This article originates from, and is republished with the permission of, the Toronto-based Ontario Coalition Against Poverty.

What do you think? How much of it do you agree with?

The McGuinty Liberals have jumped onto the very overcrowded bandwagon of ‘Poverty Reduction’. They have set up a process of highly selective consultation to ‘define the problem’. Then, they tell us, they will ‘set targets’ to reduce poverty and implement a package of reforms to that effect. Implied in all this is an expectation that we should accept it as a good faith initiative. In fact, we are expected to play along and wait patiently for the eventual benefits that will, supposedly, flow from it. The first thing that needs to be said is that an uncritical acceptance of this undertaking would be an act of extraordinary naiveté. This is the second term for the Liberals and everything they have done to date consolidates the Harris Common Sense Revolution while smoothing over social divisions with token gestures. Perhaps we should just take a glimpse at how the Liberals have dealt with the poor over the last few years. They campaigned the first time they were elected on a platform that included repealing the Safe Streets Act that Harris used to set the cops on the homeless. To-day, that law is still in effect, being used on a scale far greater than when the Tories held power. In Toronto, over the last three years, there has been a nearly 300% increase in the number of Safe Streets tickets being issued. The Liberal Attorney General has sent his people into Court to oppose legal challenges to the Act and his prosecutors are seeking and obtaining jail time for people convicted of panhandling. While an oversupply of upscale housing crowds out the skyline, decent and truly affordable housing remains a dream for the poor. Toronto Community Housing says it needs $300 million to repair and preserve its buildings. Less than 10% of that has been provided by Queen’s Park and 180,000 public housing tenants in Toronto are living in units that are, literally, falling apart. Under pressure, modest increases to the minimum wage have occurred but welfare and disability rates have lost ground against inflation under the Liberals. More people than ever are being evicted from their housing for lack of income. Attempts to use the ‘Special Diet’ policy within the welfare system to actually provide people with enough to eat have been fought tooth and nail by the Liberals. Now, the new Ontario Child Benefit, their first step towards ‘poverty reduction’, will not even be the promised $50 a month for those on assistance and will be reduced even further through the elimination of clothing allowances. A 40% reduction in real income for people on welfare still casts its shadow over the lives of hundreds of thousands in this Province years after McGuinty first took office on a platform of ‘change’. Meanwhile, Deb Matthews, the Minister who will be handling his belated conversion to ‘poverty reduction’, has promised to leave intact the Harris tax cuts that made the rich richer and the poor poorer. But these were paid for in large measure by the people and families on assistance who had their income slashed. If that is not be reversed, then we are talking about a process of reform that is denied the resources it would need to be meaningful. If this poverty reduction initiative, then, is lacking in sincerity, we may ask ourselves what it is about. In fact, it has several aspects to it and is part of a process that goes well beyond Ontario. There is actually a wing of the corporate structure that has become nervous about overly crude methods when it comes to reducing social provision. The Toronto Star with its present ‘war on poverty’ is perhaps the best example of such timid, post Harris ‘social engineering’. It worries about the impact of outright social abandonment and the damage done by earlier cutbacks. There’s no nostalgia for the post war social infrastructure, of course, but measures to deal with the worst excesses of poverty are something to look at, provided they don’t go too far. The above consideration, very limited as it is, is the only element of the ‘poverty reduction’ process that has any genuine quality about it. We may also anticipate that a great deal of what Ms. Matthews wants to develop would be highly regressive in nature. Even with the brutality of the Harris cuts to social assistance, the system can still be redesigned in ways that make it more effective in forcing the poor into low wage employment. By separating the benefits for children from those of their parents, a classical use of the division between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor is to be seen. Once a mythical adequacy has been developed for children, welfare can become an even better tool for driving adults into the most exploitative jobs. Even at this early stage, Matthews is fixating on children as if she actually believes their poverty can be considered as something apart from that of their parents or that the poverty of single adults is of secondary importance. The roots of the new religion of ‘poverty reduction’ are actually to be found in the neo liberal assault on poor countries. Structural adjustment programs have removed limited protections for poor people and driven vast sections of the population from rural self sufficiency into huge and expanding mega cities, where they are warehoused in squalor on the fringes of economic life. Abandoned people in their abandoned communities are then told that they can be ‘empowered’ and become ‘self sufficient’ through community economic development. The World Bank and IMF, having inflicted misery on billions of people, now offer them such preposterous ‘solutions’ in place of the resources they need. It was striking that ideas drawn from the international ‘poverty reduction’ industry were present in Matthews’ comments on how she sees her work. She stressed that reducing peoples’ poverty was only to a limited degree about resources. (This is very convenient since the rich have taken those resources and don’t intend to give them back). No, in fact, a large part of dealing with poverty is about giving people ‘opportunities’. Notions of ‘personal responsibility’ and measures of ‘tough love’ are not very far away and give us another warning that there is an actively regressive element to this process. Of course, the main models of poverty reduction being pointed to are those that have emerged in other ‘developed countries’. Ireland and the UK are held up a great deal. The achievements in those countries were, actually, much more limited and contradictory than they would like to acknowledge but they also took place in a very different context to that facing Ontario to-day. Especially in the case of Ireland, the twenty six county republic was experiencing an unheard of expansion and industrialization. With recessionary storm clouds gathering here and, with the industrial base massively eroded ahead of time, we would be overly trusting to expect that the McGuinty Government will charge uphill for social justice. If this process and its directions remain in their hands, the prospects for any progress in the fight against poverty are bleak indeed. As Matthews moves from community to community with her little circus, we should note that we are seeing here a specialty of the Liberal Party at work. That body is, after all, the main political mechanism for demobilizing communities and channeling grievances into blind allies of ‘dialogue’ and consultation. They plan to give the poor very little in terms of concessions and to include in their reform package measures that make things worse. The question, then, has to be will this thing unfold as a safe and controlled exercise with the results mapped out by the Government ahead of time or will the demands and the anger of poor people and their communities break through and dominate the process? If the Liberals lose control of this, it would not be the first time that an attempt to divert community anger has, instead, provided a focus for it. In the early 1970s, the Senate Committee on Poverty became a lightning rod for community anger. The Social Assistance Review Committee in the Ontario of the late 80s did not at all divert poor people from mobilizing. Matthews is trying to prevent this by holding controlled, invitation only consultations. Already indignant voices are being raised and communities are starting to challenge her attempt to keep the anger of poor people from intruding on her sanitized deliberations. We have been warned against ‘simplistic’ solutions and told that we can’t tackle the complexities of poverty until we ‘define the problem’. We should have very limited patience with a notion that works so well for those wanting to do as little as possible for as long as they can. If Matthews wants a definition of poverty, the amount of money people get from her Government’s welfare system is a good definition. So is the wage people bring home at the legislated minimum her Government sets. When you have to make a choice between paying the rent and eating decent food, that is poverty and it is created and maintained by the Government Matthews is part of. She and her ‘Cabinet colleagues’ need to hear that from the poor and their allies. Our demands for living income, decent housing and other vital community needs must force their way to the forefront. The Liberal’s circus of consultation needs a large measure of truth and big dose of reality.

]]> http://goodtimepolitics.wordpress.com/?p=356 Sun, 18 May 2008 01:29:05 +0000 goodtimepolitics http://goodtimepolitics.wordpress.com/?p=356  

From the Nation of Islam website: America is the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the last 6,000 years.  She has money and power, but is America being rightly guided.

There is a new party started this election called “The New Radical Elites Party”.  The leaders of this new party is very well known except for the one running for president of The United States of America.  The top leader is  Minister Louis Farrakhan and his second in command is no other than Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the person they want into the people’s White House is Barack Hussein Obama.  This Obama has many things hid that he does not want the American people to know about.  My opinion is Obama was brought to The United States as a child to be used to gain control of this great nation.  He was groomed by the Nation of Islam its leaders and supporters and very well groomed I would have to say.  He knows how to lie out of a situration just like the terrorist were told to lie if they got caught.  His father was a muslim and Obama studied at a muslim school for a few years before coming to America.  We have all heard over the last eight years that once you’re a muslim always a muslim or that they will find you and dehead.  Yes that’s what I said “dehead”!  There is no way that we the people can not see what these islam people are trying to do.  They done it with Hamas, they have done it with Hezbollah terrorist and now wanting to do the same here in America.  I will keep asking that we all wake-up before its to late.  Obama has already said that he is willing to talk to the leader of Iran, the terrorist, that worries this American how about you? 

Please take the time to read this:

http://www.noi.org/    

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/17/sen-kennedy-rushed-to-the-hospital/

Christians must surely pray for this man....it is our calling.

Just musing...

Hal tersebut diungkapkan Mensesneg Hatta Rajasa ketika diminta menanggapi pernyataan Mantan Presiden Abdurrahman Wahid alias Dur yang menyarankan Indonesia sudah waktunya mengaku Israel, karena eksistensi Israel tidak terbantahkan. Pernyataan itu disampaikan Dur dalam lawatan ke AS menerima untuk penghargaan sebuah LSM Yahudi yang sangat Zionistik, Simon Wiesenthal Center.

"Lebih baik Indonesia berusaha mengupayakan sesegera mungkin kemerdekaan di Palestina, dari pada menanggapi keberadaan eksistensi Israel itu, " ujarnya pada pers, di Istana Negara, Jakarta, Jum'at (16/5).

Terkait penyelesaian konflik Palestina, Menurut Hatta, Indonesia masih tetap konsisten dan fokus dalam mendorong berdirinya negara Palestina yang merdeka dan berdaulat, dari penindasan dan kekejaman yang dilakukan oleh zionis Israel.

Hatta juga membantah pandangan beberapa pihak yang menilai Indonesia tidak banyak berbuat atau membantu bagi kemerdekaan Palestina secara konsisten, karena Indonesia masih dibayang-bayang tekanan AS.

"Indonesia telah banyak melakukan tindakan nyata, untuk mendorong bagi kemerdekaan dan perdamaian bagi Rakyat Palestina dengan berbagai cara, melalui diplomasi melalui forum internasional, " pungkasnya.

Sebelumnya, Peneliti Pusat Studi Kajian Timur Tengah dan Islam Universitas Indonesia Muhammad Luthfi Zuhdi mengatakan, kedekatan Gus Dur dengan Yahudi Israel dapat mempengaruhi posisi Indonesia yang memberikan dukungan terhadap kemerdekaan Palestina.

Terkait dengan penghargaan LSM Yahudi, Luthfi menyatakan, kondisi saat ini sangat berbeda, negara Zionis-Israel ini berdiri sebagai bentuk zionisme yang menindas dan melakukan kekejaman terhadap rakyat Palestina.(novel/Eramuslim.com)

Dallaire has become a poster boy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This has resulted in modest wealth and status -- promotions and medals before he retired, a UN post as adviser, a Liberal senator, and a sought-after speaker and authority on human rights in Darfur, China and elsewhere.

By morally equating the U.S. and Canada's treatment of Khadr, now 21, with al-Qaida or international terrorism, Dallaire crosses the line and makes a fool of himself as well as the entourage who thinks he's wonderful.

Dallaire is not wonderful. He's decent, has a conscience, wants to do good and right wrongs. But he is cursed with having been a failure in the most significant job of his life when he didn't have the experience to cope with UN bureaucracy that let Rwanda happen -- and he did nothing.

The rest.

In October 2007, Senator Kennedy underwent surgery to clear his carotid artery in hopes of preventing a stroke. UPDATE: According to CNN's sources, Senator Kennedy canceled his own lunch plans for today via phone, and the family is "optimistic" that the Senator will be just fine and make a "full recovery," per Ed Henry's reporting from Sharm-el-Sheikh.

The Associated Press, per a Kennedy family statement, is noting that Senator Ted Kennedy "experienced a seizure."

UPDATE 2: Per Senator Kennedy's office, he is "resting comfortably."

UPDATE 3: Statement from Senator John McCain:

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on the news concerning Senator Ted Kennedy:

"I was very sorry to hear that Senator Kennedy has taken ill, and like millions of Americans, Cindy and I anxiously await word of his condition. Senator Kennedy's role in the U.S. Senate cannot be overstated. He is a legendary lawmaker, and I have the highest respect for him. When we have worked together, he has been a skillful, fair and generous partner. I consider it a great privilege to call him my friend. Cindy and I are praying for our friend, his wife, Vicki and the Kennedy family."

Developing...

Here's the May 15, 2008 story by CNN.Money.com:

GENEVA (AP) -- The United States topped world competitiveness rankings for the 15th straight year, but its economy is showing the same signs of weakness that sank booming Japan in the early 1990s, according to an annual survey released Thursday.

Asian tigers Singapore and Hong Kong ranked just behind the U.S., as they did last year. Switzerland jumped two places to fourth, while Luxembourg rounded out the top five most competitive national economies, said the Lausanne, Switzerland-based IMD business school, publisher of the World Competitiveness Yearbook.

"The big question is whether the United States will be No. 1 after this year," project director Stephane Garelli said, adding that the report was based on 2007 data that do not fully reflect all of the problems in U.S. financial markets. "Everyone is catching up very quickly, but so far the U.S. economy is showing a lot of resilience."

The study lists 55 economies according to 331 criteria that measure how the nations create and maintain conditions favorable to businesses.

The U.S. position was cemented by its domestic economy, which is the world's strongest, topping all others in its amount of investments, stock purchases and commercial service exports. The U.S. also ranks as the easiest place to secure venture capital for business development and dominates all other economies in key technology criteria such as computers in use, according to the report.

But Garelli warned that U.S. economic health is vulnerable because of its heavy reliance on the financial sector for corporate profits.

The 2008 report says there are parallels between now and two decades ago, when the business school first started to study competitiveness and "Japan's competitiveness seemed unassailable, with a strong domination in economic dynamism, industrial efficiency and innovation."

"Then all hell broke loose," it added. "The stock market went into reverse in 1989, land prices collapsed in 1992, credit cooperatives and regional banks came under attack in 1994, large banks teetered on the edge of bankruptcy in 1997, and a major credit crunch occurred in 1998. Does this ring a bell?"

While the report called the similarities "frightening," Garelli said there are important differences between the Japan that stagnated for nearly a decade and the U.S. economy teetering on the brink of a recession now.

Japan's decision-makers were bureaucrats or politicians who reacted too slowly. The U.S. administration, by contrast, is full of business and financial experts that know when things need to be shaken up.

"The U.S. always seems to find the means to reinvent itself in ways that Japan - and much of Europe - often lacks," he said.

Rounding out the top 10 most competitive nations were Denmark, Australia, Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands. Slovenia rose eight places to 32nd - a jump matched by Poland, which is now 44th. Greece slipped the furthest, six places down to 42nd.

China and India both dropped two places in the report, to 17th and 29th, respectively. Russia fell four spots to 49th.

Venezuela was ranked last for the third year in a row, immediately preceded by Ukraine, South Africa, Argentina and Indonesia.

The United States economy is rated as the strongest and most competitive in the world for the fifteenth year in a row. This is frankly astounding news, given the fact that we are routinely told that President Bush has horribly mismanaged the economy, that we are in a terrible recession, and that no president has been this incompetent since Herbert Hoover (and go ahead and have one from the Washington Post for the road).

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich is actually talking about a depression, proving he's diminutive in more than just height. Goodness sakes people, it's really quite remarkable how stupid and irrational people with average to above-average IQs can become when they buy into a completely warped view of the world.

Another interesting story is the economic mythology that we are continually presented about the Clinton years. If you believe what you are routinely spoon fed, you know that President Clinton left President Bush with a budget surplus and a strong economy. False and false again.

First of all, President Clinton did not balance the budget; what he did was fiddle with the numbers by paying off the public debt by borrowing from the intergovernmental debt (particularly from the Social Security Trust Fund). If you think that's a legitimate way to balance the budget, kindly check yourself in to the nearest mental health facility for evaluation. But even with such shenanigans, the last Clinton budget was $133.29 billion in the red.

It is simply not true that President Bush balanced the budget in anything resembling a meaningful or legitimate sense.

Furthermore, President Clinton left President Bush an economy that was already stumbling into recession.
The GDP declined into the negative range in the third quarter of the year 2000.

Wikipedia points out, "The U.S. economy shrank in three non-consecutive quarters in the early 2000s (the third quarter of 2000, the first quarter of 2001, and the third quarter of 2001).

Using the stock market as an unofficial benchmark, a recession would have begun in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble."

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, the GDP was at a negative growth of 0.5% in the third quarter of the year 2000. There was another 0.5% negative GDP growth in the first quarter of 2001, and a -1.4% quarter in the third quarter of 2001.

A document from the state of Ohio says, "In the second half of 2000, traditional manufacturing has experienced negative growth, which qualifies as a recession using the definition of two consecutive quarters of decline."

Media Matters, the well-funded liberal hate site and attack operation, has cried foul over the National Bureau of Economic Research's revision of economic data to indicate that there really was a "Clinton recession" that began in the latter half of the year 2000. But, even if the original figures of negative growth given as March-November 2001, it's still on President Clinton's record. The simple reality is that the Bush administration's first fiscal year did not begin until October 1, 2001. There is simply no getting around the fact that Clinton most definitely did NOT leave Bush a strong economy.

Why is there such an overwhelming belief in things that are simply false?

Because the media - which is and has been firmly on the side of the left - is routinely disingenuous with statistics, which can often be tricky even for people who aren't trying to lie.

The research confirms it:

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession.

A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords “economy recession US” produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories.

Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.

A little perspective on the economy would be helpful. The average unemployment rate during President Clinton was 5.2 percent. The average under President George W. Bush is just slightly below 5.2. The current unemployment rate is4.8 percent, almost half a percentage point lower than these averages.

The average inflation rate under Clinton was 2.6 percent, under Bush it is 2.7 percent. Indeed, one has to go back to the Kennedy administration to find a lower average rate. True the inflation rate over the last year has gone up to 4 percent, but that is still lower than the average inflation rate under all the presidents from Nixon through Bush’s father.

Gas prices are indeed up 33 percent over the last year, but to get an average of 4 percent means that lots of other prices must have stayed the same or gone down. On other fronts, seasonally adjusted civilian employment is 650,000 people greater than it was a year ago. Personal income grew at a strong half of one percent in just February.

Despite all that, this last week, Barack Obama proclaimed “As most experts know, our economy is in a recession.” Hillary Clinton made similar staements last fall. Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven’t even had one single quarter of negative growth reported. The economy slowed down significantly during the end of last year, but that was after a sizzling annual GDP growth rate of 4.9 percent in the third quarter.

Housing has obviously been a big drag on the economy, but many other sectors of the economy, such as exports, have been doing well, some extremely well. For example, aerospace exports increased by over 13 percent last year.

The media’s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps explain people’s pessimism. In a recent interview Fox’s Neil Cavuto claimed this bias “is all part of the media’s plan to get a Democrat in the White House.”

Indeed, research has indicated that media bias is real. Kevin Hassett and I looked at 12,620 newspaper and wire service headlines from 1985 through 2004 for stories on the release of official government releasing numbers on the unemployment rate, number of people employed, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods.

Even after accounting for how well the economy was doing (e.g., what the unemployment rate was and whether it was going up or down), there was still a big difference in how positive or negative the headlines were. Democratic presidents got about 15 percent more positive headlines than Republicans for the same economic news.

Yet, the hysteria created by this coverage can have another cost. It creates pressure for government to “do something,” even if that rush to do something actually ends up hurting the economy. For example, Obama's promises last week “to amend our bankruptcy laws so families aren't forced to stick to the terms of a home loan” will only further drive down the value of mortgage-backed securities, making any unstable financial institutions that hold them even more likely to fail. In the long term, who is going to want to loan money when the contract can be rewritten at a later date?

The news media have generated a lot of fear. Ben Stein has a point when he says “The actual economic conditions are not that bad. I think if we have a recession, if we have a serious recession, a great deal will lie at the media’s feet.” Hopefully a little perspective will enter the picture before even more harm is done.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

In particular we can see the fudging of economic perception by one particular media outlet - CNN - in a recent poll they did.

Fox News reported the story this way under the title, "The "R" Word":

It appears that CNN has decided the U.S. is in a recession even though the economic data do not support that claim.

On its Web site, CNN posted the exit poll results from Tuesday's West Virginia primary which asked voters if and how the "recession" has affected their family. All the major television networks use the same exit poll questionnaire.

And, while that generic survey asked voters, "Has the current recession or economic slowdown affected you and your family?"

Other networks, including this one, used the term "economic slowdown" when reporting the results. A recession is defined as at least two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. The last quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 were marked by slow, but positive economic growth.

A blogger is a little angrier about this bias, and backs his temper up with solid data:

Adolph Hitler described the propaganda technique known as the "big lie" in his Mein Kampf as a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

The liberal American media have mastered this technique in a way that would have had Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels slapping his forehead and saying, "I should have thought of that!"

Christy Harden Smith posted a thread on FireDogLake recently asking, "In Need of Motivation?", and she included the following video:

I can't express enough how wonderful it is to be working alongside the Democrats in my town and region. They're all great people and this year is fantastic because a lot more younger people are participating....and we have YOU-KNOW-WHO to thank for that! Barack Obama is truly a light for the Democratic Party right now. On Thursday evening when I met with the other Obama delegates/alternates, there was one REALLY old woman who was there. This woman has the energy of a 25 year old and the humor & sarcasm of a Mainah that is addicting! Loved her. Hey, if this woman could participate at her age, how about you? :-)

A month or so ago, my local Democrats and I did some cold calling to party members in the area to get a feel on who they'll be supporting locally. I made a couple of calls (which was so much fun! Most people are happy to talk with you...remember that), but mainly, my job was to enter in the information received after each call into the Democrat's state database. You wouldn't think doing data entry is a big deal, but honestly it is, because the Party as a whole likes having a snapshot of what people are thinking and feeling. Anyways, I got a card from the Maine Democratic Party Regional Director for Oxford & Franklin counties (she's in her 20's and is extremely organized and so far has done a dynamic job of keeping everyone going forward!), and here's what she said to me:

Dear Kay,
>
Thanks so much for your help at the phone bank in Norway. We made some of the first calls of a coordinated campaign in the country! A great start!
>
We are going to keep up the great work that you helped start and win these races.
>
Thanks again,
>
Michelle

Can you believe that? We were some of the few in the country who had gotten started! And who do we thank besides ourselves? Ms. Michelle, her youthfulness, and her tenacity to keep the "whip" clearly visible! (Just kidding...she doesn't need a whip. When you're with her, you want to help her. She has that kind of personality)

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is doing something as simple as data entry for your local party is VALUABLE. Get involved! I've never canvassed neighborhoods before and today will be the first time, but I made a promise to myself last year and the beginning of this year that I would help out to try to make a difference whether it's for local, state, or national races and to help in some small way in making the Maine Democratic Party more stronger than it was before!

It doesn't take a lot of effort. You'll have people with you who might also be feeling anxiety doing new things, but that's okay, you'll have each other to lean on. See? Just like family & friends. :-)

Get involved! Go Obama!!!!

U.N. human rights investigator will visit the United States this month to probe racism, an issue that has forced its way into the race to secure the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Race has become a central issue in the U.S. election cycle because Sen. Barack Obama , the frontrunner in the battle for the Democratic nomination battle, stands to become the country's first African American president.

The United Nations need to keep out of our election, but then again Barack Hussein Obama has been playing the race card all along and when that happens he will for sure get it throw right back into his face.

I still can not see where it can be called racist when in fact Obama is both white and black other words he's a mixed bag of nuts like his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  Even if Obama does not want to be known by his white side it does not change the fact that he is part white.

If you want to see the race card played big time just wait until this lier gets into the White House with his wife that is not proud of America for all its done for her.  These two are upset because they had to pay back their school loans like all the white people has to.  I guess they felt it was not right that a black person had to pay back the loan!

Isn't this the black/white man that said we small town Americans were clinging to our guns because we were bitter.  So does that mean the ones that don't have guns are not bitter!  He talks alot without saying anything! 

Now that the United Nations are getting into our affairs, we need to pull together and make sure Barack Hussein Obama does not get into the White House unless its just to visit President John McCain. 

-

-

Mr. Bledsoe,

I know a person who goes to your church, and a while back, this person denounced Joel Osteen for not speaking about sin, holding to the greedy 'prosperity doctrine,' and for pampering his congregation by taking scripture out of context and by using only the positive parts of the text, all the while, focusing on seeker-sensitivity.

I am appalled that you would endorse such a person. Watch the video(s) on Google where Osteen dances around the message of the Gospel to appease the listeners of the Larry King show. King asked, "If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc) wrong, aren't they?" And Osteen replies, "Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong." It wasn't until AFTER he was swamped with emails and messages that he issued an apology.

You can also look up a video on YouTube called 'Osteen Said What?', in which he (in his own sermon) twists certain scriptures such as Ephesians 1:4 to keep "his" flock blind.

In an audio sermon called Speaking Faith Filled Words (Tape #223), Osteen says, "Start calling in victory. Start calling in divine health. Start calling in abundance. You can prophesize your future." Everything is you-you-you. What about God's will? What about seeking God's face and not our own words that lack wisdom and understanding? What did James say about the tongue?

Paul endured afflictions, hardships, distresses, beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, sleeplessness, and hunger as mentioned in 2 Cor 6:4-5. He goes on to say in verse 10 that as servants of God, they were "poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things."

Paul says in 2 Cor 8:9 that for our sakes Jesus "became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich" (in the richness of salvation, not worldly material wealth).

Paul also says in Philippians 3:8-9, "I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him." He counted ALL things he did possess to be loss, even though he suffered the loss of all things.

And finally, Paul speaks about contentment in 2 Cor 12:9-10 saying, "And [Jesus] has said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.' " Paul continues, "Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong." Notice that he was WELL content with difficulties and distresses. In Philippians 4:11 he says, "I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am." And in 1 Timothy 6:8, "If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content."

Adding to the point of contentment, the writer of Hebrews writes in chapter 13, verses 5 & 6, "Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, 'I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU,' so that we confidently say, 'THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME?'" The LORD is our helper, not OUR words or OUR attitude or mindset.

Having been to your church on numerous occasions, I don't know why I'm surprised that you support such a person and his teachings. I am more saddened that good people, like the person mentioned in the beginning, sit in the pews of your church and are influenced by who influences you.

I hope you approve this comment, and if not, thank you for your time.

No McCain, No Hillary and no Obama, just a quiet breeze blowing across the woods,  birds singing,  snakes crawling aound and the fish are biting.  Wait just a minute that might be poison ivy on that there stump, its time to invite Obama back for one of his speeches cause he sure does not answer questions not even for a "sweetie" I hear.  I don't care what Obama says, he was wrong saying that to a lady that was working in her field of work.  He was putting the lady down and then on top of all that he didn't answer her question or invite her to ask it.  Anyone treated that way would be offended.

Obama has shown that he is a smart a__ more than once while he has been campaigning.  It was the same smart a__ ways of his when he said that small town Americans were clinging to their guns because they were bitter. 

Well anyways, back to that there stump...there isn't any politician standing on top of it lying to the American people.  I bet that a person would be safe to bet millions of dollars that a person could run for president and tell the total truth and would never be elected because of the truth.

I guess we the American people do not like hearing the truth from our politicians. :)

From what I read, it seems that a basic difference between the liberal reformer and the radical is the extent of the changes that they hope to bring to society.  Liberals seem to want to make reforms to the existing system, but they do not want to replace the economic and political system.  I found a good definition of liberalism in the book American Reform and Reformers, edited by Randall M. Miller and Paul A. Cimbala. They write in the book's introduction:

"This dictionary's interest rests on reform rather than on radicalism- on the reshaping and redirecting of society rather than on its uprooting. In emphasizing reform over radicalism- indeed, in distinguishing between the two- the dictionary borrows from Raymond Williams's Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (New York, 1976) in recognizing that such terms as "reform" and "radical" are fluid and sometimes interchangeable, and that their meanings are rooted in particular historical contexts. However much American reformers might not deserve the label "radical," many of them were regarded (and in several instances regarded themselves) as radicals in their own day and proposed substantial changes in social structure and the redistribution of power. In fact, the lines separating reform from radicalism have remained blurred and porous, so that clear distinctions between reformer and radical have often proved problematic. One generations;s radical outcast might be embraced as another generation's reformer hero or heroine. The abolitionists, for example, were so transformed in Northerners' collective extimation from the 1830s through the 1860s.

From Thomas Paine's day onward, radical ideas have inspired reform efforts, and reforms have become radical. Antislavery, for example, moved from the cautious, gradual abolition strategies of the Quakers and the Revolutionary era generation to the immediatism and moral certainty of the evangelicals and Garrisonian abolitionists...

Still, reform and radicalism were (and are) not wholly synonymous. They have sought and have achieved different outcomes. One of the striking common characteristics of American reform over time has been its combination of idealism and realism. Reformers expected to change society by argument and action. Understanding American society and beliefs, adapting to political realities, and appealing to public conscience and self-interest forced reformers to consider the practical aspects of how to enlist popular support for their ideas and programs... They were not just writers or advocates; in most cases they were also builders and coalition seekers. Where true radicals were alienated from the larger American society, which they considered beyond redemption, reformers commonly sought alliances with powerful elements and the general public in a culture they hoped to redeem."

Radicals, on the other hand, believe the system is so irredeemably flawed that it has to be replaced with a more equitable economic and political system.  The best definition that I found for today's sort of radicalism is in Howard Zinn's book Postwar America: 1945-1971. He wrote:

"The American system has allowed enough change to ease discontent, but not enough to change the fundamental allocation of power and wealth. That which can be termed progress has taken place within the narrow boundaries of an economic system based on profit-motivated capitalism, a political system based on the paternalism of representative government, a foreign policy based on economic and military aggressiveness, and a social system based on a culture of prejudices concerning race, national origin, sex, age, and wealth.

So far, the major political conflicts in the United States have stayed within these boundaries. The American Revolution itself, while winning independence from a foreign ruling group, substituted the rule of a native group of slave owners, merchants, lawyers, and politicians; the new Constitution legitimized the substitution and created a larger arena for the elites of race and class that already dominated the colonies. With the Civil War, the nation outlawed slavery, while maintaining a general climate of racial subordination. Farm and labor movements succeeding in achieving reforms, but mostly for privileged minorities within their constituencies, and inside a larger framework of corporate control of the nation's wealth. The political fluctuations, even the violent clashes represented by the farm and labor upheavals, had the look but not the reality of a choice between radically different alternatives.

All that I have said here supports the 'consensus' interpretation of American history, which states, I believe, a profound truth about our society, that its great 'progress' and its political clashes have kept within severe limits. What is missing in the consensus analysis is the persistent strain of protest that shows up repeatedly in American history and should not be ignored- the voices, the ideas, the struggles of those who defy the American working creed, who will not let the nation forget the rhetorical promises, who keep alive the vision, the possibility of a society beyond capitalism, beyond nationalism, beyond the hierarchies that are preserved in a man-eat-man culture. The existence of this strain justifies the work of the 'conflict' school of American history, which insists that Americans not forget the black abolitionists, the Wobblies, the Socialists, the anarchists, that we keep in mind Tom Paine, John Brown, Emma Goldman, Eugene Debbs, Malcolm X."

I looked into history and found that social movements have always had that conflict between how far liberals and radicals wanted change in society.   The fight to end slavery in the 19th Century found the division between the radical abolitonists like William Garrison and Frederick Douglass, who fought for the immediate end of the institution, and gradualist Republicans like Abraham Lincoln, who hated slavery but felt inhibited by the Constitution and were fighting for the exclusion of slavery in any new territories and states that entered the Union.  The women's rights movement had the divisions between women's suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, who fought for the right of women to have the right to vote and to participate in the political and social system as equals, and radicals like Emma Goldman, who felt that the economic system placed too many barriers for poor and working class women to gain any meaningful equality and felt that the economic system needed to be replaced.  In the 1930s, there was the division between the New Deal liberals, who enacted legislation to alleviate the suffering of the millions in the Great Depression, and socialists and radicals, who appreciated the achievements of the New Deal but felt the New Deal programs did not go far enough to fight the racism that forced African Americans into second class citizenship, the economic hardship of farmers and dwellers of city slums, the power of corporations had to exploit their workers.   

Though they were divided on how far to change society, these two forces often influenced each other.   In the 1860s, Frederick Douglass met with Abraham Lincoln, and he influenced Lincoln's decisions to incorporate African Americans and freed slaves into the Union army, fought discrimination against African Americans, and lead to his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.   Franklin Roosevelt incorporated various ideas espoused by Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party into his New Deal, legislation like Social Security for the elderly, and the Wagner Act for workers to organize into unions.  The Freedom Rides and the civil rights marches in Birmingham and Selma pressured Kennedy into introducing the Civil Rights Act and it produced a favorable atmosphere for LBJ's civil rights legislation.  It's the radical agitation that forces society to take notice of a problem, and the liberals and the sympathetic politicians who do the necessary compromising and reaching out to make the changes palatable to the rest of the society.   James Russell Lowell, the abolitionist, summarized this idea:  "The reformer must expect comparative isolation, and he must be strong enough to bear it.  He cannot look for the sympathy and cooperation of popular majorities.  Yet these are the tools of the politician....  All true reformers are incendiaries.  But it is the hearts, brains, and souls of thier fellow-men which they set on fire, and in so doing they perform the function appropriated to them in the wise order of Providence."

In my own personal exploration of the radical/liberal spectrum, I find myself synpathetic to both views.  By temperment though, I lean more towards the liberal reformer end of the spectrum.   I look at today's America, after 8 years of President Bush, and I see a nation that's far worse off than it was before he became President.  Over 100,000 American troops have been in Iraq for 5 years now because the administration mistakingly believed the nation had weapons of mass destruction, and it did a bad job of planning the occupation of the country after Sadam fell.  I see a country with illegal immigrants being demonized despite working at jobs that no one else will do, average citizens who are struggling with rising gas prices and food prices, an environmental catastrophe in the making, a growing health care crisis.   And in response to all of these problems, activist have been on the streets and in protest marches for the past 6 years to try to bring to light to them.    The pressure of these activists, and the general sense of unease of the American populace has forced the Presidential candidates in the primaries to promise more substantial changes in our economic and our foreign policies if elected. 

The great social changes in American in the rights of African Americans and other minorities, in the rights of women, the rights of workers and the poor, and the rights of gays and lesbians, would not have occurred if the radicals and the liberal reformers hadn't worked to agitate for change and worked to change public attitudes.  I end this with a quote from I.F. Stone.  I.F. Stone was a great independent reporter who published his own journal, I.F. Stone's Weekly, which chronicled news that other news sources ignored, and it became a repected source of progressive news and opinion during the 1950s and 1960s.  Stone was a radical of the 1930s, and he had a unique view of the college radicals of the 1960s.  His comment on them encapsulates the ambivalence of the radical's techniques, but states the reinforces the importance of their role in making social change.  The book The Best of I.F. Stone reproduces an article In Defense of the Campus Radical that ran on May 19, 1969.   Here is a two paragraph excerpt:

"This is what the campus rebels are trying to tell us, in the only way which seems to get attention.  I do not like much of what they are saying and doing.  I do not like to hear opponents shouted down, much less beaten up.  I do not like to hear any one group or class, including policemen, called pigs.  I do not think four-letter words are arguments.  I hate hate, intolerance, and violence.  I see them as man's most ancient and enduring enemies and I hate to see them welling up on my side.  But I feel about the rebels as Erasmus did about Luther.  Erasmus helped inspire the Reformation but ws repelled by the man who brought it to fruition.  He saw that Luther was intolerant and as dogmatic as the Church.  'From argument,' as Erasmus saw it, 'there would be a quick resort to the sword, and the whole world would be full of fury and madness.'  Two centuries of religious wars without parallel for blood-lust were soon to prove how right were his misgivings.  But while Erasmus 'could not join Luther, he dared not oppose him, lest haply, as he confessed he might be fighting against the spirit of God'.  I feel that the New Left and the black revolutionaries, like Luther, are doing God's work, too, in refusing any longer to submit to evil, and challenging society to reform or crush them.

Lifelong dissent has more than acclimated me cheerfully to defeat.  It has made me suspicious of victory.  I feel uneasy at the very idea of a Movement.  I see every insight degenerating into a dogma, and fresh thoughts freezing into lifeless party line.  Those who set out nobly to be their brother's keeper sometimes end up be becoming his jailer.  Every emancipation has in it the seeds of a new slavery, and every truth easily becomes a lie.  But these perspectives, which seem so irrefutably clear from a pillar in the desert, are worthless to those enmeshed in the crowded struggle.  They are no better than mystical nonsense to the humane student who has faced his draft board, the dissident soldier who is determined not to fight, the black who sees his people doomed by shackles stronger than slavery to racial humiliation and decay.  The business of the moment is to end the war, to break the growing dominance of the military in our society, to liberate the blacks, the Mexican-American, the Puerto Rican, and the Indian from injustice.  This is the business of our best youth.  However confused and chaotic, their unwillingness to submit any longer is our one hope."

Last week, we met Obama Voters. But this week, we examine the John Edwards.

So let’s get to know them, shall we?

1. Family

(Hairus Coiffus Liberalus)

2. Description

This semi-popular ex-presidential candidate, has the appearance of a Ken doll. In the sense that he looks like one, speaks of nothing important, dresses like a game show host, and has no discernible genitalia [see Fig 1.1].

The John Edwards is also known for its blindly white teeth. (in picture: its white teeth are a survival instinct, to distract people from analyzing its egotistical ramblings [illustrated in Fig 1.2].

3. Habitat

When the John Edwards in its native North Carolina habitat, it can be found in district courts, campaign rallies, and anywhere with a mirror and a microphone [pictured in Fig 2.1 below].

Other common habitats for the John Edwards include vehicles chasing ambulances and in Barack Obama's pocket.

4. Hobbies

The John Edwards has many hobbies, most of which include endorsing Barack Obama for president, using taxpayer money to pay for haircuts, being a lawyer, filing frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, not getting re-elected to his Senate seat, not winning presidential nominations, and voting for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War [see Fig 3.1].

5. Approaching Him

Now that you've learned the habits of the John Edwards, feel free to say "hi". But be warned when approaching the John Edwards, he is stand-offish at first, but he'll warm up to you if you say you can help out his political career.

Aside for that, the John Edwards is a very friendly creature.

-current views: 1,683

]]> http://goodtimepolitics.wordpress.com/?p=343 Fri, 16 May 2008 20:24:23 +0000 goodtimepolitics http://goodtimepolitics.wordpress.com/?p=343

Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat party leaders are starting to make people sick of hearing about their accusing people like President Bush, John McCain and yes us white small town hard working Americans of being racist and clinging to our guns and Church.  Obama how about the blacks Americans in big city on welfare that don’t own a gun to cling to, are they the happy ones?

Obama you said that you would talk to terrorist on your website, just read below! 

Bush: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Obama: “He accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists and said we were appeasers no different than people who appeased the Nazis before World War II.”

McCain: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."
"It does bring up an issue I will be discussing with the American people," McCain said, "and that is why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Obama: "That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that has divided our country."

Obama’s Website says:  Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.

Now lets take a good look at what we have read,  I did not see where President Bush named anyone person in his speech.  Did you?  I see where Obama and some Democrats has raise their arms and by doing so have made themselves guilty.  Obama’s website has already proved guilty by saying that Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. 

Obama your fast talking, getting upset, hollering from the roof tops that the Republicans are picking on you goes to show that you’re a young black man that is bitter and lack the experence to be the leader of The American People.  I will also say that the race card will not protect you anymore! 

Sorry if any Obama supporter got sick reading that Obama big mouth got him again. 

Web Site Sympathetic to Terrorists Blasts FOX News

"So in reality, you are calling my Prophet, Muhammad — peace be upon him — a terrorist," the blog post continues. "But of course, you guys won’t say that directly because you fear the wrath of the Muslims."  The site also decries what it calls a double standard toward terrorists, comparing the attacks of Sept. 11 with the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima during World War II.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356494,00.html

 This is getting bad when a muslim inside The United States and in the State of North Carolina can get by doing such a thing.  Oh but we are being told everyday not to say anything bad about the muslims inside the US while at the same time they're being allow to run a terrorist website!

(fox news) When former Guantanamo inmate Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi blew up an Iraqi police station — and himself — in April, a U.S.-based Web site was quick to post a reaction.

"This is what you call a success story," Revolution.Muslimpad said of the homicide attack, which killed six. It described al-Ajmi as a hero, a "martyrdom bomber" who sacrificed "his life for the sake of Islam."  The site is believed to be the brainchild of a 22-year-old American Samir Khan of Charlotte, N.C.  http://revolution.muslimpad.com/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356298,00.html

Fighting gay marriage like it’s killing civilization seems inconsistent amid cultural curses like adultery, groundless divorce, and pornography—all hetero and legal.

Although the majority of 2nd District Democrats cast their vote for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, today Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN02) announced that as a Democratic party super-delegate he would be supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Rep. Donnelly made his announcement via a press release from his official congressional office. Although Donnelly has been emphasizing lately in the local press that he is only interested in working on district issues while he's in Washington, apparently he's very much interested in fulfilling party obligations while on taxpayer time. Also of interest is the fact that Donnelly chose to endorse Sen. Obama only after he received $7,500 in campaign contributions from the Hope Fund PAC run by Obama.

Donnelly cited Obama's ability to build "bipartisan majorities" and his work for affordable health care as some of the reasons behind his endorsement. It does appear that Sen. Obama will have a difficult task building bipartisan majorities since he was rated as the most liberal member of the United States Senate by National Journal and has received accolades from some of the most liberal groups in American politics.

Joe Donnelly's support for Sen. Obama's nationalized health care proposal illustrates the choice that 2nd District voters will face this fall. Canada, Germany, and other nations have nationalized their health care systems with disastrous results. The only people who win in a government controlled health care system are the bureaucrats.  Standing in contrast to these proven policies of failure is Luke Puckett, the Republican candidate running against Joe Donnelly.  Puckett is advocating for a market based solution to the rising cost of health care, a solution that puts consumers first and unleashes the ingenuity of the American people in a way that Barack Obama and Joe Donnelly seem to fear.

Originally posted here.

by louder

In February I decided that I would get rid of my car and instead take the bus for an hour and a half each way to work. This was brought on by a couple of things, the main one being the cost of owning a car, and my desire to take public transit if there was an opportunity to do so. But I gave up after 3 months of paying for  TTC, GO Transit, and a car because people repeatedly backed out of the deal.

by Steve'o

I bought a new laptop after my desktop failed to boot one day. Turned out I was able to fix the desktop with a $5 SATA cable replacement. Now I have two computers.

by dawpa2000

I recently decided that I'm going to get into web development. I know C programming, but I'd like to be able to freelance on the side and earn a little more cash to subsidize my implusive nature. So I'm in the process of learning XHTML, CSS, PHP, and MySQL. In fact I've already got some web development work I will be doing for my parents company, and a larger job that I may be sharing with a friend.

by CalEvans

I often flirt with the idea of quitting my job and going back to school. To be honest the largest thing preventing me from doing that is not so much the idea of once again becoming a student, but the fact that I cannot decide whether I want to get an Art-based PhD, Science-based PhD, or an MBA.

by vasta

I've contemplated joining the military, working for an NGO or charity, moving to a foreign country with a different native language and starting over.

This is the way my mind works, and this is the way I live my life. That's why it comes as huge shock to me when I meet people who have the exact opposite approach. Those who attempt to reduce everything to a concrete routine where nothing changes and everything is predictable. A woman that works for my parents company recently told my mom in a very worried tone "Can you believe that groceries for my family this month cost me $43 more than the previous month?". How she could possibly know that it was exactly $43?. She proceeded to explain that she buys exactly the same food, of the same brands, on the same days, every month of the year and therefore is able to track her spending to the cent.

by SummerTX

That is just one example of a conservative approach to life, but how can anyone live like that? How can you strive to eliminate all variety from your life and condense it to a series of repetitive tasks? To the point where even the food you eat is as predictable as clockwork. In similar vein I know many people who have their lives planned out for the next 5-10 years, just working the same job, the same days, the same hours, so they can eventually retire and remove one more element of potential excitement from their lives.

by Enidanc

Some people critize my lifestyle. They can't understand what they perceve to be the reckless and haphazard way I make decisions. I don't know what I'm having for dinner tonight, I don't know what I'm doing this weekend, I don't know what hours I'll be at work next week, I couldn't tell you with any certainty that I would still be holding this job in 6 months, or where I will be living in a year. But I couldn't live any other way.

by static416

Peggy Noonan almost gets it, but not quite...  It all depends on that is meant by "conservatism".  As more Republicans become "conservative" in the Ron Paul and Robert Taft fashion, it is causing friction with the "conservative" in the Tom DeLay manner.

Washington has distorted the meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" so much, they now mean the opposite.  True traditional conservatives and true traditional liberals agreed on quite a few things (albeit for different reasons.)  Both believe in:

• non-interventionism
• ending the "war  on drugs"
• repealing the "Patriot Act"

Until we have a party take the banner of the above, it will not matter which party you vote for, you will lose.