Hawaii backs Martin
Posted By: Kaydie on 2008-11-02
In Reply to:
The state of Hawaii has backed Andy Martin. CNN, Factcheck.org and Obama campaign exposed as liars.
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/
Barry is lying to the people and they don't care. They don't care that the constitution is not being followed.
Whether Barry wins or not I believe Hillary should file lawsuit to sue him and the DNC chair for covering it up.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Hawaii backs Martin? What does that mean? nm
.
No, they live in the US, and the US backs Israel.nm
z
And I'll say it again...walking up the backs of the
=
Umm, Martin Luther and MLK are
Just so you know.
Majority backs GIs, not Iraq War...see link
Interesting poll, allbeit before the death of Zarqawi and approval of ministers of the police and army.
Walking up the backs of the middle-class to
xx
Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization
Wednesday 18 February 2009
by: Krishna Guha and Edward Luce, The Financial Times
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has come out in favor of nationalizing some banks. (Photo: Reuters Pictures)
The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.
In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.
"It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."
Mr Greenspan's comments capped a frenetic day in which policymakers across the political spectrum appeared to be moving towards accepting some form of bank nationalisation.
"We should be focusing on what works," Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, told the FT. "We cannot keep pouring good money after bad." He added, "If nationalisation is what works, then we should do it."
Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that "in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control" of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.
The former Fed chairman said temporary government ownership would "allow the government to transfer toxic assets to a bad bank without the problem of how to price them."
But he cautioned that holders of senior debt - bonds that would be paid off before other claims - might have to be protected even in the event of nationalisation.
"You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks," he said. "This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt."
Mr Greenspan's comments came as President Barack Obama signed into law the $787bn fiscal stimulus in Denver, Colorado. Mr Obama will announce on Wednesday a $50bn programme for home foreclosure relief in Phoenix, Arizona. Meanwhile, the White House was working last night on the latest phase of the bailout for two of the big three US carmakers.
In his speech after signing the stimulus, which he called the "most sweeping recovery package in our history", Mr Obama set out a vertiginous timetable of federal decisions in the coming weeks that included fixing the US banking system, submission next week of the 2009 budget and a bipartisan White House meeting to address longer-term fiscal discipline.
"We need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises," said Mr Obama. "Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles… but it does mark the beginning of the end."
Hawaii
Now you know.
He said he would take them all to Hawaii but with
Yes, he war born in Hawaii which in in the US. nm
.
You mean his supporters in Hawaii
I will be satisfied when the supreme court decides whether or not the certificate is legitimate. Having Hawaii legally seal this only raises suspicion.
Show me the proof that there was an official "Office of the President Elect" in the past. Never was! This was created by Obama. There has always been a transition team, but never a made up office. Even Clinton was not this arrogant.
Since you didn't like Fox news, here are some other links.
http://www.newemergencypreparedness.com/office-of-the-president-elect/
http://186-kps.com/blog/2008/11/07/obama-ego-the-office-of-president-elect-wtf/
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_president_elect_/2008/11/10/149643.html
I could post many more sites but it doesn't matter because if it goes against the O you just won't believe it no matter how true it is.
This is great. I liked the original by Chris Martin sm
and Cold Play the first time I heard it. Chris Martin wrote this song for his wife Gwenyth to console her after the death of her father, when you lose something, you can't replace...I will try to fix you...tears stream down your face, when you lose something you cannot replace, tears run down your face and I will fix you... It truly sounds like he was with his wife during a really dark time for her. Really touching.
Speech by Martin April 4, 1967 sm
Decided to post this because it fits so much to today. Same old media tactics too.
A Time to Break Silence
By Rev. Martin Luther King
By 1967, King had become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his Beyond Vietnam speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 -- a year to the day before he was murdered -- King called the United States the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.
Time magazine called the speech demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi, and the Washington Post declared that King had diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.
The anniversary of Martin Luther King's...
"I have a dream" speech. And it was not condescending. He was being honest. It is a historic day. On this day in 1963 is when King delivered that speech, and today the first African American man will accept the nomination of a major party for President of the United States. It is historical and McCain was taking the high road.
Martin Luther King was a republican, Mrs. M
nm
Martin Luther King would be sickened by him....
nm
Bush's Own Panel Backs Data on Global Warming
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-sci-warming23jun23,1,200411.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo
U.S. Panel Backs Data on Global Warming
Growing Washington acceptance of climate change is seen in the top science body's finding.
By Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan
Times Staff Writers
June 23, 2006
After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.
The report from the National Research Council also concluded that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.
Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program that found clear evidence of human influences on the climate system, the new study from the council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.
The council's review focused on the controversial hockey stick graph, which shows Earth's temperature remaining stable for 900 years then suddenly arching upward in the last century. The curve resembles a hockey stick laid on its side.
The panel dismissed critics' charges that fraud and statistical error were responsible for the graph's sharp upward swing, noting that many studies had confirmed its essential conclusions in the eight years since it was first published in the journal Nature.
There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change … or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work, said House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who requested the study in November.
The finding was a rebuke to global warming skeptics and some conservative politicians who have attacked the hockey stick as the work of overzealous scientists determined to shame the government into imposing environmental regulations on big business.
Geophysicist Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, lead author of the study that debuted the graph, said it was time to put this sometimes silly debate behind us and move forward, to do what we need to do to decrease the remaining uncertainties.
Though scientists have cited various factors as evidence of global warming — including the melting of polar ice caps and measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide — the hockey stick encapsulated the issue in an instantly recognizable way.
It's a pretty profound, easy-to-understand graph, said Roger A. Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Visually, it's very compelling.
The chart drew little attention until it was highlighted in a 2001 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
After that, the hockey stick was everywhere, Pielke said.
It also became an easy target.
If you are someone who's interested in critiquing climate science, he said, the hockey stick would be a lightning rod.
One prominent attack came from the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), who last year launched an investigation of Mann and his colleagues. Barton demanded information about their data and funding sources — an effort widely viewed as an attempt to intimidate the scientists.
Barton's committee has launched an inquiry into the statistical validity of the hockey stick. Larry Neal, the committee's deputy staff director, criticized the National Research Council panel Thursday for having only one statistician among its 12 members.
The crux of the dispute is that thermometers have been used for only 150 years. To determine temperatures before that, scientists rely on indirect measurements, or proxies, such as tree ring data, cores from boreholes in ice, glacier movements, cave deposits, lake sediments, diaries and paintings.
Mann and his collaborators tried to integrate data from many such sources to produce climate records for the last 1,000 years. Their report was filled with caveats and warnings about the uncertainties of their conclusions — caveats that were overlooked as the research achieved more celebrity.
The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times.
It concluded that, with a high level of confidence, global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.
Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level, committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.
The committee supported Mann's other conclusions, but said they were not as definitive. For example, the report said the panel was less confident that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from before 1600.
Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that finding — the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial report.
Panel members said Mann's conclusion that the 1990s were the warmest decade since 1000 and that 1998 was the warmest year had the least data to support it.
The use of proxies, they said, does not readily allow conclusions based on such narrow time intervals.
The report said that establishing average temperatures before 1000 was difficult because of the lack of data, but said the trend appeared to indicate that stable temperatures could extend back several thousand years.
um, yeah... Hawaii is a state... duh
50 states
Certified BC from HAWAII has been submitted.
Immigration hearings are no different than any other court proceedings. The lawsuit is dead in the water because he cannot prove anything one way or the other...unlike the DNC, who has proven their case over and over and over and over and over again. There is no issue here. Go dig up some more dirt.
Where in the announcement does it say he was born in Hawaii...
If you listened to Michael Savage's interview, he actually had the newspaper with the announcement. It does not state the location of the birth. It just made an announcement.
Our local newspaper always has announcements for births and many of those births are from other states, etc. It is just an announcement to let the community know that one of their members had a child, grandchild, etc.
Obama's trip to Hawaii.
So you would have Obama take is chidren out of school in the middle of the week, fly them 4250 miles on a 10-hour plane trip for a jet-lagged 1 day sick bed visit with a bed-bound frail elder who was released from the hospital with a broken hip just 2 short months after they had spent quality time together on a private family vacation, when GM was probably looking a whole lot better than she does now? After that, you would have him turn right around the next day and take another 10-hour 4250 mile plane trip back home while trying to come up with answers about "what's wrong with grandma"?
There is a very strong possibilty that these children will have their lives changed forever next week should they become the nation's first family. They will be thrust into the bright glare of media scrutiny, pack up all their things, leave the only home they have ever known, say goodbye to all their friends and prepare to take off for DC in the middle of the holidays and move into the White House. Hopefully, they will not have to be greiving the loss of their grandmother in the middle of all that.
If these were my children, I would want to presevere the memory of the family vacation and protect them from premature greiving over the impending loss. I feel sorry for people who live in such a hateful frame of mind all the time that they could be so thoughtless as to not even consider what they might be doing with their own children in a similar circumstance.
The officials in Hawaii have already certified
that he's an American citizen & released his original birth certificate. The fact that you're still spouting this nonsense & have never heard the term 'office of the president elect' before now shows that you rely too much on forwarded emails and Fox "news" for your in-depth information. LOL.
Obama, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Rev. Wright
Here is where the racial tension at the heart of Mr. Obama's campaign flared into view. He either shared these beliefs or, lacking good judgment, decided it politically expedient for an ambitious young black politician trying to prove his solidarity with all things black, to be associated with these rants. His judgment and leadership on the critical issue of race is in question.
While speaking to black people, King never condescended to offer Rev. Wright-style diatribes or conspiracy theories. He did not paint black people as victims. To the contrary, he spoke about black people as American patriots who believed in the democratic ideals of the country, in nonviolence and the Judeo-Christian ethic, even as they overcame slavery, discrimination and disadvantage. King challenged white America to do the same, to live up to their ideals and create racial unity. He challenged white Christians, asking them how they could treat their fellow black Christians as anything but brothers in Christ.
When King spoke about the racist past, he gloried in black people beating the odds to win equal rights by arming "ourselves with dignity and self-respect." He expressed regret that some black leaders reveled in grievance, malice and self-indulgent anger in place of a focus on strong families, education and love of God. Even in the days before Congress passed civil rights laws, King spoke to black Americans about the pride that comes from "assuming primary responsibility" for achieving "first class citizenship."
Last March in Selma, Ala., Mr. Obama appeared on the verge of breaking away from the merchants of black grievance and victimization. At a commemoration of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights, he spoke in a King-like voice. He focused on traditions of black sacrifice, idealism and the need for taking personal responsibility for building strong black families and communities. He said black people should never "deny that its gotten better," even as the movement goes on to improve schools and provide good health care for all Americans. He then challenged black America, by saying that "government alone can't solve all those problems . . . it is not enough just to ask what the government can do for us -- it's important for us to ask what we can do for ourselves."
Mr. Obama added that better education for black students begins with black parents visiting their children's teachers, as well as turning off the television so children can focus on homework. He expressed alarm over the lack of appreciation for education in the black community: "I don't know who taught them that reading and writing and conjugating your verbs were something white. We've got to get over that mentality." King, he added later, believed that black America has to first "transform ourselves in order to transform the world."
But as his campaign made headway with black voters, Mr. Obama no longer spoke about the responsibility and the power of black America to appeal to the conscience and highest ideals of the nation. He no longer asks black people to let go of the grievance culture to Transcend racial arguments and transform the world.
He has stopped all mention of government's inability to create strong black families, while the black community accepts a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate. Half of black and Hispanic children drop out of high school, but he no longer touches on the need for parents to convey a love of learning to their children. There is no mention in his speeches of the history of expensive but ineffective government programs that encourage dependency. He fails to point out the failures of too many poverty programs, given the 25% poverty rate in black America.
And he chooses not to confront the poisonous "thug life" culture in rap music that glorifies drug use and crime.
Instead the senator, in a full political pander, is busy excusing Rev. Wright's racial attacks as the right of the Rev.-Wright generation of black Americans to define the nation's future by their past. He stretches compassion to the breaking point by equating his white grandmother's private concerns about black men on the street with Rev. Wright's public stirring of racial division.
And he wasted time in his Philadelphia speech on race by saying he can't "disown" Rev. Wright any more than he could "disown the black community." No one has asked him to disown Rev. Wright. Only in a later appearance on "The View" television show did he say that he would have left the church if Rev. Wright had not retired and not acknowledged his offensive language.
As the nation tries to recall the meaning of Martin Luther King today, Mr. Obama's campaign has become a mirror reflecting where we are on race 40 years after the assassination. Mr. Obama's success has moved forward the story of American race relations; King would have been thrilled with his political triumphs.
But when Barack Obama, arguably the best of this generation of black or white leaders, finds it easy to sit in Rev. Wright's pews and nod along with wacky and bitterly divisive racial rhetoric, it does call his judgment into question. And it reveals a continuing crisis in racial leadership.
What would Jesus do? There is no question he would have left that church.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726732176388295.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Senator Frist Now Backs Funcing for Stem Cell Research
Finally! A neocon wants to save life AFTER it's born, too!
July 29, 2005
Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research
WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.
Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing " P nonetheless.< bill the supports he work, for financing taxpayer on limits strict placed which policy, four-year-old Bush?s Mr. altering about reservations had while that said He speech. Senate lengthy a in morning this decision his announced juncture,? at>
"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."
His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.
"I admire the majority leader for doing this," Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader and Democrat of Nevada, said immediately after the speech. He and Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Mr. Frist's stance would give hope to people everywhere.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, contending they were discussing "the difference between life and death," said of Mr. Frist, "I believe the speech that he has just made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in years."
He added: "This is a speech that will reverberate around the world, including at the White House."
Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, said Mr. Frist had told Mr. Bush in advance notice of his planned announcement. "The president said, "You've got to vote your conscience," Mr. McClellan said, according to The Associated Press.
"The president's made his position clear," Mr. McClellan said when asked if Mr. Bush would veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research, The A.P. reported. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."
Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."
The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.
The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.
"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist said in the speech, arguing that he could reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."
But at the same time, he said, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said today in a statement that Senator Frist's decision was "very disappointing but not a surprise," given the senator's previous testimonies advocating stem cell research.
"As a heart surgeon who knows that adult stem cells are already making huge progress in treating heart disease in humans, it is unfortunate that Sen. Frist would capitulate to the biotech industry," Mr. Perkins said. "Thankfully, the White House has forcefully promised to hold the ethical line and veto any legislation that would expand the president's current policy."
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also objected to Mr. Frist's decision and alluded to its political impact. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways," he said, according to The A.P. "He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."
Backers of the research were elated. "This is critically important," said Larry Soler, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. "The Senate majority leader, who is also a physician, is confirming the real potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to expand the policy."
Mr. Frist, who was instrumental in persuading President Bush to open the door to the research four years ago, has been under pressure from all sides of the stem cell debate. Some of his fellow Senate Republicans, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Mr. Specter, who is the lead Senate sponsor of the House bill, have been pressing him to bring up the measure for consideration.
"I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment," Mr. Specter said today. "His comments will reverberate far and wide."
But with President Bush vowing to veto it - it would be his first veto - other Republicans have been pushing alternatives that could peel support away from the House bill.
Last week Mr. Castle accused the White House and Mr. Frist of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from" the bill. On Thursday night, Mr. Castle said he had written a letter to Mr. Frist just that morning urging him to support the measure. "His support of this makes it the dominant bill," he said.
Despite Mr. Frist's speech, a vote on the bill is not likely to occur before September because the Congress is scheduled to adjourn this weekend for the August recess.
With proponents of the various alternatives unable to agree on when and how to bring them up for consideration, Mr. Frist says he will continue to work to bring up all the bills, so that senators can have a "serious and thoughtful debate."
Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.
"Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold some promise for specific cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide," Mr. Frist said.
But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist said in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."
On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."
The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.
In his speech, Mr. Frist seemed to adopt that line of reasoning, harking back to a set of principles he articulated in July 2001, before the president made his announcement, in which he proposed restricting the number of stem cell lines without a specific cutoff date. At the time, he said the government should pay for research only on those embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" and today he similarly supported studying only those "destined, with 100 percent certainty, to be destroyed."
Moreover, he said, "Such funding should be provided only within a comprehensive system of federal oversight."
After Mr. Bush made his 2001 announcement, it was believed that as many as 78 lines would be eligible for federal money. "That has proven not to be the case," Mr. Frist said. "Today, only 22 lines are eligible."
But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."
Mr. Frist also says he supports some of the alternative measures, including bills that would promote research on so-called adult stem cells and research into unproven methods of extracting stem cells without destroying human embryos.
"Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he said in conclusion today. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."
Jennifer Bayot and Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article from New York.
German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller:
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
North Korea threaten to fire missile towards Hawaii on 4th of July
On the 4th of July. How should the US respond?
|
