Tradition-Based Episcopal Church Moves On

A group of conservative bishops met on Wednesday at the Resurrection Anglican Church in West Chicago, Ill. Image Credit: Sally Ryan for The New York Times

Tradition-Based Episcopal Church Moves On

Ok, so it is out with the new and in with the old.

The Episcopal Church, in this new century, has had to endure many assaults to its traditions and teachings from very liberal quarters. These forces sought to redefine many of the tenants of what a tradition based Christian faith church should be to the people it served.

Even though the majority of members in the Episcopalian community here in North America (as well as the rest of the world) believe in the centuries old traditions and teaching interpretations found in the Holy Bible, the leadership in North America has seen fit to hijack a once proud derivative of the Catholic Church and take it to an unrecognizable form of itself.

Gender, sexual definition, and right-to-life (abortion) issues lead the changes the new leadership have chosen to tackle and these moves threaten to break this pursuit of Christian tradition apart.

The liberal leadership feel it is more important to affect these traditions while the balance of the Episcopal teaching community chooses to defect from this leadership in order to hold on to what they believe defines the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

This from the New York Times -

Episcopal Split as Conservatives Form New Group
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN, New York Times - Published: December 3, 2008

WHEATON, Ill. — Conservatives alienated from the Episcopal Church announced on Wednesday that they were founding their own rival denomination, the biggest challenge yet to the authority of the Episcopal Church since it ordained an openly gay bishop five years ago.

The move threatens the fragile unity of the Anglican Communion, the world’s third-largest Christian body, made up of 38 provinces around the world that trace their roots to the Church of England and its spiritual leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The conservatives intend to seek the approval of leaders in the global Anglican Communion for the province they plan to form. If they should receive broad approval, their effort could lead to new defections from the Episcopal Church, the American branch of Anglicanism.

In the last few years, Episcopalians who wanted to leave the church but remain in the Anglican Communion put themselves under the authority of bishops in Africa and Latin America. A new American province would give them a homegrown alternative.

It would also result in two competing provinces on the same soil, each claiming the mantle of historical Anglican Christianity. The conservatives have named theirs the Anglican Church in North America. And for the first time, a province would be defined not by geography, but by theological orientation.

“We’re going through Reformation times, and in Reformation times things aren’t neat and clean,” Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, a conservative who led his diocese out of the Episcopal Church in October, said in an interview. “In Reformation times, new structures are emerging.”

Bishop Duncan will be named the archbishop and primate of the North American church, which says it would have 100,000 members, compared with 2.3 million in the Episcopal Church.

The conservatives contend that the American and Canadian churches have broken with traditional Christianity in many ways, but their resolve to form a unified breakaway church was precipitated by the decision to ordain an openly gay bishop and to bless gay unions.

The Rev. Charles Robertson, canon for the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, said Wednesday, “There is room within the Episcopal Church for people of different views, and we regret that some have felt the need to depart from the diversity of our common life in Christ.”

He added that the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada and La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico will continue to be “the official, recognized presence of the Anglican Communion in North America.”
----
The proposed new province would unite nine groups that have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada over the years. This includes four Episcopal dioceses and umbrella groups for dozens of individual parishes in the United States and Canada.
----
The new province would also absorb a handful of other groups that had left the Episcopal Church decades earlier over issues like the ordination of women or revisions to the Book of Common Prayer. One of the groups, the Reformed Episcopal Church, broke away from the forerunner of the Episcopal Church in 1873.

Conservative leaders in North America say they expect to win approval for their new province from at least seven like-minded primates, who lead provinces primarily in Africa, Australia, Latin America and Asia.
----
Bishop Duncan and other conservative leaders in North America say they may not seek approval for their new province from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, or from the Anglican Consultative Council, the leadership group of bishops, clergy and laity that until now was largely responsible for blessing new jurisdictions.

Bishop Martyn Minns, a leading figure in the formation of the new province, said of the Archbishop of Canterbury: “It’s desirable that he get behind this. It’s something that would bring a little more coherence to the life of the Communion. But if he doesn’t, so be it.”
----
Jim Naughton, canon for communications and advancement in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and a liberal who frequently blogs on Anglican affairs, said he doubted that a rival Anglican province could grow much larger.

“I think this organization does not have much of a future because there are already a lot of churches in the United States for people who don’t want to worship with gays and lesbians,” he said. “That’s not a market niche that is underserved.”

Since the Episcopal Church ordained Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly gay man who lives with his partner, in the Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003, the parallel rifts in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have widened.
----
If the conservatives try to take their church properties with them, they are likely to face lawsuits from the Episcopal Church. The church is already suing breakaway parishes and dioceses in several states to retain church property.

Bishop Duncan said members of the proposed province would spend the next six months discussing the constitution, and would meet to ratify the document next summer at a “provincial assembly.” He said it would probably be held at the Episcopal Cathedral in Fort Worth.
----
Bishop Duncan, whose theological orientation is more evangelical, has ordained women in the diocese of Pittsburgh. Bishops of other breakaway dioceses, like Jack Iker in Fort Worth and John-David Schofield in San Joaquin, are more “Anglo-Catholic” in orientation, modeling some elements of the Roman Catholic Church, and are opposed to ordaining women as priests or bishops.

Under their new constitution, each of the nine constituent dioceses or groups that would make up the new province could follow its own teachings on women’s ordination. Each congregation would also keep its own property.

Told of this new Anglican entity, David C. Steinmetz, Amos Ragan Kearns professor of the history of Christianity at the Divinity School at Duke University, said in a phone interview, “It’s really an unprecedented and momentous event,” that all of these dissident groups had agreed to bury their differences.

“It’s certainly going to be deplored by one part of the Communion and hailed by another,” Professor Steinmetz said. “Are we going to end up with two families of Anglicans, and if so, are they in communion with each other in any way? There are so many possibilities and geopolitical differences, it’s really hard to predict where this will go.”
Reference Here>>

Obama’s Empty Suit Filled With Clinton Brain Trust

Six members of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team for government operations worked in the Clinton administration, and one of them runs a consulting firm that has listed Freddie Mac as a client. Image Credit: AP

Obama’s Empty Suit Filled With Clinton Brain Trust

What happens when a junior Senator from Illinois campaigns on the themes of Hope and Change, with the thinnest of resume’s and record of accomplishment has to fill a branch, the Executive Branch of government and its’ staff, assumes the highest office in the land?

Why one fills the positions with the staff appointed during the previous presidency held by the political party you come from … in this case, the Bill Clinton 42nd Presidency.

Where is the Hope? Where is the Change?

Of the names being placed for the 47 top positions of the executive branch, 31 of the names were people who served with Bill Clinton whose eight year presidency ended eight years ago.

Where is the shiny? Where is the new? Where is the fresh?

This excerpted and edited from Politico –

The Clinton band is back together
By BEN SMITH & CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 11/14/08 4:48 AM EST

As one Clinton loyalist noted with some satisfaction (if anonymously) on Thursday, Podesta’s role in the transition, and the new prominence of Clinton administration officials, suggests that Obama has absorbed one of Hillary Clinton's talking points: That it takes experience to make change happen.

Thirty-one of the 47 people so far named to transition or staff posts have ties to the Clinton administration, including all but one of the members of his 12-person Transition Advisory Board and both of his White House staff choices.
----
The highest-ranking member of the group with deep ties to both Clinton and Obama is [Rahm] Emanuel, a Chicagoan who is very close to Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod.

Though the transition is still young, former Clintonites say they feel a change in the atmosphere.

"It's heartening to see that that was just primary rhetoric," said a former Clinton aide of Obama's criticism of Clinton's administration.
----
Soon after the primary, top Clinton policy aides, such as economic adviser Gene Sperling, were quietly integrated into Obama's campaign. The only member of Clinton's inner circle to join Obama's campaign staff was her policy director, Neera Tanden.

A campaign's policy shop feeds the bulk of a new administration's appointments: Most of the key positions on White House staff and in executive agencies are policy posts.

But while the Clinton policy shop may feel like the gang is getting back together, the political team has yet to be invited in.

Said one former Clinton campaign aide, "Obama has clearly made a distinction between the small group of Clinton campaign staff, who clearly aren't much welcome, and the large number of Clinton White House personnel who are."
Reference Here>>

With the announcement of Eric Holder being considered for the position of Attorney General, apparently expediency over judgment is the dividing hallmark of which former Clinton White House personnel are welcome (see Marc Rich pardon at end of the Clinton Presidency).

This is the reason why placing someone with previous executive experience (ideally within a construct of civic or state politics) is preferred to bringing a fresh approach to Washington politics than a Senator, any Senator, because the candidate who wins the election for president would staff the “new” executive branch with people who are competent in the workings of an executive effort but from OUTSIDE Washington without the legacy to the way thing were done before.

Where is the shiny? Where is the new? Where is the fresh? Where is the Hope? Where is the Change?

With Barack Obama and the personnel he is picking … it’s SAME-O, SAME-O!

We, at MAXINE believe it's going to be a real fun Carter's Second Term with a heavy spice of Clinton thrown in for good measure.

"Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!"

I Voted - And I voted in a way that my vote was not purchased through income re-distribution by the federal government or through a four to one commercial buy on television. The Main Stream Media did not suppress my vote or depress this voter even though I live in a bankrupt Blue State that is 18 Billion dollars in debt. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (2008)

"Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!"

This IS the “Obama Effect” most people are looking for.

Yep! An Obama win will signal the end to self-determination, self-reliance, and the uniqueness that has made our country the envy of the rest of the world for the better part of 100 years.

What is wrong with this homemade political fence sign (photographed while standing in line at the polling station)? ... well, the sign is placed over 100 feet from the polling station so that not it ... Oh!, that is a Mercedes-Benz logo placed inside the Obama "O" ... NO, it's NOT a peace sign! We need high retention, better educated voters out here. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (2008)

Opportunity will forever spelled with a small “O” because the big “O” will have been taken up with the tax-giveaway space that a Barack Obama presidency occupies.

People, as teenagers, really never rebelled against their parent’s control over their lives in earnest … they could not have been serious, because if they were, they would NEVER vote for an agenda that the Democrats and a Brarck Obama will bring to their lives.

Operation Enduring Freedom - The proven path toward peace. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (2008)

The amount of control the federal government will expect if one has a dissenting voice while receiving a handout will become unstoppable.

Rashid Khalidi Unmasked

Rashid Khalidi sees perils for the U.S. in empire building while ignoring its own professional Middle East experts and the history of the region. Khalidi is Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. He formerly taught at the University of Chicago. His talk [at UCLA] was in part to promote his new book, Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East. Caption and Image Credit: UCLA

Rashid Khalidi Unmasked

For some people, the process of judging ones character and the validity of ones judgment must begin with the calculation of affiliation and association.

The Los Angeles Times finds it more important to withhold information to a consuming and curious public at a time when their receipts are way down … subscriptions dropping like a rock, because they understand how important the calculation of affiliation and association really is.

The following article might give a some insight as to why the LA Times will not release the video they have with Barack Obama sharing dinner with Rashid Khalidi. The post carries a link to a shocking video from a Rashid Khalidi lecture and may give insight as to why the Los Angeles Times is running interference for Barack Obama.

Columbia University Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, Rashid Khalidi's keynote address at the "Palestine: 40 Years of Occupation, 60 Years of Dispossession" conference in Portland, Oregon, on June 23, 2007.

This excerpted and edited from Pajamas Media -

This Is the Khalidi, Obama Embraced
October 31, 2008 - by Jennifer Rubin

Many others have surmised that the Los Angeles Times is running interference for Barack Obama, declining not just to provide the tape of the Rashid Khalidi goodbye event which Obama attended in 2003, but a complete transcript [assumed, because that is what we are told].

It is reasonable to ask - what could have been so bad about the event ... what could possibly have been so objectionable about the speeches or proceedings that might concern voters at this late date?

Well, the original Times report gives us only the sketchiest account. But now we have a video of a complete Khalidi lecture from June 2007. It is quite an eye-opener.

Viewers curious about the views of the man whom in 2003 Obama gave a “warm embrace” (physically or verbally?) should skip to the fifty-minute mark on the video tape.

You see, Khalidi tells us, the U.S. is repeating the same error of the Cold War in pursuing its war against Islamic terrorists. According to Khalidi it is the same “blind, foolish, reductionism.” And the U.S. policy is designed according to Khalidi to “get Palestinians to destroy one another.” And on it goes.

His view of Israel?

It is worse than “apartheid.” Continue to the end of the tape when he is asked about the massive Israeli media conspiracy headed by none other than Mortimer Zuckerman.

He doesn’t quite buy into that, but his description of American Jews who control the money and votes to manipulate Congress sounds an awful lot like Mearsheimer and Walt’s “The Israeli Lobby.” Or General Tony McPeak for that matter.

So it would be very interesting to see precisely what Khalidi said in Obama’s presence four years earlier. Was the rhetoric above the sort of language which preceded the warm words of praise from Barack Obama? The specifics matter, the context is crucial.

Obama claims he was never present for the anti-American and anti-Israeli rants of Reverend Wright. But he was there for a tribute to Khalidi, and voters should have the right to know if he sat impassively when Israel was vilified or if he seemed concerned when, as the Times tells us, “a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel.” (According to the Times, “If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”).

Did he seem concerned when “One speaker likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been ‘blinded by ideology’”? We don’t know. The Times won’t tell us.

But we should know. Obama has presented a certain face to the voters and we should see if it matches up to the face he showed others before he imagined anyone outside his circle of like-minded comrades might take particular notice.
Reference Here>>

In a Carter's Second Term (if Barack Obama becomes president) ... What role will this association of President Obama's play - would this guy become our chief adviser to the Middle East ... or just the ambassador to the Palestinians?

The Obama-Infomercial - The Shortcut To Everything

A Barack Obama quote from a 2001 NPR radio interview given to WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM – “One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.” Image Credit: Rachel Nixon - NowPublic

The Obama-Infomercial - The Shortcut To Everything

What do ShamWOW, DermaWand, AB Rocket, Oreck, HeadOn, Awesome Auger, and the Barack Obama*Joe Biden campaign for president of the United States have in common? All have infomercials running on the television last night.

Shamwow! cloths wash, dry and polish any surface. They are like a towel, chamois and sponge all in one--except they're extremely absorbent and can be used over and over. Shamwow! towels are machine washable and bleachable, will not scratch surfaces, and will last for more than 10 years! Image Credit: ShamWOW

The problem these type of selling productions have comes down to getting the balance of repetitiveness, emotion, production value, and the sense of real information imparted to the witness of this type of show. Other than truthfulness, the Barack Obama*Joe Biden edition of infomercial wins on all counts.

Derma Wand uses incredible new technology that sends a gentle stream of impulses to your skin to temporarily renew dull, tired, aged looking skin, firming and toning, giving you a youthful lifted appearance! Image Credit: South Jersey Expo

I was left waiting for the line … “And if you call in right now, you will receive TWO Barack Obamas and TWO Joe Bidens when you sign on to this ONE political party solution (without the messy Checks and Balances) to your problems – This is your shortcut to everything!”

When Barack Obama states that he will go through government programs on a line-by-line basis and eliminate programs that are not working, does anyone believe that he has the judgment and background experience to actually pull this off (after all, this was promised by Al Gore both when he was running for his succesful bid as Vice-President and his unsuccesful bid as President)? Will ACORN and its practices ever be brought into question? Is this a time to increase taxes on anyone for any reason when business receipts are down due to the Mortgage Crisis created through the Social Engineering agendas put forth through Democrat Party federal government programs initiated during the Bill Clinton presidency? ... that he will actually give us a military that will protect us in a “21st Century” world when he plans to restructure our armed forces?

The Awesome Auger takes the hard work out of yard work! Its patented spiral design with laser sharp edge, gives you the muscle to blast through hard rock and clay, or cut through the thickest roots, and easily power out rocks and stubborn stumps! It also works great for digging post holes, removing weeds and dandelions or planting trees, shrubs, and bushes. Image Credit Awesome Auger

Does anyone think our safety would be in peril when he says, “Americans are tightening their belts, and Washington should be leading the way. Cutbacks are needed, Iraq funding should be first to go - this money could to go schools, hospitals, scholarships - back into America.”?

Can anyone believe Barack Obama is telling a truth when he stated, “No Liberal America, No Conservative America, just the United States of America.”, especially if he is successful in becoming the head of the Executive Branch in this country thus forming a one party Super Majority over the processes of a government that currently enjoys a single digit approval rating from the American public?

When Barack Obama had a chance to speak directly to the American people through this medium of infomercial, he chose to speak only to the people who would support him the most … when he could have captured a nation with a realistic message in a John F. Kennedy moment; he played it safe and promised all things to everyone.

The Ab Rocket is a revolutionary way to work your lower, upper, middle abs and even your sides, giving you the body that you’ve always wanted. In just 5 minutes a day, the Ab Rocket will rocket your abs from flab to fab! Image Credit: tryabrocket.com

Politics via Oprah, Spelberg, Geffen, or just a slick BIG MONEY infomercial, is not what these challenging times require. Growing government so that one can grow the economy has been done and it has failed (the last time was during the Carter presidency).

If throwing tax money at poverty was a succesful strategy then why havn't the billions and billions of dollars that we have already spent over the last forty years of Democrat Party led programs made the war on povety less daunting? - this is because big government manged solutions do not work.

For those who have a differing opinion and vision to Barack Obama's big government view of America, if he wins … at least we will have a free and unregulated press to watch after our collective interests to fall back on - OUCH.

Bradley Effect To Obama Effect - Change We Need

Attendees at an Obama campaign rally, listening to a speech delivered by Barack Obama, in Nevada. Image Credit: AFP

Bradley Effect To Obama Effect - Change We Need

After twenty-six years, we, at MAXINE, believe it is time for a change. The change we need would come in the form of a name change for the voter phenomenon that has come to be known as the “Bradley Effect.”

Former Los Angeles mayor Bradley dead at 80 of heart attack (11 a.m. EDT, September 29, 1998) - "This is a very sad day for Los Angeles, but also a day to remember all the great things Tom Bradley did for our city," said the city's current mayor, Richard Riordan. Riordan, who succeeded Bradley in 1993, also ordered all of the city's flags flown at half-staff in Bradley's honor. /// The five-term mayor suffered a paralyzing stroke that left him unable to speak in April 1996, a day after undergoing triple bypass heart surgery. Bradley had also suffered a heart attack in March 1996. Image Credit: the SoHo Journal

This definition excerpted and edited from Wikipedia –

Bradley Effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect, is a proposed explanation for observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some US government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.

The effect refers to a supposed tendency on the part of some voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his or her white opponent. It was named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.

The Bradley effect theorizes that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias. Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor in to voters' answers.
Reference Here>>

We're looking to have the “Bradley Effect” be replaced with a more powerful and pronounced “Obama Effect”!

We would need to add a couple of more reasons added to the color issue, however (in order to have a name change to the “Obama Effect” take place), like the color of his politics, the tainted nature and color of his money, the color of his truthfulness when he pledged to go with Public Campaign Financing (as opposed to what he actually decided to do, go ahead and accept private donations thus breaking his pledge), the color and nature of the voter registration tactics of ACORN, the color of passion in values and right to life voters (feel free to add what you observe).

With Obama and his class “warfare/welfare” tax plan, we may be looking at a RAINBOW of colors in the new “Bradley Effect” … but if Obama looses, will the MSM report the reasons for the loss in this way? … we think not.

This is the (as stated on all of the Obama campaign rally signs) ... Change We Need.

Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution

Barack Obama articulates his socialist vision for the United States. He muses about a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts (Ctrl-Click Image to hear interview). Image Credit: NakedEmperorNews

Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution

In a radio interview given in 2001, Barack Obama finally articulates his philosophy on how social engineering (socialism) should come and be established here in the United States.

What the junior Senator from Illinois would like to see is a Supreme Court that would legislate (from the bench) transfer of earned monies from citizens that work to the citizens who do not.

The more one reads these statements of philosophy, one is left to wonder … exactly what about this country and its constitution does Barack Obama like? Judging by the proposed projection of action he had wished the Warren court missed at taking on … not much. He called the Constitution a deeply flawed document – this IS the document that allowed this country to become the most productive and powerful on Earth – how flawed can this document be?

Personal freedom and the right to one’s earned wealth are two items that Barack Obama would like to have in the total control of the federal government – ALL BRANCHES.

This excerpted and edited from Morningstar –

Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)
Beliavsky - Morningstar - 10-26-2008

Here is a transcript of a 2001 radio interview of Barack Obama where he advocates redistribution as reparations for slavery and other injustices towards "previously disposessed peoples".

MODERATOR:
Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR:
Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN:
Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA:
Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
----
So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
Reference Here>>

So, does anyone here think that Barack Obama would restructure the Supreme Court system so that they can legislate changes on how much money we earn can be confiscated for redistribution purposes without the opportunity for a vote by the people in this democracy?

“General WMD” Powell Endorses “Senator Speech” Obama

Colin Powell hailed the Sen. Obama as a "transformational figure" and expressed disappointment in the negative tone of Sen. John McCain's campaign, as well as his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate. Image Credit: Meet The Press – NBC

“General WMD” Powell Endorses “Senator Speech” Obama

Nobody can make this stuff up!

At this very moment with a little more than two weeks before the election, Senator Barack Obama had spent a total of 143 days on the floor of the United States Senate before declaring his intention to become the candidate nominee of the Democrat Party for the office of President of the United States. During the primary process before he was able to secure his political party’s nomination, he had to compete against Senator Hillary Clinton who characterized her opponent as a person who’s only accomplishment was a speech given stating a position as being against the war in Iraq.

Colin Powell is a Free Enterprise citizen making money from speeches he gives on behalf of his long list of accomplishments which include directing and winning the first Gulf War (an action opposed by then Senator and current Vice-Presidential candidate, Joe Biden) under George Bush, President #41, and being the Secretary of State and selling the invasion of Iraq by the United States to the United Nations for George Bush, President #43.

Step back in time with me for a moment and have your brain fire off in a synapse cluster.

After September 11, 2001, our Government was looking to respond and hunt down the forces that were aligned to attack the United States and thereby the free world.

In the run up to our impending invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama and Colin Powell were leading distinctly different lives.

This excerpted and edited from The White House website -

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council
This transcript includes the slides that were displayed during the remarks. They are placed in the text approximately where they were displayed in the address. To view the slides, click on the graphic (a pop-up window will appear).
February 5, 2003

For more than 20 years, by word and by deed Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows, intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he most hold to fulfill his ambition.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.
Reference Here>>

Colin Powell said this with having all of his “skin-in-the-game” as Secretary Of State of the United States and delivered his presentation in front of the world representatives gathered at the United Nations.

At this very time of Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations, Barack Obama was gearing up his (eventually unopposed) run for the office of United States Senator from the state of Illinois.

This edited and excerpted from The Black Commentator -

The Black Commentator
Issue Number 45 - June 5, 2003

Barack Obama, [an ACORN community organizer,] a constitutional law professor and state senator from the south side of Chicago, is a leading candidate for the US Senate in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary. It's an open seat with no incumbent. In a crowded field that includes three well-known and better-funded opponents, Obama is definitely a contender. But who is Barack Obama?
----
At an antiwar meeting last October, 2002, Obama was certainly pitching to that Democratic base in the progressive and African American community:

"I don't oppose all wars ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
----
"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics .... "
Reference Here>>

Barack Obama said this without having any “skin-in-the-game” to a small crowd of like minded people gathered at an antiwar meeting in Chicago, Illinois.

This weekend with a little more than two weeks left before the election, Free Market citizen and professed Republican (speaking fees estimated at $100,000 per appearance), Colin Powell announced his endorsement for Barack Obama.

This edited and excerpted from Meet The Press, October 19, 2008 –

'Meet the Press' transcript for Oct. 19, 2008
Former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.), Chuck Todd, David Brooks, Jon Meacham, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough

[Colin Powell]

I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."
----
So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
Reference Here>>

So there you have it, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell endorses junior Senator fom Illinois, Barack Obama for President of the United States. He does so by sighting Style and Substance and not one word about his life accomplishments, and possible philosophical ideals that would be good for all of America to embrace.

OUCH!

This is a Republican who sold the world on the fact that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) and was heralded for his prowess as a successful chief warrior when our country was called on by the world to move the invasion army of Iraq out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War.

This is also a Republican who opposes the right to life for the unborn, opposes the appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Does he also disapprove of his appointments to being a Four-Star General in the Army (President Ronald Reagan, #40), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Military (President George H.W. Bush, #41), and Secretary of State of the United States (President George W. Bush, #43)?

With a Republican like this ... who needs Democrats?

We can only imagine what type of position a Colin Powell has negotiated for himself in a Barack Obama administration. Oh, and do not forget ... this endorsement isn't about race.

Trickle Down Growth Or Trickle Across Poverty

Casting the tax debate as a “values” issue Saturday, Barack Obama said John McCain was "out-of-touch" for equating the Illinois senator's plan to cut taxes for middle class families with welfare. /// “It comes down to values – in America, do we simply value wealth, or do we value the work that creates it?” Obama said at a rally under the Gateway Arch. “I’m not giving tax cuts to folks who don’t work. I’m giving tax cuts to folks who do work. That’s right, Missouri – John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people ‘welfare.’ – Barack Obama in St. Louis Oct. 18, 2008 – Image Credit: Ethiopian Review

Trickle Down Growth Or Trickle Across Poverty

“Joe The Plumber” has really struck a cord with the average American that does not want to loose their hard fought freedoms.

The truth is that most Americans are not opposed to paying taxes to a Government that creates and maintains roads and infrastructure, creates and maintains laws that secure our sovereignty, and gives us protection from forces that want to take over our freedoms that our forefathers envisioned us having here in the United States – Religion, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness!

What most Americans do not want to do is pay taxes for WELFARE knowing full well that this is the cancer that attacks our productivity, creativity, economic health, and the wide variety of choices we have come to expect in our "7-11 society" (access to almost anything at anytime of the day).

One measure of how well people connect with a vision of America that “Joe The Plumber” articulates and its effect on our election process for President ... expect a machine generated “robocall” from the Democrat Party featuring “Bob The Plumber” - That’s right, BOB … THE PLUMBER! The inventive “Bob” is the main character in a phone call people get while they are eating dinner, espousing the virtues of a Barack Obama economic vision that invests in the middleclass.

This Reference (edited) found at The Huffington Post –

Obama Launches Own 'Joe The Plumber' Robocall
Sam Stein – The Huffington Post, October 18, 2008

Barack Obama's campaign is trotting out its own "Joe the Plumber" to counteract efforts by John McCain to make inroads on the white working class vote.

A reader in Colorado sends over word that the state Democratic Party and the Obama camp are blasting out robocalls from "Joe Martinez," a plumber in Colorado who vouches for the Illinois Democrat's tax plan.

A spokesman for the Colorado Democratic Party confirmed the robocall and said he would try to track down audio. The rough script goes like this:

"...During this week's debate, Barack Obama talked about cutting taxes for
middle class families like mine, lowering health care costs for everyone and
bringing the change we need in Washington. John McCain ignored the issues and
used the debate to launch false attacks against Barack Obama. In fact, McCain -
for the third debate in a row - didn't even say the words 'middle class'. So,
take it from Joe the plumber, if you want a president who will put middle class
families first - join me in voting for Barack Obama. Paid for by the Colorado
Democratic Party...."

Reference Here>>

What "Barack The Socialist" says is that 95% of all working taxpayers will receive a tax cut – only about 60% of all Americans actually pay taxes so this means the rest of the taxpayers will receive a “tax credit” in the mail. If a taxpayer did not pay money into a tax system, a tax credit is wealth redistribution, which is WELFARE … or socialism.

This excerpted and edited from the Los Angeles Times -

McCain Compares Obama's Policies To Socialism
By BOB DROGIN and MARK Z. BARABAK Los Angeles Times - October 19, 2008

John McCain sharpened his attack on presidential rival Barack Obama's economic proposals Saturday, accusing the Democrat of seeking to turn the United States into a socialist country and convert the IRS into a giant "welfare agency" that would dole out cash at Washington, D.C.,'s discretion.

----

In recent days, McCain has seized on a comment that Obama made in defending his tax policies to Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, an Ohio man now better known as "Joe the Plumber." Obama, who was canvassing Wurzelbacher's neighborhood last weekend, told him: "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Delivering a national radio address before setting out for stops Saturday in North Carolina and Virginia, McCain said Obama's approach "sounded a lot like socialism."

"At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives," the Republican nominee said. "They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut. It's just another government giveaway."

Obama has said that his plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans, including Wurzelbacher. McCain has said 40 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes, either because they are elderly or don't make enough money."

In other words, Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," McCain said in his radio remarks.

----

For decades, Republicans have portrayed Democrats as acolytes of big government, top-down solutions. But socialist theory is more radical and arguably more sinister-sounding. It calls for collective ownership of most private enterprise and the creation of an egalitarian society. Karl Marx said that socialism was a transitional phase between capitalism and communism.

Reference Here>>

If one studies the economies of the countries that have embraced socialism as a component of their economic and governmental structure, what one finds with this practice is an average standard of living that becomes reduced. Socialism reduces incentive, investment, growth, and empowerment - the tenants of "Trickle Down Growth."

What Barack Obama aims to achieve with his tax plan besides having the Government be able to make more decisions over how one leads his or her life, is a wealth redistribution which amounts to an economic plan that can be termed as - "Trickle Across Poverty!"

NEWS FLASH – Palin Reads New York Times. Finds Ayers

Gov. Palin and Katie Couric get real and adorable in this Saturday Night Live skit featuring Tina Fey as Palin and Amy Pouler as Couric (Ctrl/Click to launch video). Image Credit: NBC/ Saturday Night Live (screenshot from video)

NEWS FLASH – Palin Reads New York Times. Finds Ayers

Yesterday, on the campaign stump, Gov. Sarah Palin answers her critics on several fronts.

Last week Palin was interviewed by CBS News Anchor Katie Couric and Katie asked Sarah if she read newspapers and/or magazines (yes) and what were the names of some of the newspapers and/or magazines – Sarah did not mention any specific newspaper or magazine feeling that this line of questioning was a trap.

Saturday Night Live and Tina Fey have made a lot of hay from this incident, lampooning Palin’s responses in her televised interview with Couric and gaining ratings points along the way.

Sarah Palin is beginning to gain a few rating points of her own and she is doing it by admitting that she reads the New York Times.

At a campaign rally scheduled for Monday, October 6, 2008, Coachman Park in Clearwater, Florida, the Vice Presidential running mate to Senator John McCain admitted to actually reading the New York Times.

"And according to The New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the US Capitol.' Wow," she said.

She said Obama was "someone who sees America as 'imperfect enough' to work with a former domestic terrorist who targeted his own country."

Obama, she said, was "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

No wonder Sarah did not want to tell Katie Couric what resource newspapers she reads to inform her; it turns out that by reading the New York Times, she would find out that a candidate running for President of the United States is a person who worked along side of and was appointed by William Ayers to become the Chairman of an educational grant fund that promoted the political radicalization of children through the handing out millions of dollars. As Chairman, Barack Obama directed where the monies were to go with the shoulder-to-shoulder collaboration of William Ayers.

"From now and until Election Day, hang onto your hats because, you know, it may get kinda rough here," Sarah Palin said with her signature sass. "Campaigns have to step up and kinda take the gloves off and start telling the truth."

Funny thing … that the truth can sometimes be found through reading the New York Times!

Palin Delivers Hope In Protecting Freedoms For Americans

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden after Thursday's vice presidential debate. Image Credit: Ron Edmonds, Associated Press

Palin Delivers Hope In Protecting Freedoms For Americans

While gaining confidence throughout the evening, Governor Sarah Palin delivered a message of Change and Hope better than the Democrat talking point delivery of Senator Joseph Biden.

Sarah stayed on point while not allowing the thrust and parry of minutia in the questions to divert her from showing the difference between the inbred stance of Washington insiders and a “mainstreet” living Governor from and energy producing state that has a lot to contribute.

Sarah Palin was in a good mood while the Senator of 35 years was stuck in “senate speak”. Palin showed an energy and acted like an everyday person … better than expected.

In a post debate interview conducted on Fox News by Dr. Frank Luntz, several people in the crowd strongly felt that Sarah Palin would be ready to lead if the events came about where she had to step in. They felt that her executive experience and her performance in the debate brought them around to understand that our country needs an outside point of view to help refresh the leadership to run politics in Washington.

Plain talk can not be discounted in our country at this unique time, and it does not come cheaply. In the end, Governor Palin stated that it would be the goal of a McCain administration to help protect the freedoms each preceding generation has fought for and that these freedoms would not be eroded on their watch.

Charles Krauthammer, when interviewed in a post debate segment on Fox News felt Joseph Biden may have won on points but looked very sour in the end.

Note to Chuck Todd, NBC’s chief political observer, who had stated on Morning Joe this morning that the presidential race was over … the race is not over, not just yet!

This excerpted and edited from USA Today –

Fact check: Context of key debate claims
By Ken Dilanian and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

A look at some of the claims made by Sen. Joe Biden and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the vice presidential debate Thursday night in St. Louis:

Tax votes

The claim: Palin said Sen. Barack Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes.

The facts: Non-partisan FactCheck.org called that count, which has been cited before by Republicans, "inflated and misleading." Examining the 94 votes at issue, FactCheck.org found that 23 were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.

Seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals, according to FactCheck.org, which is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

The 94 tally includes two, three and even four votes on the same measure.

Tax rate changes

The claim: Palin said Obama's plan to raise the top income tax rate would affect "millions of small businesses." Biden responded that the vast majority of small businesses do not report more than $250,000 in income.

The facts: The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, citing 2003 data from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, said in a report that 436,000 tax filers with small-business income — 1.3% of the 32.8 million filers with small-business income — were subject to the top income tax rate. Another Tax Policy Center analysis concluded that "roughly 97% of small businesses would not be affected at all by increases in the top two tax rates."

Health care

The claim: Palin said Obama wants a "universal, government-run program" and "health care being taken over by the feds."

The facts: Obama's health-care plan does not call for a government takeover. In fact, it isn't even universal. It would only cover all children. Obama's plan would give Americans the opportunity to have government health insurance, but they also could pick a private plan.

Energy

The claim: Biden said he has "always" supported clean coal. He said "a comment made at a rope line was taken out of context" by John McCain's campaign.

The facts: In the video, recorded at the beginning of Biden's bus trip across Ohio last week, he is seen responding to a question about why the campaign is supporting clean coal. "We're not supporting clean coal," he says. "Guess what? China is building two every week, two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States, it's causing people to die."

As the exchange continues, Biden says: "China's gonna burn 300 years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up, because it's gonna ruin your lungs, and there's nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build 'em, if they're gonna build 'em, over there and make 'em clean because they're killing you."

Mortgage crisis

The claim: Biden said McCain said he was "surprised" by the subprime mortgage crisis.

The facts: McCain's use of the word "surprised" came in response to a leading question in New Hampshire last December. At the time, he compared it to the dot-com collapse of the late 1990s, adding: "I was surprised at other times in our history. I don't know if surprised is the word." Later in the same interview, he said, "When I say 'surprised,' I'm not surprised when in capitalist systems that there's greed and excess."

Troop funding

The claim: Each vice presidential candidate said the opposing presidential candidate voted against funding U.S. troops in Iraq.

The facts: Palin's charge that Obama voted against funding the troops is true. But Obama said at the time that he wanted to fund the troops, but the bill in question didn't include a requirement that President Bush begin bringing troops home. Similarly, Biden's charge that McCain also voted against funding is true — because the bill in question included a timeline for withdrawing troops, and McCain opposes timelines.

Diplomacy

The claim: Biden said Obama did not say he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is simply not true about Barack Obama," he said. "He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad."

The facts: At a news conference in New York City in September 2007, Obama was asked, "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad … would you still meet with him today?" He replied: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries."

Reference Here>>