Mitt Romney: Tesla Motors is a ‘Loser’

October 4, 2012 by Anita Li

(Mashable) - Mitt Romney labelled electric carmaker Tesla Motors a “loser” during Wednesday night’s U.S. presidential debate.

The Republican candidate took a jab at Tesla while discussing tax breaks to energy companies. He criticized U.S. President Barack Obama for providing “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world.”

“Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives,” Romney said. “You put $90 billion — like 50 years’ worth of breaks — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said, you don’t just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers.”

While Solyndra and Ener1 went bankrupt and Fisker is struggling financially, Tesla has shown signs of recovery.

The company is currently paying back $465 million in low-interest loans from the U.S. Department of Energy.

In a Wednesday blog post, CEO Elon Musk said Tesla will start repaying its federal loans early.

“I am happy to announce that we will be initiating an advance payment today to prefund the principal payment that is due in March 2013.”

Musk also emphasized that Tesla has “always” made its payments to the Department of Energy on time, and has “never asked to delay replayment ever.”

Buzz around the company’s new Model S electric sedan has also largely been positive.

Still, Tesla is not without its struggles. The carmaker cut its forecast for 2012 revenue due to a slower-than-expected rollout of the Model S, according to Reuters.

Musk commented in June about the impact that Romney would have on the electric car market if he wins November’s presidential election.

“I’m not sure he’s really against them [electric cars]. He may not be as for them as, say, President Obama is,” he said. “I think Romney would have a minor impact; I think President Obama would probably have a more positive impact.”

[via Wired]

Pennsylvania Reacts Live to the Romney-Obama Debate

Local readers discuss Oct. 3 debate in Bucks and Montgomery.

10.04.12

When Wendy Larson arrived to watch Wednesday night's presidential debate at Ann's Choice in Warminster, she had already decided on voting for incumbent President Barack Obama.

"I made up my mind after the conventions," said Larson. "When I saw the Republicans, I didn't think they represented me."

Ninety minutes later, Larson found herself back on the fence over how she will cast her ballot on Nov. 6.

"Romney acquitted himself well," she said. "He showed he has more experience in dealing with the country's problems."

Judging by the real time reactions posted by Patch users in Bucks and Montgomery counties during last night's liveblog of the debate, the general consensus is that Romney won the first of three scheduled debates between the candidates.

"Mitt won, hands down," commented user Joe Moon. "Obama was clearly out of his league. But that is the difference between a community organizer, and a real man from the real world."

The local and national trend is that Wednesday was Romney's night, which is undoubtedly good news for a campaign that struggled in September.

"I loved his aggressiveness, he stood up for himself, I was delighted with his performance tonight and it shows the public what kind of leader he can be," said Pat Poprik, chair of the Bucks County Republican Committee. “I think the strongest point [Romney] made tonight was how he wants to attack the deficit and the economy. His plan is real and valid. You have to stop spending, just like a household budget. Undoubtedly, Romney won tonight. There is no doubt in my mind he won tonight.”

As of midnight, Patch readers clearly declared Republican candidate Mitt Romney as the winner in a post-debate poll, giving him 69 percent of the vote.

"It’s night and day and the reality is out here in the public," said Ray Babcock as he stood outside the Bucks County Republican Committee headquarters in Doylestown. "This President is leading us down the wrong path. I liked Romney’s statements on the economy, taxes, the whole bit. I think Romney really handled the debate well and he is coming from the heart, he’s passionate, and you can hear that he is American. I think Obama’s intentions are good, but he is off a little bit in his understanding."

President Obama was not without his own supporters, however.

“I have been pleased with the caliber of the debate," said Kevin Green, a volunteer at the Bucks County Democratic Field Office in Doylestown. "I think there are some good points being made by both sides and both sides are representing their views, but I think Obama’s message is coming across very clear. He supports a different vision in dealing with the economy and moving America forward."

The face-off was the first debate between the two candidates and took place at the University of Colorado. Moderated by PBS anchor Jim Lehrer, the topics focused on domestic policy issues, including jobs, the economy, entitlements and the overall function of government in American society.

"Mitt definitely won tonight," said Patch reader and frequent blogger Mike Shortall. "President looked tired and harried. Mitt spoke much better, and clearly laid out his framework for the country, especially economically. Much better performance than I expected."

Despite the 90 minutes of back and forth and clear philosophical distinctions, the major takeaway from the debate occurred early on during an exchange over federal spending. Romney stated that part of his plans include cutting Obamacare and funding for public broadcasting.

"I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS," Romney said to debate moderator Jim Lehrer. "I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually I like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for [it]."

The line was quickly jumped on by social media users and by the end of the debate, the #bigbird hashtag was trending on Twitter and a fake Big Bird account had been created.

"Romney plans to fire Big Bird!!! WTF!! That's his plan????" commented Joann Cosgrove.

The other common takeaway from last night's debate is that Lehrer did not perform well as moderator. His efforts to cut the candidate's off because they ran over their allotted time or he wished to change subjects were repeatedy ignored.

"Lehrer clearly can not control the candidates," said user Scott Johnson.

Next on the schedule is the vice presidential debate on Oct. 11 at 9 p.m. between incumbent Joe Biden and Republican candidate Paul Ryan. They will meet at Centre College in Kentucky, with ABC's Martha Raddatz presiding.

Obama and Romney will meet again on Oct. 16 at 9 p.m. at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., for a town hall-style debate, with CNN's Candy Crowley as moderator, followed by the final debate on foreign policy on Oct. 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., moderated by CBS' Bob Scheiffer.

Source: Patch

Obama did not 'underperform': we saw the real man

Tired, bored, listless – the real Obama?



Barack Obama was dreadful in the first presidential debate. He seemed confused and hesitant; his thoughts were incoherent.

There seems to be confusion among the Left as to how such a thing could have happened. How could such a celebrated orator underperform? The answer is simple: Obama did not underperform.

Mr Obama is in the midst of an election campaign he is attempting to win without policies. He claims he will cut debt despite having ruled out reductions to the most significant area of spending, welfare entitlements. He wants to avoid war in the Middle East, which is commendable, but not, in itself, a policy. He is against a "war on women", he is against the Boy Scouts of America banning gays. This isn't anywhere close to being a prospectus for governing the world's most important country through a period of crisis – it's a manifesto for election to a student union.

The argument has always been that we should not expect Mr Obama to share his innermost thoughts with us. The man, so we are told, is such an intellectual giant that we would not understand him if he did.

That is one explanation. The other is that Mr Obama's intellectual development froze around the time he first encountered socialism. He is exceptionally good at reading out from a teleprompter, be that on the campaign trail or when addressing an audience of 12-year-olds. When he is left to articulate complex thoughts of his own, he fails.

The fact is that Mr Obama has a talented, cynical team around him who have been succesful in constructing a narrative in which Mr Romney is a comic villan who wants to ruin the poor and open windows on aeroplanes. Stripped of these people, he has no memorable policies and very few discernible convictions. The emptiness we saw on Wednesday was the real thing.

Source:  UK Telegraph

Romney: Obama ‘could have hired 2 million teachers with that [green energy] money’

When Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama were asked to compare their education plans, both candidates went out of their way to say they support public education.

For his answer, Obama tapped into a recent gaffe Romney made when he suggested that prospective students should borrow money from their parents to pay for their college education. However, instead of continuing to hit his point home, Obama paused briefly during his delivery, seemingly trying to avoid making the attack too personal.

"When he says that people should borrow money from their parents to go to college, that indicates … the degree to which folks, just don't have that option," Obama said.

Romney responded: "I don't have any plan to cut education funding. But I do agree with you that where you put your money says something about your priorities."

"You put $90 billion into green energy," Romney said. "I'm all for green energy but you could have hired two million teachers with that money."

Source: Yahoo

Newly Unearthed Obama Video: “Rich people are all for nonviolence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want.”

10/4/12

In the wake of the Daily Caller’s release of President Obama cheering Rev. Wright and invoking the race card in various ways, our friend Morgen Richmond decided the time was right to release some little-known Obama video of his own. He authorized me to release the video here first.

The following clips are from 2002. Obama is speaking in a church at a 2002 Martin Luther King Jr. Day memorial service.

The full speech is here, and by and large it is a nice speech by a rising politician. Obama speaks about the need for empathy in society, about taking responsibility for our actions, and the audacity of hope. He levels barbs at the wealthy and unempathetic, but also criticizes those who blame the system for the arrest of O.J. Simpson and the crack epidemic. Although the audio quality is poor because of the echo in the church, one can tell that Obama is well spoken and articulate. Joe Biden would have been proud.

But there are a few times when the mask slips, just a little.

My favorite clip is this one, where he speaks of Dr. King’s philosophy of non-violence, and explains that it works only when there is empathy:

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-6213799225894164600&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

If the cannot see the video above, please use the direct link>>

Transcript:

The philosophy of nonviolence only makes sense if the powerful can be made to recognize themselves in the powerless. It only makes sense if the powerless can be made to recognize themselves in the powerful. You know, the principle of empathy gives broader meaning, by the way, to Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but rich people are all for nonviolence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want. They want to make sure people don’t take their stuff. But the principle of empathy recognizes that there are more subtle forms of violence to which we are answerable. The spirit of empathy condemns not only the use of firehoses and attack dogs to keep people down but also accountants and tax loopholes to keep people down. I’m not saying that what Enron executives did to their employees is the moral equivalent of what Bull Connor did to black folks, but I’ll tell you what, the employees at Enron feel violated. When a company town sees its plant closing because some distant executives made some decision despite the wage concessions, despite the tax breaks, and they see their entire economy collapsing, they feel violence . . .

Other clips are linked below. I was struck by the way that Obama portrayed those who commit crimes and become imprisoned are “caught up” in a “prison industrial complex” that would not be tolerated if white people didn’t think of blacks and Latinos as unlike them.

And the class warfare talk never ends.

What Obama really thought about the Clinton years. Quote: “Among African American males, one third to one fourth caught up in the criminal justice system, so that the number of young men incarcerated exceeded the number enrolled in colleges and universities. Throughout the nation inequality up, trust in mutuality down . . . the evidence was there if we cared to look.”

Obama on empathy, the powerful, and the prison industrial complex. Quote: “It’s hard to imagine that the powerful in our society would tolerate the burgeoning prison industrial complex if they imagined that the black men and Latino men that are being imprisoned were something like their sons.”

Local funding of schools is “fundamentally unjust.” Quote: “And Illinois, like many states in the country, has an education system that is funded by property taxes. It is fundamentally unjust. So you have folks up in Winnetka, pupils who are getting five times as much money per student as students in the South Side of Chicago.”

The full clip on YouTube.

If you use any of these clips or transcripts, please credit Morgen, and mention that you saw them here first.


SOURCE: Patterico.com
(originally posted 10.3.12 at source)

SPECIAL REPORT: The FULL 2007 Obama tape you've never seen before

By Correctamundo
@ Capitalist's Preservation

In a video from '07, in which Obama addresses an audience of black ministers, you see and hear a different man than what you have in the WH today - but yet he was the same. Different in that he really had his racial accent goin' on - he sounded like he was full of Novocaine. The same, however, in his divisive, race-baiting, class warfare rhetoric. The full video can be seen here at The Daily Caller website:


Barack Obama 2007 Speech, full version


On The Sean Hannity Show last night, Sean does a side-by-side comparison of Obama speaking out of both sides of his mouth (starting at 10:22)>>

And the left is getting dizzy spinning its significance, or to them, its insignificance. Oh, they can say it's old news or that it was 'already covered', even by Tucker Carlson - but the fact is, it was covered under false pretenses. The meat of the speech was scrubbed. The version currently available is only about 9 minutes long and that's ALL the public ever saw. You don't hear about class warfare, race, and the poor people that need help. Yes, Obama is the original '47%er', make no mistake. And how is the left spinning it?


Sam Stein ‏@samsteinhp
Tucker Carlson actually covered Obama’s quiet riot speech on his old MSNBC showhttp://nbcnews.to/QMthLf
Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew
This speech was actually covered on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show Tucker in 2007 oddly enough.
Sarah Reese Jones ‏@srjones66
HOW YOU CAN TELL THEY ARE LOSING: Fox and Drudge stoop down to Rev Wright again. FYI, this is not working, again.

Stefan Becket ‏@stefanjbecket
That was lame.


READ THE ACTUAL TWEETS>>>

Gun Owners Do You Owe Mitt Romney An Apology For Your Doubts? - Must Read Report

Ohio --(Ammoland.com) - I have not been easy on Mitt Romney in the years since he began seeking the presidency.

During the 2008 Republican primary, I viewed Romney much as I did John McCain – a flip-flopper who just couldn’t be trusted. In fact, in an op-ed entitled “Will you be Mitt Romney’s cheap date?”, published at BuckeyeFirearms.org and picked up by World Net Daily (www.wnd.com), I likened Romney to a bar-hopping boyfriend treating pro-gun voters “like some airheaded college girlfriend,” …”expect[ing] that we’ll watch as [he] repeatedly grope[s] and fondle[s] waitresses while we’re out on a date together, but forgive [him] as soon as [he] say[s] ‘I love you baby. Now go get me another beer.’”

Tough? Yes. But it’s not as though I made that assessment in a vacuum.

Also in 2008, pro-gun writer Dave Kopel rated Romney as “poor.” John Lott wrote that Romney “supports renewing the so-called “assault-weapons ban.”

And of course I had the words of Romney himself. When explaining his support for the Clinton Gun Ban in 1994, Romney was quoted by The Boston Herald as saying “that’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA. I don’t line up with a lot of special interest groups.”

And yet, here I am today, pondering the question – “Do I owe Mitt Romney an apology?”

Here is why:

No long ago, I came across a report prepared by the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) in February 2007. GOAL is a state-level group defending the gun rights of the citizens of Massachusetts just as Buckeye Firearms Association does here in Ohio. Why this report never came to my attention sooner is beyond me. Whether or not it had come to the attention of other pro-gun writers I don’t know. But the facts presented by GOAL fly in the face of what I’ve always thought I knew about Mitt Romney and the Second Amendment.

Following are a few eye-popping excerpts from the opening remarks of the report, entitled “The Romney Record” – A GOAL Special Report:
…in the end, GOAL had more access to this administration than any other since the days of Governor Ed King in 1979.
…a very good working relationship was developed that benefited both parties.
During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.
Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.
His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006.



The comments continue, crediting Romney for modifying the state’s law to provide free replacement of firearm licenses to those who had them stolen or lost, keeping requirement that game wardens needed to have some environmental education background not strictly law enforcement, and more.

In fact, according to the report, during his administration, Governor Romney issued a proclamation declaring May 7, 2005 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day,” and adds that the proclamation was issued on this date to coincide with GOAL’s Annual Banquet.
This is certainly a different impression of Mitt Romney’s Second Amendment background than any I’ve heard before.

Perhaps the most common criticism of Romney in pro-gun circles concerns a bill he signed in 2004. The Associated Press wrote that the bill was “one of the toughest assault weapons laws in the country.” In 2008, John Lott wrote that Romney had “signed into law draconian gun legislation while governor of Massachusetts.” He was far from the only pro-gun writer repeating that “fact.”

And yet, GOAL maintains that “during the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk,” and specifically singles out this legislation as “the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998.”

So what are the details GOAL uses to back their position? Again, from the report:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons


This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:

1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

3. Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose [sic] all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3″ x 4″.

9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.

The report goes on to cite other bills which affected gun owners in Massachusetts during Romney’s administration, and explains how Romney’s position matched GOAL’s, or how Romney’s administration worked to remove anti-gun provisions from proposed legislation, etc.

In short, the report confirms what Mitt Romney has repeatedly said on the campaign trail and in town hall meetings – that the bill he signed in 2004 had the full support of the NRA’s state affiliate, GOAL, and that they and other pro-gun lobbyists asked him to sign it.

So where does this leave us? That Romney approved of the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban has not been disputed. But he isn’t the only politician to have once held the mistaken belief that it might work to curb crime. President George W. Bush stated he’d have signed a renewal if the failed bill made it to his desk, and Ohio’s own John Kasich supported the ban as well, and has since admitted he was “wrong.” Romney too appears to have learned that such bans don’t work to curb crime.

Separate from his support for the gun ban passed by Congress nearly 20 years ago (and allowed to sunset after a decade of failure), a position he no longer takes, it appears that the central “fact” that most gun owners “know” about Mitt Romney – namely that he signed an new assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004 – isn’t a fact at all.

My sense is that knowledge of the GOAL report may allow some pro-gun voters, who may have been hesitant to go “All In,” to feel much better about voting for the only man who stands a chance at defeating Barack Obama.

Mr Romney, for whatever it’s worth, I apologize.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.

About:
Buckeye Firearms Association is a grassroots political action committee dedicated to defending and advancing the right of Ohio citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities. Visit: www.buckeyefirearms.org

TheSavageNation

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/thesavagenation


Temporary link until new syndication deal is worked out. More information will be posted as it is received. Thank you for your patience.

-KC

Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians

Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians
Bishop E.W. Jackson

Bishop E.W. Jackson

Everyone should listen to the following video while it is still available. It is a short message from Bishop E.W. Jackson to fellow black Christians about the evil being done by the Democrat party.

John Nolte on Brietbart said, "Note that Bishop Jackson is not endorsing Mitt Romney or the Republican Party and never once mentions Barack Obama. His testimony is merely an indictment of the Democrat Party, not from a racial or partisan perspective, but from a Christian one.

"Honestly, I would love to hear anyone attempt to argue against the points the Bishop makes about Planned Parenthood, same sex marriage, and most especially the Democratic Party's attacks against God, up to and including the booing of God last month at the Democratic convention in Charlotte (something the Bishop mentions in the video).

"Bishop Jackson has turned his beliefs into a moment called S.T.A.N.D. -- which stands for Staying True to America's Destiny. Here's the website."

Click to see Bishop E.W. Jackson’s message to black Christians

Source: ARRA News Service

MPAC represents US Government at Human Rights Conference

October 1, 2012

On Oct. 1, MPAC president Salam Al-Marayati spoke in Warsaw, Poland, as part of Ambassador Avis Bohlen’s U.S. delegation to the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

SEE: “Annual OSCE Human Rights Conference Opens in Warsaw on Monday” (osce.org)

Al-Marayati was invited as a public member of the U.S. delegation to HDIM along with Professor Ethel Brooks of Rutgers University and Nida Gelazis of the Woodrow Wilson Institute.

Al-Marayati, who has a long history of civic engagement and service to the U.S. and the Muslim community, was the only American Muslim invited to speak at the HDIM. This honor and privilege of addressing the OSCE could not have been bestowed upon a better person who epitomizes working toward religious freedom and human rights protection.

Al-Marayati’s speech reads in part:


“Hate speech that intends to degrade, intimidate or incite violence against someone based on religion is harmful,” Al-Marayati said. “The best way to counter hatred is to defy it through convincing arguments, good actions and open debate. Human rights protect individuals, not abstract ideas or social norms. Religious symbols do not need governments or international bodies to defend them … It is not the job of governments to make people more religious, but rather to protect the right of their citizens to practice a faith of their choosing, or not to practice at all. It is their job to establish security for all people, protect the universal rights of all, counter discrimination when it is manifested, and to promote prosperity for their people.”

The 10-day conference reviews the implementation of a broad range of OSCE human dimension commitments, including human rights and fundamental freedoms, elections, the promotion of tolerance, the use of the death penalty and the rights of national minorities.

The Warsaw HDIM is the OSCE region’s most important human rights event of the year, bringing together hundreds of government representatives, human rights activists and international experts from 56 European, Central Asian and North American states. This year, the HDIM will focus on three topics for comment and consideration: freedom of religion and belief, empowerment of Roma women and rights of persons belonging to national minorities in OSCE countries.

“HDIM is a unique opportunity for the United States and indeed for all participating States to discuss our shared commitments in the Human Dimension, and our commitments to the fundamental freedoms that are the core of civilized society,” Bohlen said. “This forum allows us to come together to evaluate where we are on human rights throughout the OSCE space, and in this year, to stress the important contribution that civil society organizations make not only to the discussions at HDIM and the deliberations of the OSCE as a whole, but also to the security and stability of participating States throughout the OSCE region.”


SOURCE: Muslim Public Affairs Council

Anti-Obama video protests ‘our taxpayer dollars promoting Communism’ in China

October 1, 2012 


VIDEO: Government Motors Promoting Communism

Internet users in four swing states will begin to see a video that faults President Obama for allowing taxpayer dollars to finance communism based on reports that Shanghai GM backed a Chinese propaganda film.

“The Chinese Government recently released a propaganda movie on the Founding of the Communist Party. And who was the movie’s primary sponsor? General Motors. Yes. Our taxpayer dollars that President Obama gave General Motors in the auto-bailout are helping promote communism,” the Let Freedom Ring ad narrator says, citing the General Motors bailout. GM has denied any connection to the Chinese company that funded the film but has also referred to it as a GM company when trumpeting Chinese sales figures.

The Washington Times reported on the film controversy earlier this year. “In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP),” the Times’ Kerry Picket wrote. “When the movie first went into production GM signed up Cadillac as the ‘chief business partner’ with the Communist Party, stating: ‘Cadillac whole-heartedly supports the making of the Birth of a Party.’”

“The new ad is part of a $7 million online advertising campaign set to launch in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin,” according to LFR.
General Motors disavowed the film and the company. “It is not GM. It is not GM money. And it is in no shape or form, or indirectly, taxpayer money,” spokesman Greg Martin told The Daily Caller, which added that “the sponsor, Shanghai GM, said Martin, is a distribution and sales network that “is a completely separate and distinct business entity based in China that has no organizational or financial ties whatsoever” to the Detroit-based company.”In 1995, according to the GM Heritage Center, “GM signed a milestone agreement with China’s Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) for a proposed automotive joint venture, a joint venture technical center, and several other projects in and around the city of Shanghai, assuring GM a major presence in China’s expanding auto industry.” In 2011, GM delighted in burgeoning Chinese sales numbers. “GM’s Shanghai GM and SAIC-GM-Wuling joint ventures along with all of its passenger car brands experienced record domestic demand, enabling GM to remain the sales leader among global automakers in China for the seventh consecutive year,” the company press release stated. SAIC “is a stated owned enterprise of the Chinese city government,” the GM Heritage website explains.


Source: Washington Examiner

Barack Obama: Anticolonialist or Neo-Communist?

October 2, 2012
By Victor Volsky @
AmericanThinker.com


Kudos to Dinesh D'Souza. He's made a much-needed splash with his brilliant film 2016: Obama's America, now the second-highest-grossing political documentary of all time. D'Souza has developed a plausible theory to explain the original wellsprings of Barack Obama's worldview and amassed plenty of supporting evidence. For people who have been totally at the mercy of the liberal propaganda machine, aka mainstream media, his film is an earth-shattering revelation. But even those few who have been aware of Obama's antecedents can't fail to be profoundly impressed. Mr. D'Souza, an immigrant from India, is a true American patriot who has done an extremely valuable service to his adopted country.

That said, I have to disagree with the basic premise of the documentary, which is that the centerpiece of Barack Obama's worldview is anti-colonialism inherited from his Kenyan father and that his disastrous foreign policy can be fully explained in terms of colonials' rage against their former masters. While acknowledging the cogency and consistency of D'Souza's theory, I think an equally strong case can be made that the worldview and policies of the 44th president of the United States have a different provenance much closer to home -- that they are animated by a neo-communist ideology with a liberal admixture of black nationalism.

From early childhood, Obama was raised in an intensely anti-American environment. His anthropologist mother hated her country with a passion -- so much so that when her second husband, Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, lost some of his anti-American zeal, she sent her son to Hawaii to save him from his stepfather's pernicious influence and instructed her father to enlist his friend, Frank Marshall Davis, in the cause of mentoring young Barack. Davis, a card-carrying communist of a rabid Stalinist variety but also a black nationalist, did his job remarkably well, infusing his ward with a Marxist-cum-black separatist worldview.

In college, Obama blended eagerly into the far-left scene, as he freely attests in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father (page 101, emphasis added): "To avoid being mistaken for a sell-out, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structured feminists and punk-rock performance poets[.] ... We were alienated." It is a nearly complete catechism of a callow revolutionary.

In doing research for his recently released book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor, Paul Kengor interviewed John Drew, a former friend of Obama during the Occidental years. John Drew stated unequivocally that Obama was a fervent Marxist-Leninist who looked toward a "proletarian revolution" in the United States.

At Columbia and Harvard, Obama was further marinated in the fashionable radical ideological stew -- not exactly communism in the traditional sense, but rather radical leftism or neo-communism centered on a rabid hatred for "imperialism" -- i.e., the West and above all America -- and seeking to make common cause with its "victims."

The adepts of the neo-communist ideology view the world as divided into the rich and the poor. The poor are pure and noble by virtue of being poor. The rich got rich by robbing the poor and are thus inherently evil. Redistributing the wealth of the rich North to the poor South is a legitimate goal of returning the loot to its rightful owners -- in the form of reparations to the African-Americans, who in the black separatist mythology have built this country, and to the third world, who in the liberal mythology have built the wealth of the colonial powers. This idea basically boils down to Lenin's famous motto: "Rob the robbers." In fact, radical leftists love the imagery of Robin Hood, even though the historical Robin Hood was more than likely just a plain robber an' hood.

But does it have anything to do with anti-colonialism? Yes, but only partly. By the time Barack Obama came of age ideologically, the anti-colonialist movement had lost much of its mojo. The Soviet Union, the movement's chief patron and paymaster, had too many problems of its own. Bogged down in the Afghan quagmire, beset by economic woes, Moscow could no longer afford to waste its increasingly scarce resources on the third world.

Meanwhile, the sheer incompetence and brazen brutality of the nationalist heroes-turned-presidents for life in lieu of the overthrown colonial masters did much to discredit anti-colonialism. And the spectacular success achieved by a handful of underdeveloped countries, such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore, that were blessed by a lack of natural resources and therefore had to rely on free-market economics to survive, further eroded support for the anti-colonialist idea in the third world.

Lenin's dream of fomenting unrest in the colonies to bring down the West by attacking it from the rear had failed. By the mid-'80s, the revolutionary tidal wave battering the foundations of the "imperialist system" had receded, and the third world by and large degenerated into a sorry menagerie of beggar states eking out a meager existence mostly on Western handouts.

Yet the anti-colonialist idea, though moribund, was too useful to be allowed to go to waste. It was subsumed into the larger radical movement. Solidarity with the "oppressed" peoples of the world has always been a crucial component of the ideology of the radical left. It fortified its primary motivation -- hatred for its own country, animating the radical left's propensity to view America as the culprit of first resort.

Hence the left's instinctive urge to blame America first and its endless eagerness to exonerate third-world hoodlums, explaining away their crimes as an understandable reaction to the depredations of the "imperialists." Hence the left's wishy-washy attitude toward the terrorists who openly proclaim their goal of destroying the West and its reluctance even to call them terrorists.

Obama's all too obvious affinity for Muslims stems from this frame of mind rather than from his anti-colonialist leanings. His vision was not inherited from his father; it was drummed into him by his far-left mentors. None of his like-minded friends and allies has any anti-colonialist antecedents. But all of them share his attitude that has nothing to do with resentment toward the erstwhile colonial masters, but everything to do with the left's hatred for its own country and the capitalist system.

This infatuation of the liberal elites with the third world is in fact the latest permutation of that hardy perennial of revolutionary romanticism -- glorification of the noble savage, dating back all the way to the Age of Enlightenment. Why do the leftists delight in castigating and mocking Christianity but give a wide berth to Islam? No doubt partly out of fear of physical retribution from the adherents of the "religion of peace." But also because Christianity is identified with the West, while Islam is identified with the third world and is thus off limits to criticism.

But what about Obama's colorful official biography? I believe that it is a contrivance created to further his political ambitions and make him look more interesting. Why else would his literary agent, Acton & Dystel, advertize him as a Kenyan-born author from 1991 until that time in 2007 when he began preparing for a presidential run and needed to sanitize his biography and tone down its foreign elements? As a twofer, a black and an African, he was doubly appealing to the romantic leftists who willingly climbed into bed with this con man artfully playing them for suckers. But once he set his sights on the presidency, it was time to discard his old multicultural skin as a cosmopolitan bestriding continents and emerge as a homespun politician of the neo-communist persuasion.

Obama waives sanctions on countries that use child soldiers

Posted By Josh Rogin Monday, October 1, 2012 - 1:48 PM

@ ForeignPolicy.com

U.S. President Barack Obama issued a new executive order last week to fight human trafficking, touting his administration's handling of the issue.


"When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed -- that's slavery," Obama said in a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative. "It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world. Now, as a nation, we've long rejected such cruelty."

But for the third year in a row, Obama has waived almost all U.S. sanctions that would punish certain countries that use child soldiers, upsetting many in the human rights community.

Late Friday afternoon, Obama issued a presidential memorandum waiving penalties under the Child Soldiers Protection Act of 2008 for Libya, South Sudan, and Yemen, penalties that Congress put in place to prevent U.S. arms sales to countries determined by the State Department to be the worst abusers of child soldiers in their militaries. The president also partially waived sanctions against the Democratic Republic of the Congo to allow some military training and arms sales to that country.

Human rights advocates saw the waivers as harmful to the goal of using U.S. influence to urge countries that receive military assistance to move away from using child soldiers and contradictory to the rhetoric Obama used in his speech.

"After such a strong statement against the exploitation of children, it seems bizarre that Obama would give a pass to countries using children in their armed forces and using U.S. tax money to do that," said Jesse Eaves, the senior policy advisor for child protection at World Vision.

The Obama administration doesn't want to upset its relationships with countries that it needs for security cooperation, but the blanket use of waivers is allowing the administration to avoid the law's intent, which was to use force the U.S. government to put a greater priority on human rights and child protection when doling out military aid, he said.

"The intent in this law was to use this waiver authority only in extreme circumstances, yet this has become an annual thing and this has become the default of this administration," Eaves said.

The Romney campaign has made Obama's record on human rights a feature of its foreign-policy critique, with top advisors accusing the president of deprioritizing the issue, often in sweeping terms.

"Barack Obama has broken with a tradition that goes back to Woodrow Wilson about human rights and values animating our foreign policy. This administration has not been an effective voice for human rights," said Romney campaign senior advisor for foreign policy Rich Williamson, who also served as George W. Bush's special envoy to Sudan, told The Cable in July.

Bush signed the child-soldiers law in 2008. It prohibits U.S. military education and training, foreign military financing, and other defense-related assistance to countries that actively recruit troops under the age of 18. Countries are designated as violators if the State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons report identifies them as recruiting child soldiers. The original bill was sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Obama first waived the sanctions in 2010, the first year they were to go into effect. At that time, the White House failed to inform Congress or the NGO community of its decision in advance, setting off a fierce backlash. A justification memo obtained by The Cable at the time made several security-related arguments for the waivers. Sudan was going through a fragile transition, for example. Yemen was crucial to counterterrorism cooperation, the administration argued.

But NSC Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs Samantha Power told NGO leaders at the time that the waivers would not become a recurring event.

"Our judgment was: Brand them, name them, shame them, and then try to leverage assistance in a fashion to make this work," Power said, saying the administration wanted to give the violator countries one more year to show progress. "Our judgment is we'll work from inside the tent."

But the next year, in 2011, Obama waived almost all the sanctions once again, using largely the same justifications, except that the administration argued that the law didn't apply to South Sudan because it wasn't a country until July 2011. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) tried to pass new legislation to force Obama to notify Congress before issuing the waivers.

Fortenberry called the decision an "assault on human dignity," and said, "Good citizens of this country who do not want to be complicit in this grave human rights abuse must challenge this administration."

This year, the State Department held a briefing for NGO leaders and human rights activists to answer questions about the waivers and try to ally their concerns.

"They are addressing the concerns of the legislation in a more pragmatic and useful way than in the past, but they still have a ways to go and this was a clear missed opportunity," Rachel Stohl, a senior associate at the Stimson Center who attended the briefing, told The Cable. "You want the waivers to be used very sparingly but some of these countries get the waiver every year."

Stohl rejects the administration's argument that countries like Libya and South Sudan are so fragile that they can't be leaned on to do better on human rights.

"I would argue that this is exactly the right time to make clear to Libya what the parameters are," she said.

Jo Becker, advocacy director for the children's rights division at Human Rights Watch, told The Cable that where the United States has used some pressure, such as in the DRC, where there was a partial cutoff of military aid last year, there was a positive effect.

"After years of foot-dragging, Congo is close to signing a U.N. action plan to end its use of child soldiers," she said. "But in other countries with child soldiers, including South Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, the U.S. continues to squander its leverage by giving military aid with no conditions."

NSC Spokesman Tommy Vietor did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Financial transaction tax: 'Now effective'?

Published 01 October 2012

France and Germany still need the backing of a number of member states to put in place a European Union financial transaction tax (FTT), despite claims from French President François Hollande that the tax is "now effective". EurActiv.fr reports.

For over a year now, Paris and Berlin have been battling to persuade their European partners to put in place an FTT.

Yet whether and in what form the EU may impose such a tax in Europe is still unclear, despite claims to the contrary. Questions remain over its timeframe, the proposed tax base and whether this will be factored into the EU's 2014-2020 budget.

In Paris, the government presents the tax as a coup for the ruling socialist party. It makes up one of the pillars of the growth and jobs "reorientation of Europe" packet adopted in June.

"Not all countries will adopt the financial transaction tax, but it is nevertheless effective", Hollande said in presenting the transposition bill for the fiscal treaty on 19 September.

But Hollande's plan is not done yet, reports EurActiv.fr.

A working group, launched by Germany and France in March 2012, continues to discuss the proposal. Poland and Austria say they will take part in the project. To form a robust cooperation agreement, a minimum of nine countries need to agree.

What base?

At a hearing at the National Assembly on 26 September, the French European affairs minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, said that Belgium, Slovenia, Slovakia, Greece, Italy, Spain, Estonia and Finland could make the leap.

The day before, in Brussels, Cazeneuve made clear that the political weight of the countries involved would be as much as a factor as as the number.

What is more, many of these countries are still hesitant, citing the wide-ranging nature of the tax, and its applicability to derivatives, as a potential stumbling block.

Disagreements also exist on the allocation of tax revenues, notably between the French and the Germans.

Berlin currently refuses incorporating the money into the EU budget, opposing the creation of new "own resources" to finance EU expenditure. To them, the baseline must stay national.

Two birds with one stone

In contrast, France supports the idea of finding new "own resources" for the EU budget and sees as a way of decreasing its own national contribution to the bloc's finances, while keeping its pledge to rein in budget deficits.

The idea was to kill two birds with one stone, explained Cazeneuve: having a strong European budget and ensuring that countries keep their finances in order.

However, a French diplomat said that even the connection between the tax and the budget was not clear: "The link is not as automatic as that", he said, adding it was just one of a number of possible scenarios.

"I'm very sceptical about the fact that new member states could use the tax gains for the budget" and not others, echoed an official in the EU Council of Ministers.

Too late for 2014-2020 budget?

Member states have only just begun negotiations for their slice of EU funds for 2014-2020. For the moment, each country advances their pawns with no concessions in a bid to put pressure on the others.

All should become more clear during a planned EU summit on 22 and 23 November, which will allow countries to outline the global budget package, and its distribution amongst the main items of expenditure such as agriculture and regional policy.

For the French, the worst outcome would be that the discussions on a FTT package are not resolved by then and so cannot be taken into account for the EU's next long-term budget (2014-2020).

Socialist MP Gilles Savary is pessimistic that an agreement can be reached on time. A former MEP with intimate knowledge of the Brussels legislative machinery, Savary said it was now "too late" in the negotiation to have the FTT included in the EU's 2014-2020 budget.

Others say a delayed decision would not be dramatic. "Technically, an agreement can happen at any time," says a European Commission official. "Year X where the new own resource exists, we begin to apply it. The agreement on the financial framework [2014-2020] is in now way binding on the annual budget."

If a compromise were to be reached, the countries concerned would have to send a letter to the European Commission, who would subsequently set out a cooperation proposal to be adopted by the Council.

Meanwhile, France waits and hopes: the country is yet to make a decision on the EU budget for the next six years, or its own contribution.
Next steps:


22-23 Nov.: Special EU summit to take 2014-2020 EU budget discussions at highest level for the first time


By end 2012: France wants FTT in place among a select group of participating EU countries, using the 'enhanced cooperation' procedure

SOURCE: EurActiv.com, based on reporting by EurActiv.fr

‘Sharia Medicine’: Egyptian Clinic Treats People with Camel Urine

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim on Oct 1st, 2012

@ FrontPageMag.com

A recent Egyptian TV program showed how Islamic Sharia law’s many prescriptions do not merely clash with modern-day concepts like free speech and religious freedom, but even with medicine and science.

On September 16, popular TV persona Wael El-Ibrashi hosted Dr. Zaghlul al-Naggar, a prominent Islamic thinker and Chairman of Egypt’s Committee of Scientific Notions in the Quran, on the topic of medical science and Islam. Inevitably the idea of drinking camel urine as a form of therapy—first proposed in the 7th century by Muslim prophet Muhammad—came up.

Not only did Dr. Naggar promote this practice, but he made the staggering announcement that right now in Egypt a medical center in Marsa Matrouh actually specializes in treating people with camel urine, all in accord with the prophet’s advice.


Other Egyptian thinkers joined the show via satellite, including Khaled Montaser (who earlier exposed the Islamic world’s “inferiority complex”). At one point, while delineating how science and medicine work, Montaser reminded that urine is where all the body’s toxins are carried out, asking “so, shall we drink it for health?” Naggar simply responded with arrogance: “I am older than you and more learned than you: you are not going to teach me; I will teach generations of people like you.”

Egyptian thinker, Sayyid al-Qemany—whose strong support for rationalistic thinking and the separation of religion and state caused Egypt’s Islamic establishment to pronounce him an apostate infidel—also joined the show via phone, deploring the very idea that drinking camel urine could heal people.

Referring to Naggar’s announcement that there is a clinic specializing in treating people with camel urine as a “catastrophe” that only indicates how far Egypt has sunk, Qemany called on Egyptian health officials to verify if such a medical center truly exists, saying this is a serious issue involving the health of Egypt’s citizenry.

Naggar tried to defend the “salutary benefits” of camel urine by arguing that European pharmacies produce a medicine that contains female urine (possibly a reference to HCG). Qemany replied that such medicines are not based on drinking crude urine but are synthetic, exclaiming, “does this mean I should go drink my wife’s urine?!”

An exasperated Qemany concluded by offering a compromise. He suggested that Nagger, whose PhD is in geology, should lead an expedition to Mecca and Medina and somehow try to extrapolate the urine of Muslim prophet Muhammad, and use that to heal people instead of camel urine, sarcastically adding, “surely the urine of the prophet—peace and blessings upon him—is better than camel urine?”

Dr. Naggar simply shook his head, saying such talk was inappropriate.

In fact, both ideas—drinking camel urine and drinking Muhammad’s urine—are traced to the prophet’s own words, and, accordingly, are aspects of “Sharia-medicine.” In a canonical tradition, Muhammad once told some men who were sick “to drink the milk and urine of camels, and they recovered and grew fat,” that is, they were healed (more information on this practice can be found in a modern-day fatwa in the English language aptly titled “The Benefits of Drinking Camel Urine.”)

Likewise, Egypt’s Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, once wrote that drinking Muhammad’s urine was considered “a great blessing.”

All of this sheds light on the totalitarian nature of Sharia law, which treats, not just the Quran, but canonical hadiths, or traditions and sayings of Muhammad—which is where both urine drinking ideas appear—as sacred and not to be questioned. Saudi Arabia’s highest Islamic authority until he died in 1999, Sheikh Bin Baz, held that the earth was flat and that all scientific evidence otherwise was a “Western conspiracy,” simply because the Quran 18:86 claims the sun sets in a pool of mud, suggesting that the earth is flat.

The greater lesson for non-Muslims is that, if Islam’s most prominent thinkers—the many ulema, muftis, sheikhs, and “Islamic thinkers” like Naggar himself—tenaciously cling to Islam’s teachings even when they defy objective science (not to mention grossly defame Islam), surely they must cling to those other ironclad teachings that deal with “subjective” matters, from freedom of religion to freedom of speech, to hostility, jihad, and subjugation for the infidel.

At one point in the debate, Qemany made this connection when he likened the mentality that would give sick people camel urine to drink, to the mentality that attacked U.S. embassies and killed people. In both cases, blind obedience and/or fanaticism is at work—and all to Muhammad’s words, which advocated drinking camel urine for health no less than they banned mockery of the prophet.

Democrat Registration Craters in Ohio, Florida

Oct. 01, 2012

According to the polls the Obamunist media clobbers us over the head with at every opportunity, the Moonbat Messiah is going to win big in the key swing states Ohio and Florida. Yet:

Voter registration in the Buckeye State is down by 490,000 people from four years ago. Of that reduction, 44 percent is in Cleveland and surrounding Cuyahoga County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one. …

Ohio is not alone. An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa down 9.5 percent. And in New Hampshire, it’s down down 19.7 percent.

This can be explained by a lack of enthusiasm for Obama, by Republican efforts to reduce fraud, and/or by the rise in the number of independents. In any case, the numbers do not correlate with the swing state polls that have doomsayers proclaiming the race to be over.

Something isn’t adding up here.

On a tip from Bob Roberts.

By Dave Blount @ Moonbattery.com

Breaking: House Oversight Committee Will Hold Hearing on Benghazi Attack and Likely Cover-Up (Video)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 1, 2012, 8:07 PM

@ TheGatewayPundit.com

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform announced tonight that they will be holding a hearing on the Benghazi attack and cover-up.
A letter will be sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday. The hearing will focus on the previous attacks in Benghazi leading up to the consulate attack on 9-11.

Hannity report (Watch Here)


There were four previous Islamist attacks in Benghazi since June.

One of the attacks was an IED attack at the US Consulate on June 6, 2012.

Related… After June Libyan Consulate Bombing Obama Administration Bragged: “Our Security Worked”

More… Even CNN is starting to suspect a White House cover-up.

Obama’s War on the Middle Class: Gas Prices Double – Incomes Drop – Jobs Killed

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 1, 2012, 12:38 PM

@ TheGatewayPundit.com

Barack Obama hates the poor and middle class.

(RSG)

Thanks to Barack Obama gas prices doubled, incomes dropped, unemployment soared and the deficit nearly tripled in less than four years.
The poor and middle class suffered the most.
The Republican Study Group released this information.
A few points about the chart above, which visualizes these trends all too well.
** According to analysts at Sentier Research, median household income has dropped $4,520, or about one month’s average wages, since President Obama took office.
** The average price for a gallon of gas has more than doubled since January 2009, from under $2 to now almost $4.
More… Obama is a net jobs killer

Absentee ballot requests grow in Ohio

Updated: Monday, 01 Oct 2012, 5:22 PM EDT

 Ballots ready to be mailed out (Photo WDTN/Kris Sproles)



COLUMBUS, Ohio (WDTN) - Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced more than 920,000 absentee ballot applications to vote by mail had been received by county boards of elections statewide as of Friday, September 28.

County boards of elections will begin sending ballots to eligible voters who have requested them Tuesday, October 2, 35 days ahead of the November 6 election. Nearly 6.9 million absentee ballot applications were sent out to Ohio voters over the course of two statewide mailings.

Husted said 10,823 military and overseas absentee ballots have been distributed as of Friday, September 28.

Voters must submit absentee ballot requests to county boards of elections no later than noon on November 3, 2012. Forms can also be downloaded at: www.MyOhioVote.com

Source: WDTN.com

Black mob hijacks store: 'We own this'

Cops respond 9 hours after clerk attacked, say 'hire security'

(Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.)


EDITOR’S NOTE: The links in the following report may contain offensive language.

Even the old-timers in Detroit never have seen anything like this: A mob of 40 black people moved into a convenience store and will not leave.


They say they now own it. They eat. Smoke. Cuss.Threaten. Spit. Rob. Sell drugs. All on video.

Police, ministers, neighbors, the store owner and just about everyone else seems powerless to stop them.

“It’s a Bad Crew gas station,” said one of the mob to the local Fox affiliate. “If you don’t know what that is, I can’t even tell you.”

The owner calls police, but nothing happens. The police “come here and then they leave. Two minutes later they (the mob) are back.”

Earlier this month, members of the Perfecting Church, one of Detroit’s largest black congregations, counseled the members of the mob to stop their evil ways.

Nothing changed. Which is not all that surprising: In June, the church’s pastor, Marvin Winans, lost a $15,000 Rolex, a Louis Vuitton wallet with $200 in it and his 2012 Infiniti QX56 SUV after he was carjacked by a mob of 10 black people at a similar convenience store nearby.

See the Big List of black mob violence.

This is the same pastor who gave the eulogy for Whitney Houston. The attackers, Winans told the Detroit News, did not know who he was.

In June, another Detroit convenience store had the same problem: A black mob took over the store, told the owners they now own it, and started robbing and threatening. All on video.

See a local news report:

VIDEO: Urban Youths Storm Detroit Gas Station; Store Clerk Brutally Beaten


The mob beat a clerk who tried to stop them.

“I am shocked he is still alive,” said the store owner. “They came into the gas station and said ‘we own this. This is our hood. This is our gas station. We are going to take whatever we want.’ It’s a war zone.”

After the robbery and beating on the video, the mob left. Several hours later, they returned, this time with a gun. Shots were fired. No one was hurt.

Nine hours later, police responded. In many cities, police no longer respond to complaints of shoplifting or “loitering” at neighborhood stores.

The mob won’t go away and the police won’t arrest them. But they did have some advice for what this business owner should do: “Hire a security guard.”

Violence and lawlessness have long been a hallmark of life in Detroit. So much so, it is now newsworthy when violence and lawlessness do not happen.

In August, hundreds of black people were involved in several disturbances at a high school football game. Several witnesses reported gun shots and panic both on and off the field.

The Detroit Free Press said anytime you have that many people milling around, “of course there was going to be an incident.”

Two weeks later, a sportscaster for the ABC affiliate found this newsworthy enough to write an entire story about it: One of the teams played another game, and there was no mass violence.



SOURCE: World Net Daily

Supreme Court opens door to another challenge to Obamacare

Published October 01, 2012
FoxNews.com

Tucked inside the Supreme Court's lengthy list of orders on Monday was an indication that the fight over President Obama's health care law soon could be back before the high court.

Since the court's June decision upholding the law's individual mandate to buy insurance, one of the first Obamacare plaintiffs has been fighting for a new hearing on challenges to other portions of the law.

Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, has been fighting the employer mandate since the law was enacted, while challenging the law on other constitutional grounds. The school got as far as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to hear the merits of the case. That federal court decided that the original Liberty University lawsuit was barred because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which would block any challenge to a "tax" before a taxpayer actually pays it, in this case referring to the penalties associated with failing to obtain health insurance.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act did not serve as a barrier to lawsuits challenging the health care law. On that basis, Liberty University immediately petitioned the court to allow it to renew its original case.

On Monday, the Supreme Court noted the university's renewed request and gave the administration 30 days to respond to the request, suggesting that the justices are taking the Liberty request seriously.

"I think they've got very good arguments that they're entitled to their day in court," says former senior Justice Department official Thomas Dupree Jr. As an attorney and well-respected court-watcher, Dupree thinks the government will have a challenging time shutting down Liberty's petition.

If it is granted, the case would return to the 4th Circuit, putting it on the fast track back to Washington, D.C.

"Who knows, we might be back here in a year, arguing about the next great Supreme Court health care decision," Dupree speculated.

Lead Liberty attorney Mat Staver called Monday's news "a very positive development." Given the opportunity, Staver plans to renew a number of challenges to the health care law, including arguments related to freedom of religious expression and religious objections to abortion.

Polls Show Romney Gaining Ground, Winning Independents

The final act of the presidential campaign opens today with two new polls showing the race between Obama and Romney tightening. New polls, released this morning, from ABC/WaPo and Politico both show Obama's lead nationally has been cut to two points, 49-47. Also, in both polls, Romney leads Obama among Independents by four points.

Obviously, if Romney is leading among independents by four, yet trailing overall by two points, both polls have probably sampled more Democrats. Indeed, the WaPo poll is D+5. This is a big improvement over past WaPo polls, which assumed that Democrats would have a bigger turnout than 2008's D+7 electorate. I think today's poll is still overly generous to Democrats, but it is more realistic than their previous polls. Politico's internals aren't yet available, but in the past their samples have been fairly reasonable.

The economy is clearly weighing Obama down. 81% of voters rate the economy as "not so good" or poor. In the WaPo poll, 60% of registered voters think the country is on the wrong track. A majority of registered voters disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, 47-52.

Interestingly, voters are now split on Obama's handling of foreign affairs, with 49% approving and 48% disapproving.

More troubling for Obama, a majority of voters, 53%, are not confident the economy will improve over the next year or two if Obama is reelected. Given that the economy is the defining issue of the campaign, this is a worrisome sign for the President's reelection.

The media spent the month of September trying to convince the public that the race was already over. This morning we learn, however, that it has just begun.

by Mike Flynn
1 Oct 2012
Breitbart.com

John Dewey Is a Fraud

October 1, 2012

It is generally agreed that John Dewey (1859-1952) is the Father of American Education and the Greatest American Educator Ever.

The problem with the labels is that John Dewey, albeit a genius, was not an educator in the sense that most people use this word. He was not interested in teaching as most people understand that term, as for example in the statement "I teach French."

Dewey was not primarily concerned with teaching new information. He was concerned with inculcating new attitudes.

John Dewey was a social engineer -- one might even say a community organizer. He believed that socialism is the future. His self-appointed mission was to implement the transition to this brave new world.

All of his grand theories, his scores of books, and his hundreds of articles can be summed up as a program for making America socialist.

There is one little problem at this point: almost nobody in America was asking for this transformation. So Dewey was in the awkward position of redecorating your house when you didn't ask for it to be redecorated, or more precisely seducing your kids when you don't want your kids to be seduced.

Dewey basically had to ignore law, precedent, tradition, legislatures, voters, elections, expectations of families, and the needs of society. He attempted an end-run, and thus a conspiracy. His project is best called Socialism-on-the-Sly.

John Dewey and cohorts were so smugly confident that their views were correct, they were not apologetic about hiding their plans, using false terminology, and working subversively and covertly at all times.

Dewey and his co-conspirators were professors of education. Schools were where they felt comfortable. When they thought about transforming the country, they certainly didn't think about campaigning for office or writing articles in the popular press (except occasionally). No, they had a much more direct scheme.

John D. Rockefeller was the billionaire that nobody liked. His PR experts said, "Mr. Rockefeller, give away one dollar so they let you keep the other nine." Rockefeller did this to an extraordinary degree, creating universities and many other famous institutions. In particular, he created Teachers College at Columbia University. Wannabe teachers came there to be indoctrinated into the new ways. These teachers -- this whole process started around 1910 -- then returned to their communities and began work on the raw material known as students.

So it's obvious at a glance that there was a common element throughout Dewey's life and work. He was doing something on the sly because the public didn't ask for his ideas and would have rejected them if they had had the chance.

There was another sin, if you think that sublime arrogance is a sin. Dewey and the hundreds of people in his immediate orbit serenely agreed that cooperation was the highest virtue, sociology was the future, psychology provided the essential truths of life, God was dead, religion was obsolete, family must be belittled, and patriotism, honor, and other old-fashioned virtues must be slowly ground down to nothing.

It's worth noting that the entire Dewey machine was operating full-speed by 1890, before the Russian Revolution. Far-left ideology was a force, and the United States had homegrown Marxists were eager to join Dewey's crusade.

However, the success of the Russian Revolution after 1920 coupled with our own apparent failure during the Great Depression circa 1930 was a powerful impetus for Dewey and friends. Their worldviews seemed confirmed absolutely. There was nothing left to discuss but how to roll over the opposition and move ahead with Socialism-on-the-Sly.

Things became more problematic after World War II, when Stalin's many blemishes became obvious, when the American economy was on the robust rebound, and when, as always, most Americans thought socialism and communism were evil. Furthermore, Americans typically demanded better schools, not ideologically driven schools.

Speaking roughly of the modern period 1950-2000, education's top people had to practice a delicate ingenuity. They wanted curricula that created leveling, not excellence. So they had to come up with one cleverly designed-to-fail method after another, wrap each one in gaudy lingo, and sell them all to the poor benighted parents of America, two famous examples being Look-say and Reform Math.

Always, these top educators were trapped in their lie, in Dewey's lie. They had to pretend they were interested in education when the real goals were psychological indoctrination and sociological transformation. The Education Establishment, I would submit, exactly continues Dewey's dream today.

Ask teachers, and you will find that they must attend an endless array of Professional Development (PD) classes. They must constantly discard the wonderful new gimmicks from a few years ago and start all over with the latest new thing. But the old ideas and the new idea are all equally bad, because at bottom they are obsessed with indoctrination, not education.

Which brings us back to the main theme: John Dewey wasn't interested in education as you and I understand this term. Everything he did was in fact intended to subvert and diminish traditional education.

That is not too harsh. Excellence got in the way of cooperation. If Jackie knew the capital of France, but Albert did not, you have introduced a division into the classroom, and thus into society. John Dewey and the members of his cult did not give a damn about the capital of France if this bit of trivia got in the way of their social plans. See it from their point of view, and everything they did was logical.

John Dewey's secret scams are the reason why we have 50 million functional illiterates, why high school graduates can't multiply seven times eight, why most American kids can't find Japan on a map, why even simple knowledge like "what is a moon" is probably not part of the lives of most Americans.

The progressives who control education deified John Dewey and placed him on a pedestal, but that was a marketing tool. Then they could say, "We should do X because John Dewey says it's the best way, and he is our greatest educator." Parents and young teachers would wilt before the prestige of the great John Dewey.

The major problem in all of American education is dishonesty. Schools could be much better, at less cost. But few will tell the truth about any aspect of public education, ever since John Dewey launched his disingenuous crusade to transform America via the classroom.

The Education Establishment today will not tell the truth about Whole Word, Reform Math, Constructivism, Cooperative Learning, self-esteem, Learning Styles, Common Core, or just about anything else they do in the public schools. There are many lies, but the big lie is that John Dewey is a great educator. He was a great socialist. He was a titan at articulating how we might implement social engineering, but he was not an educator as traditionally understood. Alas.

If we could strip away the lies, work with the actual reality, progress would be assured. Or we can keep mudding along as Dewey's victims.

Bruce Deitrick Price is an author and education reformer. He founded Improve-Education.org in 2005; his site explains theories and methods.

Source: American Thinker

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT fatally shot after allegedly driving into border patrol agent

ABC News - California Woman Illegal Immigrant Valeria Alvarado Fatally Shot by Border Patrol Agent (ABC News)

Authorities are investigating the fatal shooting of a 32-year-old woman in the suburban San Diego area after she allegedly hit a Border Patrol agent with her car.

Investigators said Valeria Alvarado ran down the agent with her car as border patrol agents were in a Chula Vista neighborhood to serve a felony warrant on Friday.

The agent said he had no choice but to defend himself and fired at Alvarado get her to stop the car.

Alvarado was hit by five bullets.

According to eye witnesses, the shooting left the mother of five with bullet holes in her face, arms, and chest.

"She literally ran our agent down, the agent actually was impacted, was hit by the vehicle and carried several hundred yards on the hood before fearing for his life did discharge his weapon to get the vehicle to stop," said Border Patrol Deputy Chief Rodney Scott.

Alvarado's husband, Gilbert Alvarado said he wants the shooting investigated.

"I want justice. Yes. Whoever shot my wife, that guy whoever that is, that guy needs to get shot," he said.

Alvarado's family called the killing senseless.

"Where's the evidence that my wife threatened a trained officer? You know? He's a trained officer to use lethal force, shoot my wife like that and just not even call an ambulance?" said Gilbert Alvarado.

The FBI and Chula Vista Police are investigating the shooting. Officials have not released the name of the agent involved in the incident.

Source: Yahoo