About Me

Name:Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

OBAMA DOES ANOTHER BACK FLIP ON IS POSITIONS

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, July 03, 2008 7:28:17 PM
 
 
OBAMA MAKES ANOTHER BACK-FLIP! July 03, 2008 HE WOULD MAKE A GREAT HIGH DIVER! Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty. They will need all our prayers if Senator "flip-flop" gets elected in November! TODAY,In Fargo North Dakota, Obama made another verbal move to the center of the political spectrum. With his extreme left of center voting record, and his promises to the anti-war zealots,that allowed him to defeat the anointed favorite, Hillary Clinton. Obama's handlers have tacked to the right on Iraq to try to court those of us who believe withdrawal would lead to genocide in Iraq. Obama opened the door Thursday to altering his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq immediately after his election, as he repeatedly promised during the campaign. He said in Fargo, that based based upon what he hears from military commanders during his upcoming trip to Iraq, he will reformulate his withdrawal plans. This is just one more "flip-flop" Obama has made since garnering the magic number of electoral delegates to almost guarantee his nomination, in Denver, on the first ballot. Alex Conant had this comment about the most recent "flip-flop". "There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician." Conant is a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, but he is saying what many Americans must be asking themselves. "How much is Obama willing to betray those who got him to where he is today, and how much can we trust him to not betray us all for his personal agenda? This is a question that needs answering!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I BELIEVE MANY JEWS WILL NOT VOTE IN NOVEMBER

Posted by Jax Hawk on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:00:48 AM

Wednesday, July 02, 2008




Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.

The Jewish religion has always held that their is sanctity in human life. For this reason many who are active in the movement to abolish capital punishment are Jews.
It is with the background of this belief system that I write this blog.
There is a certain dichotomy in the blind following of a man who strongly believes in the "right" to kill a baby that survives an abortion, and the position that holds life is a sacred gift from "I AM WHO AM".

The following is an excerpt from "Jews Choosing Life", by Matthew Berke.
"The sanctity and infinite worth of every human being is a quintessential Jewish value, grounded in the biblical notion that man is made in the image and likeness of God. According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:5): "Whoever destroys one life is as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever preserves a life is as if he preserved the whole world."

Against this background, it is ironic and vexatious for many pro–life activists that American Jews tend to line up on the "pro–choice" side in the struggle over abortion. "Affirming the Sanctity of Human Life," a conference held last November 12 in Washington, D.C., brought together a hundred or so Jews who are troubled by the Jewish community’s stance toward the unborn, particularly concerning the gruesome late–term procedure known as "partial–birth abortion.
Rabbi Moses A. Birnbaum, from Long Island, NY, ha this to say: "there is much misgiving and guilt in the Jewish community over partial–birth abortion, and people are hungering for an authentic Jewish response. Although Jews cannot, like Catholics, accept a total ban on all abortions, according to Rabbi Birnbaum, it is imperative to "unite with our Christian brothers and sisters" against partial–birth, "a procedure unique in its total violation of Jewish law" and "tantamount to infanticide." He said Jews should not worry about partial–birth legislation leading to a wider ban on abortion, but should consider one issue at a time. He decried the "mantra of choice," arguing that sometimes people must simply "choose life—the best choice of all, the only choice."


I believe that because of the flip-flops taken by Obama on the Palestinian-Israeli problem, and his stance on partial birth abortion(murder), many orthodox and reform Jews will choose to stay home in November. They cannot bring themselves to vote Republican, nor can they vote for a man who violates their religious beliefs.


In every significant interaction in Obama's adult life with those who disdain and vilify Israel - from Rashid Khalidi to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Louis Farrakhan - Obama has demonstrated passive resignation and indifference.

He did not stand up to his friend Khalidi, the Palestinian activist, professor and former Palestinian spokesman whom Obama honored at a farewell dinner, and object to Palestinian invectives that Israel was an apartheid state. He did not recoil, until Wright insulted him at the National Press Club, from Wright when he learned that Wright considered Israel a "dirty word" and postulated that Israel had invented an "ethnic bomb."

He did not heed (or was oblivious to) public pleas from Jewish organizations to avoid the Million Man March that Farrakhan organized; nor did he years later leave his church when it honored Farrakhan. It took a hateful rant from another wide-eyed preacher against Hillary Clinton, just when Obama needed to cool intra-party animosities, to do that.

AND IF any further proof were needed, Obama's actions with regard to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, the measure to classify the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization, should settle the question of Obama's intestinal fortitude when it comes to Israel. An issue presented itself: a choice between, on the one hand, taking a stance against Israel's most vile enemy, Iran, and, on the other, appeasing the far Left of his own party.

Obama chose to satisfy the MoveOn.org crowd and opposed the amendment. The amendment would have been "saber rattling" and unduly provocative, Obama argued at the time. Senators Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and three quarters of the US Senate voted for the amendment. source: U.S. Senate Archives

Once his nomination was secured, Obama told those assembled at the AIPAC convention that he supported classification of the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization, a move he well understood was important to Israel's security and to AIPAC's members. Yet under just a smidgen of political pressure during the primary race, he had not been able to muster the will to support a modest measure which inured to Israel's benefit.

Is there anything in all this to suggest that in a potential crisis, when much of the world would be pressuring him to let Israel die, Obama would push all the naysayers aside and demand to "send them everything that can fly"? There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that he would be beyond persuasion when it came down to Israel's survival. In fact, all the available evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Source: Jerusalem PostThat does not mean Obama will not carry the majority of the Jewish vote. Jews are overwhelmingly Democratic, and it is certainly the case that for many American Jews the secular liberal agenda takes precedence over everything else in presidential politics.

For these voters, then, "1973" is not uppermost in their minds. Their devotion to liberalism is controlling, and for their own peace of mind they are willing to accept Obama's generic expressions of warm feelings toward Israel.

Indeed the temptation to believe in Obama's bland promises of support for Israel is a tempting one for liberal Jews. If they can convince themselves that he will be "fine on Israel," no conflict arises between their liberal impulses and their concern for Israel. The urge to believe is a powerful thing, especially when the alternative is an intellectual or moral quandary.

As Sandi Merle put it: "Ultimately, we will have to explain to our children, and our children’s children. L’dor va–dor, from generation to generation, we may have to explain the evil that lives after us."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SYCOPHANTS TRY TO SMOOTH THE WATERS

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:09:56 AM

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Rep. Robert Wexler of South Florida, sent an email to all the Jewish leaders assuring them that Obama is a strong supporter of Israel and they should support his election.
While he was doing this, Senator "I lost to the Swift Boats" Kerry, was in Israel meeting with key leaders of government to assure them that Obama is on their side.All this is in preparation for the announced visit by Obama to Israel sometime before the November election.

The root of the matter, as some observers of American Jewish politics see it, may be that Obama’s rhetoric and themes of reconciliation and common ground – the heart of his national popularity – sound off-key and even naive in the context of a grim, confrontational moment in the Middle East.

Obama’s substantively hard line on Israel has cost him friends among Chicago’s Palestinian activists. But his rhetoric has given the pro-Israel side pause. As Israel’s most vocal American allies see it, the divisions there aren’t about partisan name-calling: they’re about murder and the survival of a Jewish state. Faced with apparently implacable enemies like the Palestinian group Hamas and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, backers of Israel see little room for reconciliation, and little reason for hope.


The following quote is from the Jerusalem Post. It explains the dilemma Obama has with convincing many Jews that he is on their side. Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America had this to say:
“It was mystifying to me when [Obama] said that one of the reasons there isn’t peace in the Middle East is because of ‘cynicism.’ Cynicism? That’s the reason?” asked Morton Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America, a hard-liner who often gives voice to sentiments other Jewish leaders are more comfortable whispering “It makes me think that Barack Obama doesn’t understand the continuing Arab war against Israel.” Klein said he found the notion of an Obama presidency “frightening".
"Obama is regularly rated the “worst for Israel” of leading American presidential candidates by a panel assembled by the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz. But Klein’s remarks, an open letter to Obama from an Iowa Jewish leader concerned that Obama had spoken of Palestinian suffering, and a host of more quietly expressed concerns, produce a certain weary frustration in Obama’s Jewish backers, who include prominent supporters of Israel.

Obama's past suggestion that the Israeli and Palestinian sides are equally to blame –for the protracted fighting is a matter for pause for Jews whom Obama courts for votes. This provoked the following from the editor of The New York Post, E.J. Kessler.

"Obama fails to understand the totalitarian politics and sensibilities of the folks over there, who are not well meaning".
Kessler,the New York Post editor who’s a longtime observer of American-Jewish politics, continued, “His approach will appeal to a lot of lefty Jews, but it won’t appeal to the serious players,” she said, referring to the better-organized and better funded groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Council, AIPAC.

Meanwhile, never mentioned before by the MSM, Obama's half sister gave a campaign speech to Asian americans in San Francisco.
Soetoro-Ng and Obama have different fathers and the same mother. Her father is Indonesian, his is Kenyan. Her husband is Chinese-Canadian.
The throng of Asian-American donors drew closer, drinks in hand, to hear Barack Obama's sister describe the wide arc of his life: beyond politics and Chicago, into his childhood in Indonesia and Hawaii.

Why have we not heard about his sister? Soetoro-Ng explained:
"Discussion of those ties has taken a back seat to the Obama campaign's efforts to win the Hispanic vote and his ability to rouse young and black voters. In spite of the drawn-out primary season, many voters have heard little about Obama's years in Jakarta — he lived there between 1967 and 1971, while his mother was married to Soetoro-Ng's father, an Indonesian businessman — or about his years in Hawaii, where Asian-Americans are a majority". Source:My Politico.com
How much else is their in the closet that is the life history of BHO? And why has he not answered the question why his birth certificate from Hawaii has no seal or signature?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE MAIN REASON I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, June 30, 2008 11:31:43 AM

Monday, June 30, 2008





Being a Navy veteran, and a life long Republican who strayed from the fold only once. I voted fro JFK! I am afraid more than I dislike the Democrat candidate for President. He is a charming, well spoke, affable man who presents a fine image.
I cannot hate him because he is the most liberal in the Senate according to his voting record. I cannot hate him for his long time association with America hating racist, Rev. Wright. I cannot hate him for his past association with Weatherman Ayers, who wished he had blown up more of America, but still holds a professorship at a Chicago University. I cannot hate him because he calls the Catholic "priest" Pfleger a friend, even though this man should have been "de-frocked" long ago for his anti-Catholic pronouncements!
No, I cannot hate him, because he was born in the image and likeness of the God who created him and all the rest of us. I am a Catholic, and I must love my fellow man if I wish to gain the prize of everlasting happiness in the presence of God!

But I do border on hating him for his position on partial birth abortions. He voted against The Induced Birth Infant Liability Act while serving in the Illinois legislature in 2002.
The Bill was to extend the same medical care to babies who happen to survive an abortion attempt as is enjoyed by all babies born alive.
Not satisfied to allow a baby who has miraculously survived an abortion, to live. He used the argument that allowing rights to this live aborted baby would violate the Constitution!

In fact, when a similar measure-- the Born Alive Infant Protection Act-- was brought before the U.S. Senate, not one Senator voted against it. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America didn't oppose the bill.


Call me old fashioned and narrow minded , but It's difficult for me to not hate someone who's eager to extend an array of constitutional rights to terrorists(Guantanamo Bay), but who refuses to provide the most fundamental rights to the most vulnerable living, breathing new born infant.

Perhaps it's my failure to comprehend Obama's exquisite intellectual subtlety. Obama challenged the constitutionality of the bill,contending that conferring equal protection, i.e.,personhood, upon a "pre-viable fetus" would render the bill an unlawful anti-abortion statute. There is nothing "pre-viable about a baby from conception to birth, even if it was tried to be killed by America's Genocide, abortion!

At what point after birth does Obama call a baby a person and not a fetus? One day? Six months?

I have a hard time generating feelings of love or even respect for someone who voted against helping newborns struggling to live.
I suspect most people don't know about Obama's position on babies who survive abortion attempts and it's unlikely that they'll ever find out. The media seem more interested in reporting on the cultural implications, or the racial animus of those who question Obama's policies, and those of his wife. If more people knew about Obama's disregard for babies who have the will to survive an abortion, there would be more scrutiny and less "honeyed words"!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MUSING ABOUT OBAMA'S BLUE EAGLE SEAL

Posted by Jax Hawk on Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:31:54 AM

Why Did Obam Remove E Pluribus Unum From His Blue Seal?



Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.

From todays edition of Der Spiegel, an excerpt from an article written by Norbert F. Potzi, entitled "Life In a Parallel Society",may explain why Obama's Blue Presidential Seal had the phrase "E Pluribus Unum" removed.It is a statement establish by Congress in 1782 as part of the Presidential seal.
The phrase means "out of many, one".
In this statement it is implied that we all join together top make one country with the same laws and originally suggesting that out of many colonies or states emerge a single nation, it has come to suggest in contemporary times that out of many peoples, races, and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation – illustrating the concept of the melting pot.

But the Germans have found that the majority of the Muslim immigrants have not assimilated. Most have not learned the language, and Sharia law appears to be the rule of law in the "ghettos" where Muslims accumulate.

In this article the author makes the argument that Muslims can live side by side with Germans and still not assimilate into the German society.
There are an estimated 3.4 million Muslims living in Germany, making it the second largest religious group after Christians in Germany. A majority of them from Turkey,but many cam from Bosnia,Iran Iraq and Morocco. They were encouraged to emigrate to Germany to work in the industrial machine that made Germany an economic power house in the 70' and 80's.
As morally indignant young Muslims turn away from what they view as decadent German culture, some are cultivating feelings of superiority. While their immigrant parents and grandparents tried to assimilate, at least on the surface, some young Muslims deliberately flaunt the fact that they are different by wearing strict Islamic clothing in public.
The young, criminal Muslims whose acts of violence are so often in the news are rebelling against the majority society in their own way. They berate the victims of their brutal attacks as "s**t Germans" and "pig-eaters," even to the point of occasionally abusing a police officer of Turkish descent as a "s**t Christian."

The problem of assimilation is not helped by people like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with his recent inflammatory rhetoric. "Speaking to a cheering crowd of close to 20,000 Turks, some of them already naturalized German citizens, at the Cologne Arena two weeks before the February conference, Erdogan warned his fellow Turks against going too far in their efforts to integrate. "No one can expect you to subject yourselves to assimilation," he said. "Because assimilation is a crime against humanity".

No one had asked the Turks to submit to assimilation, the total removal of cultural and religious identity. But the consequences of a refusal to be integrated into majority German society are all too apparent in the neighborhoods surrounding Sonnenallee in Neukölln"where crime has increased dramatically.

Thus when I first saw Obama posed behind a blue simulated Presidential seal I wondered about the choice of words that replaced the normal wording. Instead of the Latin "E pluribus unum" (Out of many, one), Obama's says "Vero possumus", rough Latin for "Yes, we can." Instead of "Seal of the President of the United States", Obama's Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama's eagle wears his "O" campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead!
Not only is the wording questionable, the gaul of a man who has not even been formally nominated as his party candidate, standing behind a quasi-presidential seal!

No matter if you or I believe Obama is a Muslim "mole" or the anti-Christ, he does insult the rest of us who have assimilated, and become one of many. It appears to this seasoned citizen that by removing E Pluribus Unum, Obama has declared that living together as one is not necessary to keep this nation together.But then is that not what his pastor of twenty years declared from his pulpit?


The Europeans are experiencing first hand what lack of assimilation produces. Ghettos are developing where Sharia laws prevail, and crime rates and civil disobedience bordering on race riots are happening. All is not well in places like France, Germany and Holland!

DO WE WANT A PRESIDENT THAT BELIVES IT IS O.K. TO ABANDOM "E PLURIBUS UNUM"?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NRA SYBOLISM WAS A BAD CHOICE FOR OBAMA

Posted by Jax Hawk on Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:48:50 AM

SAY GOODBYE TO THE BLUE EAGLE!





Thanks to J. R. Dunn who wrote an article in today's "AMERICAN THINKER", I have another point to make about the ineptitude of the Democratic selection to run for President.
Only a person who has no knowledge of recent history, at least the last 65 years is not considered ancient history, would know that the vain attempt to revitalize a failing economy by establishing the NRA was one of FDR'S blunders.
As you can see from the following excerpt of the article, Roosevelt's attempt to socialize business including closing the banks was an abject failure. It took the Japanese to salvage our economy when they bombed Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. This put in motion the machine that is derogatorily refereed to as the military industrial complex.
Many people believe that the Democrat President had prior knowledge of the planned Japanese attack, and let it happen so the USA could regain it's economy on a war time economic machine. It is unkind to say ill of the dead, so I will defer to Roosevelt, and say as did the critics of Bush , that he had bad intelligence.
The result was the greatest war time manufacturing machine in the history of the world. Tool and die makers, "Rosy the riviters" and automobile companies turned out enough planes, ships, tanks and guns to supply not only our troops, but the British, French and Russians. We won the war, but Roosevelt died, and never saw the results of his war machine.

Why Obama allowed himself to be photographed with the symbol of the NRA superimposed over a make-over of the presidential seal is beyond understanding!
It was completely overlooked (as far as I've seen, anyway) that a direct inspiration for the seal was the public symbol for one of Franklin D. Roosevelt's greatest policy disasters. An eagle, a blue background: Blue Eagle. Which happens to have been the emblem of the National Recovery Administration (NRA). FDR's attempt to beat the Depression by collectivizing(aka socializing) the U.S. economy.


"The NRA was the centerpiece of the "Hundred Days", FDR's whirlwind law-passing spree following his inauguration. It was the work of "brain trusters" Rexford G. Tugwell and Adolf Berle, adapted directly from Mussolini's "corporative" system.


The NRA attempted to "organize" the U.S. economy from the largest corporations to the smallest Mom n' Pop store. Businesses were encouraged to sign up with the proviso that they would be able to write their own rules for their industries, effectively turning them into cartels. Member businesses were allowed to place the Blue Eagle in their windows, along with the slogan "We Do Our Part".


Businesses were required to pay minimum wage, abandon child labor, and adapt wage and price controls. As for businesses that held out... well, the NRA was run by an ex-general, Hugh Johnson, who, to put it kindly, was not Colin Powell. Johnson took the Mussolini connection to heart, declaring all businesses not displaying the Blue Eagle to be "enemies of the people", and encouraging the public to boycott them, if not worse.


But it was even more dangerous for companies that signed up. Businessmen were jailed for breaking NRA rules, and goon squads roamed the streets of Manhattan looking for violators The story is told in detail in Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascim. The Secret History of the American Left and Amity Shlae's The Forgotten Man. A New History of the Great Depression.

How this nonsense was supposed to end the Depression is anybody's guess. In short order, it ran afoul of the Supreme Court, which on May 27, 1935, found the NRA illegal in Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, the so-called "sick chicken" case. The Court struck down the NRA as an unconstitutional extension of executive power. Roosevelt was forced to drastically modify his plans for the economy".

This "empty suit" who speaks well only when he has a teleprompter, will be exposed for his lack of knowledge about anything other than left wing thinking, when the debates begin. He has tripped over his own tongue numerous times up to this point. If the people who run the televised debates are honest about their questions, don't let him know before what they are, he will be exposed for the PROSELYTE he is. He is trying to play a professional game with no prior experience in the field of battle, and I would hate to think of what he would do when the"red phone rings in the night", and it will!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ANOTHER UN INTRUSION INTO OUR GOVERNMENT?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, June 27, 2008 7:23:40 AM

Thursday, June 26, 2008

GIVING AWAY MORE OF OUR COUNTRY'S SOVEREIGNTY!





The World Bank is one of the two Bretton Woods Institutions which were created BY 44Free Nations in July,1944, to rebuild war-torn Europe after World War II. Later, largely due to the contributions of the U.S.A. Marshall Plan, the World Bank was forced to find a new area in which to focus its efforts.(BLOGGERS NOTE: PERHAPS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISBANDED, AS IT'S JOB WAS DONE, BUT LIKE ALL BUREAUCRACIES IT CREATES "MAKE WORK" TO EXTEND IT'S EXISTENCE!)

Now the body of bureaucrats that numbers over 138 nations, originally formed to accommodate the Marshall Plan, has decided to investigate the Country that was the founder of the organization. The IMF is going to examine the books of the U.S. Treasury.
The strange thing is that President Bush, who normally does not let United Nations Organisations dictate to him, has agreed to this outrageous interference in our sovereignty!
Officials with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have informed Secretary Bernanke about a plan that would have been unheard of in the past, a general examination of the US financial system.

The IMF's board of directors has ruled that a so-called Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) is to be carried out in the United States. It is nothing less than an X-ray of the entire US financial system.


From 1968-1981, the IMF focused largely on poverty alleviation. Begining in the '80's and into the 1990s, its main focus was both debt management and structural adjustment. Another word for redistribution of wealth!

Today the focus, which is little known outside of the "elites", is on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), goals calling for the elimination of poverty and the implementation of sustainable development.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were developed out of the eight chapters of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000. The eight goals and 21 targets include:
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day.

2. Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people.

3. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

4. Achieve universal primary education Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.

5. Promote gender equality and empower women Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015.

6. Reduce child mortality Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate.

7. Improve maternal health Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio.

8. Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health( aka contraception and abortion!).

9. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS.

10. Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it. Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases.

11. Ensure environmental sustainability and develop a global partnership for development.
These include removing tariffs and quotas for debt ridden third world countries, and by 2020 to significantly improve the lives of at least 100 million "slum dwellers"!

The majority of the stated goals are "mother's milk" that nobody can fault. But goals,5, 8 and 11 are contrary to a large portion of the population of the USA, and may be in conflict with the majority of Christians. Particularly the mandate to provide contraception and abortion to the world.
Number 11 can be interpreted as being in accord with the Kyoto protocols, and so far we have not agreed to hamstring our economy with the protocols.

Complaints, by Conservatives and Constitutionalists, are also directed toward the International Monetary Fund gold reserve being undervalued. At its inception in 1945,the IMF pegged gold at US $35 per Troy ounce of gold. In 1973 the Nixon administration lifted the fixed asset value of gold in favor of a world market price. Hence the fixed exchange rates of currencies tied to gold were switched to a floating rate, also based on market price and exchange. This largely came about because Petrodollars outside the United States were more than could be backed by the gold at Fort Knox under the fixed exchange rate system. The fixed rate system only served to limit the amount of assistance the organization could use to help debt-ridden countries. Current IMF rules prohibit members from linking the IMF success record is perceived as limited.[citation needed]

While it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 critics claim over 100 countries (or reputedly most of the Fund's membership) have experienced a banking collapse that they claim have reduced GDP by four percent or more, far more than at any time in Post-Depression history.The considerable delay in the IMF response to any crisis, and the fact that it tends to only respond to them or even create them rather than prevent them, has led many economists to argue for reform. In 2006, an IMF reform agenda called the Medium Term Strategy was widely endorsed by the institution's member countries. The agenda includes changes in IMF governance to enhance the role of developing countries in the institution's decision-making process. Source:Wikapedia

The "cart pulling the horse" arrangement, or the branches dictating to the tree what way to grow!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ANOTHER RELIGIOS SECT CLAIMS OBAM IS ONE OF THEM?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:47:49 AM

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

WHAT ARE OBAMAS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?




The media has made a big issue of the fact that Obama is a Christian,even though some Conservatives like myself are wondering if he is a closet Muslim?
Between Christian and Muslim there ia a wide open space for many other religious beliefs that are not indigenous to Americans.
One of these religions has claimed Obama as a believer, as this article from The Times of India shows.

NEW DELHI: "With Democrat senator Barrack Obama busy in the run-up to the U.S. presidential polls, a group of well-wishers in the capital have decided to send him a symbol of his lucky charm, Lord Hanuman, to help him emerge victorious.

Obama's representative Carolyn Sauvage-Mar on Tuesday received a gold-plated two-feet-high idol which she will pass it on to the Obama after it is sanctified.

The idol is being presented to Obama as he is reported to be a Lord Hanuman devotee and carries with him a locket of the monkey god along with other good luck charms. An hour-long prayer meeting to sanctify the idol was earlier organised at Sankat Mochan Dham and by Congress leader Brijmohan Bhama, Balmiki Samaj and the temple's priests.

"Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him," said Bhama.

Accepting the souvenir, Sauvage-Mar, who is chairperson of Democrats Abroad-India, said, "Obama has extended his thanks for the support."

However, questions on Obama's religious beliefs elicited just a smile from Sauvage-Mar, apparently to avoid controversy back home where the Democrat senator is pitted against the Republican Party's John McCain in the Presidential polls.

The idol will be kept at the temple for 11 more days and then sent to US.

"We will perform the prayers for 11 days and then hand the idol to Carolyn who will send it to Obama," said the temple priest.

This article only adds more confusion to those who are trying to decipher the enigma of Obama. What does he really believe, if anything, or is he trying to be all things to all people to capture the prise he seeks?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA USES RACE AS A WEAPON!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:01:02 AM

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

BRILLIANT POLITICAL MOVE OR JUST MORE "SLIME POLITICS





Last Friday Barrack Obama laid down the gauntlet to all who oppose him, that labels anyone who even mentions his lack of ability to be our president,will be a racist! He also indicated his wife Michelle was the target of character assassins.
To be perfectly clear about what he said about those who oppose him. I will enclose a quote from his speech given in Jacksonville, Florida last Friday as reported by Rich Moran of the American Thinker,

"Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.
."It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.
"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
He said he was also set for Republicans to say "he's got a feisty wife," in trying to attack his wife Michelle".. See how many Obama advocates simply dismiss any opposition to their candidate as "racism." It is this simple minded sophistry that the candidate will use in order to quiet opposition to his programs if he is elected.

It has been asked "Is America ready for a black president?" Maybe a more relevant question would be "Can America see through a racial charlatan who will shamlessly use the color of his skin to avoid debating the tough issues and call his opponents "racists" for disagreeing with him?"


This speech is an example of the tactics we can expect from the Main Stream Media and the leftist who are running the propaganda campaign of Obama's campaign.
The MSM called Obama's low blows in Jacksonville, "a brilliant political move"! This is the kind of coverage you can expect from Newspapers(if anyone reads them anymore) Television and the leftist controlled Internet. The anointed Messiah of the neo-commies of the media have staked their power and money on the head of this empty suit named Barry,aka Barrack, Obama.

For the next five months we can expect a rash of negative pieces of "news" about the deteriorating economy, the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the foibles of that "old Man" McCain.The fact that the conomy is churning out the largest output in the world, more than germany, Japan and Great Britain combined, will never be mentioned. Nor will the fact that al Qaeda is being destroyedin Iraq! These facts do not serve the pyrpose of a media dedicated to making the public desire a "CHANGE"!

Nothing will be written or said about the fact that their "savior" is ignoring the genocide in Africa,or about the rants of the American hating co-horts of this born again populist.Democrats and Obama in particular will be portrayed as angels of the truth and republicans as character assassins who are racists!
The truth of this matter is that some of the people associated with Obama for over twenty years are the apex of racists, Reverend Wright,James P. Meeks, Frank Marshall Davis, Fr. Michael Pfleger and Acorn for a start!

It is nota Black man we Conservatives appose it is a mixed race leftist and his anti-American, race baiting friends and cohorts that we oppose!
If it's relevant that some Republicans have belonged to the Federalist Society -- or even done as little as show up for the debates they host -- how can it not be relevant that Barack Obama's political education, paternal, "spiritual," and now academic as well, is all straight out of Karl Marx?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JUST WHAT KIND OF CHANGE WILL OBAMA PRODUCE!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:51:37 PM

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

 


Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.I have lived through the administrations of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and all were strong presidents who supported a strong military, and their primary interest was the working man.
With the advent of Clinton, the Democrat party began a swing to the hard left. Abortion rights, gay and lesbian issues, Ecology zealots and anti-religious groups appear to have taken over the party of the "people".

Now comes the most liberal Senator, based upon his voting record,with a motto that has captured the minds of many young people and the usual assortment of recycled radicals from the 60's and 70's as his followers. Of course he has leftist mega-millionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffet endorsing his bid for the presidency. I understand Soros, a life time dedicated liberal, but Buffett is an enigma to me.
Never the less, this man with no executive experience has captured the imagination of the disgruntled masses, with his promise of CHANGE.
What the change will actually be is the big question? If you judge a man/woman by their past associations and affiliations, you would have to say the change Obama promises is a change to the socialist form of government. There also is the possibility that he is a closet Muslim, and co-existence with Sharia law may be in his plans for the USA?

It is for this reason that I am violating my normal blogging rules, and will publish a direct quote from the Investors Business Daily. I believe this piece points out the possibility that Americans may be "buying a Pig in a polk" as my grandmother used to say!

"Obama's Red Roots By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Election '08: The word is that Barack Obama is a mainstream politician who sometimes attracts fringe leftists. The record tells a different story — that he has sought out radicals. What does that say of his agenda?

It is natural to be skeptical of excessive claims about Obama's radical associations. After all, there are so many. But one bears attention — because it helped him get his start in politics. In 1996, he won an Illinois state senate seat on a "fusion" ticket of the Democratic Party and leftist group called the "New Party."


The New Party, founded in 1992 with 7,000 members at its peak, had been an explicitly anti-capitalist party of ex-Communists, socialists and activists from ACORN, the hard-left group that's constantly in trouble over voter fraud. The New Party didn't ask for Obama's association; he asked for the New Party's endorsement.
Blogger Rick Moran of the American Thinker has found disturbing particulars.

First, the New Party didn't give its support and campaign volunteers to just anyone. Obama actually had to audition for it. According to a September-October 1995 update on the New Party-aligned Chicago Democratic Socialists of America Web site:
"About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to . . . to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates."


Anyone wanting a New Party endorsement had to "be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP," the Web site said.


So Obama signed on with this group and now remains in its debt.
That raises questions about what was in the New Party platform that drew in Obama. Maybe its own statements saying it was formed "to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over the political process."
Sound familiar? One of the few things Obama reveals in his vague "change" agenda are plans to punish corporations. He rails against "corporate profits" and even worked in a condemnation of them in his first defense of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So there's little doubt he shares a lot of what the New Party believes.


The New Party also has advocated a bill of rights for children, a shorter work week, a universal "social" wage and military spending cuts. These will undermine parental rights, lower competitiveness, lard up welfare and make the U.S. less secure. All are echoed in Obama's proposals. They are the hardest battle cries of the left.
Obama should come clean on why he sought these radicals' support and, better still, disclose just how he intends to pay them back".

What say you mr./mrs. voter?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GLOBAL WARMING GURU WANTS TO SUE OIL COMPANIES

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, June 23, 2008 12:49:33 PM

Monday, June 23, 2008

NASA SCIENTIST WANTS TO SUE OIL COMPANIES




a
A man who spent his entire educational experience from his B.A. to Phd on the study of Physics, with a Masters in Astronomy, wants to have Congress bring charges against the oil industry similar to what was done to the cigarette industry!
He should have a law degree, because of the doors he is trying to open to class action suits for trial lawyers.
How this metamorphosis, from physicist to climate guru and expert took place, I am not sure. But the fact that he knew enough physics to be an asset to the Space Program, does not make him the expert on climatology that he and the leftists in that follow him want you to believe.

"Many of the temperature monitoring stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas (such as Shanghai or Beijing)," observes Canadian Steven McIntyre. This will/can produce hotter temperatures, yet some of the major trackers of the data from these countries, including the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, make no attempt to adjust for monitor placement errors. In any event, for some reason "the U.S. history has a rather minimal (warming) trend if any since the 1930s," while the ROW [rest of the world] has a very pronounced trend since the 1930s".

His own words indicate that he has always had an interest in global weather patterns, but this does not make him an expert!
He had this to say at an early stage of his career: "One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

"I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it".

So with this in mind, he will sit before a Congressional committee, and say this today: "I call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer". This fool equates global warming with genocide!And to add insult to our intelligence, he said in June,2007, that a global warming tipping point is just a decade away". Scare tactics replacing facts, perhaps!
If you follow the global warming debate, one thing you "know" is that to even call it a "debate" is to whisk yourself away to the land of the Flat Earth Society and Holocaust deniers and to be on the take from Big Carbon. Another is that nine of the ten warmest years recorded in the U.S. lower 48 since 1880 have occurred since 1995, with the very hottest being 1998.The real 15 hottest years are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before the chief "greenhouse gas," atmospheric carbon dioxide, began its sharp rise; seven occurred afterwards.

The facts do not back up his assertions. The hottest year since 1884 was the year 1934, long before green house gasses were known much less studied! source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Ultimately the greatest importance of all of this is that it strongly appears to substantiate the intuitive belief that, with scientist-politician Hansen at the helm the GISS, whose data are far more important to modeling global temperatures than it lets on, is not a neutral collector and disseminator of statistics but rather a politicized mouthpiece.


Before Congress or any trial lawyer tries to sue the oil industry for global warming, they had better read the material published by Canadian Steven McIntire's.
"Many of the temperature monitoring stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas (such as Shanghai or Beijing)," observes McIntyre. This can produce hotter temperatures, yet some of the major trackers of the data from these countries, including the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, make no attempt to adjust for monitor placement errors. In any event, for some reason "the U.S. history has a rather minimal (warming) trend if any since the 1930s," while the ROW [rest of the world] has a very pronounced trend since the 1930s".
If Hansen wants to sue anyone he might try suing Communist China, Or India the worst polluters of the atmosphere, who just happen to be exempt from Kyoto Protocols.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AMERICAN INTERNATIONALIST LAUDS OBAMA!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Sunday, June 22, 2008 3:31:37 PM

MICHAEL HIRSH IS AT IT AGAIN!




Obama lover, Michael Hirsh the former Foreign Editor and chief diplomatic correspondent for Newsweek,who is currently a senior editor in the magazine's Washington bureau.
Is an Obama supporter and prevaricator extraordinaire.
Now, Michael Hirsh has written a column for the Leftist Newsweek magazine that alleges that Obama is 15 percentage points ahead of McCain.
Of course, at the end of his article, he lets you in on his bias. This poll was of 1,010 eligible voters, taken over a two day period from June 18th-19th! This is less than a .05% sample of the hundreds of millions of potential voters. And God only knows if the surveyor, Larry Hugick, bothered to include any voters outside the Northeast.

This is the New York elitist who compares Global Warming to 9/11/011 in a Newsweek article published 2/21/08, entitled "Memo To The President"---OBAMA!!!!
"A small group of ragged America-haters, who had one lucky day of mass murder nearly seven years ago, will continue to define the foreign policy of the lone superpower for years, possibly decades to come. There's something wrong with this picture. Yes, we can all agree that 9/11 was one of the worst moments in American history. And we can certainly agree that Al Qaeda must be completely eliminated. But the group has never come close to duplicating 9/11; even the train bombings in London and Madrid that were attributed to Al Qaeda-inspired cells were minor by comparison. Are Al Qaeda and its ilk still really our number one challenge? What about global warming? What about the emergence of China", ad nausea


He then had the chutzpah to say this: "But it is absurd to assign the term "transcendent challenge" to such a band of murderous anarchists, who have about as much hope of achieving their grand dream of turning the Mideast into an Islamist caliphate as scientists have of proving one day that the moon is made of green cheese. Terror cells may be spreading, but their ideology, such as it is, keeps dying every time it is exposed to the open air. Even in the tribal regions of Pakistan, safe haven to the newly regrouped Taliban and Al Qaeda, voters last week turned out radical religious parties because of their ineffectiveness"
Al Qaeda and related terror groups are hardly the "band of anarchists" he calls them. They are religious zealots as was their patron Muhammad, who are dedicated to convert the world to Islam or destroy it and rebuild it in the new Caliphate. No amount of liberal double talk will change this fact!

His choice for president, Barrack Obama, seems to be so leery of being identified as an urban Northern liberal(like Hirsh) that he's running away from the most obvious explanation of his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weatherman Bill Ayers.
After Obama graduated from Harvard he became an inner-city organizer in Chicago, and he found natural allies for someone in a situation like him.This association is one of the problems that cause concern for many people like me and many people all over the country. You would think that liberals could find better allies than that, and should be faulted when they do indeed make such alliances? But people like Hirsh and the North Eastern liberal establishment, appear to be in accord with these radical beliefs.

It is only natural for a "globalist liberal like Hirsh to back a man who if elected will weaken the USA as a world power that will lead us to becoming part of One World Government. If you doubt this listen to Mr. Hirsh's words written in "At War With Ourselves". "Americans, reaching a national consensus that the global system is in our vital national interest is the main imperative of the 21st century. Uncomfortable though it may be, we must get over the idea that our unprecedented power is a panacea.
We Americans can oversee global stability from the skies — apart, removed and nearly omnipotent.
For us Americans, the norms and institutions of the global system are now as critical to securing our freedom as our own domestic laws and institutions.
But as individuals, we need everyone’s help on the ground, where we are as fragile and vulnerable as other people — indeed, more so, since we are Americans".
The simple translation, in my opinion, of this liberal rhetoric is that we must not try to stand alone as a the powerful nation we are now, but must join the socialist nations in the European Union and let the UN tell us how to live! No wonder this pseudo-intellect is a strong backer of the most liberal Senator in the Senate!

This heretic of American principles said, "The “free world” is no longer just the West: Today it spans the globe. That does not mean the U.S. leader has to become President Pothole, intervening in every civil war or regional dispute.
But it does mean that, in practical terms, the President must talk forthrightly about the international system that benefits all. He must systematically support its institutions even if he doesn’t always agree with them. And he must dwell somewhat less on what is purely good for “America.”
The debate we face today is no longer over American engagement versus American withdrawal. Isolationism is long dead.
The issue is whether what was once heresy will become orthodoxy to Americans in the 21st century: The idea that the norms and institutions of this global system are now as critical to securing our freedom as our own domestic laws and institutions".

And this hard core internationalist has the guts to call the election a run away for Obama before he has even been officially nominated by the Democrats. Many people forget that McGovern was declared the presumptive winner before he lost all states in the worst defeat in a presidential election in history!
Don't be swayed by the full court press the media has planned for this campaign to get the most liberal candidate in history elected.