Keep in mind that China has a massive income disparity, with the average “citizen” living at a subsistence level on a few hundred dollars a year while the über-rich minority drive sports cars, send their kids to school overseas, get new cell-phones every few months, and live in brand new condo towers (that will probably collapse in a couple of decades); is engaged in a headlong military procurement drive; is resource-barren; requires rural workers to obtain passports to travel to the rich coastal cities; still promotes “Deng Xioping-Mao Zedong Thought” in every school, every day, in every part of the country; and is incredibly corrupt.

This is something that has been developing for more than a year now [Paul Kedrosky: Bank of China: Subprime Writedowns 6x Forecast 2008.01.21: "The deeper issue is the opacity of Chinese banks. No-one knows much about what they hold."]

+ + +

Warnings China could face huge sub-prime crisis

October 14, 2008

McClatchy Newspapers, October 10, 2008

Treasury Will Buy Bank Stakes

The Treasury Department confirmed Friday evening that it will buy stakes in major U.S. banks and financial institutions.
…
The revelation that Treasury will take nonvoting stakes in U.S. banks adds to a growing list of unprecedented government interventions into private financial institutions not seen since the Great Depression.
…
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson revealed that he plans to go beyond purchasing distressed bank assets to take non-voting stakes in U.S. financial institutions to help recapitalize them.

“We are developing strategies to use the authority to purchase and insure mortgage assets and to purchase equity in financial institutions, as deemed necessary to promote financial market stability,” Paulson said.
…
“The G-7 is compelled to robust international partnership and cooperation. Never has it been more essential to find collective solutions to ensure stable and efficient financial markets and restore the health of the world economy,” Paulson said.
…
Some analysts believe a more coordinated approach between major economies is needed if confidence is to be restored.

“One of the biggest lessons of the Great Depression is that countries only acted in self-interest, and if countries act in self-interest the chance of failure is much higher,” said Jon Danielsson, an economist at the London School of Economics. “There is an increasing realization that the way out is for the large industrial nations to act with a single voice.”

Where’s the One World Government when you need it!?

Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto:

Marx 1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

USA: Property taxes. Eminent domain.

Marx 2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

USA: Check.

Marx 3: Abolition of all right of inheritance.

USA: Inheritance taxes.

Marx 4: Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.

USA: Forfeiture laws. Dispossession of accused criminals before trial.

Marx 5: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

USA: The Federal Reserve Bank. Treasury Department buys up private banks.

Marx 6: Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

USA: The FCC. State promotion of taxpayer-funded public transit.

Marx 7: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

USA: Decline of family farms. Farm subsidies. State promotion of agri-business and corporate food production.

Marx 8: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

USA: Enforced unionization. Court-enforced equal pay regardless of productivity. State-mandated minimum wage.

Marx 9: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

USA: ?

Marx 10: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

USA: Check.

“ThePeoplesCube.com presents: A Pro-McCain march on the Upper West Side in Manhattan on Sunday, September 21, 2008. A group of McCain-Palin supporters dare to march through the Upper West Side — infidels in the liberal Mecca. Local ‘progressives’ boo, jeer, and flip fingers at them with a rage they never display even to this country’s enemies. We would like them to take a look at themselves in this video and maybe learn a few things about the human condition that the academia has obviously left out.”

From American Thinker, October 10, 2008:

Why Obama’s Communist Connections Are Not Headlines

By Paul Kengor

There’s a lot of frustration among conservatives over how Barack Obama’s radical past seems to be making no impact whatsoever among the American public. His connection to communists in particular, from communist-terrorists like Bill Ayers to the communist agitator-journalist Frank Marshall Davis to fellow travelers like Saul Alinsky, has simply failed to resonate beyond the political right. Quite the contrary, the more information that becomes available on Obama’s radical associations, the more he seems to widen his lead over John McCain, a man who was tortured by communists in Vietnam.

I understand these frustrations completely. I’m also not surprised.

I have seen for quite some time that although we won the Cold War — and defeated the Soviet communist empire — America is vulnerable to varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, “creeping socialism” (Ronald Reagan’s phrase), class-warfare rhetoric, and generally milder, more palatable (but still dangerous) forms of disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and truth about communism is not taught by our educators.

That total failure to remind and understand means that Americans are painfully vulnerable to repeat mistakes that should have been forever tossed onto the ash-heap of history.

Communism and the Cold War has been my area of research for years. I’ve written books on the subject. I lecture on the subject at Grove City College and around the country. The book I’m currently researching with Peter Schweizer is a Cold War book, which, ironically, inevitably brought us into contact with Marxist characters who allied with and even mentored Barack Obama.

Of all the lectures that I do around the country, none seem to rivet the audience as much as my discourse on the horrors of communism. In these lectures, which are usually connected to my books on Ronald Reagan, I do a 10-15 minute backgrounder on the crimes of communists-from their militant attacks on private property, on members of all religious faiths, and on basic civil liberties, to their total death toll of over 100 million bloodied, emaciated corpses in the 20th century.As I do these presentations, the young people, especially on college campuses, are locked in, amazed at what they are hearing. I think they are especially struck that I always ground every fact and figure in reliable research and authorities — books published by Harvard University Press and Yale University Press, quotes from the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev and Vaclav Havel and Alexander Yakovlev, anti-Soviet appraisals from certain Cold War Democrats like Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy and even early liberals like Woodrow Wilson. I rarely use right-wing sources because I don’t want the professors of these students to be able to later shoot a single hole in my presentation — a potential tactic to undermine the overall thesis.

And speaking of those professors, that gets to my point here: As the young people in my audience are fully engaged, hands in the air with question after question — obviously hearing all of these things for the first time in their lives, from K-12 to college, as they are eager to inform me after my talk — the professors often stare at me with contempt. In one case, a British professor, who could not stop sighing, squirming, and rolling her eyes as I quoted the most heinous assessments of religion by Marx and Lenin, got up and stormed out of the room.

These professors glare at me as if the ghost of Joe McCarthy has flown into the room and leapt inside of my body. In fact, that’s the essence of their criticism: It is not so much that these professors approve of communism as much as they disapprove of — actually, utterly despise — anti-communism. They are anti-anti-communist more so than pro-communist. Conservatives need to understand this, so as to avoid broad-brushing and losing credibility. Sure, a lot of professors are Marxists, and many more share the utopian goals of Marxism, but the vast majority are simply leftists.

Being on the left entails many strange contradictions and political pathologies, one of which is this bizarre revulsion toward anti-communists. These leftists — to their credit — despise fascism, and will preach anti-fascism until they’re blue in the face. They are as appalled by fascism as conservatives are by communism. But while conservatives detest both communism and fascism, liberals only detest one of the two.

For instance, I recently saw that Human Events created a list of the top 10 worst books ever written, which included, as the top two, Marx’s Communist Manifesto (#1), followed by Hitler’s Mein Kampf (#2). That ranking is easily defended solely on numbers: Hitler killed at least 10 million; communism killed at least 100 million. Either way, kudos to Human Events, a conservative newspaper, for putting both communism and fascism in its top two. Yet, conversely, any liberal version of such a list would not even place the Communist Manifesto in the top 10. I guarantee that liberals who read the Human Events list will snicker at its alleged Neanderthal anti-communism.

The leftist intelligentsia that dominates higher education, and which writes the civics texts used in high schools — I’ve read and studied these texts — and which trains the teachers who teach in high schools, is not in the slightest bit notably anti-communist. These liberals do not teach the lessons of communism.

What’s more, aside from failing to instruct their students in the crass facts about communism’s unprecedented destruction — its purges, mass famines, show trials, killing fields, concentration camps — these educators are negligent in failing to teach the essential, non-emotional, but crucial Econ 101 basics that contrast capitalism and communism and, thus, that get at the heart of how and why command economies simply do not work. Each semester in my Comparative Politics course at Grove City College, it takes no more than 50 minutes to matter-of-factly lay out the rudimentary differences. Whereas capitalist systems are based on the market forces of supply and demand, which dictate prices and production levels and targets, communist systems are based on central planning, by which a government bureau attempts to manage such things. Capitalism is based on private ownership; communism on public ownership. Capitalism thrives on small government and taxes; communism on large government and taxes, typically progressive income-tax rates and estate taxes — both advocated explicitly by Marx — and much more.

This stuff isn’t rocket science. It is easy to teach, if the professor desires. The problem is that it isn’t being taught. Consequently, Americans today do not know why communism is such a devastating ideology, at both the level of plain economic theory and in actual historical practice. It is a remarkably hateful system, based on literal hatred and targeted annihilation of entire classes and groups of people. (Nazism sought genocide based on ethnicity; communism sought genocide based on class.)

Most Americans generally know that the USSR was a bad place and that it was good that the Berlin Wall fell; they lived through that. But they know little beyond that, especially young Americans in college today, born around the time the wall fell — Obama’s biggest supporters. Nowhere in America is Barack Obama worshipped as he is on college campuses, by students and professors alike.

What does it all mean for November 2008? It means that millions of modern Americans, when they hear that Barack Obama has deep roots with communist radicals like Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, don’t care; they don’t get it. Moreover, the leftist establishment — from academia to media to Hollywood — will not help them get it. To the contrary, the left responds to these accusations by not only downplaying or dismissing them but by ridiculing or even vilifying them, given the left’s reflexive anti-anti-communism. The left will create bad guys out of the anti-communists who are legitimately blowing the whistle on the real bad guys.

When the leftists of the ‘60s took over higher education and the media, they really knew what they were doing. This was brilliant, masterful, a tactical slam-dunk, a tremendous coup for them and their worldview, with ripple effects we can scarcely imagine.

Does this mean that the McCain camp, talk radio and conservatives generally shouldn’t bother exposing these things? Not at all. The truth is the truth, and needs to be told. Moderates especially need to be informed that Barack Obama is not your typical liberal: he is the most hard-left Democrat that his party has ever nominated for the presidency. It is absolutely not a coincidence that the man with these far-left associations just so happens to be ranked — quantifiably, objectively, by non-partisan, respected sources like National Journal — the most far-left member of the U.S. Senate, which is no small thing given the leftward drift of the modern Democratic Party. In other words, Obama’s extremist associations matter; they are fully revealing, illustrative of the political-ideological realities that the pro-Obama media will not expose. His voting record bears this out.

That said, I warn my fellow conservatives: Be prepared to be really, really frustrated when few people seem to care.

The Santayana aphorism is correct: those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. For decades now, we haven’t taught the next generation what it needs to know from its immediate past. And now, to borrow from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, America’s chickens have come home to roost.

Paul Kengor is author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007) and professor of political science at Grove City College. His latest book is The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).

FactCheck.org is a propaganda tool of the left wing of The Annenberg Foundation.

Its full title is Annenberg Political Fact Check.

TV Guide and Seventeen Magazine’s Walter Annenberg was a conservative-leaning California billionaire, who bought himself a few political appointments. At the time he was also America’s greatest living philanthropist. Unfortunately, he decided to direct most of his philanthropy into academia, as well as libraries, theaters, hospitals, and museums. Perhaps he felt guilty because he had a $1,000,000,000 collection of French impressionist art, bought with the profits from his contributions to America’s trash-culture.

Obamanation, brought to you by Annenberg’s poshlust Seventeen $$$

Annenberg established the Annenberg Schools for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California. He became a champion of public television … In 1989, he established the Annenberg Foundation, and 1993, created the Annenberg Challenge, a US$500 million, five-year reform effort and the largest single gift ever made to American public education. [Note that the quality of public education in Chicago has only declined since Annenberg, Obama and Ayers "improved" it.]

In the universities, the deconstructivists, Post-Marxists, Post-Truthists, Post-Modernists, Marxists, Queer Theorists, Womynists, Communists, “Community Activists”, Socialists, tenured “radicals”, Islamo-fascists, Che worshippers, Maoists, Stalinists, Pinkos, Kimilsungkimjongillists, Trotskyites, suburban anarchists, fellow travellers, and all their useful idiots ["Brutes, bores, class-conscious Philistines, Freud, Marx, fake thinkers, puffed-up poets, frauds and sharks." ~ Nabokov, Pale Fire] said “Thanks, you filthy rich fascist old white Zionist scumbag, for funding the revolution.”

The hacks at FactCheck.org boast about their funding: “The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.” Is that the Annenberg Foundation that ran and funded Annenberg Chicago Challenge? Why yes, as a matter it is.

Who ran Annenberg Chicago Challenge?

Barack Hussein Obama was on the Board of Directors from 1995-2001, and was the Chairman from 1995-1999.

Who got $50,000,000 from Annenberg Chicago Challenge?

Annenberg, under Obama, gave $50,000,000 to Obama’s comrade, unrepentant Pentagon-bomber Bill Ayers.

[Obama and Ayers were also connected at The Woods Fund, which funded Obama's church, ACORN, the Arab American Action Network, Rashid Khalidi, etc. Stanley Kurtz has written extensively on Obama's revolutionary socialist connections.]

In other words, OBAMA AND AYERS AND EVERYONE AT FACTCHECK.ORG HAD THE SAME PAYMASTERS!!!

This is what real journalists would call a Conflict of Interest.

Comrade Bill Ayers, Patriot (Rapist?):

FactCheck.org goes out of its way to whitewash Ayers’ crimes. In this article you can find the only mention of Annenberg Chicago Challenge on FactCheck.org. “Contrary to suggestions we’ve seen in some conservative blogs, there is no connection between the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and FactCheck.org, save for the fact that both received funding from the Annenberg Foundation.” Nope. No connection at all. They just have the same paymasters. That’s all…. Yes, that how dumb they think you are!

They go on about how conservative Walter Annenberg himself was, suggesting that it’s absurd to think he’d support left-wing causes, and then point out that, “nobody at the Annenberg Foundation has ever tried to influence anything we’ve written.” Exactly. Annenberg is dead, his foundation lives on, in the hands of assorted lefties; and anyway, the people at FactCheck are free to write whatever they like, so it makes no difference what Mr. Annenberg’s politics were!

In the midst of parroting every Obama campaign talking point, they argue that Ayers is not a terrorist. No, he’s just a guy who boasted about bombing the Pentagon and police stations and minor stuff like that. According to them he’s a respectable academic. A respectable academic who just happens to have said on September 11, 2001, that he regrets not having killed more people, and laughs at the dumb-ass US justice system for having let him off on a technicality. But that’s all “ancient history” now, right?, as Dunham-Soetero-Obama likes to say. And a leftist reporter at the Chicago Sun-Times says he’s just a respectable educator, and Chicago’s Citizen of the Year in 1997. They don’t seem to understand that that’s exactly what bothers people about Ayers, and about Chicago: the fact that this unrepentant terrorist scumbag is honored and respected in Chicago, when he should be rotting in jail.

And Democrat Mayor Daley just loves the guy to death, so there you go … no big deal.

Imagine FactCheck.org in Nazi Germany: “Himmler assures us that Hitler is respectable.” … “Engels assures us that Marx is just a lovable old academic.” … “Chou En-lai says Mao loves children.” … “Ayman Zawahiri says Bin Laden is just misunderstood, says they haven’t met in years, assures us that Bin Laden is now a respectable academic.”

Oh, these comparisons are too extreme? Are they?

FactCheck.org describes “the new Ayers” as “mainstream”.

So here’s the new definition of “mainstream”:

Ayers works for Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s dictator. He is on the board of Chavez’s Miranda International Center.

The Venezuelan government site praises Ayers:

Bill Ayers, USA

bayers@uic.edu

212-576-8274

William Ayers was the leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group The Weather Underground which initiated armed struggle against the government of the USA during most of the 10 years from inside the empire.

Now, he’s a professor of education and executive investigator of the University of Illinois in Chicago. He’s developed courses [i.e. Chicago Annenberg Challenge] around the urban reform of schools, problems of capitalist education, and investigation. He is the author or editor of more than 11 books, including a memoir titled Fugitive Days on the struggle against the government of the United States.

[Oh, what a surprise -- that url link is now dead. Note here: Investors Business Daily & American Thinker. If anyone knows of any caché of the original page, or a screenshot, please let me know.]

It should come as no surprise that FARC — recipients of $300,000,000 from Chavez — also backs Obama.

However, it is not fair to blame Obama just because he has the support of Hamas, Chavez, Khadaffi, FARC, Sinn Fein, Bill Ayers (and Ayers’ terror co-conspirators — Howard Machtinger, Jeff Jones, Steve Tappis, Mark Rudd) and other assorted terrorists and dictators. This is just coincidental.

Aristotle:

We may describe friendly feeling towards any one as wishing for him what you believe to be good things, not for your own sake but for his, and being inclined, so far as you can, to bring these things about.

A friend is one who feels thus and excites these feelings in return: those who think they feel thus towards each other think themselves friends.

This being assumed, it follows that your friend is the sort of man who shares your pleasure in what is good and your pain in what is unpleasant, for your sake and for no other reason. This pleasure and pain of his will be the token of his good wishes for you, since we all feel glad at getting what we wish for, and pained at getting what we do not.

Those, then, are friends to whom the same things are good and evil; and those who are, moreover, friendly or unfriendly to the same people; for in that case they must have the same wishes, and thus by wishing for each other what they wish for themselves, they show themselves each other’s friends.

Again, we feel friendly to those who have treated us well, either ourselves or those we care for, whether on a large scale, or readily, or at some particular crisis; provided it was for our own sake. And also to those who we think wish to treat us well. And also to our friends’ friends, and to those who like, or are liked by, those whom we like ourselves. And also to those who are enemies to those whose enemies we are, and dislike, or are disliked by, those whom we dislike.

For all such persons think the things good which we think good, so that they wish what is good for us; and this, as we saw, is what friends must do.

So who are the great media and political experts at FactCheck.org?

“A nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics”?

Brooks Jackson, Director: 1967-1980 with AP, 1980~ with CNN.

Viveca Novak, Deputy Director: Writer at Common Cause Magazine, National Journal, Wall Street Journal, TIME; co-author of Inside the Wire, about Guantanamo.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson: Professor at The Annenberg School for Communication; regular contributer to Bill Moyers Journal on PBS; co-author of Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment.

Jamieson is actually cited in FactCheck articles as an objective source [e.g. in an article co-written by Jamieson's employer and employee: " 'These ads do have a lot of meaningless rhetoric but are not completely empty,' says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor who teaches courses in political communication at the University of Pennsylvania.] with no mention that she works for FactCheck.org and is/was a professor and mentor to half of FactCheck.org’s staff! Do these people have any journalistic standards?

Lori Robertson: Managing editor of American Journalism Review, Democratic Party attack dog. “The Bush administration has perfected the art of tightly controlling information. And it has paid no price for its disciplined, on-message, my-way-or-the-highway approach. The press might want to get used to it–this may be the template for future presidencies.”

D’Angelo Gore: An Obama hack.

Emi Kolawole: Works for Kathleen Hall Jamieson at The Annenberg School for Communication; wrote, “When I grow up I want to be Gwen Ifill”; [Ifill is at PBS, and wrote The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama]. Since she’s the only remotely good-looking person at FactCheck.org, she’s their smiling, buxom public face. This chick is hot. President Dunham should hire her as his chief flak.

Hot for Obama

Nathan Hake: Vice President of the University of Pennsylvania Democrats; works for Democratic Party Congressman Patrick Murphy;

Justin Bank: Works for AFL-CIO.

Jordan Grossman: University of Pennsylvania student; campaigns for Obama-Biden; blogs at MyBarackObama.

Kevin Collins: University of Pennsylvania student; President of the Annenberg Undergraduate Political Communication Society.

Stephen Simas: Poli-Sci B.A.; Deputy Field Director of Independent Senator Lincoln Chafee’s 2006 re-election campaign [Chafee support's Obama for president]

Matthew Barge: Worked on Wesley Clark’s Democratic presidential nomination campaign.; works for Vera Institute of Justice in New York.

Jennifer Ernst: Poli-Sci B.A.; token Republican June 2004 - October 2005; fast web-hosting provider at Boots

James Ficaro: Finance B.B.A.; Law student; fast web-hosting provider at Boot.

[If anyone happens to have any information about these "non-partisan" "experts" political activities, please leave a note.]

CONCLUSION:

If you can’t see that FactCheck.org is a tool of the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign, then you are, unfortunately, a moron.

Besides the fact that the “experts” at FactCheck try their best to negate Obama birth certificate forgery stories, and try to whitewash Ayers, it should be quite clear that they consistently critique Republicans much more than Dems, and in harsher language. E.g.: Summary of the Palin-Biden debate. Note that in their catalogue of errors and spin, FactCheck completely ignored Biden’s offensively idiotic assertion that The U.S., “along with France . . . kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.”

Joe Biden’s Alternate Universe

Michael J. Totten - Commentary, 10.03.2008

In Thursday night’s vice presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, Biden said the strangest and most ill-informed thing I have ever heard about Lebanon in my life. “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.”

What on Earth is he talking about? The United States and France may have kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon in an alternate universe, but nothing even remotely like that ever happened in this one.

Nobody – nobody – has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not the United States. Not France. Not Israel. And not the Lebanese. Nobody.

Joe Biden has literally no idea what he’s talking about.

It’s too bad debate moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t catch him and ask a follow up question: When did the United States and France kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon?

The answer? Never. And did Biden and Senator Barack Obama really say NATO troops should be sent into Lebanon? When did they say that? Why would they say that? They certainly didn’t say it because NATO needed to prevent Hezbollah from returning–since Hezbollah never went anywhere.

I tried to chalk this one up as just the latest of Biden’s colorful gaffes. Did he mean to say “we kicked Syria out of Lebanon?” But that wouldn’t make any more sense. First of all, the Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon. Not the United States, and not France. But he clearly meant to say Hezbollah, not Syria, because he correctly notes just a few sentences later that Hezbollah is part of Lebanon’s government. He wasn’t talking about Syria. He was talking about Hezbollah all the way through, at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of his outlandish assertion.

Like many who watched the debate, I was bracing myself for Palin to say something off-putting about foreign policy. She’s the one who needed the crash course, allegedly; Biden is supposedly Mr. Foreign Policy. He’s supposed to be the experienced elder statesman Senator Barack Obama chose to help him govern and fill in some of his knowledge and experience gaps. He’s supposed to know far more about foreign policy than she does.

I wasn’t exactly encouraged by Palin’s answer to one of Katie Couric’s foreign policy questions: “What happens if the goal of democracy doesn’t produce the desired outcome?” Couric used Hamas’ victory in the West Bank and Gaza as an example. Palin either dodged the question or did not understand it.

Biden, though, against all expectations and odds, managed to say something far more bizarre and off-planet than anything Palin has said on the topic to date.

“Move NATO forces into Lebanon”!?

“Move NATO forces into Lebanon”!?

The man is a raving lunatic!

But don’t expect “Fact” “Check” to check out that mind-numbing idiocy.

[Speaking of Biden, is it true that President Roosevelt was on the TV in 1929 leading the nation out of The Great Depression? Fact Check will look into that as soon as President Barry Hussein Dunham finishes his third term.]

Related:

Obama unfamiliar with Truth [Biographical]

Barack Shady Obama: The Indonesian Candidate

AP defends Obama’s terror links ~ tries to identify his white terror pals as black

Another Ayers’ apologist worked with Ayers and Obama to reform Chicago’s schools

H/T: Dr Bulldog & Ronin, and Copious Dissent

And the Academy awards drinkingwithbob the Oscar for Best Documentary of 2008.

[Gales of applause...]

Here to receive drinkingwithbob’s award — since he’s now celebrating in a Brooklyn strip-joint — is his close friend and admirer Leonardo DiCaprio.

Leo: “Have you seen that episode of The Shield where Vic locks these two gangbangers in a trailer until only one of them kills the other. I’d like to see drinkingwithbob locked in a trailer with my other buddy Al Gore, who’s also been known to pop a vein once in a while.”

[Laughter and applause]

Leo: “Ha ha! LOL! just kidding, my pal Al.”

From Lindsay Calhoun’s blog at Obama’s website [Click on images to magnify. I wonder how long these posts will remain online.]:

“I’m beginning to wonder if we’re being scammed.”

Good to see even committed Obamabots are starting to realize that the myriad of scandals and rotten connections surrounding their Messiah can’t be just “smears” or spin. Better late than never?

My concern is that if this [birth certificate fraud, election fraud, lawyer-registration fraud, admitted terrorist Ayers ghostwriting Obambi's books, lies about his mother "marrying" bigamist Barack ibn Hussein Obama, Rashid Khalidi, Corsi arrested in Kenya for trying to research Obama's connections, Larry Sinclair, Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, Indonesian citizenship, Odinga & Mujahadin connections] all comes out in the MSM after the election, then the Democrats will be so damaged that in future the Republicans will be free to rule without any serious opposition.

       ]]> http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/obamazombies-beginning-to-come-out-of-trance/feed/ Akira my-bo-dot-com-lindsay-calhoun-20081009-a my-bo-dot-com-lindsay-calhoun-20081009-b http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/democratic-party-lawyer-challenges-barry-dunham-soetero-obamas-citizenship/ http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/democratic-party-lawyer-challenges-barry-dunham-soetero-obamas-citizenship/#comments Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:32:12 +0000 Akira http://brianakira.wordpress.com/?p=3033

S.4S.O.S. hopes that everyone is adjusting well to being back at school. Remember to study sensibly, eat well, don’t get distracted, sleep as much as possible, don’t get stressed out, and stay optimistic. Then hopefully your school-life will be happy, just like this:

Hi! We’re LOST.

Could you tell us what country this is?

Western New Guinea is a territory of Indonesia where the population is predominantly Black, and Christian, and tends to support true autonomy or independence from Indonesia.

Western New Guinea is the western half of the Island of New Guinea. It is divided into Indonesia’s largest province, “Papua”, and the province of “West Papua”. [The eastern half of the island is Papua New Guinea, "PNG", an independent country.]

Indonesia calls Papua “Irian Jaya”, and calls West Papua “Irian Jaya Barat”. The Indonesian government split off West Papua from Papua in 2003.

[Perhaps Jakarta purposely made things so confusing, in order to deflect criticism. If people have trouble figuring out the area being discussed, it's hard to generate sympathy.]

Indonesian acquired the entire territory in 1963, and renamed it “Irian Jaya” in 1973. The region was sighted by the Portuguese in 1511, and claimed by the Dutch in 1828. The Dutch then gifted it to Indonesia. The population of Western New Guinea is 2,646,489; 78% Christian [54% Protestant + 24% Roman Catholic], 21% Muslim, less than 1% Buddhist or Hindu, all other religions [including Orthodox Christianity, and, of course, Judaism] are illegal in Indonesia.

From An American Expat in Southeast Asia [It seems to me that the writer might have confused Western New Guinea with "West Papua". "West Papua" or "Irian Jaya Barat" is actually just the west of Western New Guinea]:

Obama: Throwing Papua Under the Bus

…

West Papuans…many of whom are Christians…have suffered under Indonesia’s brutal policy of ethnic and religious persecution. The untold story though is how the Obama campaign would sell out the West Papuans in a desperate attempt to protect Obama’s presidential bid.

3rd of July 2007, U.S. Congressman Eni Faleomavaega…in Jakarta, Indonesia. A staunch outspoken critic of Jakarta’s rule over West Papua, New Guinea and a crusader for West Papua’s right to self-determination, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Asia, The Pacific and the Global Enviroment, Faleomavaega promised to be a force to be reckoned with.

Faleomavaega [had a] private meeting in Jakarta with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and [W. Papua's governor] Barnabas Suebu. … Being one of Barack Obama’s most devoted disciples, Faleomavaega would be seeking the Indonesian government’s assistance in supporting Barack Obama’s presidential campaign as well as making the requisite pilgrimage to Barack Obama’s childhood school.

U.S. Congressman Eni Faleomavaega

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

According to our Indonesian sources, “officials” who accompanied Faleomavaega were interested in acquiring any and all documentation or photographs of a young Barry Soetoro for America’s “national archives” and they were offering cash, lots of it. In a show of faith, Barack Obama’s childhood school would be one of the very first beneficiaries of this outpouring receiving thousands of dollars to upgrade the school and for the purchase of computer equipment, thanks in part to the benevolence of this visiting junket.

The challenge of course was securing Indonesian government records potentially damaging to Barack Obama’s candidacy for the US presidency as well as other records pertaining to a young Barry Soetoro and his family wouldn’t be so easy to acquire and secure, and for this, the visitors would need the assistance and cooperation of the Indonesian government.

It’s not that getting Indonesian government help is difficult, it’s not. It’s no secret that Indonesia is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet, but we’re not talking about the challenge of dealing with corrupt government officials here, but rather, dealing with the “true believers of change”. Convincing the Indonesian government that an Obama presidency will be able to deliver that “change” and that it was in the interest of both countries to see that Barack Obama was elected was nothing more than a fait accompli for Faleomavaega’s entourage.

For West Papau’s governor in attendance, having been pacified at the prospect that an Obama presidency would enable him to make zillions trading carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, Barnabas Suebu would sit quietly as the fate of West Papau was decided.

…

The Obama campaign needed assistance from the Indonesian government and the Indonesian government wanted a free hand in Papau.

…

Indonesian presidential spokesman Dino Patti Djalal: “One thing that is sure is that Faleomevaega’s visit here has changed his views about Indonesia. It has made him realize this country is so vast and complex it cannot be reduced by the Papua issue…” … “He now sees that Papua is inalienable part of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.”

Faleomevaega’s meeting with Indonesia’s president regarding West Papau and his subsequent flipflop on supporting West Papau’s right to self-determination is something that you might think would warrant at least a press release on the congressman’s website, but there is nothing, nor is there any mention on the House Subcommittee’s site. No press release, nothing, not even a mere mention of his trip to Indonesia.

In the end, everyone got what they wanted [except] West Papuans.

The is no denying the fact that the prospects of an Obama presidency has emboldened the Indonesian government’s brutal repression in Papau. … An Obama presidency would stoke ethnic and religious chauvinism in Indonesia and … Indonesia’s Islamic fundamentalists will use an Obama presidency to radicalize a new contingent of militants from the ranks of Islam’s moderates. Individuals who are mesmerized by the phantasmagorical image of one of their own now inhabiting the White House and who will see it as a sign of America’s impending submission and our nation’s acquiescence to the superiority of Islam. Tee-shirts blazoned with messianic images of Barack Hussein Obama are already starting to replace the Osama Bin Laden tee-shirts that have been so popular in Indonesia. In Indonesia Barack Obama is fast becoming the “Che Guevara” of Indonesia’s young wannabe Islamists.

The Indonesian government is not only failing to protect the West Papuans from the violence of militant Islam, the government is actively stoking the fires of ethnic and religious chauvinism and supporting intimidation against West Papuans with many in recent days taking to the streets protesting the introduction of Islamic law.

…

The soon-to-be President Dunham was born to an American mother, Stanley Dunham, and a married Kenyan Communist father, Barack ibn Hussein Obama. Since they were never married, young Barry’s last name was legally Dunham. Unfortunately, since Barry was abandoned by his father who then took another American concubine, he was denied the chance to be raised by his biological father as an African Communist Muslim. Instead he was raised as an Indonesian Socialist Muslim.

Fight against right-wing smear tactics!

Show how non-racist and tolerant you are by voting for Dunham-Biden in 2008!

+ + +

Well, it does seem that enough people have been taken in by Barry Dunham and his media whores that he’s the favorite to win the election.

McCain could still win, of course, but Obama has been so consistently in the lead that if he loses you can look forward to at least 4 years of conspiracy theories about “yet another” stolen election.

At this point I’ll be surprised if McCain wins. I think this is the result of decades of declining educational standards; politically “correct” hate campaigns and ostracizations (so people are afraid of looking bad, racist, sexist, intolerant, whatever); an increasingly shameless liberal media; hypocritical, anti-intellectual and corrupt conservatives who celebrate greed; the media windbags’ sustained and intense attacks on John McCain, etc. I don’t even think much of McCain, especially concerning Kosovo and Georgia, but compared to Obama? Gimme a break…

Remember fatuous morns like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and the idiots at Hot Air swearing up and down that they’d never support McCain, and that it would be better for Obama to win ’cause he’d screw the country up so much that “The People” wold then turn in desperate contrition to “real conservatives” — like Bishop Romney!? — to save them?

Remember whatz-er-name — that skinnymalinky chick with the long, blonde hair, and the annoying voice — Ann Something-or-other… — swearing she’d campaign for Clinton against McCain?

If Obama loses, I wonder if the Dems will go more “rad” in anger; or abort and eject the MoveOn-Obama-CodePinko types; or split even more into 2 camps, or even form a serious Third Party movement?

+ + +

One thing we can be sure of: From his close personal associations with America-hating terrorists, Dunham-Soetero-Obama would surely have known what to do here:

Via Digital Publius

Let’s not forget that when it comes to the plague of Islam, BB truly is “A Scream in the Silence”

Oh what big eyes you have!

God gave her such big eyes for a reason.

Brigitte Bardot has been convicted five times in France for “inciting racial hatred”.

1997: Fined for comments published in Le Figaro newspaper:

“Et puis voilà que mon pays, la France, ma patrie, ma terre est de nouveau envahie, avec la bénédiction de nos gouvernements successifs, par une surpopulation étrangère, notamment musulmane, à laquelle nous faisons allégeance. De ce débordement islamique, nous devons subir à nos corps défendant, toutes les traditions. D’année en année, nous voyons fleurir les mosquées un peu partout en France alors que nos clochers d’églises se taisent faute de curés.” - Le Figaro, 26 avril 1996

1998: Convicted for a statement about the growing number of mosques in France.

1999: In Le Carre de Pluton (Pluto’s Square), she criticized the procedure used in the ritual slaughter of sheep during the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. For her “racist” comments, a French court fined her 30,000 Fr. in June 2000.

2001: In “Open Letter to My Lost France”, she wrote: “…my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims.”

2003: In A Scream in the Silence, she warned of the “Islamisation of France”, and said of Muslim immigration:

“Over the last twenty years, we have given in to a subterranean, dangerous, and uncontrolled infiltration, which not only resists adjusting to our laws and customs but which will, as the years pass, attempt to impose its own.”

In May 2003 the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples announced they will sue Bardot. The Ligue des Droits de l’Homme (The Human “Rights” League) announced they were considering similar legal proceedings.

On 10 June 2004 Bardot was convicted by a French court of “inciting racial hatred” and fined 5,000 €. The courts cited passages where Bardot referred to the “Islamisation of France” and the “underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam”.

In 2008, she was convicted of inciting racial hatred in relation to a letter she wrote, a copy of which she sent to Nicolas Sarkozy when he was Interior Minister of France. The letter stated her objections to Muslims in France ritually slaughtering sheep by slitting their throats without stunning them first. She also objected to France’s rapidly growing Muslim community trying to take over France and impose their culture, values, lifestyles etc. on France and its native people. The trial concluded on 3 June 2008 with a conviction and fine of 15,000 €. The prosecutor stated that she was tired of charging Bardot with offences related to racial hatred.

In some ways, it’s true, she’s not what she used to, but neither is France what it used to be.

In some ways, it’s true, she’s very annoying, mais bien sûr. Après tout, elle est française . . .