Responder
¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE... First, Stop Obama’s Madness .

First, Stop Obama’s Madness
A two-step plan for the future majority party.
BY Yuval Levin
WEEKLY STANDARD
September 20, 2010,
     Democrats in Washington, confronting a mammoth tidal wave of angry voters as November approaches, are desperate to change the subject.   
    They know there is little they can say about themselves or their record of governing over the past two years that would not worsen their prospects, so they naturally want to talk about Republicans instead. But they seem uncertain whether the problem with Republicans is that they want to do too little or too much.
     On the one hand, Democratic leaders argue that Republicans are the “party of no,” and lack any ideas to help get the economy moving again. On the other hand, the same Democrats insist that Republicans have concocted a multitude of painful cuts in benefits and services and are working, as President Obama said last month, “to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall.”
      So is there a Republican agenda or isn’t there? To be fair, the Republicans don’t always seem too sure either. They know voters want a break from two years of too much spending, too much borrowing, too much bailing out, and too much growth in government. There is a lot to be said for just offering to put a stop to it all.
    At the same time, though, Republicans are drawn to the successful model of 1994’s Contract With America. They think it might be irresponsible to run without a detailed agenda, and they know that while the government has grown too much, the economy has grown too little—so that some pro-growth policy proposals are surely called for. Thus some Republicans (most notably Paul Ryan, with his bold Roadmap for America’s Future) have sought to talk about entitlement reform and budget priorities in some detail, while others have sought to say little lest they give the Democrats a target.
     But in fact, Republicans do not face a choice between putting the brakes on the Obama agenda and pursuing their own new course. Rather, the moment calls for doing one and then the other. The country finds itself in a deep hole, and Republicans should offer voters a two-step agenda for recovery: first stop digging, then climb out.
     To stop digging the hole, Republicans must arrest the march toward social democracy and its attendant march toward bankruptcy. That means not only saying no to further leftward leaps​—like cap and trade legislation, and a value-added tax piled atop our existing income-tax system—but also restoring some predictability where the Democrats’ hyperactive liberalism has created a crushing sense of uncertainty that has kept employers from hiring and investors and consumers from spending.
     Democrats, as the president’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel explained in 2008, have sought to use the ongoing economic crisis to achieve all kinds of unrelated goals: health care policy they have craved for decades, environmental policy that has little to do with the economy, more protections for unions, a greater role for government in the financial and automotive sectors, and on and on.
   In the process, they have made the actual economic crisis worse by making it difficult for consumers, producers, employers, and investors to plan ahead. Such unpredictability has always made for terrible public policy.
       As James Madison put it in Federalist 62, “What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?”
     The sheer inconstancy of public policy these past two years, as well as its hostility to economic freedom, have contributed mightily to our economic troubles, and left consumers sitting on cash they are wary of spending and investors keeping their powder dry.
     To begin with, then, Republicans should offer the public a break. That means pledging to oppose new spending and taxes, and it means addressing the two greatest policy sources of uncertainty: the Democrats’ health care legislation (which has left families uncertain about whether they can keep their insurance and businesses unsure of future expenses) and the prospect of tax hikes as the Bush tax cuts expire.
They should pledge to repeal Obamacare and to retain all of the Bush tax cuts. More broadly, they should commit to resisting any new onerous regulations, taxes, and intrusive expansions of government and to work to remove such burdens where possible. House Republican leader John Boehner took the first steps in that direction this week, pledging to resist new taxes and to roll back spending to pre-crisis levels.
      Republicans should make the premise of such policies explicit—proposing a two-year break from Washington’s hyperactivity. Such a break, as a beginning and an organizing principle for the first stage of a Republican agenda, would be good policy and good politics. It would allow investors and employers to plan ahead, and so to begin spending and hiring. It would provide the larger public greater calm in a difficult economic time. It would make it more difficult for Democrats to use a lame duck session of Congress to implement radical plans (and indeed, Republicans should commit to retroactively repeal any legislation passed in the lame duck session other than essential budget bills). And it would be a realistic offer to voters: After all, Republicans can’t run the government from the House of Representatives, or even from the House and a narrowly Republican Senate.
    They can act as a brake, but as long as President Obama remains in office they cannot really steer much. Once some stability has been restored and the economy begins to show signs of life again, Republicans can turn to the second stage of a recovery agenda: climbing out of the hole by cultivating the necessary preconditions for vigorous economic growth.
      This would include easing the tax burdens on families and corporations to spur growth; reforming our entitlement system (through modest means testing and the gradual transformation of defined-benefit programs into defined-contribution programs) to make it both more rational and more sustainable in the long term; advancing genuine health care reform that would actually control costs by using market mechanisms; replacing the government-sponsored enterprises (like Fannie and Freddie) and reckless housing policies that helped spark the economic crisis; ending corporate welfare; reforming the federal budget process to improve its transparency and eliminate some opportunities for waste and corruption; and bringing federal spending and borrowing under control to avert a disastrous currency crisis.
     The first stage of such an agenda—ceasing to do harm—will necessarily take up much of the next two years. And it is the essential precondition for the longer-term agenda (which most likely can begin in earnest only in 2012) of turning America back toward liberty, growth, and prosperity.
      Republicans addressing an angry public this election season must be honest and humble. There is much they can do to help the country confront the awesome challenges we face, but it cannot all be done at once. First, they must keep Washington from making matters worse.  Then, guided by a properly focused and limited sense of the government’s purpose, they must work to restore and sustain America’s strength.
    Yuval Levin is the editor of National Affairs and the Hertog fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE

'It’s hell. I can’t stand it!’ Carla Bruni reveals what Michelle Obama REALLY thinks of being First Lady

By Daily Mail Reporter
 16th September 2010

 

 


MICHELLE IN 'HELL': 'CAN'T STAND' FIRST LADY JOB



 

  • New biography alleges rivalry between two women strained relations between the French and U.S. presidential couples

  •     Michelle Obama thinks being America’s First Lady is ‘hell’, Carla Bruni reveals today in a wildly indiscreet book.

        Miss Bruni divulges that Mrs Obama replied when asked about her pposition as the U.S. president’s wife: ‘Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!’

        Details of the private conversation, which took place at the White House during an official visit by Nicolas Sarkozy last March, emerged in Carla And The Ambitious, a book written in collaboration with Miss Bruni.

        However another book, an unauthorised biography about the French president's wife, offers an insight into an apparently testy relationship between the two women.

    No secrets: Michelle Obama, left, and Carla Bruni last year

    No secrets: Michelle Obama, left, and Carla Bruni last year. Miss Bruni made the revelations about the U.S. First Lady's feelings in a wildly indiscreet new book.

       

     

     

    Michelle Obama le dijo a Carla Bruni, primera dama de Francia que detesta ser primera dama de Estados Unidos, y que no soporta lo que calificó de ser un verdadero infierno. 

        Afirmación altamente creíble ya que es típico de Michelle expresar su desprecio hacia U.S.   En un discurso que pronunció en Milwaukee cuando Obama derrotó a Hillary en las primarias demócrata, Michelle declaró:  "Por primera vez en mi vida adulta me siento verdaderamente orgullosa de mi país, y no sólo porque a Barack le esté yendo tan bien, sino porque creo que la gente tiene hambre de cambio".

        Para mayor desvergüenza, Michelle, quien lleva una vida de opulencia y ostentación jamás vista en las primeras damas de los Estados Unidos, vida que haría la envidia de Evita Perón y de la Reina Marie Antoinette, una vez más demostró su desprecio por esta nación que los elevó a ella y a Obama a la más alta posición que pueda aspirar un ser humano, y esto, a pesar de carecer de méritos propios y de haber escalado a esa posición por medio del engaño y la complicidad de una prensa sicofante que comparte con ellos su odio hacia el sistema de libre empresa que hizo de los Estados Unidos la envidia del mundo. 

    Diamante
    siboneyes
    Mensajes: 90,641
    Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

    Re: ENTERENSE

    A Kenyan Marxist: No, Not Obama, Chris Coons VS. TEA PARTY DARLING CHRISTINE O'DONNELL
    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5
    by Brian O'Connor
    Chris Coons and Barack Obama

    "Can you guess which man is the Kenyan Marxist?"

    Communist, Democrat, What’s the Difference?

    Democrats came out drooling Wednesday morning, saying that Christine O’Donnell was just the candidate they wanted in the Delaware Senate race.

    Which got me thinking.

    If the Democrats are acting so giddy and excited…

    What are they trying to hide?

    Could it be Chris Coons’ past?

    An article Democrat Chris Coons wrote for his college newspaper may not go over so well in corporation-friendly Delaware, where he already faces an uphill battle for Vice President Joe Biden’s old Senate seat.

         The title? “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.”

    In the article, Coons, then 21 years old and about to graduate from Amherst College, chronicled his transformation from a sheltered, conservative-minded college student who had worked for former GOP Delaware Sen. William Roth and had campaigned for Ronald Reagan in 1980 into a cynical young adult who was distrustful of American power and willing to question the American notion of free enterprise.

         “My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe the strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear-thinking Americans and sends back bearded Marxists,” Coons wrote, noting that at one time he had been a “proud founding member of the Amherst College Republicans.”

         Hoffman said the trip to Kenya helped lead to Coons’ decision to become a Democrat.

    Hilarious!

    Our political system did not have a Communist party, so Coons joined the next best thing.

    The Democrat Party.

    Between Harry Reid’s oopsie and Chris Coon’s record, it seems that it’s Christine O’Donnell who got just what she wanted in the Delaware Senate race.

    Chris Coons!

     

         While much has been made about Christine O'Donnell's past troubles with the IRS and other dubious dealings, very little has been written in the mainstream media about her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons. Chris Coons, the current County Executive of New Castle, has his own explaining to do about an article he wrote while in college in which he describes his transformation from a Young Republican who campaigned for Ronald Reagan in 1980 into a "bearded Marx...
    "The source of his conversion, Coons wrote, was a trip to Kenya he took during the spring semester of his junior year—a time away from America, he wrote, that served as a 'catalyst' in altering a conservative political outlook that he was growing increasingly uncomfortable with. "'My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe the strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear-thinking Americans and sends back bearded Marxists,' Coons wrote, noting that at one time he had been a 'proud founding member of the Amherst College Republicans.' "'[I]t is only too easy to return from Africa glad to be American and smugly thankful for our wealth and freedom,' added Coons. 'Instead, Amherst had taught me to question, so in turn I questioned Amherst, and America.'" Coons, at the time a 21-year-old student, also revealed how classes at Amherst in anthropology and the Vietnam War led him to question the "cultural superiority of the West" and the very underpinnings of free enterprise.
        It is unknown how much of these feelings of alienation from America Coons stills feels 25 years later. Still, it suggests that the Democratic candidate for Senate in Delaware may hold beliefs that are clearly beyond the mainstream of American thought, even in blue-state Delaware, if not in the current Democratic Party. Clearly Chris Coons should clarify if, as a middle aged adult, he still holds with the antipathy he seems to have felt toward the country of his birth and of the fundamental beliefs and principles with which that country had been founded.
         Raising this question may provide the O'Donnell campaign an opportunity to change the subject from why she can't win to why Coons should not win.
          It would force Coons to clarify his beliefs and either defend his youthful period as a "bearded Marxist" or repudiate it. Either way, Coons will be the one who will be explaining, not O'Donnell. Coons has another problem, having been embraced rather too closely by Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid said of Coons, "I'm going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate." Being called by a politician as unpopular as Harry Reid his "pet" may be unfortunate, even for a man like Coons, who is currently ahead of O'Donnell by double digits. It bespeaks a certain lack of individuality and a beta maleness that are both disadvantages in a candidate for the United States Senate.   
           Most voters, even in blue states, expect a certain independence of their representatives in Washington. Being called a "pet" by the Senate Majority leader is not a resume enhancer. Say what you will about Christine O'Donnell, she could never be described as anyone's pet. Sources: Coons took 'bearded Marxist' turn, Alex Isenstadt, Politico, May 3rd, 2010 Reid: Coons, 'my pet,' will win, J. Taylor Rushing The Hill, September 15th, 2010

     

    DELAWARE: Democrat, Chris Coons the’bearded Marxist’ VS. O’Connell, the Tea party Darling

     By: Alex Isenstad’
    May 4, 2010

     

    An article Democrat Chris Coons wrote for his college newspaper may not go over so well in corporation-friendly Delaware, where he already faces an uphill battle for Vice President Joe Biden’s old Senate seat.

           The title? “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.”

    In the article, Coons, then 21 years old and about to graduate from Amherst College, chronicled his transformation from a sheltered, conservative-minded college student who had worked for former GOP Delaware Sen. William Roth and had campaigned for Ronald Reagan in 1980 into a cynical young adult who was distrustful of American power and willing to question the American notion of free enterprise.

    Coons, the New Castle County executive who is running against GOP Rep. Michael Castle for the state’s open Senate seat, wrote of his political evolution in the May 23, 1985, edition of the Amherst Student.

         The source of his conversion, Coons wrote, was a trip to Kenya he took during the spring semester of his junior year—a time away from America, he wrote, that served as a “catalyst” in altering a conservative political outlook that he was growing increasingly uncomfortable with.

         “My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe the strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear-thinking Americans and sends back bearded Marxists,” Coons wrote, noting that at one time he had been a “proud founding member of the Amherst College Republicans.”

          “[I]t is only too easy to return from Africa glad to be American and smugly thankful for our wealth and freedom,” added Coons. “Instead, Amherst had taught me to question, so in turn I questioned Amherst, and America.”

         Dave Hoffman, a Coons campaign spokesman, said the title of the article was designed as a humorous take-off on a joke Coons’s college friends had made about how his time outside the country had affected his outlook.

         Hoffman said the trip to Kenya helped lead to Coons’s decision to become a Democrat.

         “Chris wrote an article about a transformative experience during his semester in Kenya more than twenty-five years ago,” said Hoffman in a statement to POLITICO.

         In one passage of the article, Coons explains how in the months leading up to the trip abroad “leftists” on campus and college professors had begun to “challenge the basic assumptions” he had formed about America.

       A course on cultural anthropology, noted Coons, had “undermined the accepted value of progress and the cultural superiority of the West,” while a class on the Vietnam War led him to “suspect…that the ideal of America as a ‘beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world’ was not exactly based in reality.”

         For Coons, Kenya was an especially jarring experience that significantly influenced his already-changing political beliefs. He wrote that he was particularly troubled by his experience with Kenyan elites, who he said were utterly dismissive of the poor.

        “I became friends with a very wealthy businessman and his family and heard them reiterate the same beliefs held by many Americans: the poor are poor because they are lazy, slovenly, uneducated,” wrote Coons. “I realize that Kenya and America are very different, but experiences like this warned me that my own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities to be had in America were largely untrue.”

     

           Maybe there’s just something in the Kenyan water. Kenya is the common denominator between everyone’s favorite revolutionary Barack Obama and everyone’s now favorite “bearded Marxist” Chris Coons who is running for US Senate against Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Like Mr. Obama, Coons is a relatively unknown political figure and the democrats would probably like to keep it that way.

     

     

    Since we can pull out the 15 year old video of Christine O’Donnell talking about her opposition to masturbation, are we allowed to talk about a 25 year old article written by Coons for the Amherst College Newspaper? Depends on who you ask I guess.

     

    Coons wrote the above mentioned article when he was a young lad of 21. In the article he talks about his transformation from a close minded conservative to an open minded bearded Marxist. Chris Coons is an enlightened fellow the libs would say. Had he gone from bearded Marxist to conservative they’d say he was brainwashed.

    Chris Coons, who is leading Christine O’Donnell by double digits, says that the source of his “conversion” was a trip to Kenya. How lovely. He said it was a trip outside of America that helped him realize just how crappy America was. Okay, he didn’t say that but the implication is there. He says instead of appreciating America when he got back he began to question America.

        He wrote that his friends joked about Africa being a catalytic converter, taking clean shaven, clear thinking Americans and transforming them into bearded Marxists. Hey, did Barack Obama ever have a beard? Can he even grow a beard?

        Of course it’s doubtful that Chris Coons’ bearded Marxist paper will get half the scrutiny that O’Donnell’s masturbation video will receive. You know, because one’s propensity to masturbate or not is so much more important that their views of Marxism and Capitalism while serving in the US Senate.

    Vote well Delaware.

    Diamante
    siboneyes
    Mensajes: 90,641
    Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

    Re: ENTERENSE

    O'Donnell vs. Coons: Analyzing Extremism

    By Selwyn Duke

    9/20/2010

         Unlike for most Americans, the Delaware senatorial primary was not my first introduction to Christine O'Donnell. I remembered her from as far back as approximately fifteen years ago, making appearances on shows such as "Politically Incorrect." So when I heard about her supposed "extremist views," I had to wonder if I was overlooking something. It's hard to forget such a pretty face, but did I fail to recollect some strange aspect of her ideology? 

    So I did a Google search and quickly found criticism of her at the Huffington Compost. "What better source for getting the dirt, real and imagined, on a Tea Party candidate?" I thought. Yet I figured I knew what I'd find, and I was right. Had she ever proclaimed herself a Marxist? No, that was her opponent, Chris Coons. Had she ever belonged to a socialist party? No, that was Barack Obama in the 1990s. Did she once advocate forced abortions and sterilization? No, that was the president's "science czar," John Holdren. Had she headed up an organization that promoted "fisting" for 14-year-olds and books featuring sx acts between preschoolers? No -- while Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings did do that, O'Donnell's sin is far different:

    She believes in sexual purity.

    To be precise, she is a Catholic who embraces the totality of the Church's teachings on sexuality. I could elaborate on that, as I'm a devout Catholic myself, but this misses the point. To wit: The most the left can do when trying to cast O'Donnell as a danger in government is cite something that she believes has nothing to do with government. She won't propose the "Self-gratification Control Act" of 2011 any more than she will mandate that you must attend Mass on Sundays, fast during Lent, or believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (Note that former senator Rick Santorum never did, and as a devout Catholic who often attends Mass even on weekdays, he presumably believes all O'Donnell does.) What the left is mischaracterizing as her ideology is actually her theology of the body.

    Then, I must say that I tire of how the word "extremism" is bandied about so thoughtlessly. This isn't primarily because the label is often misapplied. It is because it is always misunderstood.

    The late Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." But to be more precise, extremism that reflects Truth is a virtue. After all, if you live in a land where everyone believes 2+2=5 and you insist it is 4, you'll be considered an extremist. All being an "extremist" means is that your views deviate greatly from those of the mainstream. It doesn't mean you're wrong.

    But we don't talk about wrong, or right, as much as we should in this relativistic culture. Instead, believing that "man is the measure of all things," we naturally take the norms of current civilization as the default and any deviation from them as defect (in fairness, all cultures tend to be guilty of this). But the reality is that while Truth sometimes lies at the center of a culture, at other, times it occupies the fringes. Sometimes, like with an abolitionist in 1800, an extremist is just someone who is right fifty years too soon. Or you could say that an extremist may be someone who upholds the wisdom of the ageless despite the folly of the age.

    So saying someone is an extremist relates nothing about his rightness. The problem with Islamic extremists, for instance, isn't that they're extreme -- any truly religious person is thus viewed in a secular time. It's that they're extremely wrong. This brings us to O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons.

    Since the left is digging up old O'Donnell quotations, it's only fair to delve into Coons' past. And when we do, we find this interesting bit of extremism: An article he wrote titled "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist." It details how a trip to Kenya that Coons took as a junior in college served as a "catalyst," completing his transformation from "conservative" to communist. Yet while one could elaborate further here as well, as with O'Donnell, this misses the point. To wit: Marxism has everything to do with government, as it is about transforming it through socialist revolution into something tried and untrue, something that slays the light and visits a dark age of a thousand sorrows upon its victims. It's something that killed 100,000,000 people during the 20th century and every economy it ever touched. That is a negative extremism if ever there were one, and it should scare the heck out of every one of us.

    And what is this supposedly balanced with on O'Donnell's side?

    Oh, yeah, the sexual purity thing.

    Of course, Coons' piece was written 25 years ago when he was 21 and will be excused by some as youthful indiscretion. But I'll make two points. First, the ability to profile properly is always necessary when choosing candidates, as the information you will have on them is always limited and managed. A politician certainly wouldn't admit to harboring Marxist passions; thus, in keeping with the maxim "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," the best yardstick we have for measuring Coons is actions and pronouncements taken/made before he had a vested interest in lying about his aims. (And wouldn't we instinctively apply this when judging someone with a neo-Nazi or KKK history? Would we give David Duke the benefit of the doubt many would give Coons?) Second, when profiling, know this: People who embrace communism but then truly renounce it generally become passionate rightists. Those who remain leftists usually haven't renounced anything but honesty about their intentions.     

    The reason why we should fear Coons is the exact reason why leftists fear O'Donnell: In their universe, moral statements are synonymous with policy positions. If they don't like salt, fat, tobacco (paging Mayor Bloomberg) or free markets, they play Big Brother and give us a very unfree society. But traditionalist Americans are different: We don't think that every supposedly good idea should be legislated. We understand that government and its coercion aren't the only forces for controlling man's behavior; there is also something called society, with its traditions, social codes, and persuasion, and something else called individual striving. We can preach sexual purity while also practicing constitutional purity. As to this, note that while some snarky leftists have criticized O'Donnell for living in the 1800s, the men who gave us our Constitution lived in the 1700s. And the norm back then was to have traditional sexual mores. But guess what they didn't have: Marxism.

    Speaking of which, that great adherent of Marx, V.I. Lenin, once said, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Given that we have a government poised to do just this -- with steep tax increases and rapid money-printing that will cause inflation -- should we really be concerned about a candidate's views on sexual propriety? Or should we be more concerned about a candidate who may be harboring Marxist passions?

    So all the libertines amongst us should know that Christine O'Donnell will not take their sx toys away. But Chris Coons may want to take all their toys away. To vote for him is to play with fire.
    Diamante
    siboneyes
    Mensajes: 90,641
    Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

    Re: ENTERENSE

    Obama goes to church to hear a Muslim speaker!
    WHY DOES THIS “CHRISTIAN” ALWAYS FLOCK TO HEAR THE MUSLIM MESSAGE?

    by Brigitte de Maubec

     

    Did Obama attend a Protestant church on Sunday because a pro-Palestinian Muslim was invited to speak?

        (Sept. 20, 2010) — Yesterday, on Sunday, September 19, 2010, the Obama family attended church for only the third time in a year. They went on foot to the St. John’s Episcopal Church situated across the Lafayette Park.

         But what is widely not reported by the White House and the MSM is that on that particular Sunday in that particular church, Dr. Ziad Asali, M.D., a Muslim, founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine, was the guest speaker. He was there to speak on the subject of “Prospects of the two-state solution in the Middle-East.”

         According to the website of the American Task Force on Palestine, it is a “non-profit, non-partisan organization based in Washington, DC.” The organization describes itself as “dedicated to advocating that it is in the American national interest to promote an end to the conflict in the Middle East through a negotiated agreement that provides for two states – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security.”

        Dr. Ziad J. Asali is described as “a long-time activist on Middle East issues” who has testified to both chambers of Congress about Palestinian interests, increased U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, and “Israel’s disproportionate use of force” in Gaza.  A retired physician, Asali received his early medical training at the American University of Beirut.  He previously served as President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and Chairman of the American Committee on Jerusalem (ACJ), which he also co-founded   He also served as the President of the Arab-American University Graduates (AAUG).

        Next Sunday, September 26, 2010, another guest speaker, Dr. Aaron David Miller, a Public Policy Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, is scheduled to speak on the same subject. Dr. Miller was a State Department Analyst and Negotiator from 1978 to 2003. According to the Wilson Center, his expertise lies in US-Middle East relations, Arab-Israeli negotiations, Arab world and Palestinian politics and Israeli politics. He has appeared on major network television as a guest, and his writing has been internationally published. His latest published book is titled The Much Too Promised Land; America’s Elusive Search For Arab-Israeli Peace and was published in 2008.  An excerpt from the book can be found here.

        (Dr. Miller is not to be confused with a famous organist with the same name and professional title who ironically has been a church organist and music director at Protestant churches.)

        Let’s see if Dr. Miller’s views on the subject will have enough of the same attraction for Obama and his family to return to Church or if the appeal of golf shall once more be irresistible.

    Banned
    sirjohn
    Mensajes: 137,146
    Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

    Re: ENTERENSE

    The Delphi Disaster: An Economic Horror Story Obama Won’t Tell

    By Michelle Malkin On September 22, 2010 @ 12:21 am In FrontPage

        The White House believes it can win back depressed and economically stressed voters by turning President Obama into the storyteller-in-chief again. But victims of Obama’s Chicago politics don’t want to hear any more of his own well-worn tales of struggle and sacrifice. They’ve got their own tragedies to tell — heart-wrenching dramas of personal and financial suffering at the very hands of Obama.

       Consider the real-life horror story of 20,000 white-collar workers at Delphi, a leading auto parts company spun off from GM a decade ago. As Washington rushed to nationalize the U.S. auto industry with $80 billion in taxpayer “rescue” funds and avoid contested court termination proceedings, the White House auto team schemed with Big Labor bosses to preserve UAW members’ costly pension funds by shafting their nonunion counterparts. In addition, the nonunion pensioners lost all of their health and life insurance [1] benefits.

       The abused workers — most from hard-hit northeast Ohio, Michigan and neighboring states — had devoted decades of their lives as secretaries, technicians, engineers and sales employees at Delphi/GM. Some workers have watched up to 70 percent of their pensions vanish.

        John Berent of Marblehead, Ohio, lost one-third of his pension: “I worked as a salaried employee for GM (30 years) and Delphi (10 years). After 40 years of dedicated service, I was forced to retire [1]. Then Delphi terminated my health care, life insurance, vision, dental, then terminated the pension plan. Everything I worked 40 years for was wiped out.”

        Kelly Fabrizio of Franksville, Wis., saw her pension reduced by 55 percent after working 30 years at Delphi/GM: “I am truly scared for my future. Every day I wake up, shake my head and say out loud — This Is Not How It Was Supposed To Be.”

        Roger Hoke of Columbus, Mich., and his wife were both longtime Delphi workers. His pension shrunk by more than 40 percent: “After 33 years with GM and another 10 with Delphi, what did I do wrong to deserve such a fate?”

    Paul Dobosz of the Delphi Salaried Retiree [1] Association recounts how they got screwed: “The Auto Task Force knew that the only thing standing in the way of GM getting what they wanted out of Delphi was the already frozen pension obligations.” They hatched a plan to dump those pensions on the federally run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, while at the same time “devising a clever way to make the UAW pensions whole using GM and TARP money to accomplish it.

        The scheme was documented in sworn depositions (that) revealed … that some groups of workers were more ‘politically sensitive’ and would be afforded special treatment (i.e. subsidy using TARP money) while others less politically worthy would be left out.”

        In other words: Obama’s team of auto-crats — stocked with Big Labor-friendly appointees and self-admitted know-nothings about the car industry — decided to “cherry pick” (one Obama official’s own words) which obligations the new Government Motors company would assume and which they would abandon based on their own political whims and fealty. Due process and equal treatment of union and nonunion workers be damned.   

         Administration officials assert that the Delphi workers’ pension fund [1] was underfunded, but two separate actuarial analyses undercut the claim.

        The Delphi workers sued the feds and will have a day in court on Sept. 24. They are not asking for a bailout. They are simply asking for fair treatment under the rule of law. Delphi supporters also point out that the very scheme used to “top up” the union workers’ pensions with taxpayer subsidies was challenged by the federal government and ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in the 1990s.

          A separate investigation by TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky, announced last week, will also probe “whether political considerations played a role in favoring hourly over salaried retirees [1].” It shouldn’t take long to unearth the facts. Obama’s own former auto czar Steve Rattner admitted in his new memoir that “attacking the union’s sacred cow” could “jeopardize” the auto bailout deal.

         While Obama conducts his worker empathy tour at staged town halls and rallies across the country, his Treasury Department continues to stonewall and refuses to answer questions about the Delphi disaster. But many workers left out in the cold know the truth: Lip-biting, yarn-spinning Obama doesn’t feel

    Diamante
    siboneyes
    Mensajes: 90,641
    Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

    Re: ENTERENSE

    DEMOCRAT HARRY REID tried to end birthright citizenship for illegals in 1993

    August 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

     

           According to Harry Reid’s own standards, he should lose his entire Hispanic vote over this, right?  While Democrats paint Republicans who challenge birthright citizenship as extremists, it turns out that Reid was seventeen years ahead of the curve.  In 1993, just after Democrats won the White House, Reid filed a bill that would have done exactly what some Republicans now demand — end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.  Kerry Picket digs up the record for the Washington Times:

            Title X of the Reid introduced bill shows the Nevada Democrat took Senator Lindsey Graham’s, South Carolina Republican, idea on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and documented it into legislation:

             “TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.  In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

            Even the summary of the bill contains language that would offend many of Mr. Reid’s supporters who are pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States:

           “A bill to curb criminal activity by aliens, to defend against acts of international terrorism, to protect American workers from unfair labor competition, and to relieve pressure on public services by strengthening border security and stabilizing immigration into the United States.”

          The bill appears to have gone nowhere, and it’s not clear whether it would have been effective or not.  If the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship no matter whether the parents are in the US legally, legislation won’t undo that.  It would take a constitutional amendment — which may be why S1351 never went anywhere in 1993 or 1994 in the 103rd Session of Congress.

         On the other hand, the proviso of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the language of the 14th Amendment leaves a good basis for courts to determine a meaning that requires one parent to either be a citizen or to have entered the country legally.  As far as I’ve seen, that argument hasn’t been tested in court to see whether a constitutional amendment is even required.  In that case, a bill passed by Congress like S1351 would at least give the courts a sense of Congress on the meaning of the 14th amendment, although a court wouldn’t be required to make that an overriding consideration.

             In any case, this shows the utter hypocrisy of Harry Reid and Democrats in general in their effort to paint questions over birthright citizenship as somehow extreme.  Reid himself thought it important enough to draft and submit legislation to limit it to its common-sense application to those legally in the US.

           LA HISTORIA SE REPITE.... TODAS LAS LEYES DE LOS REPUBLICANOS EN FAVOR DE LOS NEGROS, TRATARON DE BLOQUEARLAS LOS DEMOCRATAS,  INCLUYENDO A  LYNDON B. JONHSON, QUIEN SIENDO CONGRESISTA EN TIEMPOS DEL PRESIDENTE EISENHOWER, VOTO EN CONTRA DE LAS LEYES PROPUESTAS POR LOS REPUBLICANOS QUE LE GARANTIZABAN LOS DERECHOS CIVILE S A LOS NEGROS.   SIN EMBARGO, YA DE PRESIDENTE, JONHSON SI LA APOYO AFIRMANDO CÍNICAMENTE QUE CON ELLO, LOS NEGROS, QUE MAYORMENTE VOTABAN POR LOS REPUBLICANOS QUE LO LIBERARON DE LA ESCLAVITUD,  "VOTARIAN  CON ESA LEY 200 AÑOS POR LOS DEMOCRATAS.   SIN EMBARGO."

     

            AUNQUE JONHSON SE LLEVO LA GLORIA DE FIRMARLA, FUERON LOS REPUBLICANOS LOS QUE LA APROBARON MIENTRAS LOS DEMOCRATAS EN AMBAS CAMARAS SE OPUSIERON, Y SIN EL VOTO REPUBLICANO JONHSON NUNCA HUBIERA PODIDO PASAR LA LEY YA QUE EN EL ALMA DE LOS DEMOCRATAS SEGUIA, Y SIGUE, REINANDO EL KKK Y LA AÑORANZA POR LA ESCLAVITUD DEL NEGRO A QUIEN SIGUEN SOMETIENDO CON OTRA FORMA DE ESCLAVITUD NO MENOS PERFIDA AUNQUE SE ENCUBRAN COMO FRENETICOS DEFENSORES DE LOS POBRES Y DESAMPARADOS.

            UNA VEZ MAS CINICAMENTE LOS DEMOCRATAS TRATAN DE MANIPULAR AVIESAMENTE A LOS HISPANOS.  EL SENADOR JOHN McCAIN CO-PATROCINO EL DREAM ACT, (DEVELOPMENT RELIEF AND EDUCATION POR ALIEN MINORS) EN EL 2005, 2006, Y EL 2007,  SIENDO TODAS LAS VECES BLOQUEADO POR LOS DEMOCRATAS QUE CONTROLABAN AMBAS CAMARAS.  EL SENADOR REID, LIDER LA MAYORIA DEMOCRATA EN EL SENADO, Y ANTE SU EVENTUAL DERROTA EN LAS ELECCIONES DE NOVIEMBRE,  ESTA USANDO LA MISMA TACTICA DE JOHNSON CON LOS NEGROS, PROMETIENDOLES ALGO QUE SABIA BIEN QUE NO IBA A PASAR, PERO PARA ACHACARLO A LOS REPUBLICANOS NO OBSTANTE QUE LOS DEMOCRATAS  TENIAN MAYORIA Y LO PODIAN PASAR SIN NECESIDAD DE VOTOS REPUBLICANOS.  ¡A TAL EXTREMO LLEGA LA MANIPULACION SUCIA Y CRUEL QUE HACEN LOS DEMOCRATAS DE LAS MINORIAS YA SEAN NEGRAS O HISPANAS!

     

     

           CON LA AMNISTIA A LOS ILEGALES OCURRE LO MISMO.  EL PRESIDENTE RONALD REGAN FUE EL UNICO QUE LES DIO UNA AMNISTIA A MAS DE 3 MILLONES DE HISPANOS QUE VIVIAN ILEGALMENTE EN U.S.  EL PRESIDENTE BUSH, McCAIN Y LA MAYORIA DE LOS REPUBLICANOS QUISIERON PASAR  UNA LEY DE INMIGRACION QUE LES HUBIERA DADO LA AMNISTIA A LOS ILEGALES; PERO LAS DOS CAMARAS ESTABAN CONTROLADAS POR LOS DEMOCRATAS QUE SE OPUSIERON, Y ENTRE ELLOS ESTABA EL SENADOR OBAMA.

     SIN EMBARGO, LOS HISPANOS PUSIERON A OBAMA EN LA CASA BLANCA Y LE DIERON UNA ENORME MAYORÍA DEMOCRATA EN AMBAS CAMARAS Y HASTA SUPERMAYORIA EN EL SENADO, OBAMA PUDO HABERLES DADO LA AMNISTIA EN LOS PRIMEROS 100 DIAS DE SU REGIMEN, Y VA PARA DOS AÑOS Y SIGUE CINICAMENTE TOMANDOLES EL PELO.

     

    ASI PAGA EL DIABLO A QUIEN BIEN LE SIRVE!!!!

    Banned
    sirjohn
    Mensajes: 137,146
    Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

    Re: ENTERENSE

    How Privileged Democrats Pay for Their Houses (Exposing the hypocrisy of the Rats)


    Pajamas Media ^ | September 24, 2010 | Michelle Malkin

          Like millions of Americans, Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell has had trouble covering her mortgage and other bills over the years. Her opponents consider this a scandal of disqualifying proportions. But there's a bigger disgrace: It's all the sanctimonious Democrats who have exploited their entrenched political incumbency to pay for multiple manses and vacation homes -- while posing as vox populi.

          Former senior senator from Delaware and current Vice President Joe Biden has a custom-built house in Delaware's ritziest Chateau Country neighborhood. It is now worth at least $2.5 million and is the Bidens' most valuable asset. Biden tapped campaign funds to pay for his compound's lawn needs. He secured the new estate with the help of a corporate executive who worked for Biden's top campaign donor, credit card giant MBNA.

         In 1996, Biden sold his previous mansion to MBNA Vice Chairman John Cochran. The asking price was $1.2 million. Cochran forked over the full sum. Biden then paid $350,000 in cash to real estate developer Keith Stoltz for a 4.2-acre lakefront lot. Stoltz had paid that same amount five years earlier for the undeveloped property.

          Stoltz told the Wilmington News Journal that "the residential real estate market was soft" at the time he sold the land to Biden. But "soft" for whom? Stoltz was a well-off businessman who didn't appear to be in such dire financial straits that he needed to unload the property quickly in a weak market.

          Reporter Byron York looked at comparable properties in Biden's neighborhood and found three cases where homes in the area went "for a good deal less than their appraised value. In comparison, it appears Cochran simply paid Biden's full asking price."

          Biden's office denied any sweetheart deals took place, but York noted that it appeared MBNA indirectly helped Cochran buy the Biden house through six-figure executive compensation funds listed as moving expenses and losses suffered on the sale of his previous home.

         To be clear, no laws were broken. These arrangements were simply a continuation of Biden's decades-long, Beltway business-as-usual relationships with a deep-pocketed corporate benefactor -- which, by the way, later hired his son. Nice nepotism, if you can get it.

          North Dakota Democrat Sen. Kent Conrad and Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd made cozy arrangements with subprime sleaze lender Countrywide. Portfolio.com reported that Conrad "borrowed $1.07 million in 2004 to refinance his vacation home with a balcony and wraparound porch in Bethany Beach, Del., a block from the ocean."

        Senate Banking Chair Dodd received two discounted loans in 2003 through Countrywide's VIP program. He borrowed $506,000 to refinance his elite townhouse in Washington, D.C., and $275,042 to refinance a home in East Haddam, Conn. Countrywide helpfully    waived fractions of points on the loans. The lower interest rates could have saved Dodd a combined $75,000 during the life of the 30-year loans.

         Dodd had known about the preferential treatment on his loans since 2003, yet continued to deny that he was treated like a VIP, refused to acknowledge wrongdoing and encouraged government-sponsored mortgage enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to invest in Countrywide's risky loans.

         Not content with two shady home deals, Dodd got in on a real estate scheme for an Irish cottage and nearly 10 acres of land with William Kessinger, a businessman tied to his close friend, insider trader Edward R. Downe Jr.

         Downe had pleaded guilty to tax and securities law violations and was banned for life from the business. In 2001, Dodd helped Downe obtain one of the treasured presidential pardons on Bill Clinton's last day in office. A year after that, as Irish real estate prices went through the roof, Dodd purchased Kessinger's share of the estate at a discount. He failed to include the obvious quid-pro-quo gift on Senate disclosure forms: Help a crooked friend, reap a cut-rate real estate deal.

           Prominent members of Team Obama benefited from similar special home deals. Politico.com noted that the Clintons secured a $1.35 million loan from Democrat pal and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe for their New York estate; Obama special envoy Richard Holbrooke snagged a sweetheart loan to refinance his Telluride, Colo., ski vacation home from the Countrywide VIP program; and Obama's close confidante and erstwhile vice presidential search committee panelist Jim Johnson accepted more than $7 million in below-market-rate loans from Countrywide.

         Then there's President Barack Obama's own $1.7 million Chicago manse -- which was financed with a discounted mortgage from Northern Trust and infamously included a shady land swap with convicted felon donor/developer Tony Rezko. A report released by the Federal Election Commission in February 2009 underscored that the Obamas received reduced loan rates (saving $300 a month, or $108,000 over the life of a 30-year loan) because of their high-profile positions.

        Northern Trust offered the super jumbo loan to the Obamas in anticipation of entering "long-term financial relationships" with the successful couple. The FEC refused to call the Obamas' mortgage deal an illegal corporate contribution, but it was an obvious act of favor-trading. Northern Trust employees had contributed $71,000 to Obama since 1990.

         GOP candidates like Christine O'Donnell, who have weathered personal financial troubles, have a lot more in common with the 14 million Americans underwater on their mortgages than these privileged Beltway boys. Perhaps fat-cat Democrats in crony-funded houses should put down their stones.

    Diamante
    siboneyes
    Mensajes: 90,641
    Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

    Re: ENTERENSE

    Obama Stimulus Made Economic Crisis Worse, `Black Swan' Author Taleb Says

    By Frederic Tomesco - Sep 25, 2010
     

          U.S. President Barack Obama and his administration weakened the country’s economy by seeking to foster growth instead of paying down the federal debt, said Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of “The Black Swan.”

          “Obama did exactly the opposite of what should have been done,” Taleb said yesterday in Montreal in a speech as part of Canada’s Salon Speakers series. “He surrounded himself with people who exacerbated the problem. You have a person who has cancer and instead of removing the cancer, you give him tranquilizers. When you give tranquilizers to a cancer patient, they feel better but the cancer gets worse.”

           Today, Taleb said, “total debt is higher than it was in 2008 and unemployment is worse.”

         Obama this month proposed a package of $180 billion in business tax breaks and infrastructure outlays to boost spending and job growth. That would come on top of the $814 billion stimulus measure enacted last year. The U.S. government’s total outstanding debt is about $13.5 trillion, according to U.S. Treasury Department figures.

         

          Errant Forecasts

    “Today there is a dependency on people who have never been able to forecast anything,” Taleb said. “What kind of system is insulated from forecasting errors? A system where debts are low and companies are allowed to die young when they are fragile. Companies always end up dying one day anyway.”

        Taleb, a native of Lebanon who gave his speech in French to an audience of Quebec business people, said Canada’s fiscal situation makes the country a safer investment than its southern neighbor.

          Canada has the lowest ratio of net debt to gross domestic product among the Group of Seven industrialized countries and will keep that distinction until at least 2014, the country’s finance department said in March. Canada’s ratio, 24 percent in 2007, will rise to about 30 percent by 2014. The U.S. ratio, now above 40 percent, will top 80 percent in four years, the department said, citing IMF data.

        “I am bullish on Canada,” he told the audience. “I prefer Canada to the U.S. or even Europe.”

          Mortgage Interest

    Canada’s economy also benefits from the fact that homeowners, unlike their U.S. neighbors, can’t take mortgage interest as a tax deduction, Taleb said. That removes the incentive to take on too much debt, he said.

           “The first thing to do if you want to solve the mortgage problem in the U.S. is to stop making these interest payments deductible,” he said. “Has someone dared to talk about this in Washington? No, because the U.S. homebuilders’ lobby is hyperactive and doesn’t want people to talk about this.”

          Taleb also criticized banks and securities firms, saying they don’t adequately warn clients of the risks they run when they invest their retirement savings in the stock market.

        

    Taleb’s 2007 best-seller, “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable,” argues that history is littered with rare, high-impact events. The black-swan theory stems from the ancient misconception that all swans were white.

    A former trader, Taleb teaches risk engineering at New York University and advises Universa Investments LP, a Santa Monica, California-based fund that bets on extreme market moves.

    To contact the reporter for this story: Frederic Tomesco in Montreal at tomesco@bloomberg.net.

    Democrats demonize the tea party at their peril.

    Visigoths at the Gate?


    Charles Krauthamer

    Sept 24 2010
         When facing a tsunami, what do you do? Pray, and tell yourself stories. I am not privy to the Democrats’ private prayers, but I do hear the stories they’re telling themselves. The new meme is that there’s a civil war raging in the Republican party. The tea party will wreck it from within and prove to be the Democrats’ salvation.

         I don’t blame anyone for seeking a deus ex machina when about to be swept out to sea. But this salvation du jour is flimsier than most.

           In fact, the big political story of the year is the contrary: that a spontaneous and quite anarchic movement with no recognized leadership or discernible organization has been merged with such relative ease into the Republican party.

          The tea party could have become Perot ’92, an anti-government movement that spurned the Republicans, went third party, and cost George H. W. Bush reelection, ending twelve years of Republican rule. Had the tea party gone that route, it would have drained the Republican party of its most mobilized supporters and deprived Republicans of the sweeping victory that awaits them on November 2.

         Instead, it planted its flag within the party and, with its remarkable energy, created the enthusiasm gap. Such gaps are measurable. This one is a chasm. This year’s turnout for the Democratic primaries (as a percentage of eligible voters) was the lowest ever recorded. Republican turnout was the highest since 1970.

          True, Christine O’Donnell’s nomination in Delaware may cost the Republicans an otherwise safe seat (and possibly control of the Senate), and Sharron Angle in Nevada is running only neck and neck with an unpopular Harry Reid. On balance, however, the tea-party contribution is a large net plus, with its support for such strong candidates as Marco Rubio of Florida, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Joe Miller of Alaska, and Mike Lee of Utah. Even Rand Paul, he of the shaky start in Kentucky, sports an eight-point lead.

          Nonetheless, some Democrats have convinced themselves that they have found the issue with which to salvage 2010. “President Obama’s political advisers,” reports the New York Times, “are considering a range of ideas, including national advertisements, to cast the Republican Party as all but taken over by tea party extremists.”

          Sweet irony. Fear-over-hope rides again, this time with Democrats in the saddle warning darkly about “the Republican tea party” (Joe Biden).  

       Message: Vote Democratic and save the nation from a Visigoth mob with a barely concealed tinge of racism.

        First, this is so at variance with reality that it’s hard to believe even liberals believe it. The largest tea-party event yet was the recent Glenn Beck rally on the Mall. The hordes descending turned out to be several hundred thousand cheerful folks in what, by all accounts, had the feel of a church picnic. And they left the place nearly spotless — the first revolution in recorded history that collected its own trash.

        Second, the general public is fairly evenly split in its views of the tea party. It experiences none of the horror that liberals do — and think others should. Moreover, the electorate supports by two to one the tea-party signature issues of smaller government and lower taxes.

         Third, you would hardly vote against the Republican in your state just because there might be a (perceived) too-conservative Republican running somewhere else. How would, say, Paul running in Kentucky deter someone from voting for Mark Kirk in Illinois? Or, to flip the parties, will anyone in Nevada refuse to vote for Harry Reid because Chris Coons, once a self-described “bearded Marxist,” is running as a Democrat in Delaware?

          Fourth, what sane Democrat wants to nationalize an election at a time of 9.6 percent unemployment and such disappointment with Obama that just this week several of his own dreamy 2008 supporters turned on him at a cozy town hall? The Democrats’ only hope is to run local campaigns on local issues. That’s how John Murtha’s former district director hung on to his boss’s seat in a special election in Pennsylvania in May.

         Newt Gingrich had to work hard — getting Republican candidates to sign the Contract with America — to nationalize the election that swept Republicans to victory in 1994. A Democratic anti-tea-party campaign would do that for the Republicans — nationalize the election, gratis — in 2010. As a very recent former president — now preferred (Public Policy Polling, September 1) in bellwether Ohio over the current one by 50 percent to 42 percent — once said: Bring ’em on.

    Banned
    sirjohn
    Mensajes: 137,146
    Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

    Re: ENTERENSE

    Shock, disbelief as ACORN affiliate SEIU found facilitating rampant vote fraud
    Hot Air's Green Room ^ | September 26, 2010 | Director Blue

      

         A group of concerned Texas citizens unwittingly discovered rampant vote fraud during the 2008 election, apparently orchestrated by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

         “The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters in them” Engelbrecht said, because those houses were the most likely to have fraudulent registrations attached to them. “Most voting districts had 1,800 if they were Republican and 2,400 of these houses if they were Democratic… But we came across one with 24,000, and that was where we started looking.”

         It was Houston’s poorest and predominantly black district, which has led some to accuse the group of targeting poor black areas. But Engelbrecht rejects that, saying, “It had nothing to do with politics. It was just the numbers.”

           …“Vacant lots had several voters registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters registered at its address,” Engelbrecht said. “We then decided to look at who was registering the voters.” Their work paid off. Two weeks ago the Harris County voter registrar took their work and the findings of his own investigation and handed them over to both the Texas secretary of state’s office and the Harris County district attorney.

         Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Steve Caddle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid.

        The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures…

          I find it almost stupefying to have discovered that some of my neighbors support the modern Democrat Party, seeing as how it’s mostly funded by public sector union bosses, illegal immigration front groups, trial lawyers, and George Soros-sty...le America-haters. 

     

     

     

           ASI FUE COMO OBAMA DERROTO A HILLARY Y LUEGO LLEGO A LA CASA BLANCA, A TRAVES DEL MAYOR FRAUDE ELECTORAL EN LA HISTORIA SOBREPASANDO EL FRAUDE ELECTORAL DE JOHN F. KENNEDY;  PERO CON EL APOYO DEL 34 % Y EL 57% QUE VOTARA POR CUALQUIERA QUE SEA EL CANDIDATO, MENOS POR EL, NO HAY FRAUDE ELECTORAL QUE PUEDA PONER A OBAMA DE NUEVO EN LA CASA BLANCA EN EL 2012