Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become an "Enemy of the American people"

Published on Sep 27, 2012 by aimaccuracy

For full transcript please go to: http://www.aim.org/video/pat-caddell-the-audacity-of-corruption/

In recent remarks to an AIM conference, "ObamaNation: A Day of Truth," former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell said, "I think we're at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy." Caddell noted that while First Amendment protections were originally provided to the press so they would protect the liberty and freedom of the public from "organized governmental power," they had clearly relinquished the role of impartial news providers. Nowhere was this more evident than during the tragic death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya that was lied about for nine days, because the press and the administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack. "We've had nine days of lies over what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack, and the press won't push this," said Caddell. "Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers." Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but "It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know."

.

HEAVY RAINS WASH AWAY OBAMA SUPPORTERS AND PROTESTERS AT JAY Z FUNDRAISER

by REBEL PUNDIT 19 Sep 2012, 6:34 AM PDT

Last night pop stars Jay Z and Beyonce held a high-ticket fundraiser for President Obama at his 40/40 Club in Manhattan. For a mere $40,000 per ticket, guests could party down and rub elbows with the President. While supporters and protesters were expected to greet the president on his way to the event, however, heavy rains scared away most from coming out to the streets.

Coming just one day after the one year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement, with hundreds of protesters still in town, Occupiers scheduled a protest of the president that was set to take place at the same time his motorcade whisked him through the police barricades to the night club.

However, due to heavy, monsoon-like rain, a few dozen protesters awaiting the president at Madison Square Park were forced to throw in the towel and abandon their march for the “99 percent.”

Police barricades left New York residents on their way home from work stranded during the heaviest moments of the downpour as the president’s motorcade passed.

Many cursed the president for causing the transit nightmare on their nightly trip home from work, while only a few supporters actually came out to cheer for the president.

One resident was overheard shouting, “**** this president, who the **** does he think he is? I’m sick of this and I don’t care who hears me.”

Another, in an almost zombie-like trance, walked out from the shelter of a tree on the side of 5th Avenue drenched by the downpour just to get glimpse of the president through the barricades as the flashing lights of squad cars went by.

Source

Obama’s Double-Speak at the DNC

Weekend Edition September 14-16, 2012


The Smell of Mendacity



by DANIEL KOVALIK



“You know what I’ve noticed? Nobody panics when things go ‘according to plan.’ Even if the plan is horrifying!”

– The Joker

Sounding very much like his predecessor, George W. Bush, President Obama engaged in a very calculated act of misdirection and obfuscation at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) to continue justifying his unprovoked acts of war abroad.

One of the key lines of his acceptance speech, brief as it was, wreaked with what Big Daddy in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof referred to as “the smell of mendacity.”

Thus, Obama stated: “I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. And we have. We’ve blunted the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014, our longest war will be over. A new tower rises above the New York skyline, Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama Bin Laden is dead.”

In this well-crafted, though wholly misleading statement, Obama strongly suggests that the Taliban attacked us on 9/11. This is, of course, not true. The Taliban never attacked us. Their only crime was to insist upon proof of Osama bin Laden’s culpability for the 9/11 attacks before handing him over to the U.S. (And, the Taliban’s request in this regard was not purely academic. Thus, as explained in a little-known article in the Ithaca Journal by Ed Haas — so unknown that it won the Project Censored Award — the FBI admitted that it never included the 9/11 attacks in Bin Laden’s “Ten Most Wanted” rap sheet because the FBI had “no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”).

Still, it was the Taliban’s insistence on such due process niceties (niceties the U.S. once claimed to hold dear) which led to the U.S. war in Afghanistan which continues now 11 years later – “our longest war” as Obama, in a moment of candor, correctly pointed out. Yet, despite the Taliban’s undeniable lack of responsibility for 9/11, Obama reserves the lion’s share of his drone attacks for ostensible Taliban targets, rather than Al Qaeda. Thus, as Peter Bergen from CNN noted in a September 6 article, entitled, “Drone is Obama’s Weapon of Choice,” only 8% of Obama’s drone targets are al Qaeda as compared to just over 50% being Taliban targets. No wonder then that Obama must try to make the American people (in the words of W) “misremember” who really was responsible for 9/11 – otherwise, his ongoing war in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, complete with the drone campaign, would appear needlessly cruel; and indeed, it is.

Obama also stated in his acceptance that “Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.” Whether that is true or not in general is uncertain. However, what is certain is that Al Qaeda is doing quite well in Syria where, as the Council on Foreign Relations recently noted, Al Qaeda is actually the critical fighting force in the Free Syrian Army – an army the U.S. is actively supporting, both directly and through its allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But again, such inconvenient facts must be buried.

In the end, Obama’s untruths are revealing of a foreign policy which is as incoherent as it is cruel – at least assuming that this foreign policy is indeed aimed at rooting out terrorists who threaten the security of U.S. citizens as Obama would have us belief. Of course, given that the U.S. is barely targeting Al Qaeda at all in our main theater of conflict (Afghanistan/Pakistan), and given that it is actually aiding and abetting Al Qaeda in places like Syria, one must ask the question which our leaders hope we will never ask – is our over-bloated military and our endless wars really aimed at keeping us secure? The facts suggest that the answer is a resounding no.

Indeed, far from promoting security anywhere, U.S. war aims abroad appear intent upon creating instability and chaos; of dismantling states (such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia and of course Afghanistan) which our leaders view as impediments to the ability of multi-nationals to plunder world resources with impunity. However, such chaos, while good for the business of a few, decidedly makes all of us much less secure.

The most notable example of this phenomenon, of course, lies in our long-time involvement in Afghanistan since 1979. As we know now, through the admissions, and indeed bragging of Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the U.S. began aiding the anti-government rebels in Afghanistan (rebels which included Osama bin Laden) with the intention of provoking a Soviet invasion. That is, contrary to popular (and carefully manufactured) belief, the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan was not in fact the reaction to the Soviet invasion; it was the cause of the invasion. The ultimate goal, as Brzezinski has explained with glee, was to give the USSR its own Vietnam-like quagmire which would fatally wound the Soviet Union. In other words, the U.S. consciously set into motion a war with the intention of destroying one country (the Soviet Union) while sacrificing another (Afghanistan), and with the unintentional consequence of empowering terrorists such as Osama bin Laden who would later go on to attack us.

This, my friends, is an illustration of the chaos theory of U.S. foreign policy.

And, it is the realization of this frightening reality which Obama’s lies are designed to prevent. Given the lack of virtually any opposition to this narrative, I would say that these lies are working according to plan.

Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh. He is currently teaching International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.


Source

.

Obamanation - Jon McNaughton

Published on Aug 29, 2012 by McNaughtonArt

Obamanation (One Painting That Says It All)

I chose to use an undisclosed studio so I could paint privately, without interruption, to focus on the task of embedding in a single painting all the subtle, mindless, radical and dangerous atrocities of the Obama administration.

I am just one person, a citizen of this country using my first amendment rights to speak out through my art. This is my declaration that we have never had a president do more to harm our country than Barack Obama.

To those who scoff or wish to trivialize this painting, I challenge you... I DARE YOU... study the links of the various symbols and metaphors that you see. There are over 60 in the painting. No person can analyze this image and learn about these facts and still, in good conscience, vote for Obama in 2012.

I do not hate Obama, but I hate the fact that I had to paint this picture. Has the painting gone too far? I knew when I did this that most Obama supporters would reject what I have done. But as a Conservative, I'm fed up with the corruption in Washington. And I'm sick of the political correctness that has derailed our country!

My art is an expression of the times in which I live and people will know how Jon McNaughton felt about being alive in America in 2012.

Take the Challenge! If you still choose Obama, congratulations...you're a part of the Obamanation.

Go to www.jonmcnaughton.com

McNaughton Answers Questions Regarding "Obamanation."

What do you hope to accomplish?
Someone once said, "there is nothing more irritating than being awaken from a sound sleep"—I hope to wake up a few. If anyone is undecided about voting for Obama, please study the painting, take the challenge, share it with your friends and help us to expose this man and vote him out of office this November.

Are you doing this for the money?
No. I paint what is important to me, but I know there are many who feel the same as I do about Obama. I am a professional artist. I make my living providing a service and I get paid to do it. The vast majority who view my work never pay a nickel. They pass it around on the Internet with their friends or see it on someone's wall.

This is just propaganda.
It seems funny that when a liberal artist paints a political motif it is called artistic expression, but when a conservative does the same thing critics call it "propaganda." When I think of propaganda I think of early twentieth century war posters commissioned by the Nazis and Communist regimes. It usually conveys a negative meaning, so I know why my critics like to use it to describe me. But I am not the government! I am simply one individual, a citizen of this country using my first amendment rights to speak out through my art.

Do you think this is art?
What is art? There are many certified art experts who would love to tell you the answer. Their opinions mean little to me because I only paint to satisfy my desire to share a message. For me, art has a way of communicating both thoughts and feelings that words fail to adequately express. If my art causes another to think and to feel, it is a success. I use metaphor and symbol because it leaves more for the viewer to discover, but for the few who choose to take the time to study I have the interactive website where I meticulously explain my images. I paint realistically because it communicates to the broadest audience. I paint political and religious subject because they are close to my heart. Whether someone from the history books could have painted it better means nothing to me. My art is an expression of the times in which I live and people will know how Jon McNaughton felt about being alive at this time in our history.

Is the original for sale?
Yes, and prints are also for sale on the website.

A Crumpled U.S. Constitution under the foot of President Obama?


Click here to learn more: http://wp.me/poJ0l-Zs


;

'2016: Obama's America' goes by the book

Dinesh D'Souza's documentary, which promises to demystify the president, draws from a tome by the filmmaker. Thus, its course is already set — and that's a weakness.

A scene from "2016: Obama's America." (2016: Obama's America / August 26, 2012)

By Betsy Sharkey, Los Angeles Times Film Critic

August 26, 2012, 9:00 p.m.

What has Michael Moore — and digital technology — wrought?

Now anyone with a political agenda and low-cost digital camera can make a movie and call it a documentary. Even enterprises that at best are vanity projects and at worst badly disguised and overly long attack ads are taken seriously by audiences — and box-office observers.

That is precisely the shape of things in "2016: Obama's America," which promises to demystify the president — "Love him, hate him, now you know him" is one of its tag lines — but does more to illuminate its filmmaker, Dinesh D'Souza, and his ego instead.

PHOTOS: Campaign trail lessons on film

The conservative author, who wrote and directed the film with John Sullivan, draws liberally from his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage." The book, in turn, draws on the author's life — how he left his native India to study in America and how those disparate experiences shaped his political point of view. The film, released in late July, went from a handful of theaters to wide release with more than $6.2 million in ticket sales over the weekend, the better to ride the GOPconvention coattails in Tampa, Fla., this week.

Since "2016" is unlikely to be the last DIY polemic we will see in the coming years, the question becomes: How does it measure up as a film? Where is the line between documentary and propaganda? How are moviegoers — or campaign-spending watchdogs for that matter — to separate veracity from vanity?

What is certain is that "2016" is already a commercial success. In a world where $14 million puts you into the top five moneymakers of all time among political documentaries, its $9.1 million puts "2016" within striking distance. That is a long way from Moore's No. 1-ranked "Fahrenheit 9/11," which topped $119 million but a success nonetheless.

PHOTOS: All-time box office leaders

It is worth noting that documentaries don't necessarily promise pure objectivity. Moore, the defining figure in crafting the modern-day political rant, never has. From his first relentless pursuit of General Motors Chief ExecutiveRoger Smith in 1989's "Roger & Me," the in-your-face filmmaker has been blunt about his intentions. But Moore's work and the genre itself come with an implicit understanding that whatever truths emerge, they were ultimately forged by the process, not set in stone beforehand.

Indeed, the basic framework of the documentary narrative tends to be one of discovery. The question of what was driving an underfunded, underprivileged South Memphis football team's success became the spine of "Undefeated,"which won the documentary Oscar this year. And the how-and-why dreary details of this country's financial collapse, as parsed in Charles Ferguson's "Inside Job," another Oscar winner, made the catastrophe film exciting.

That "2016" was built on a book is one of its fundamental weaknesses, its course determined before the first frame was shot. The film is not after new insight; rather, it's intent on laying out the arguments of a man who has given the same lecture countless times. That makes for a sluggish film. Even its outrage falls flat.

The film begins with D'Souza, once a political advisor to President Ronald Reagan, drawing parallels between his life and Obama's — born in the same year, Ivy League degrees earned at the same time, both politically engaged, skin equally dark. While D'Souza's quiet, scholarly sensibility serves him well on the TV talk-show circuit, a relief from the intense rhetoric that reigns, it works against him on screen. As he sits, legs crossed, addressing the camera like a professor, the film begins to feel like a class you wish you had cut.

The many dramatic reenactments, long controversial in the documentary world, don't help its cause. There are seven setups involving more than 100 credited actors. The scenarios themselves play like badly scripted sitcoms. Some are like "Dartmouth," an affectionate if silly re-creation of D'Souza's student days. Others, like "Cowboy Bar," are sheer fantasy. In that scene, which comes as D'Souza outlines his theories on why Obama did not play the race card in his 2008 election bid, a young African American comes into a bar and sits down between two white guys, who immediately push away in disgust. Cut to a few minutes later when the white guys return, all smiles, with a birthday cake in hand for their friend. Not only is the scene poorly acted, it simply doesn't make sense and raises questions about the logic underpinning the other connections the film is seeking to make.

The core thesis in "2016" is that Obama's politics come from Third World influences — from his father in Kenya and his early years spent with his mother in Indonesia. There are lengthy explanations of colonialism, which D'Souza supports, versus what he describes as Obama's preference for an anticolonialist approach, one that would favor the rise of the Third World (or, as D'Souza labels it, the United States of Islam), greatly reduce Israel's influence and cede the U.S.' role as a superpower.

D'Souza goes on to argue that this approach explains everything from healthcare reform to a reduction in the nuclear arsenal. Interviews with interested parties, news footage and excerpts from Obama's 1995 book "Dreams From My Father," are woven in as well. But mostly it is D'Souza connecting the dots; there are no opposing points of view.

In weighing "2016's" documentary credentials, one scene that resurfaces many times in the film is instructive. Shot at the grave of Obama's father, the scene shows a close-up of a hand grasping some dirt and reverently dropping it onto the burial site. The hand is an actor's, not Obama's.

The moment is merely another piece of heavy-handed drama conjured up by the filmmakers — nothing more, nothing less.

Source

Gamaliel and the Barack Obama Connection

Photo (Courtesy) http://goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com/2009/10/young-barack-obama-former-jesuit-named.html

by Gregory A. Galluzzo

President elect Barack Obama has throughout his political career made repeated references to his time as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. It is important that we all understand the connection between Barack and Gamaliel. In l980 Mary Gonzales and I created the United Neighborhood Organization of Chicago.

In l982 we decided that we needed some expertise from someone who had done faith based community organizing. A person who had worked as such an organizer in Illinois and in Pennsylvania approached me about joining our organizing team. His name was Jerry Kellman. Jerry helped Mary and myself become better organizers. While he was working for us, he connected with a group called the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) operating on the South Side in the South Suburbs of Chicago, and in Indiana. CCRC had been formed in response to the massive shut down of major industry and the resulting job loss and all of the concomitant social tragedies.

Jerry and I reached an understanding that we would support his work in the South Suburbs so that he could become director of his own project. It was Jerry Kellman who put an ad in the New York Times about an organizing position in the Chicago area. Barack responded; Jerry interviewed him and offered him a position. Barack accepted. Almost at this very time, Jerry propositioned an old friend of his to return to Chicago from Texas and work with him in this new organizing venture. His friend was Mike Kruglik. Mike and Jerry were the first mentors of Barack in organizing.

CCRC, which spanned communities in Northwest Indiana, the South Suburbs and parts of the City of Chicago proved to be unwieldy. Jerry and I decided to split it into three parts. Barack would work to found a new independent project in the South side of Chicago, Mike Kruglik would be the director of the South Suburban Action Conference and Jerry Kellman would develop organizing in Northwest Indiana. At that point Jerry asked me to become Barack’s consultant.

And at this time we were just creating the Gamaliel Foundation. I met with Barack on a regular basis as he incorporated the Developing Communities Project, as he moved the organization into action and as he developed the leadership structure for the organization. He would write beautiful and brilliant weekly reports about his work and the people he was engaging.

When Barack decided to go to Harvard Law School, he approached John McKnight, a professor at Northwestern and a Gamaliel Board member for a letter of recommendation. When Barack was leaving he made sure that Gamaliel was the formal consultant to the organization that he had created and to the staff that he had hired.

Barack has acknowledged publicly that he had been the director of a Gamaliel affiliate. He has supported Gamaliel throughout the years by conducting training both at the National Leadership Training events and at the African American Leadership Commission. He has also attended our public meetings.

We are honored and blessed by the connection between Barack and Gamaliel.

...

Gregory Galluzzo, a former Jesuit priest, is the Executive Director of the Gamaliel Foundation. In 1980 Galluzzo co-founded, along with his wife Mary Gonzalez, a Chicago Latino activist organization called the United Neighborhood Organization (UNO). Today, Ms. Gonzalez is the Gamaliel Foundation’s Director of Western Territory. UNO, also modeled after Alinsky’s methods, is known for using aggressive organizing and confrontational tactics to push for change.
.
Source

Previously posted here on:

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2011

.

Obama invokes executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents

President Obama (Paul J. Richards / AFP Getty Images)

By Richard A. Serrano

June 20, 2012, 8:18 a.m. (Pacific)

WASHINGTON — Just as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was about to vote Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena for documents in the flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking case, President Obama asserted executive privilege and backed up the attorney general’s position in refusing to turn over the material.

The fast-moving events Wednesday morning at the White House and on Capitol Hill significantly ratcheted up a growing constitutional clash between the two branches of the federal government, one that ultimately may not be resolved until it reaches the courts.

The Republican-led committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), will ask the full House for a floor vote holding Holder in contempt and requesting the U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C., or a special prosecutor to force the attorney general to produce the documents.

“The committee has uncovered serious wrongdoing by the Justice Department,” Issa said of his investigation into Fast and Furious, in which several thousand firearms were deliberately circulated along the Southwest border and ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. “That wrongdoing has cost lives on both sides of the border.”

Moments before the committee hearing, the White House announced that Obama had formally exerted executive privilege in the matter, giving Holder cover from releasing the material to the committee.

“We regret that we have arrived at this point,” Deputy Atty. Gen. James M. Cole told Issa in a letter that arrived on the Hill just before the committee went into session.

He said making the documents public “would have significant, damaging consequences,” but he did not disclose whether Obama has been briefed or had another supervisory role in Fast and Furious.

In a separate letter that Holder wrote to Obama shortly before the committee session, asking for executive privilege, the attorney general said he had “concluded that you may properly assert executive privilege over the documents at issue, and I respectfully request you do so.” Holder also did not mention any involvement by Obama in Fast and Furious.

According to the Obama White House, President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege six times during his two terms, and President Bill Clinton 14 times during his eight years in Washington.

“In fact,” said Eric Schultz, an Obama White House spokesman, “dating back to President Reagan, presidents have asserted executive privilege 24 times. President Obama has gone longer without asserting the privilege in a congressional dispute than any president in the last three decades.”

Republicans said Obama's move raises serious questions.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked how Obama could assert executive privilege "if there is no White House involvement?"

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said Obama's move "implies that White House officials were either involved in the 'Fast and Furious' operation or the cover-up that followed."

"The administration has always insisted that wasn't the case. Were they lying, or are they now bending the law to hide the truth?" Brendan Buck said.

Staff writer Michael A. Memoli contributed to this report

Source

P.S.

I Wonder: How many fundraiser stops (and teleprompter photo-ops) the president will have today?

.

.

Black clouds hang over Obama-Putin G20 talks

June 19, 2012 - 6:50AM


OBAMA AND PUTIN ADDRESS TENSIONS OVER SYRIA
President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin say any tensions between the US and Russia can be eased.

US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed on the need to end violence in Syria but they showed no concrete signs of narrowing their differences on tougher sanctions against Damascus.

After a week of Cold War-style recriminations between US and Russian diplomats, the talks at a Group of 20 summit in Mexico tested whether the two leaders could forge a working relationship and find common ground on Syria and other festering disputes.

Putin frowned and Obama wore a sober expression during their remarks to reporters after the meeting.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Grumpy old men ... Russian President Vladimir Putin meets his US counterpart, Barack Obama, at the G20 in Mexico. Photo: AFP

"We agreed that we need to see a cessation of the violence, that a political process has to be created to prevent civil war," Obama told reporters, who entered the room after the talks went on for some two hours - longer than originally planned.

"From my point of view, we have found many common points on this issue (of Syria)," Putin said, adding the two sides would continue discussions.

With Syrian President Bashar al-Assad continuing his bloody, 15-month crackdown on the opposition, Obama and Western allies want veto-wielding Moscow to stop shielding him from further UN Security Council sanctions aimed at forcing him from power.

Putin, a former KGB spymaster, is suspicious of US motives especially after the NATO-assisted ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi last year, and he has offered little sign of softening his stance on Syria.

Though Washington has shown no appetite for a new Libya-style intervention, Russia is reluctant to abandon its Syrian ally, a longtime arms customer, and risk losing its last firm foothold in the Middle East, including access to a warm-water navy base.

Suspension of the UN monitoring mission in Syria over the weekend put added pressure on Obama and Putin, meeting for the first time since the Russian president's re-election, to act decisively to keep the conflict from spiraling into civil war.

The two men, at least in their public remarks, brushed past broad differences over issues such as arming Syria, UN sanctions and Assad's future.

As journalists entered the cramped hotel ballroom, the two leaders were leaning toward each other in discussion, neither smiling. Obama initiated a handshake for the cameras while the two remained seated.

Obama sometimes gestured toward Putin as he spoke but Putin sat more stiffly through the joint appearance. At the end of their statements, as reporters were being ushered out, both sat glumly watching but made no move to re-engage with each other.

The hardened tone appears to mark the endpoint of Obama's "reset" of ties with Moscow, pursued with Putin predecessor Dmitry Medvedev and touted by the White House as a signature foreign policy accomplishment.

Reuters

Source: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/black-clouds-hang-over-obamaputin-g20-talks-20120619-20kqw.html#ixzz1yGGS1PAK

.

We've Got Your Back Obama

LPACTV Overview - May 12, 2012

Published on May 12, 2012 by laroucheyouth

May 12, 2012 - As long as President Barack Obama remains in office, thermonuclear war is on the table. The LaRouche National Slate's Diane Sare and Kesha Rogers have called for this, especially in the context of a growing tension between Russia and the US over missile defense. It's time for you to do what Diane and Kesha are doing.

For more on Kesha Rogers & Diane Sare go to www.KeshaForCongress.com & www.DianeSare.com

Join us by organizing your local city council to pass our emergency resolution http://larouchepac.com/node/22447

.

Boxer Manny Pacquiao comes out against same-sex marriage just after President Obama supports it

International boxing star voices opinon opposing gay marriage

BY DANIEL O'LEARY / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Published: Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 1:48 AM
Updated: Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 1:57 AM

Beloved boxing star Manny Pacquiao (l.) and President Barack Obama have very different views on same-sex marriage.

President Barack Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage last week, but he won't be able to count on support from boxing champion Manny Pacquiao.

The immensely popular boxer - and the first-ever to win titles in eight different weight classes - contradicted the President's views on same-sex marriage in a recent interview.

Speaking with the National Conservative Examiner and asked about the President's stance, Pacquiao was quoted as saying that "God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other."

Last Wednesday, President Obama said of he and the First Lady, in an interview with ABC: "We are both practicing Christians, and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others, but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing Himself on our behalf, but it's also the golden rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated."

Pacquiao also went to his personal religious beliefs to illustrate his stance on the issue:

"God's words first... obey God's law first before considering the laws of man," he told the Examiner. "It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old."

The charismatic fighter is a devout Catholic - and a Congressman in his homeland of the Philippines. His stance on same-sex marriage seems to be in line with his voting record in his home country - as he opposed a law last year that would make contraception accessible to most Filipinos and call for mandatory sex education.

The Pac-Man - long considered the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world - is listed at No. 4 on Forbes' list of most influential athletes in the world. His next fight is slated for June 9 against Timothy Bradley while boxing fans have long awaited a bout between Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Source

Race and Religion in the US Presidential Election

Published May 05, 2012

Fox News Latino

FILE - This combination of 2012 file photos shows U.S. President Barack Obama, left, and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Boulder, Colo. and Cape Canaveral, Fla. How unthinkable it was, not so long ago, that a presidential election would pit a candidate fathered by an African against another condemned as un-Christian. And yet, here it is: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney, an African-American and a white Mormon, representatives of two groups and that have endured oppression to carve out a place in the United States. How much progress has America made against bigotry? (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, Charles Dharapak)

Only a few years ago it would seem strange that the United States presidential election would pair off a candidate fathered by an African against another condemned as un-Christian.

Yet here it is: Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney, an African-American and a white Mormon, representatives of two groups and that have endured oppression to carve out a place in the United States.

How much progress has America made against bigotry? By November, we should have some idea.

Perhaps mindful of the lingering power of prejudice, both men soft-pedal their status as racial or religious pioneers. But these things "will be factors whether they're explicitly stated or not, because both Obama and Romney are minorities," said Nancy Wadsworth, co-editor of the anthology "Faith and Race in American Political Life."

Mormons are 1.7 percent of the U.S. population, according to the Pew Research Center. African-Americans are 12.6 percent

"Americans like to obsess about ways that people are different," said Wadsworth, a political science professor at the University of Denver. Voters of all types say that a candidate's race or religious beliefs should not be cause for bias, "but Americans are really conflicted about this, and they talk out of both sides of their mouth."

In an October 2011 Associated Press-GfK poll, 21 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to cast a presidential vote for a Mormon. Four percent said they would be less likely to vote for a black person. An AP poll during the 2008 campaign found that nearly 40 percent of white Americans had at least a partly negative view of black people.

The gap between America's high-minded ideals and narrow-minded practice is not new.

In 1620, the Puritans landed on Plymouth Rock searching for religious freedom. The Constitution forbade a religious test for president. Still, the religion of presidential candidates historically has been a major issue, though nearly all have been Protestant.

Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase "separation between church and state," was decried as godless. Nearly 160 years later, John F. Kennedy was tarred as a Roman Catholic who would answer to the pope instead of the American people.

In 1787, the same colonists who had demanded equal rights in their dealings with England wrote a Constitution that reduced blacks to three-fifths of a person. Nearly 80 years would pass before that changed and another century before blacks would be assured the vote.

Obama remains the sole member of the most exclusive club in the world, racial minorities who were nominated for president by a major party.

In 2012, it's unlikely that more than a smattering of die-hard bigots will be repelled by both presidential choices. But even well-intentioned people can be influenced by the powerful emotional pull of these issues.

Obama has been assailed by racially charged accusations since he became the first black president: Obama isn't a citizen; he refused to punish New Black Panthers who intimidated white voters; he's seeking payback for past white racism by redistributing tax money to poor minorities; he's using the Trayvon Martin killing for political gain.

Wes Anderson, a Republican consultant and pollster, said many white swing voters who chose Obama in 2008 think he has governed further to the left than they expected, which has fed ideas that Obama is a typical "black liberal politician" who is "pandering to minorities."

"From their perspective, I think race will be a convenient excuse for why he has not met their expectations," Anderson said.

Wadsworth said that even after three-plus years of a black president, racial bias remains "super-loaded and super-coded."

"It's coded into political 'otherness' — he's a socialist, he's dangerous, maybe a Muslim," she said. "I think down underneath there's a lot of race bias, it's just that they've figured out ways to channel that into seemingly race-neutral codes."

Then there's bald racism.

This April, bar owner Patrick Lanzo in Paulding County, Ga., posted a roadside sign outside his establishment that used the n-word to convey his disdain for the president. "I don't feel bad about (the sign) whatsoever," Lanzo told Fox 5 News in Atlanta.

Obviously, Obama's victory in 2008 did not put racial issues to rest. "He is never on stable ground, racially," Wadsworth observed.

Romney has tried to push past anti-Mormonism, with mixed success. His membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been an issue his entire political career.

In 2007, during his presidential primary battle against Arizona Sen. John McCain, he gave a speech to quiet concerns about his faith. "I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith," Romney said in the address, which used the word "Mormon" only once.

There continue to be blatant expressions of hostility toward Mormons. For example, there is an "I Hate Mormons" page on Facebook.

But J.B. Haws, a historian at Brigham Young University who researches public perception of the Mormon church, said most common suspicions about Mormons were rehashed in the 2008 election and this year's GOP primary, so moving forward the discussion is likely to be more substantive and informed.

"But that doesn't change the fact that the questions will still be tough and pointed," Haws said.

The Mormon church was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, who said God directed him to restore the true Christian church by revising parts of the Bible and adding the Book of Mormon as a sacred text. Smith said an angel directed him to a buried holy book in upstate New York, written on golden plates, which he translated from "reformed Egyptian" into the Book of Mormon. Theological differences have led many Christians to conclude that Mormons are not part of historic Christianity.

There's the issue of polygamy, though the Mormon church renounced the practice in 1890.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, recently took the opportunity of a Daily Beast interview to say that Romney's father, George, was "born into (a) polygamy commune in Mexico." (Mitt Romney's grandfather, Gaskell, had one wife, but his great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, had four and fled to Mexico in 1885 to escape U.S. anti-polygamy laws.)

One of the toughest questions probably will focus on the Mormons' former ban on men of African descent in the priesthood. When the church lifted the prohibition in 1978, leaders didn't explain the theology behind it. That left questions about church doctrine on race, even though Mormon leaders repeatedly denounce racism.

It's an issue that Mormons discuss among themselves. But when it's brought up in a campaign setting, many Mormons say it's just an attempt to embarrass Romney.

Several conservatives have recently predicted that liberals, rankled by Mormon opposition to gay marriage and emphasis on stay-at-home motherhood, would use religion to "smear" Romney. "It's way out of bounds, but that's what's going to happen," said a prominent Mormon, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

But liberals are not the only ones who are suspicious of the Mormons. Vice President Joe Biden told Esquire magazine that faith shouldn't be a factor in elections, so "that's why I'm so angry about the way they're treating Romney." By "they," Biden probably was focusing on evangelicals, who make up a big part of the GOP base.

When Liberty University, the school founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, announced Romney as commencement speaker on May 12, hundreds of angry comments were posted on Liberty's Facebook page by people who said they were students or alumni, objecting to giving a Mormon a platform. The school responded by affirming its welcome to Romney.

But evangelicals are among the country's most politically conservative voters, and "they're going to hold their nose and vote for Romney. They're certainly not going to join the Obama campaign," said Patrick Mason, author of "The Mormon Menace: Violence and Anti-Mormonism in the Postbellum South."

Anderson, the pollster, said his research has found that evangelicals know more than other groups about what Mormons actually believe, and despite their religious differences tend to view Mormon values as positive.

"Is the bigger problem for Romney not evangelical Christians, but more secular voters who are skeptical of what Mormonism is, or just ignorant?" Anderson asked.

Perhaps it is just their growing hostility to religion in general, Mason said. "Mormonism becomes the lens through which they can paint their critique."

Regardless, the Romney campaign "would be crazy if they didn't have a plan in place already" to deal with Mormon bias, said Mark Noll, a University of Notre Dame historian who wrote "God and Race in American Politics," ''just like Obama's people are just dusting off whatever they had ready in 2008."

In 2008, racial issues threatened to torpedo Obama after the emergence of militant pro-black sermons by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Obama defused the issue with a major speech on race, but the Wright connection fed a GOP narrative that Obama was not "one of us." Democrats labeled such statements coded language that appealed to racial prejudices.

In the final stages of his losing campaign, McCain declined entreaties from some advisers to use Wright's sermons to attack Obama.

"John McCain, whatever else you want to say about him, did not use all the racial weapons he could have used," said Randall Kennedy, a Harvard Law School professor and author of "The Persistence of the Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency."

"Well, McCain lost," Kennedy continued. "I can't help but think that this time around, if there is anything that could plausibly be used, no matter how ugly, it will be used. So I anticipate a very messy, ugly campaign."

"I hope I'm wrong," Kennedy said, "but I expect it to be worse."

Based on reporting by Jesse Washington and Rachel Zoll of The Associated Press.

Source

.

Michelle Obama campaign stop rakes in $300,000, shows Democrat support in Collier

By JENNA BUZZACCO-FOERSTER
Posted April 30, 2012 at 5:41 p.m.

A visit from first lady Michelle Obama last week raised about $300,000 for her husband's reelection, according to a source close to the campaign.

But just as importantly, local backers said it showed there is support for the president and for Democrats in majority-Republican Collier County.

The first lady was in town on Friday for a private fundraiser in downtown Naples. The event — held at the Inn on Fifth — was attended by about 200 people who paid $1,000 and up to hear Obama speak about her husband's achievements.

Phil McCabe, owner of the Inn on Fifth, said campaign officials told him the fundraiser raised about $300,000 and it was "considered a very successful event."

"There are Democrats in Naples," said McCabe, who supported Obama in 2008 but is undecided about who he'll support in the 2012 presidential race.

Olivia Alair, the first lady's press secretary, said Monday in an email to the Daily News the "campaign doesn't provide estimate totals on a per event basis." Instead, the total amount raised is disclosed in monthly Federal Election Commission reports.

Ira Sharp, past president of the Collier County Democratic Club, attended the event, and said he "thought the turnout was terrific."

Obama was in town for about three hours, during which she met with schoolchildren at the Naples Municipal Airport and about 200 campaign volunteers and supporters at the Golden Gate Community Center.

Sharp said Friday's event showed there was support for Obama in Collier County.

PHOTO BY SCOTT MCINTYRE

Scott McIntyre/Staff First Lady Michelle Obama meets with students from Avalon Elementary School and Mike Davis Elementary School when she arrived in Naples on Friday April 27, 2012.

"I think they're seeing a big uptick in people that are interested," he said. "It's too early to see what the trends are ... but I think there's a lot of enthusiasm."

That enthusiasm, Sharp said, could translate into more campaign stops in Southwest Florida as the campaign heats up.

Still, hundreds of thousands dollars pale in comparison to what Republican candidates have raised over the years in Collier County. When President George W. Bush visited in April 2004, supporters were invited to attend a $25,000-a-plate luncheon at the home of Jack Donahue. That event, according to an April 24, 2004 report in the Daily News, brought in $2.9 million.

Source
.

Secret Service Calls Nugent Over Anti-Obama Screed

Wednesday, 18 Apr 2012 04:45 PM


Rocker and gun rights champion Ted Nugent says he will meet with the Secret Service on Thursday to explain his raucous remarks about what he called Barack Obama's "evil, America-hating administration" — comments some critics interpreted as a threat against the president.

"The conclusion will be obvious that I threatened no one," Nugent told radio interviewer Glenn Beck on Wednesday. Nugent said he'd been contacted by the agency and would cooperate fully even though he found the complaints "silly."

The controversy erupted after the self-styled "Motor City Madman" made an impassioned plea for support for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the National Rifle Association meeting in St. Louis last weekend. "We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November," Nugent said of the Obama administration.

He also included a cryptic pronouncement: "If Barack Obama becomes the next president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

Outraged Democrats circulated the remarks and suggested they were threatening. Secret Service spokesman George Ogilvie confirmed that the agency was looking into the matter but declined to give details. "We are aware of the incident and we are taking appropriate follow-up," Ogilvie said.

Nugent said he was simply trying to galvanize voters. The hard rocker, best known for '70s hits like "Cat Scratch Fever," is a conservative activist and has a history of heated and sometimes vulgar criticism of Obama. Nugent endorsed Romney after speaking to him last month.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called on Romney to "condemn Nugent's violent and hateful rhetoric."

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul addressed the issue with a brief statement: "Divisive language is offensive no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from. Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil."


Source

.

Secret Service Scandal: President Obama Calls for 'Thorough, Rigorous' Investigation

Secret Service Agents on Leave After Scandal
.

Catholic Church Rejects Surrender Terms from Obama

Cliff Kincaid — January 30, 2012



My Catholic priest, Father Larry Swink, delivered a homily on Sunday that I told him would make headlines. In the toughest sermon I have ever heard from a pulpit, he attacked the Obama Administration as evil, even demonic, and warned of religious persecution ahead. What was also newsworthy about the sermon was that he cited The Washington Post in agreement—not on the subject of the Obama Administration being evil, but on the matter of its abridgment of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

What is happening is extraordinary and unprecedented. The Catholic Church is in open revolt against the Obama Administration, with Fr. Swink noting from the pulpit that priests across the archdiocese were joining the call on Sunday to rally Catholics to resistance against the U.S. Government. He said we are entering a time of religious persecution and that Catholics and others will have to make a final decision about which side they are on.

The issue is what the Catholic Bishops have called a “literally unconscionable” edict by the Obama Administration demanding that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.

At a time when the media are full of reports about who is ahead and behind in the polls, and who will win the next Republican presidential primary, this incredible uprising in the Catholic Church is something that could not only overshadow the political campaign season, but also may have a major impact on the ultimate outcome—if Republicans know how to handle it. This matter goes beyond partisan politics to the growing perception of an unconstitutional Obama Administration assault on religious freedom. To hear the Catholic Bishops and Priests describe it, our constitutional republic and our freedoms hang in the balance.

The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”

The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”

Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”

So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.

Support for the latter explanation comes in the form of the Obama Administration’s efforts to co-opt the Catholic Church, primarily through appointing nominal Catholics to high-level positions in government and keeping funding going to the church for “social justice” causes. Another player in this effort is the hedge-fund billionaire George Soros, an atheist who nevertheless has foundgroups that are “Catholic in name only” to accept his financial largesse. These groups, including Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, are designed to give the impression that Catholics are less concerned about issues like stopping abortion and protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage than passing government health care. The Obama/Soros gamble may be backfiring.

It’s true that the bishops went along with Obama’s health care scheme, even lobbying on its behalf. But now they seem to be realizing that the plan was a Trojan Horse designed to force population control measures on the people of the United States. It will be difficult for the bishops to continue working with the administration on other issues, like immigration. They have drawn a line in the sand. They cannot back down.

Father Larry Swink of Jesus The Divine Word Catholic Church in Huntingtown, Maryland, is not alone in his tough language. Pittsburgh Bishop David A. Zubik posted a letter on the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh’s website that said, “It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’ There is no other way to put it.” He added, “This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.”

You know it’s serious when the bishops are talking about heaven and hell.

Indeed, Fr. Swink opened his discussion of what he described as the evil nature of the Obama Administration by reading from scripture about Jesus casting out demons. He saw the order on health care coverage as the start of religious persecution. The congregation joined him in calls of “Amen” when he challenged them to stand tall with the church.

You cannot expect the secular Washington Post to go along with such rhetoric. But even its liberal editorial writer saw the ramifications of the health care order, perhaps anticipating the confrontation that we now see developing. From the point of view of this liberal paper, the Obama Administration is not only undermining religious freedom but risking a major backlash to its overall “progressive” agenda and even a second term in office.

Some may see this battle as just another church-state dust-up that will be resolved through litigation. But when apocalyptic imagery is used, such as what I heard at my church on Sunday, one must wonder if there is an awakening on the part of the Catholic community and if there is something else going on here besides politics as usual. In short, is the Catholic Church beginning to finally recognize the real nature of the Obama Administration?

Source

.

The Year in Administration Scandals — and Scandal Deniers

Michelle Malkin  —   December 28, 2011

With 2011 drawing to a close, it is time to account. As an early-and-often chronicler of Chicago-on-the-Potomac, I am amazed at the stubborn and clingy persistence of President Barack Obama’s snowblowers in the media. See no scandal, hear no scandal, speak no scandal.

Dartmouth College professor Brendan Nyhan asserted in May — while Operation Fast and Furious subpoenas were flying on Capitol Hill — that “one of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals.” Conveniently, he defines scandal as a “widespread elite perception of wrongdoing.”

So as long as left-wing Ivy League scribes refuse to perceive something to be a scandal — never mind the actual suffering endured by the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, whose death came at the hands of a Mexican cartel thug wielding a Fast and Furious gun walked across the southern border under Attorney General Eric Holder’s watch — there is no scandal!

Self-serving much?

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum likewise proclaimed: “Obama’s presidency has so far been almost completely free of scandal.”

This after the year kicked off in January with the departure of lying eco-radical czar Carol Browner. In backroom negotiations, she infamously bullied auto execs to “put nothing in writing, ever.” The previous fall, the White House’s own oil spill panel had singled out Browner for misleading the public about the scientific evidence for the administration’s Draconian drilling moratorium and “contributing to the perception that the government’s findings were more exact than they actually were.”

The Interior Department inspector general and federal judges likewise blasted drilling ban book-cooking by Browner and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who falsely rewrote the White House drilling ban report to doctor the Obama-appointed panel’s own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict.

In February, federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana excoriated the Obama Interior Department for defying his May 2010 order to lift its fraudulent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. He called out the administration’s culture of contempt and “determined disregard” for the law.

This spring saw rising public anger over the preferential Obamacare waiver process (which I first reported on in September 2010). Some 2,000 lucky golden ticket winners were freed from the costly federal mandates — including a handful of fancy restaurants in Aloha Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district, the entire state of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Nevada, and scores of local, state and national Big Labor organizations, from the Service Employees International Union and Teamsters on down. Meanwhile, as The Hill newspaper reported last month, other not-so-lucky Republican-led states seeking waivers, such as Indiana and Louisiana, were rejected.

But it wasn’t just Republicans objecting to the president’s arbitrary Obamacare fiats. In July, congressional Democrats turned on the monstrous federal health bureaucracy known as the Independent Payment

Advisory Board. The constitutionally suspect panel — freed from normal public notice, public comment and public review rules — would have unprecedented authority over health care spending and an expanding jurisdiction of private health care payment rates.

Obama’s health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, faced separate legal questions over her overseer role in a hair-raising document-shredding case when she served as governor of Kansas. In October, a district judge in the Sunflower State suspended court proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against the abortion racketeers of Planned Parenthood. Bombshell court filings showed that Kansas health officials “shredded documents related to felony charges the abortion giant faces” and failed to disclose it for six years.

That same month, Bloomberg News columnist Jonathan Alter gushed: “There is zero evidence … of corruption. Where is it?”

Alter’s declaration of the “Obama Miracle” came just weeks after the politically driven half-billion-dollar Solyndra stimulus “investment” went bankrupt, prompting an FBI raid and ongoing criminal and congressional probes of the solar company funded by top White House bundler and visitor George Kaiser.

As Solyndra and an avalanche of other ongoing green subsidy scams erupted, so did the LightSquared debacle — a federal broadband boondoggle involving billionaire hedge fund managers and Obama donors Philip Falcone and George Soros. In September, two high-ranking witnesses — William Shelton, the four-star general who heads the Air Force Space Command, and National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Director Anthony Russo — exposed how the White House had pressured them to alter their congressional testimony and play down concerns about LightSquared’s interference threat to military communications.

The White House continues to block efforts to gain information about the Federal Communications Commission’s approval of a special waiver for the company, even as new government tests this month showed that the company’s “signals caused harmful interference to the majority of … general purpose GPS receivers.”

The Obama White House closed out the year with Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri demanding a probe of the smelly $443 million no-bid smallpox antiviral pill contract with Siga Technologies — controlled by big lefty donor Ron Perelman. Then there was the small matter of massive voter fraud in Indiana, where a Democratic official resigned amid allegations that “dozens, if not hundreds,” of signatures were faked to get Obama on the state primary ballot in 2008. And while Americans busied themselves with the holidays, White House and Democratic campaign officials were dumping more than $70,000 in contributions from another deep-pocketed contributor — scandal-plagued pal and former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, who oversaw the collapse of MF Global.

All this — and so much more — yet erstwhile “conservative” journalist Andrew Sullivan of Newsweek/The Daily Beast scoffed, “Where are all the scandals promised by Michelle Malkin?”

There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

---

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/guest-column/the-year-in-administration-scandals-and-scandal-deniers/