Presidential Race - Are We United?

dirt hound said:
YEP I m regtisterd to vote are you and unlike most of you I listen to all sides than make up my mind I 'm not persauded by no one never will come on libs what has barackorama done community leader ofthe slums of chicago don't cut it look up who cindy mccain is related to geesh and obama wanted to sponsor the 49 car with schrader geesh and he says mcaain is computer illiterate http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm check it out betcha she don't waiver unlike obama
Click to expand...
Thank you for making my point for me. Hound I don't want to hurt your feelings, but if you're going to act like a clown and you're not going to use proper punctuation people are never going to take you serious. You may think your clever or funny but nobody here respects you because of it.
Glennon
 
ask me if I give a ---- go ahead vote for obama and be like a follower of one certain party because you jobs tell you my self would not stoop that low
 
ROCKINRHINO24 said:
Hound I don't want to hurt your feelings, but if your going to act like a clown and you are not going to use proper punctuation people are never going to take you serious.
Click to expand...

It should be "you're" or "you are", not "your", so he's the clown? You're attacking his ideas based on his "punctuation"? That's priceless. You liberals will just say anything...

By the way, I think you could have used a comma after the word "punctuation".
 
68droptop said:
It should be "you're" or "you are", not "your", so he's the clown? You're attacking his ideas based on his "punctuation"? That's priceless. You liberals will just say anything...
Click to expand...
Alright so you must be new around here. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about dirthound. Based on your posts I think you might be dirthound, or at least related to him. In case you didn't know Dirthound makes a habit of driving people nuts with his stupid comments and bad spelling.Just look at his signature on his post "midgetracer wore his helmet too tight" what's that all about? Maybe I should have said Hound should at least make an attempt to put a sentence together. Would that have been better for you? I could care less which party dirthound votes for, it's not going to change the fact that he is a clown. And who said i was a democrat? There's only a few normal people that use this forum that i would even consider discussing politics with and i wouldn't do it in one of these posts. hint, hint you're not one of them.

Glennon
 
68droptop said:
It should be "you're" or "you are", not "your", so he's the clown? You're attacking his ideas based on his "punctuation"? That's priceless. You liberals will just say anything...

By the way, I think you could have used a common after the word "punctuation".
Click to expand...

For the record, I didn't accuse Hound of using an advertisement....

And Droptop, shame on you...

You should have told Glennon to use a "comma" not a "common".;)
 
Interesting article out of the "Plain Truth" Our Chickens Have Come Home To Roost: Political Correctness

By Bob Barney
"America's chickens, have come home, to roost," stated a now-famous black Christian pastor and ex-pal of Barack Obama. How accurate that man was! No, I am not talking about 9-11 and the Muslim attack on America and her people. I am talking about America's 75-year policy of ignoring God's Word and following a multi-cultural rationalization.

In the book of Jeremiah, God says "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain." This is exactly what American politicians, leaders and educators have done to our country.

In my recent column on the real cause of the economic meltdown, I proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that America's pandering to multi-culturalism, especially to the black and Hispanic people has led to our recent economic collapse and friends. It is going to get worse, unless we stop and listen to what our God has to say to us. These are NOT racist comments, these are realistic comments! It is not racist to choose right from wrong, positive versus negative.

Truthfully, the best thing that could ever happen to black Americans would be to learn how to be an "American." Italians, for example, have been able to do it, and they were hated in their day more than blacks are today. My grandmother, born in Italy was called a "macaroni" bender in the second grade! The Italians learned how to become "American." The American way works, and when our age-old, Christian-based values are followed, everyone will succeed! We do not do the black race any favor pandering to its needs.

Bill Cosby, who is routinely pounced on by the liberals, white and black, has it right. He understands that to succeed, you follow the example of what works. Black culture does not work! Hip Hop gangster baggy-pant thugs are thugs!

America is a Christian nation, and as long as it remains a Christian nation, we will survive any war, any depression any calamity. Multi-culturalism is what was being talked about when God called His people out of Egypt, which is a type of sin, with Pharaoh being a type of Satan. God said:

"When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits [demons], or a wizard, or a necromancer [one who claims to communicate with the dead]. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God" (Deuteronomy 18:9-13).

In plain English, we are not to try and learn other cultures to make us more modern. Other people are to learn our cultures, our ways and our laws!

Millions do not know who it was who issued this command to Moses. Believe it or not, it was the member of the divine Godhead, called "Elohim" in Genesis who became Jesus Christ of your New Testament! Here is the proof:

"In the beginning was the Word [Greek: Logos, meaning Spokesman"], and the Word was with God [Theos, the Greek equivalent of Elohim, meaning more than One] and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him [He was the CREATOR of Genesis!]; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own [the Jews], and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12).

There is no possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpreting these verses of your Bible! Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT! He said to the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). He said to Moses, who asked him his name, tell the people that "I AM hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14). Look it up for yourself.

There are millions of hard-working, Christian blacks that are as American as you and I, that have fought for this country, but more importantly, live by the words of our God. This is what America was really about. Yes, our forefathers did not want an established religion, but they wanted a religious nation! They sought a Judeo-Christian nation, following sound Biblical doctrines. God made a promise that when we did not follow His laws and "And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made. And the children of Israel (see who Israel really is in your Bible!) did secretly those things that were not right against the LORD their God (2 Kings 17:8).

What have we been doing as a nation? We have been turning away from God and not turning to God.

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables." (II Timothy 4:4)

Now comes news of a result from a new poll. It disturbs the liberals and the politically correct, but anyone who is honest, black, white, purple, red or yellow, understands the root cause of the shocking findings! Yahoo News reports today:
WASHINGTON (AP) – Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks – many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles. The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama due to his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 – about two and one-half percentage points.

The survey has even more findings. "Forty percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents. More than a third of all white Democrats and independents – voters Obama can't win the White House without – agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views."

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election. Many Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama on account of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president – white, black or brown.

Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks then say bad things, the poll shows. Many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama. On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows and supports a belief that most know that blacks distrust whites in overwhelming numbers. In other words, racism goes both ways.

click on image for larger view

AP went on with this quote: "We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio. Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment. More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.” Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn’t. Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For instance, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent." Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder." (excerpt from the AP story) (The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.)

Erik Eckholm's column, "Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn" at Allhiphop.com states: "Black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed ... . [N]ew studies, by experts at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard and other institutions, show that the huge pool of poorly educated black men are becoming ever more disconnected from the mainstream society, and to a far greater degree than comparable white or Hispanic men."

"There's something very different happening with young black men, and it's something we can no longer ignore," said Ronald B. Mincy, professor of social work at Columbia University and editor of "Black Males Left Behind" (Urban Institute Press, 2006).

"Over the last two decades, the economy did great," Mr. Mincy said, "and low-skilled women, helped by public policy, latched onto it. However, young black men were falling farther back."

"If you look at the numbers, the 1990s was a bad decade for young black men, even though it had the best labor market in 30 years," said Harry J. Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and co-author, with Peter Edelman and Paul Offner, of "Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men" (Urban Institute Press, 2006).

Other stats Eckholm sites:

– Incarceration rates climbed in the 1990's and reached historic highs in the past few years. In 1995, 16 percent of black men in their 20s who did not attend college were in jail or prison; by 2004, 21 percent were incarcerated. By their mid-30s, six in 10 black men who had dropped out of school had spent time in prison.

– About half of all black men in their late 20s and early 30s who did not go to college are noncustodial fathers. The share of young black men without jobs has climbed relentlessly, with only a slight pause during the economic peak of the late 1990's. In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20s were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high-school graduates were included, half of black men in their 20s were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000.

Yes, it is not popular to say these things, but most Americans have a right to feel the way they do about black America, and all of the media hype is not going to make it go away. As long as one fears for their lives whenever they are in a black area, or watches any news broadcast, or sees the fate of half of the NBA and NFL players in the newspapers, this so-called racism isn't going to end. It is not racist to be in fear when you have a reason to be in fear!

Black Americans can, if they change their culture, make it in America, just like almost every other group has done. This is America, not Africa. To be accepted here, one must want to be here and adopt the ways of this country. Nobody would move to China and expect that nation to adopt the English language, banish Chinese culture and adopt American customs, yet that is exactly what black America has expected from this country. It is not going to happen.

Black Americans can change their fate, they can merge themselves into our culture and most Americans want that to happen, but unless there is a big change in that community, the continued fear and distrust of blacks will continue. Their leaders hold the key to the improvement of their own people. America is waiting for it to happen, and I hope that someday it will.

There was a time in this country when people spoke up for God and country. Today, we are ridiculed and called "racist," "homophobes" and "just plain dumb." That's fine with me. I guess I am not "modern" and "enlightened."

As for me, I'll take what Jesus said more seriously than what others might say: "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Mark 7:7)
 
More Obama questions he won't answer


Obama’s Harvard Years: Questions Swirl

Monday, September 22, 2008 2:11 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size




How exactly did Barack Obama pay for his Harvard Law School education?


The way the Obama campaign has answered the question was simply hard work and student loans.


But new questions have been raised about Obama’s student loans and Obama’s ties to a radical Muslim activist who reportedly was raising money for Obama’s Harvard studies during the years 1988 to 1991.


The allegations first surfaced in late March, when former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.


In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.


Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.


Prince Alwaleed catapulted to fame in the United States after the September 11 attacks, when New York mayor Rudy Guiliani refused his $10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan, because the Saudi prince hinted publicly that America’s pro-Israel policies were to blame for the attacks.


Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.


As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.


“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”


Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsmax that Sutton’s account was “bogus” and a “fabrication that has been retracted” by a spokesman for the Sutton family.


He referred Newsmax to a pro-Obama blog published on Politico.com by reporter Ben Smith.


In a September 3 blog entry, Smith wrote that “a spokesman for Sutton’s family, Kevin Wardally” said that Sutton had been mistaken when he made those comments about Obama and Khalid Al-Mansour.


Smith suggested the retraction “put the [Obama/Al-Mansour] story to rest for good.”


Wardally told Smith that the “information Mr. Percy Sutton imported [sic] on March 25 in a NY1 News interview regarding his connection to Barack Obama is inaccurate. As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”


Asked which parts of Percy Sutton’s statements were a “fabrication,” LaBolt said “all of it. Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama. And Sutton’s spokesman retracted the story. The letter [to Harvard, which Percy Sutton says he wrote on behalf of Obama], the ‘payments for loans’ — all of it, not true,” he added.


Newsmax contacted the Sutton family and they categorically denied Wardally’s claims to Smith and the Politico.com. So there was no retraction of Sutton’s original interview, during which he revealed that Khalid Al-Mansour was “raising money” for Obama and had asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to help him get accepted at Harvard Law School.


Sutton’s personal assistant told Newsmax that neither Mr. Sutton or his family had ever heard of Kevin Wardally.


”Who is this person?” asked Sutton’s assistant, Karen Malone.


When told that he portrayed himself as a “spokesman” for the family, Malone told Newsmax, “Well, he’s not.”


According to a 2006 New York magazine profile, Wardally is part of a “New New Guard” in Harlem politics that has been challenging the “lions” of the old guard, Charles Rangel and Percy Sutton. That makes him an unlikely candidate to speak on behalf of Sutton.


Sutton maintains an office at the Manhattan headquarters of the firm he founded, Inner City Broadcasting Corporation. ICBC owns New York radio stations WBLS and WLIB.


Sutton’s son Pierre (“Pepe”) runs ICBC along with his daughter, Keisha Sutton-James. Malone told Newsmax that she had consulted with Sutton’s family members at the station and confirmed that no one knew Kevin Wardally or had authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.


For someone claiming to be a “spokesman” for the Sutton family, who was authorized to call Percy Sutton a liar, Wardally even got Percy Sutton’s age wrong.


Sutton is not 86, as Wardally said, but close to 88. He was born on Nov. 24, 1920.


Wardally responded to a several Newsmax phone messages and emails with a terse one-line comment, maintaining his statement that Percy Sutton “misspoke” in the television interview.


“I believe the statement speaks for itself and the Sutton Family and I have nothing further to say on the topic,” he wrote in an email.


Asked to explain why it was that no one at Inner City Broadcasting Corp. knew of him or accepted him as a family spokesman, Wardally responded later that he had been retained by a nephew of the elder Sutton, who “is in our office almost every week.”


Wardally works for Bill Lynch Associations, a Harlem political consulting firm. The nephew, Chuck Sutton, no longer works with the elder Sutton at Inner City Broadcasting, but for a high-tech start-up called Synematics.


“Percy Sutton doesn’t go out idly on television saying things he doesn’t mean,” a well-connected black entrepreneur who knows Sutton told Newsmax.


Ben LaBolt’s claim that “Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama” was contradicted by Al Mansour himself in an extended interview with Newsmax.


Comparing the revelation of his ties to Obama to the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Al Mansour said that he was determined to keep a low profile to avoid embarrassing Obama.


“In respect to Mr. Obama, I have told him, because so many people are running after him… I was determined that I was never going to be in that situation,” he told Newsmax.


Al Mansour said he was deliberately avoiding any contact with the candidate. “I’m not involved in any way in celebrity sweepstakes,” he said. “I wish him well, anything I can do if he lets me know, I’ll let him know what I think I can do or can’t. But I don’t collect autographs. I wish him the best, and hope he can win the election.”


He repeatedly declined to comment on the Percy Sutton allegations, either to confirm or to deny them.


“Any statement that I make would only further the activity which is not in the interest of Barack, not in the interest of Percy, not in the interest of anyone,” Al Mansour said.


Unanswered Questions


Sen. Obama has refused to instruct Harvard Law School to release any information about his time there as a student, or about his student loans.


Newsmax contacted the Dean of Students, the Director of Student Financial Services, the Registrar, and the Bursar of Harvard Law School. None would provide any specific information on Barack Obama’s time at Harvard, except for his dates of attendance (1988-1991) or his year of graduation, 1991.


A spokesman for the law school, Michael Armini, said it was Harvard policy not to divulge information on alumni without their approval.


“There are lots of reporters nosing around the library,” he acknowledged. So far, none had turned up any new information.


Law professors Lawrence Tribe and Charles Ogletree have both said publicly that they were “impressed” by Obama when he was a student.


Sources close to the Sutton family told Newsmax that Percy Sutton wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama to Ogletree at Khalid Al-Mansour’s request, but Ogletree declined to answer Newsmax questions about this.


Harvard Law School spokesman Michael Armini said that Harvard was “very generous” with financial aid, but only on the basis on need.


The Obama campaign told Newsmax that Obama self-financed his three years at Harvard Law School with loans, and did not receive any scholarship from Harvard Law school.


LaBolt denied that Obama received any financial assistance from Harvard or from outside parties. “No - he paid his way through by taking out loans,” he said in an email to Newsmax.


At the time, Harvard cost around $25,000 a year, or $75,000 for the three years that Obama attended. And as president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, Harvard spokesman Mike Armini said.


“That is considered a volunteer position,” Armini said. “There is no salary or grant associated with it.”


So if the figures cited by the Obama campaign for the Senator’s student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.


Where did he find the money? Did it come from friends of Khalid Al Mansour? And why would a radical Muslim activist with ties to the Saudi royal family be raising money for Barack Obama?


That’s the question the Obama campaign still won’t answer.


Michelle Obama Speaks Out


Speaking at a campaign event in Haverford, Pa, in April of this year, Michelle Obama claimed that her husband had “just paid off his loan debt” for his Harvard Law School education.


In an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio, in February she bemoaned the fact that many American families were strapped with student loan payments for years after graduation.


“The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books,” she said. The first of those best-sellers netted the couple $1.2 million in royalties in 2005.


In response to Newsmax questions about the Obama’s college loans, a campaign spokesman cited a report in The Chicago Sun claiming that Obama borrowed $42,753 to pay for Harvard Law School, and “tens of thousands” more to pay for undergraduate studies at Columbia.


The same report said that Michelle Obama borrowed $40,762 to pay for her years at Harvard Law School.


But a Newsmax review of Senator Obama’s financial disclosures found no trace of any outstanding college loans, going back to 2000.


As a United States Senate candidate, Barack Obama was required to file a financial disclosure form in 2004 detailing his assets, income, consulting contracts, and liabilities.


Obama listed “zero” under liabilities in 2004 and in all subsequent U.S. Senate financial disclosure forms.


Under the Senate ethics rules, he is required to disclose any loan, including credit card debt, of $10,000 or more. The only exception to the reporting requirement is mortgage debt on a principal residence.


The Senate reports also directly contradict Michelle Obama’s claim that the couple had “only just” paid off their student loans after receiving book royalties paid out in 2005 and 2006 – well after her husband had been ensconced in the Senate.


Apparently, Michelle Obama misspoke, according to the version provided by the Obama campaign.


Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt now tells Newsmax that the loans Sen. Obama took out to pay for Harvard Law School “were repaid in full while he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate [in 2004], and under the rules, the modest outstanding balance he repaid was not reportable as a liability on his personal financial disclosure reports.”


The Senator repaid the loans on “the expectation of a significant increase in family income” as a result of the paperback edition of his 1995 book, Dreams of My Father, LaBolt said.


Obama acknowledges that sales of the hard cover edition of the book were “underwhelming.” But in the spring of 2004,when Obama won the Democrat U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, Rachel Klayman, an editor at Crown Publishers in New York, read an article about Obama and became interested in his memoir, only to discover that Crown now owned the rights.


She asked Obama to write a new forward, and Crown then decided to re-issue Dreams as a paperback in July 2004, just as Obama made his historic speech to the Democrat National Convention.


The paperback eventually sold over one million copies, which under the standard industry royalty for trade paperbacks of 7.5%, earned him $1.2 million. However, Obama didn’t report income from the book until 2005, so it’s unclear how he was able to repay his student loans in 2004.


Responding to attacks from the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries, Obama released seven years of tax returns on March 25 of this year.


The returns, dating back to 2000, indicate that the couple paid no interest on their student loans. The interest from such loans would have been deductible on their joint income tax returns.


For 2000 through 2004, taxpayers declared student loan interest as a deduction on line 24 of federal form 1040. After 2004, the deduction can be taken on Line 33.


But the Obamas never declared a dime of interest in student loans on their return, most likely because they simply earned too much money to be able to take the deduction under the IRS rules.


Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt had no answer as to why the Obamas’ failed to declare the loans, stating the obvious that “because interest on the loans was not deducted, it would not appear on the Obamas’ personal return.”




© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
 
Bopper,

Since you don't seem to care for the moral values of Obama, do you favor the moral values of a 34 year old married man having an affair with a 17 year old girl and a beauty queen vp. candidate parading her 17 year old pregnant daughter around as though unwed teen pregnancy is a virtue.

In another era, you and your kind would be burning witches at the stake, in the name of God of course.
 
I am not worried at all about Obama's or anyone else's moral values. I am worried about what Obama is trying to hide by not answering these questions. I believe he is hiding things that will greatly and negatively affect all middle (me) and lower class americans.This man is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I hope I am wrong but he is the scariest individual I have studied since Hitler. The people that are backing him (not the sheep) are equally as scary.
 
well if you are in the middle economic class and you are concerned about the state of affairs of this country, then you should be studying what the other party has already done to you and America and support the best friend the middle class has ever had, the Democratic Party.
 
Phoenix 2 said:
well if you are in the middle economic class and you are concerned about the state of affairs of this country, then you should be studying what the other party has already done to you and America and support the best friend the middle class has ever had, the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

The democratic party has not been a friend to the middle class since 1960. If you call giving all our jobs to china, mexico, and india good for the middle class then I guess you are right. If you call breaking up the american family by easy welfare then you are right. If you call quota's good for the HARD working person good then you are right. If you call the monopolistic public school system good for the working man then you are right. If you call the punitive taxes that the working man will always bear no matter who you tax is good then you are right. If you call our legal system that sues everybody for anything fair then you are right. If you call the murdering of innocent babies moral then you are right. If you call the second amendment something that the middle class has less right to than the "elites" then you are right. If you think being soft on crime is good for the honest working man then you are right. I think you are terribly wrong.
 
Can you say this is good for the middle class orany other for that matter????????????????????
Obama bill: $845 billion
more for global poverty
Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel
that would cost 0.7% of gross national product

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 14, 2008
3:53 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Barak Obam

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."




Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

"It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.

Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.

On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.

"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."

WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.

Another forum participant said, "Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world's little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let's stop using oil and burning coal while we're at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. ..."

One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn't specifically demand "taxes," but instead leaves the mandatory "implementation" up to the president, "maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president's pillow."

Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation "in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote."

The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in "the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day."

It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, "not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act," to submit a report on "the contributions provided by the United States" toward poverty reduction.
 
Bopper, this country was founded on Christian values, but not on the Bible itself. Your right wing Christian extremist views are no better than an Islamic extremist terrorist. You support the discrimination of people based on color and faith, and that is against the fundamentals of freedom that this country is based upon. When we, as a country, can see beyond color, religion, and gender, then all will truely be treated as equals. Barack Obama understands that fundamental. Why can't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.




Back
Top