and local taxes; and the inability to manipulate low-interest credit cards to cover shoddy financial decisions, there will be restlessness amongst the masses, especially from those people who have never had to live within their bona fide financial means.
Some of this anxiety has been witnessed already, as lenders who are taking back homes in foreclosure have been dealt some vile vengeance from bitter homeowners who take to vandalizing their homes before they vacate the premises. This problem is said to be present in almost half of all foreclosure cases nationwide. The response from lenders has been to take the most economical path and actually pay the vacating ex-homeowner to refrain from leaving behind a trail of destruction as leaves his property.
The worst part of the contraction will clobber Main Street with a shortage of the consumer credit that became an addiction for so many individuals. The price we pay will be oodles of socialistic legislation aimed at containing the fallout in order to further sustain the fictitious prosperity a bit longer. Central planners act on the notion that the unhappy reality of hitting bottom can be delayed indefinitely. Thus the cycle of fiction will be lengthened, turning a headache into a migraine, and perhaps even worse.
The central planners in Washington, along with the Federal Reserve, planned and fueled an unsustainable standard of living across the country, from the neighborhoods of McMansions to the ghettos. The impending bust will affect us all, regardless of whether or not we partook in any of those easy-credit orgies sponsored by our leaders in Washington.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit
Rules voters don't have standing to 'police' constitutional requirements for president
Posted: October 25, 2008
3:14 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Philip J. Berg
A lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg alleging that Sen. Barack Obama is ineligible to be president was dismissed by a federal judge yesterday on grounds that Berg lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.
In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."
Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office.
"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America's Right blog. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States – the most powerful man in the entire world – is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Berg demanded that Obama provide documentation to the court to verify that the candidate was born in Hawaii, as Obama contends, and not in Kenya, as Berg believes.
Surrick did not rule on the birth certificate controversy, though he did express skepticism over the notion that a foreign-born Obama would have escaped the primaries without being discovered.
"Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted," Surrick states, "and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."
Instead, Surrick cites Aritcle III of the U.S. Constitution, limiting federal judicial power to handling cases and controversies in which plaintiffs have clear standing through specific, personal injury.
Berg, the judge ruled, simply didn't have a case for a particular injury and thus, had no standing to sue.
Surrick's ruling cites a case deemed similar, Hollander v. McCain, in which it was alleged during the primary season that since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, John McCain is not a natural-born citizen either. The judge in the Hollander case also ruled a voter cannot sue to prevent an allegedly unconstitutional candidate.
Based in part on Hollander, Surrick concludes, "The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury."
Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which held, "The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy."
Berg told America's Right that even if he technically can't hold Obama accountable to the Constitution, someone should. He plans to appeal his case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
Posted: October 25, 2008
3:14 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Philip J. Berg
A lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg alleging that Sen. Barack Obama is ineligible to be president was dismissed by a federal judge yesterday on grounds that Berg lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.
In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."
Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office.
"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America's Right blog. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States – the most powerful man in the entire world – is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Berg demanded that Obama provide documentation to the court to verify that the candidate was born in Hawaii, as Obama contends, and not in Kenya, as Berg believes.
Surrick did not rule on the birth certificate controversy, though he did express skepticism over the notion that a foreign-born Obama would have escaped the primaries without being discovered.
"Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted," Surrick states, "and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."
Instead, Surrick cites Aritcle III of the U.S. Constitution, limiting federal judicial power to handling cases and controversies in which plaintiffs have clear standing through specific, personal injury.
Berg, the judge ruled, simply didn't have a case for a particular injury and thus, had no standing to sue.
Surrick's ruling cites a case deemed similar, Hollander v. McCain, in which it was alleged during the primary season that since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, John McCain is not a natural-born citizen either. The judge in the Hollander case also ruled a voter cannot sue to prevent an allegedly unconstitutional candidate.
Based in part on Hollander, Surrick concludes, "The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury."
Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which held, "The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy."
Berg told America's Right that even if he technically can't hold Obama accountable to the Constitution, someone should. He plans to appeal his case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To my Blog!
Posts
All Comments
