RACE CARD? JESSE JACKSON, BLACK CANDIDATES SAYS BILL CLINTON SHOULDN’T CAMPAIGN FOR RAHM

========================

RACE CARD? JESSE JACKSON, BLACK CANDIDATES SAYS BILL CLINTON SHOULDN’T CAMPAIGN FOR RAHM

December 30, 2010

By  Meredith Jessup

Earlier this week, Congressman Danny Davis issued a warning to former President Bill Clinton: steer clear of Chicago.

According to Davis, Clinton — America’s supposed “first black president” — is in danger of hurting his own reputation among Chicago’s African America community. The Chicago Tribune reported:

Davis, a veteran West Side congressman, said he is “seriously concerned and disturbed” by information Emanuel’s campaign released a few days ago that Clinton will travel to Chicago next month to support his former aide. Emanuel worked in the Clinton White House before serving as a North Side congressman and chief of staff to President Barack Obama.

“The African-American community has enjoyed a long and fruitful relationship with the Clintons, however it appears as though some of that relationship maybe fractured and perhaps even broken should former President Clinton come to town and participate overtly in efforts to thwart the legitimate political aspirations of Chicago’s black community,” Davis said in a statement. “We respectfully request and urge former President Clinton not to become involved in the Chicago mayoral election.”

Davis denies his statements are playing the race card and says anyone who think so is reading to much into his comments. “You don’t threaten friends,” Davis said of Clinton. “But it’s a friendship relationship. It’s an affinity relationship. It’s not a race relationship. … We both grew up in Arkansas. We have a homeboy relationship. It doesn’t have racial connotations.”

Davis said his call for Clinton to butt out is partly strategic — Davis feels Clinton will help Emanuel win votes.

“I’m saying, ‘Don’t come in and campaign against me. Don’t do that.’ Sure Rahm worked for him, but a lot of us worked with him and for him,” Davis said. “Why not stay out of this one? Or go down to Arkansas where the weather in nice.”

But Davis and Carol Moseley Braun — the two most prominent black candidates in the Chicago mayoral race — met Thursday to discuss the state of their campaigns against the presumed front-runner, Rahm Emanuel — Clinton’s favored candidate.  Also at the meeting was Rev. Jesse Jackson who told WGN-TV that there must be only one black candidate in the race and called on Clinton to abandon plans to campaign for Emanuel.

Jackson says African-Americans and Hispanics were among Clinton’s biggest supporters; and he says, rather than offend his most loyal friends, Clinton should call off his campaign trip.

“[H]ere are our friends and political allies, …family members. [Clinton] chose, it seems, Rahm over Danny and Carol and del Valle and Chico. He chose Emanuel over the two most loyal communities to him from Arkansas to Washington. It’s a bit disappointing, but that, too, will pass.”

Meanwhile, Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun Times says the candidates are wasting their time with worry over Clinton’s support for Emanuel:

From the start, black mayoral candidates have spent too much time worrying about Emanuel’s business instead of taking care of their own.

This latest faux pas by Rep. Danny Davis illustrates my point.

Davis shouldn’t be the least bit stressed that former President Bill Clinton is planning to appear in Chicago to support Emanuel, who was a fund-raiser and top White House adviser during the Clinton White House years.

But instead of down-playing Clinton’s influence among African-American voters in Chicago, Davis exploded with a warning that can be interpreted as “playing the race card.” …

More including video at: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/race-card-jesse-jackson-black-candidates-says-bill-clinton-shouldnt-campaign-for-rahm/

===========================

Is it a “race card” or IS IT the Progressive uber left that do not want Bill Clinton there because he is viewed as a Centrist/pragmatist?

WHY not an uproar about Rahm when he was connected to Obama as his Chief of Staff?

Another question could be:  Does Obama need Rahm as mayor when he returns to Chicago after his presidency?  If so; WHY?

===========================

Rep. Danny Davis:

Danny K. Davis is an openly socialist Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing the 7th district of Illinois.

[...]

In the late 1970s Communist Party USA member Harold Rogers served on a “Citizen’s Committee” supporting Timuel Black‘s unsuccessful campaign for State Representative in the 22nd District.

The “Citizen’s Committee” included “former” communist Charles Hayes, radical journalist Don Rose, socialist Chicago Alderman Leon Despres, future Democratic Socialists of America members Saul Mendelson (a former Trotskyite), Danny Davis and Milt Cohen (another former communist).

[...]

Communist Party connections

Danny Davis was also on good terms with the Communist Party USA. In Chicago, the Communist Party has for many years held an annual a fund raising banquet for its paper, the Peoples Weekly World (formerly the Peoples Daily World).

According to the Peoples Daily World of July 28 1990, Chicago alderman Danny K Davis attended the 1990 banquet on July 15th.

Davis applauded those at the banquet, who, he said, are always in the midst of struggle. PDW readers, he said, are “steadfast in the fight for justice”.

The affair netted $2,500 for the PDW fund.

According to the Peoples Weekly World October 3 1998, Congressman Danny K. Davis interrupted his campaign work for United States Senate candidate Carol Moseley Braun to present an award at the 1998 Chicago Peoples Weekly World banquet.

This event raised $10,000 towards keeping the Communist Party paper afloat.

[...]

Progressive Chicago

In late 1993 Progressive Chicago letters were always signed by 17 people;[7]

Congressional Progressive Caucus

In 1998 Danny Davis Democrat was listed as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus[8].

As of February 20 2009 Danny Davis was listed as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus[9].

[...]

Democratic Socialists of America

Danny Davis is one of the few Democratic Party Congressmen open about his membership of Democratic Socialists of America.

In 1990 Chicago DSA endorsed Danny Davis for the Chicago mayoralty.[12]

According to a December 29 1998 email from DSA membership officer Solveig Wilder;[13]

Ron Dellums (who recently retired from Congress) is a Vice Chair of DSA, and Danny Davis, John Conyers, and Major Owens are all DSA Members.”

When Danny Davis ran for Congress in 1998, Democratic Socialists of America did not officially endorse any candidates but he was “recommended” as worthy of a vote by Chicago DSA-citing his membership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and his support for Progressive Challenge.

Danny Davis, U.S. House of Representatives, 7th District
Danny Davis is a member of the Progressive Caucus, an old friend of DSA and a member of the New Party. If that’s not enough, you can…[14]

Davis was still a DSA member at least as late as his 2006 Congressional race according to DSA’s Democratic Left Summer 2006.

DSA has also endorsed DSAer and Congressmember Danny Davis in his bid for re-election in Chicago.[15]

In 2006 Danny K. Davis, received $50 from the Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee for his campaign as Democrats candidate for the the Illinois seat in the U.S. Congress Primary.[16]

MORE at:  http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Danny_Davis


***includes footnotes and citations**

===================

Carol Moseley Braun

Supporting John Lumpkin

In 1978, Braun was a leading member on the Committee to Elect Dr. John R. Lumpkin for the 7th Ward Alderman, Chicago.[2] John Lumpkin was the son of prominent Chicago Communist Party USA leaders Frank Lumpkin and Bea Lumpkin.

U.S. Peace Council sponsor

In 1979 Carol Moseley Braun, while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, was listed as a founding sponsor of the Communist Party USA front, the U.S. Peace Council.[4]

In May 17th 1987 Moseley Braun helped sponsor, with Communist Party leaders Angela Davis and Herbert Aptheker, a benefit for elderly Chicago Party leaders Claude Lightfoot and Jack Kling.

On September 7, 1991, more than 300 people gathered at the St James methodist Church on Chicago’s South side to remember the life of Communist Party USA national committee member, Claude Lightfoot. Speaker Carol Moseley Braun told of “having been enriched by a dinner converstion with her late father and Lightfoot, which gave her a deeper insight into the struggles of the unemployed in the 1930s.”[8].

Party support

While serving as recorder of deeds Moseley-Braun decided to run for United States Senate in the 1992 election on the Democratic Party ticket.

Like her mentor, Harold Washington, Moseley-Braun was supported by the Communist Party USA.

Communist Party USA official Tim Wheeler wrote in Peoples Weekly World on Chicago Party chairman and Save Our Jobs (SOJ)committee leader, Frank Lumpkin and his role in the elections of Harold Washington, Charles Hayes and Carol Moseley Braun[9];

Lumpkin also led SOJ into independent political action. They played an important role in the election of Harold Washington as mayor of Chicago, a historic victory over the most entrenched, reactionary political machine in the U.S. Bea (Lumpkin’s wife) writes that “At that time, Washington and Lumpkin had a special relationship … Washington seemed to draw strength from Lumpkin’s participation. At meetings rallies, street encounters, whatever, Washington would call Frank over and say, ‘When I see you, I know things are in good hands.
SOJ was also an important factor in the election of Charles Hayes, African-American leader of the Meatcutters union, to take the Congressional seat vacated by Washington, and the election of Carol Moseley Braun, the first Black woman to serve in the U.S. Senate.


[....]

Socialist support

Chicago was also home to an alliance of remnants of the Socialist Party USA and former Trotskyite and communist activists. This group held an annual dinner, to mark the the birthday of legendary U.S. socialists Norman Thomas and Eugene Debs.

Democratic Illinois State legislator Robert Mann was closely associated[12]with this group.

When Mann stood down in 1978, the socialists looked around[13]for a successor.

When former Rep. Robert Mann, one of the House’s most staunch veteran liberals, announced his retirement from the House, Braun was asked to consider running for his seat.

Carol Braun was then elected to the Illinois State Legislature, with socialist support.

[...]

Saul Mendelson’s funeral

The Memorial Service for Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member Saul Mendelson was held on Sunday, March 29, 1998, at the First Unitarian Church, Chicago[18].

The service was MC’d by a retired colleague, Bob Clark. Carl Shier of DSA, spoke first and was followed by Saul’s friend Deborah Meier, “a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient who is now starting a new school in Boston”. Amy Isaacs, National Director of the Americans for Democratic Action, spoke of what “Saul had meant on foreign affairs to the ADA”.

Other speakers included Communist Party USA aligned Senator Carol Moseley Braun, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, State Senator Barack Obama, Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie and “a good friend from New York”, Myra Russell.

The concluding remarks were made by an old friend, Harriet Lefley, a former Trotskyist with Saul Mendelson in the 1940s, who was then Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami Medical School.

Eulogies also came from Quinn Brisben, (Socialist Party USA presidential candidate 1976, 1992) and David McReynolds (Socialist Party USA presidential candidate 1980, 2000).

Both Brisben and McReynolds are also members of Democratic Socialists of America.

More at:  http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Carol_Moseley_Braun

***Includes footnotes/citations****

======================

Jesse Jackson, Sr.


RainbowPush Coalition

Reverend Jackson founded Operation PUSH (People United to Serve Humanity) in Chicago, IL. He also founded the National Rainbow Coalition. He merged the two in September 1996, creating the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

Panther roots

Former Black Panther Party leader Eldridge Cleaver, who broke with the Panthers and became an active anti-communist after experiences in Cuba and pro-communist countries in North Africa and Eastern Europe, said that the Rainbow Coalition has roots in the Black Panther movement. He said it uses simply “warmed over” 1960s Panther rhetoric, even including its name. Old Panther newspapers, he pointed out, refer to a “rainbow coalition” of blacks, whites and Puerto Ricans.[13]

Communist Party support

The Communist Party USA‘s Daily World said on April 13, 1984 during the Presidential primaries:

The answer to Reagan and Bush is to redouble efforts to build and strengthen the all peoples’ front, a vital part of which is the campaign being waged on the issues by Jesse Jackson.

Communist Party vice presidential candidate Angela Davis added:

The Jesse Jackson campaign is going to force the Democratic Party to speak on issues that they ordinarily would not address.

Gus Hall, when asked who the Communist Party would support for President in the 1988 election, said:

As a political party we do not endorse candidates of other political parties. Communists as individuals work in the election campaign, even in the campaigns of other candidates, not only Communist candidates.
I think our members will work for the candidates they think have the most progressive, most advanced positions. At this stage most members of the Party will be working for Jesse Jackson on the basis that he does have an advanced position. But we do not endorse any candidate, including Jackson.[14]

Workers World support

A strong supporter of the Rainbow Coalition was the Workers World Party, an extreme Communist group that has had links with the violent Weather Underground. The WWP backed Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition in 1984 through one of its fronts, the All Peoples’ Congress.[15]

Adviser Ron Dellums

During the 1988 Presidential Election campaign, far left Congressman Ron Dellums became a prominent adviser on Defense to Jesse Jackson.[16]

Campaign for America’s Future

In 1996 Jesse Jackson, was one of the original 130 founders of Campaign for America’s Future.[17]

Borosage on Board

Institute for Policy Studies leader Robert Borosage has served as an issues adviser to several progressive political campaigns, including those of Senators Carol Moseley BraunBarbara Boxer and Paul Wellstone. In 1988, he was Senior Issues Advisor to the presidential campaign of Reverend Jesse Jackson.[18]

Congressional Progressive Caucus

In 1997 Chicago DSA member Bruce Bentley wrote;

There is a class struggle in process in the Congress with the Progressive Caucus around such issues as the Welfare Bill, NAFTA and Single Payer Health Care.

As a result of this DSA’s Political Director Christine Riddiough organized a meeting with the Congressional Progressive Caucus with the purpose and cogent task as to: “How can we unite our forces on a common agenda?Those in attendance included Richard Trumka, Noam Chomsky, Patricia Ireland, William Greider and Jesse Jackson.[19]


He is the author of two books: Keep Hope Alive (South End Press, 1989), and Straight From the Heart (Fortress Press, 1987). In 1996, he co-authored the books Legal Lynching: Racism, Injustice, and the Death Penalty (Marlowe & Company, 1996) and It’s About The Money (Random House, 1999) with his son, U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.


More athttp://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Jesse_Jackson%2C_Sr.

***Includes footnotes/citations****

========================

Are the Progressive/Socialists/Marxists/Communists worried that they will lose their hold on Chicago?

========================

We are not racist.

We are not violent.

We are just no longer silent.



Paul Ryan Given the Power to Bind and Loose; Mostly Bind

======================

Yes, Virginia….there are miracles.

Obama just bought a bottle of antacids.

========================

Paul Ryan given power to bind and to loose.

December 31, 2010

Posted by Moe Lane

And here’s one coming up, now: the incoming House majority will be establishing a rule that will give the House Budget chair the ability to set the spending ceiling for any 2011 budget.  This rule is currently causing House Democrats to freak out like koalas deprived of their eucalyptus leaves/junkies deprived of their heroin/hipsters deprived of their iPhones, for two reasons:

  • The Democrats never passed a budget in 2010, so this is going to affect spending for this fiscal year.  A lot.
  • Who is going to be the House Budget chair?  Why, Rep. Paul “Embrace the sweet pain that comes from cutting entitlements” Ryan.

And when I say “freak out,” I mean freak out: the Democrats are so upset about this that they’ve lost all control of their higher brain functions and have reverted to babbling about Social Security privatization.  And unilateralism!  We haven’t heard that one in a while.

More seriously, this is a good call: Rep. Ryan has a name for being a hardcore fiscal conservative who takes this sort of thing very seriously, and the country needs somebody with the moral strength to say “No” to people trying to raid an empty till.  That the House leadership is also giving Ryan the toolset that he’ll need for this is likewise welcome news…

LINK

==========================

Rep. Paul Ryan  +  Rep. Darrell Issa = Real HOPE and CHANGE


HOW MUCH DID OBAMA’S FAMILY VACATION COST TAXPAYERS?

=======================

LINK

**This post is written by and all credit to Jonathon M. Seidl***

December 30, 2010

By Jonathon M. Seidl

Over $1.4 million. That’s the generous estimate of how much the Obama family vacation cost taxpayers this Christmas. $1,474,200 to be exact.

The Hawaii Reporter compiled an estimated account of expenses for the Obama trip and found that, before factoring in unknown costs, taxpayers forked over almost $1.5 million. Here’s how the paper broke it down:

  • Mrs. Obama’s early flight to Hawaii: $63,000 (White House Dossier)
  • Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii: $1 million (GAO estimates)
  • Housing in beachfront homes for Secret Service and Seals in Kailua ($1,200 a day for 14 days): $16,800
  • Costs for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel: $134,400 ($400 per day for 24 staff) – excluding meals and other room costs
  • Police overtime: $250,000 (2009 costs reported by Honolulu Police Department)
  • Ambulance: $10,000 (City Spokesperson)
  • TOTAL COST: $1,474,200

Then there are the unknown costs:

  • Rental of office building in Kailua on canal
  • Security upgrades and additional phone lines
  • Costs for car rentals and fuel for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel (Secret Service imports most of the cars used here to escort the president)
  • Surveillance before the president arrives
  • Travel costs for Secret Service and White House staff traveling ahead of the President

Yes, the president deserves a vacation. But the paper suggests that the Obamas could have used housing on miliatry bases to save on costs such as security and housing for support personnel:

They could have chosen a less expensive and more secure place to stay such as a beachfront home on the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station – just a two-minute drive away from the Kailuana Place property where they are now. The president visits the military base daily to workout, bowl with his kids or enjoy the more private beach there. He also could have stayed at a home 15 minutes away on the beach fronting Bellows Air Force Base as President Bill Clinton did. [Emphasis added]

But he didn’t. Instead, the president and his friends pooled their money for the “Winter White House.”

“The 7,000 square foot home,” the paper says, “features 5 bedrooms, 5 ½ bathrooms, a media room with surround sound, a kitchen suited for a master chef, a dining room and great room, a secluded lagoon-style pool with tropical waterfalls and a lavish island spa. The ocean lanai and garden lanai showcase ornate landscaping and stunning views of Kailua Bay and Mount Olomana.”

While taxpayers didn’t pay directly for the actual house, they did end up paying for the decision.

Mele Kalikimaka, Mr. President.

Read the entire investigation from the Hawaii Reporter.

(H/T: Washington Examiner)

=========================

 

The Obamas plan one more day in Hawaii

December 31, 2010

Why not squeeze in just one more day of golf and tropical fun before returning to the J-O-B? The New York Times reports that the future former president, his family and extensive security detail will be extending their taxpayer funded vacation one additional day.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/the_obamas_plan_one_more_day_i.html

Cha$$$$Ching$$$ TAXPAYERS JUST GOT STUCK WITH PAYING FOR ANOTHER DAY…….

Slow Snow Cleanup by Sanitation Department was a Union Budget Protest

==============================

By SALLY GOLDENBERG, LARRY CELONA and JOSH MARGOLIN

Last Updated: 12:37 PM, December 30, 2010

Posted: 2:34 AM, December 30, 2010

From the New York Post:

These garbage men really stink.

Selfish Sanitation Department bosses from the snow-slammed outer boroughs ordered their drivers to snarl the blizzard cleanup to protest budget cuts — a disastrous move that turned streets into a minefield for emergency-services vehicles, The Post has learned.

Miles of roads stretching from as north as Whitestone, Queens, to the south shore of Staten Island still remained treacherously unplowed last night because of the shameless job action, several sources and a city lawmaker said, which was over a raft of demotions, attrition and budget cuts.

“They sent a message to the rest of the city that these particular labor issues are more important,” said City Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Queens), who was visited yesterday by a group of guilt-ridden sanitation workers who confessed the shameless plot.

Halloran said he met with three plow workers from the Sanitation Department — and two Department of Transportation supervisors who were on loan — at his office after he was flooded with irate calls from constituents.

PHOTOS FROM THE STORM

STORIES FROM THE BLIZZARD

TAKING A PLOWER NAP

NO SENSE OF MTA URGENCY

VIDEO: BLOOMBERG: WE DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB

The snitches “didn’t want to be identified because they were afraid of retaliation,” Halloran said. “They were told [by supervisors] to take off routes [and] not do the plowing of some of the major arteries in a timely manner. They were told to make the mayor pay for the layoffs, the reductions in rank for the supervisors, shrinking the rolls of the rank-and-file.”

New York’s Strongest used a variety of tactics to drag out the plowing process — and pad overtime checks — which included keeping plows slightly higher than the roadways and skipping over streets along their routes, the sources said.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sanit_filthy_snow_slow_mo_qH57MZwC53QKOJlekSSDJK#ixzz19cRMCvw4

==============================

Charge NYC Union Leaders with Negligent Homicide

by Kyle Olson

December 30, 2010

Well, it turns out that the slow snow removal process in New York City was the act of childish adults protesting budget cuts.

According to the New York Post:

“[Unionized city workers] sent a message to the rest of the city that these particular labor issues are more important,” said City Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Queens), who was visited yesterday by a group of guilt-ridden sanitation workers who confessed the shameless plot.

On Wednesday, MYFOXNY.com reported that two people died, including a new born baby, because emergency crews couldn’t navigate the unplowed streets.

Plain and simple: the union leaders who called for the job action should be charged with negligent homicide.  Let them prove that their actions did not result in the unfortunate deaths of these New Yorkers.

For too long, Big Labor has been allowed to hold taxpayers hostage in order to get their way at the bargaining table.  And this time, their utter selfishness may have contributed to the deaths of two innocent people.

Read more at: http://biggovernment.com/kolson/2010/12/30/charge-nyc-union-leaders-with-negligent-homicide

==========================

We are not racists.

We are not violent.

We are just no longer silent.

==========================

Obama’s Muslim Adviser Says Sharia Law Misunderstood

——————————–

December 30, 2010

President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice.”

READ THE FULL STORY AT TELEGRAPH.CO.UK


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/12/30/obamas-muslim-adviser-says-sharia-law-misunderstood#ixzz19cGtXVOF

=========================

Related video: Robert Spencer asks, “Why is the left silent about “honor killings?”

****************************

An outbreak of honor killings in America

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 3, 2009 05:02 AM

Grand Rants notes that Noor Faleh Almaleki, who was mowed down in Arizona by her Muslim father because she was acting too “Westernized,” has died of her injuries.

Phyllis Chesler wants to know: Where are all the Muslim apologists are now?

Nope. No stampede to get in front of the cameras and condemn the bloody ravages of sharia law.

LInk

***********************

U.S. Muslim Beheads Wife. Sharia Law and Honor Killings in America, What’s Next!

**************************

Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex

Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

Read more at: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html

=============================

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice.”

GENDER JUSTICE?

Is Miss Mogahed serious?

NO SHARIA LAW in the United States!

=========================

We are not racists.

We are not violent.

We are just no longer silent.

=======================


China Prepares for Armed Conflict “In Every Direction”; Build Carrier-killer Missiles and Cut Rare Earth Exports

=========================

China Prepares for Armed Conflict “In Every Direction”

December 30, 2010

From The Telegraph 

China is preparing for conflict ‘in every direction’, the defence minister said on Wednesday in remarks that threaten to overshadow a visit to Beijing by his US counterpart next month.

“In the coming five years, our military will push forward preparations for military conflict in every strategic direction,” said Liang Guanglie in an interview published by several state-backed newspapers in China. “We may be living in peaceful times, but we can never forget war, never send the horses south or put the bayonets and guns away,” Mr Liang added.

China repeatedly says it is planning a “peaceful rise” but the recent pace and scale of its military modernisation has alarmed many of its neighbours in the Asia-Pacific, including Japan which described China’s military build-up as a “global concern” this month…

China also announced this month that it was preparing to launch its own aircraft carrier next year in a signal that China is determined to punch its weight as a rising superpower. The news came a year earlier than many US defence analysts had predicted.

What does Beijing know that Washington doesn’t?

H/T Trevor Loudon at http://www.newzeal.blogspot.com

=======================

ADD THIS:

China Has Carrier-killer Missile

From the Washington Times 

China’s military is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers, a weapon that specialists say gives Beijing new power-projection capabilities that will affect U.S. support for its Pacific allies.

Adm. Robert F. Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, disclosed to a Japanese newspaper on Sunday that the new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is now in the early stages of deployment after having undergone extensive testing.

“An analogy using a Western term would be ‘initial operational capability (IOC),’ whereby I think China would perceive that it has an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it,” Adm. Willard told the Asahi Shimbun. “I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC.”

The four-star admiral, who has been an outspoken skeptic of China’s claims that its large-scale military buildup is peaceful, said the U.S. deployment assessment is based on China’s press reports and continued testing.

Yep, now is the right time to reduce U.S. missile defenses.

=========================

Everything is “Made in China”; consumed by world populations.

NOW building military might in Red China.

THEN ADD THIS!

China will cut rare earths export quotas

December 29, 2010

From the BBC News

China has said it will cut exports of rare earth minerals by 10% in 2011.

World manufacturers are heavily reliant on China for these minerals, which are essential for making many electronic goods, such as TVs and PC monitors.

China has 97% of the world’s known supply of the goods. The US mined none last year.

Rare earth minerals have been a thorny trade topic for some time, and China has previously promised not to cut supplies drastically.

Rare earths are a collection of seventeen chemical elements in the periodic table: scandium, yttrium, and some fifteen lanthanides.

Shares in two Australian companies, which are planning to mine rare earths, jumped more than 10% on the news.

Australia’s Lynas Corp , which owns the richest known deposit of rare earth outside China, rose 10.8% while its rival Arafura rose 11.1%.

The US last week said it was “very concerned about China’s export restraints on rare earth materials, antimony and tungsten” and could still file a case on that at the World Trade Organisation.

In September, China blocked exports of rare earths to Japan after a territorial row but later resumed them.

The US does have some rare earth supplies and is hoping to start production.

Continue reading the main story

What are rare earths?

  • Despite their name, rare earths are not particularly rare
  • The term refers to 17 elements, most of which are fairly abundant in nature
  • Rare earths are a collection of seventeen chemical elements in the periodic table: scandium, yttrium, and some fifteen lanthanides
  • Some are as common as copper or zinc, while even the rarest occur in greater quantities than gold or platinum
  • They are essential in the manufacture of many electronic goods

===========================

Do YOU think ANY of this will be discussed when China’s President Hu Jintao comes to the U.S. for an official visit on January 19, 2011?

Is China a FRIEND or FOE?

==========================

We are not racist.

We are not violent.

We are just no longer silent.


Americans dodge Unions, but Feds Insist on them Anyway

=====================

By: Diana Furchtgott-Roth

12/23/10

Americans are leaving states with heavy union influence and choosing to live in “right-to-work” states with higher job growth where they cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. With the 2010 census, nine congressional seats will move to right-to-work states from forced unionization states.

And Americans elected a substantial majority of Republicans to the House of Representatives in the 112th Congress. People will be safe in 2011-12 from the Employee Free Choice Act, a union-supported bill that would take away workers’ rights to a secret ballot in union elections and impose mandatory contracts between newly unionized firms and workers.

But the Obama-controlled National Labor Relations Board isn’t listening. It wants to do everything in its power to tilt the playing field toward unionization, even if it means lost jobs. [Emphasis added]

Congress established the National Labor Relations Board in 1935 to administer the National Labor Relations Act, the law that gives workers the right to organize and that governs relations among unions, employees and employers. The board has jurisdiction over all private-sector workers except those employed in railroads, airlines or agriculture.

Over the past 25 years job growth in right-to-work states has been over twice as high as in unionized states, 51 percent compared with 21 percent. Between 2000 and 2010 employment has grown by 2 percent in right-to-work states and declined by 4 percent in unionized states.

Private-sector union membership peaked in the 1950s at 36 percent of the work force. Now, only 12 percent of all American workers and 7 percent of private-sector workers belong to unions.

The union agenda includes higher minimum wages, higher taxes and extending mandated benefits, such as paid leave, to even the smallest employers. [Emphasis added]

Such policies would drive some companies out of business and encourage others to move offshore, reducing the numbers of jobs in America, opportunities for entry into the work force, and upward mobility.

Despite a national unemployment rate of 9.8 percent and Americans’ unequivocal preferences for jobs, the board is taking matters into its own hands to expand union power.

On Wednesday the board issued a proposed rule to require employers to display posters to notify workers of their rights to join a union, with comments due in 60 days.

Charles Cohen, a Board memberfrom 1994 to 1996 and now a partner at Morgan Lewis, told me, “The new poster is yet another unnecessary government mandate on employers whose workplaces have never raised any issues implicating the National Labor Relations Act.”

He continued, “The requirement sweeps in millions of employers whose workplaces are not relevant to unionization. All these posters have to be placed on bulletin boards somewhere and supervised by human resources personnel.”

Requiring these posters is yet another message to employers that the administration regards them with hostility. China, India and other competitors do not require these posters and welcome American businesses.

That’s not all. On Monday the board came out with a new set of extraordinary remedies to punish employers found to have violated the law with regard to union organizing drives, with no history of prior violations needed.

The board wants to require management to read aloud to the work force the workers’ rights to join a union. It wants unions to have access to firms’ bulletin boards and newsletters so they can publish materials advertising the advantages of joining a union.

This means that firms would have to post advocacy articles by unions in their publications, potentially violating freedom of speech.

Under the new rules, employers would have to give unions lists of workers’ names and home addresses, facilitating intimidation and identity theft. [Emphasis added]


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/diana-furchtgott-roth-americans-dodge-unions-feds-insist-them-anyway#ixzz19VTI3I4P

============================

Re: The union agenda includes higher minimum wages

State Minimum Wage Increases Could Boost Stalled Federal Push

Movement at the state level to boost the minimum wage next year could give President Obama some much-needed juice in his stalled push to raise the federal minimum and peg it once and for all to inflation.

Seven states are set to raise their minimum wage on Jan. 1 in a move estimated to benefit hundreds of thousands of workers. Despite concerns that government-mandated wages will make skittish employers even more reluctant to hire workers, supporters say the changes are not drastic enough to dent the size of the payroll, and if anything it will help the economy by putting more money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it.

Employee advocates remain hopeful on Obama’s pledge to raise the federal rate by more than $2 to $9.50 an hour, though the president let that slide along with dozens of other campaign goals while he invested political capital in health care, financial regulation and stimulus over the past two years. With states pushing ahead of the federal curve on the minimum wage, it could give the president some leverage to hit the talking point next year.

“There’s a growing recognition that strengthening (the minimum wage) is a key part of economic recovery,” said Paul Sonn, legal co-director at the National Employment Law Project. He acknowledged the difficulty a Republican-led House could pose to a sudden minimum wage campaign but noted the precedent — former President Bill Clinton in 1996 secured a federal wage increase despite the GOP takeover in Congress two years earlier.

“It’s quite likely the president will go that direction,” Sonn predicted, urging Obama to make the “macro-economic” case for a wage lift.

The seven states set for minimum wage increases next week are Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Most of the changes were the result of ballot initiatives. According to Sonn’s group, 17 states and the District of Columbia will soon have wages above the federal level.

The increases of between 9 and 12 cents an hour will boost wages that were either at or above the federal minimum to begin with. In every state except Oregon, the unemployment rate is at or below the 9.8 percent national average.

Sonn said that fact should help assuage concerns that a minimum wage hike would kill jobs. His organization also cited recent reports, including one last month in The Review of Economics and Statistics, that found modest wage increases do not hurt employment.

But Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said mandatory wage increases squeeze the economy on two levels. He argued that they slow hiring and, when done at the state level, hurt investment by making other states with lower minimum wages more appealing to prospective businesses.

“The existence of the minimum wage is already inhibitive. Increasing it would just add insult to injury,” he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/28/state-minimum-wage-increases-boost-stalled-federal-push/#ixzz19VWOqQk9

============================

============================

HAD ENOUGH….YET…..AMERICA?

We are not racist.

We are not violent.

We are just no longer silent.

===========================


The Four Questions Every Liberal Must Be Asked

=====================

From Americanthinker.com

By Tony Kondaks

December 29. 2010


Ever notice how liberals like to spend money…particularly other people’s money?

If you’ve ever found yourself engaged in debate with a liberal in an attempt to convince him that government spending is out of control you know it’s often an exercise in frustration. This is especially true when your liberal invokes his holier-than-thou conviction that the supposed good he is intent on imposing upon the world – both domestically and internationally – must trump any financial considerations you may introduce into the debate.

Well, fret no more. Here’s a surefire formula to stop any liberal dead in his tracks: a series of 4 questions that every liberal must be asked. It involves a few mathematical exercises, the effects of which are guaranteed to negate whatever Keynesian psycho-babble regular reading of Paul Krugman’s New York Times column may have infected a liberal’s neuronal functioning. I have found this bottom-line number crunching to be the best form of deprogramming for whatever Kool-Aid the Obamanomics crowd has been ingesting.

The Four Questions

Here’s how it works. Take out a sheet of lined paper (legal yellow pad, preferably) and a pen. Number the top four lines of the page 1 through 4 down the left hand side. Hand the page to your liberal and ask him if he would kindly indulge you: would he answer the following four questions? Then proceed to ask them, in order. Let him write down each answer before proceeding to the next question.

The four questions are:

1) What is total spending of the federal budget?
2) What is the federal deficit?
3) What is the national debt?
4) What was the most recent interest payment on the national debt?

You’ll be surprised at the answers. The first impression you’ll get is that most won’t know the difference between “deficit” and “national debt”. You see, liberals are all for spending your money but don’t have a clue how much of it is being spent nor how much debt they’re getting us into in order to do that spending. You’ll also find that the answer to question #1 ranges from a low of several hundred billion to a trillion; no one, it seems, is able to get the answer to within $300-400 billion.

The Four Answers

The next step is to correct their answers by crossing out what they’ve written and, beside them, write down the right figures. They are:

1) Total spending for the federal budget for 2010 is projected to be approximately $3.6 trillion. The budget comprises total expenditures and total receipts by the federal government.

2) The federal deficit for 2010 is projected to be approximately $1.2 trillion. However, note that in 2009, the deficit was projected to be $407 billion but ended up being $1.4 trillion. The deficit is total expenditures less total receipts (such as incomes taxes) received. When receipts exceed expenditures there is a surplus.

3) The National Debt at the end of fiscal year 2010 is projected to be $14 trillion. This debt is the accumulation of every year’s deficit since 1776 less all accumulated surpluses.

4) The annual interest payment on the National Debt for 2010 is projected to be $164 billion.

The Debt In 2015

Underneath the four answers write: “The debt in 2015 is projected to total $20 trillion.”

The Extrapolation

Explain that the interest the government pays (#4) on the debt (#3) is raised by selling financial instruments such as Treasury Bills to investors (such as the People’s Republic of China). These financial instruments are currently paying about 1.5% interest which will result in the approximately $164 billion in interest expense to the federal government.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Remind your liberal that interest rates fluctuate (Remember when interest rates almost reached 20% back in the early ‘80s?) as this graph demonstrates. Note this graph is the historical rates for 3-month U.S. Treasury Bills, one of the very instruments used to service the debt. Also remind your liberal that we are experiencing historically low interest rates which means that interest rates have only one direction in which to go.

Treasuries At 6% Paying Today’s Debt

Then ask what he thinks will happen to interest rates if China and other purchasers of American debt stop buying and what we would have to do in order to attract them back: will rates go up or down? Ask your liberal: “if interest rates on treasuries go up to just a modest 6% — which is more than triple what the current interest rate we are paying now – what will the annual interest payment be on just today’s approximately $14 trillion national debt?” Here’s the math:

$14,000,000,000,000 X .06 = $840,000,000,000.

That’s a $840 billion annual interest payment on the current National Debt.

Treasuries At 10% Paying Today’s Debt

But interest rates can easily go up to 10%…after all we’ve seen much higher rates within our lifetimes. What would the annual interest expense be on the current debt level if we had to pay 10% a year in interest:

$14,000,000,000,000 X .1 = $1,400,000,000,000.

That’s $1.4 trillion in annual interest payments on just the current National Debt.

Treasuries At 6% And 10% In 2015

But we’re told that at projected deficit levels the debt will reach $20 trillion in just 4 years. At 6% and 10%, the annual interest payments on the debt would be:

@ 6%: $1.2 trillion

@ 10%: $2 trillion

Note that the above two figures just service the debt; they don’t reduce the principal of the debt. Note also that $2 trillion represents more than half of all current federal spending.

More here………

=============================

Posted by: Bear1909
Dec 29, 04:17 AM


Cut the Federal workforce by 65 per cent in non-defense departments. Target Interior, Justice (IRS!), Energy, Education, , USDA, Homeland Security, HHServices, and State. Freeze all pensions. Retain personnel based on seniority. Cut salary of all retained employees to reflect the level of the work they are reassigned to do. A GS 18 with 10 years to go til retirement but is retained and demoted to do a lesser job, may go down to GS 14. Pension recalibrate to that level. Don’t like it? Quit. 

Here’s where the Federal Government can and should default on its obligations. States must imitate Federal actions. Withdraw from NATO and the UN. Zero funding for both. End the faux power of the UN to undermine US sovereignty. Re-vamp the military procurement process. Implement a just-in-time military materiel inventory system. Increase enlistment bonuses and re-open bases in key metropolitan areas to absorb surpluses of unemployed Americans and college aged youth who will have no colleges to attend because credit’s gone dry. Our high tech military can serve as the best jobs program the US Government is capable of providing an entire generation of unemployed of all ages.

 

========================

PLUS:

End teacher tenure; get rid of the dead wood. Defund the Department of Education and give it back to the States to devise their own educational plans.

Defund the EPA.

======================

ANYONE with the guts to DO all of the above?

If there is…..they have MY VOTE.

======================

We are not racist.

We are not violent.

We are just no longer silent.

======================


Wasteful Government Spending List; ” Wastebook 2010 ”

==========================

‘Poems In Zoos’ Makes Wasteful Government Spending List

Tuesday, December 28, 2010
By Eric Scheiner 

Sen. Tom CoburnSen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 7, 2009. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has released a guide to what he believes to be some of the government’s most wasteful spending projects of 2010. The list includes poems in zoos, a museum of Grateful Dead memorabilia and a graveyard for neon signs.

In his introduction to the “Wastebook 2010” report, Coburn writes: “As 2010 ends, millions of Americans are still struggling to find work. Even those lucky enough to have jobs have had to tighten their belts and trim household budgets. For some this has meant cutting out luxuries; for others, having to make tough choices between necessities. For everyone it means taking stock of what they can really afford.

“Is it so much to expect Congress do the same?” he asked.

The senator urges Congress not to spend money on unneeded items, such as the over “$11.5 billion of examples provided” in his report.

Examples of wasteful spending highlighted in “Wastebook 2010” include:

– The city of Las Vegas has received a $5.2 million federal grant to build the Neon Boneyard Park and Museum, including $1.8 million in 2010. For over the last decade, Museum supporters have gathered and displayed over 150 old Las Vegas neon signs, such as the Golden Nugget and Silver Slipper casinos.

– The U.S. Department of Energy‘s electric bill is $190 million a year and auditors say millions of dollars are wasted on inefficient lighting. According to a U.S. Department of Energy Inspector General report released in June, the Department [of Energy] could save over $2.2 million in electric utility operating costs annually, by turning off the lights and using more efficient technology.

– The Institute of Museum and Library Services awarded the University of California at Santa Cruz $615,000 federal funds to digitize Grateful Dead photographs, tickets, backstage passes, flyers, shirts, and other memorabilia.

More here…..

=============================

We are not racist.

We are not violent.

We are just no longer silent.

====================


BLOGGER DISMANTLES FOX-VIEWERS-ARE-MISINFORMED STUDY

=====================

From TheBlaze.com

by Jonathon M. Seidl

December 28, 2010

Remember that study from the University of Maryland and WorldPublicOpinion.org saying Fox News viewers are the most “misinformed” audience? It seems that was misinformation.

Competitive Enterprise Institute Communications Director, and licensed lawyer, Lee Doren has just released a short video expose showing that the study is severely flawed.

“After looking at the supposed ‘myths’ that Fox News watchers believe, I quickly realized that something was wrong with the study,” Doren writes in the video’s YouTube introduction. “As a result, I read the study very carefully and realized that the whole study was bogus.”

He says the study does “not have data to support its conclusions,“ and goes as far as to say it ”may simply demonstrate that Fox News viewers are more informed than the researchers.”

And just in case Doren‘s video isn’t enough, it’s important to note (as we did in our original piece) that the WorldPublicOpinion.org website includes the Tides Foundation as one of its major sponsors. That group is directly connected to George Soros.   [Emphasis added]

The study was also debunked by columnist David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun. As he points out, the study admits in its own pages that the term “misinformed” is relative:

Here is the big, fat wonking problem with the survey: How do you define “misinformed” and “informed”?

The researchers seemed to understand this, and to their credit, they acknowledge it at the top of their findings. Bu they choose to deal with it only in what they term a “note.”

Here is the key passage of their note: “A study of misinformation raises the somewhat delicate question of what is true….In the course of this study, to identify “misinformation” among voters, we used as reference points the conclusions of key government agencies that are run by professional experts and have a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences….”

Deciding which experts and/or agencies do or don’t have a “strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences” seems like a highly subjective business to me — as talk of reputation always is.

And when you cut through such non-scientific talk, what you have for the definition of a respondent who is considered “informed” is essentially someone who agrees with the conclusions of experts in government agencies. When specific questions in the survey are framed around facts, like who was president when a certain piece of legislation passed, you can say someone is misinformed. But that is not always the case. And that is where one problem resides.

So, presumably, if you were to disagree with such top economic experts in government as Timothy Geithner or Larry Summers, you would be labeled as misinformed. If you dared to disagree with those experts in government who say that the Wall Street bailout was absolutely necessary and that the takeover of GM was desperately needed and that healthcare reform will actually be good for the economy — you would be labeled as MISINFORMED.

LINK

================================

We are not racist.

We are not violent.

We are just no longer silent.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers