CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette
Showing posts with label Incompetence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Incompetence. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Housing Market Continues To Collapse


HOUSING - REAL ESTATE / HOUSING MARKET CONTINUES TO COLLAPSE - POSSIBLE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN FORESEEN



The Washington Times



Communist Democrat's Socialist Economics 101 ...

Smiley Flag Waver

Despite the growing dangers, substantial risks to the economy and financial markets from the deepening recession in the housing market, and possible mortgage-finance crisis, Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, welcomes the housing market crisis, indicating that recent large drops in home prices make housing more affordable for young people and minority buyers.

"... If a few speculators get burned, that's just icing on the cake," says Frank.



Risky Mortgages Imperil Market


~ By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 12, 2006


The risk of a financial crisis is growing as home prices continue to fall and questionable mortgages made in the past two years go into default, finance officials warned yesterday.

Banks and mortgage brokers have been passing along to unwary investors as much as $600 billion a year in risky mortgages they made through untested channels in the junk-bond market. That raises the threat of a financial crisis beyond the ability of the Federal Reserve to remedy, said Lewis Ranieri, the Wall Street guru who is widely credited with creating the multitrillion-dollar market for mortgage-backed securities in the 1980s and 1990s.

Bank regulators told the National Housing Forum here yesterday that they have found major banks punting to investors questionable mortgages they could not legally keep in their own loan portfolios. Mr. Ranieri said brokers on Wall Street have raised the risks by repackaging the mortgages in deceptive and opaque ways so that the small investors and foreigners who buy them are unable to understand the risks.

"No securities market can stand if we do not have true disclosure, and we do not have true disclosure" of the growing risks of exotic mortgages whose payments can double overnight and force buyers into default, said Mr. Ranieri. "This stuff doesn't just get sold to [professional] money managers. It gets sold to the public and to foreign investors who don't have a clue what to look for."

Allen Sinai, chief global economist at Decision Economics; Richard A. Brown, chief economist at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.; and several other economists and regulators attending the forum also emphasized the substantial risks to the economy and financial markets from the deepening recession in the housing market and possible mortgage-finance crisis.

Despite the growing dangers, Rep. Barney Frank, incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, indicated he saw no reason for federal legislation to better regulate the mortgage markets to prevent a possible financial meltdown.

He said he welcomes recent large drops in home prices because it makes housing more affordable for young people and minority buyers.

"Housing suffered from irrational exuberance" during the first part of the decade, though it fell short of being a full-blown bubble, the Massachusetts Democrat said. "The end result of a 10 percent drop in many parts of the country will be a more rational housing market. ... If a few speculators get burned, that's just icing on the cake."

Mr. Frank noted that a few years ago, consumers were expected to devote about 25 percent of their income to house payments. Today, however, consumers expect their homes to contribute 25 percent to their income -- through cash-out refinancings and other techniques that have come into vogue, he said. "Let's get back to the normal situation."

A top national bank regulator said many banks are continuing to offer consumers loans they cannot afford when their teaser interest rates expire and payments rise to reflect market conditions. Some banks are selling the questionable loans to investors to avoid keeping them in their portfolios, where they would be unacceptable to regulators, said Kathryn Dick, deputy comptroller at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Consumers also may be unaware of the risks inherent in these adjustable-payment loans, she said, because they are not getting full disclosure or are getting information too late to prevent them from closing on the loans.

Mr. Ranieri said the riskiest loans were made in the past two years as banks and brokers strived to help consumers qualify for high-priced homes that were beyond their reach. Loan innovations and loose lending standards have continued despite efforts by a group of five federal banking regulators to limit such loans, he said.

"We have a tremendously powerful mortgage-backed securities market. This market is unfettered in its enthusiasm and unchecked by regulation," Mr. Ranieri said. "The interagency task force can't touch it. The capital is coming from international markets."

Mr. Ranieri said that brokers are even bypassing the traditional market for mortgage-backed securities that he helped create. Instead, they are bundling the riskiest mortgages together and offering them as "collateralized debt obligations" on the corporate bond market. The offering documents often do not explain the serious risks involved with the mortgages in a declining housing market, he said.

One recent offering failed to disclose to investors that the homeowners not only were faced with high adjustable payments that they might have difficulty paying, but they had financed 100 percent of their purchase and had no equity in their houses -- something that greatly increases their likelihood of default.

Mr. Ranieri said the quality of loans has fallen so much recently that his firm has stopped buying whole mortgages for repackaging into mortgage-backed securities. He recently rejected some mortgages offered to the firm. He said he asked what the broker would do with the loans, and was told they would be sold to investors in the junk-bond market.

The only federal regulator with jurisdiction over the burgeoning market for such securities is the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Ranieri said. But the SEC seems to be largely unaware of what's going on in the mortgage market, he said.



Copyright © 1999 - 2006 News World Communications, Inc.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Saturday, December 09, 2006

Oregon Undersheriff: "F*** The Public"


LAW ENFORCEMENT / OREGON UNDERSHERIFF: "F*** THE PUBLIC"



US Observer



Smiley Flag WaverOne of the affidavits reads in part, "... Brian Anderson a patrol lieutenant ... came in to briefing and told ALL of us, 'I want all of you to only go out on emergency calls and do NO patrolling f--- the public they don't want to give us any money then f--- them go out on the emergency call and come right back to the office.' ... We were not allowed to go to burglary or theft calls and many more."

The evidence supporting that Anderson told his staff in briefings to only work on emergency calls comes in the form of the department's own published reports on burglaries in 2004. The report says that they had received 516 burglary calls but that only 95 of these cases were reviewed and only 43 were actually investigated, something many, especially in the outlying county areas, know all too well. One resident stated that she had called the sheriff's department when her home was burglarized but didn't hear back and it was only after several calls and almost a week when they actually responded by sending out officers. According to this woman who wished to remain anonymous, when they did respond they were rude and never investigated the crime.



“F--- The Public” Says Brian Anderson

Affidavits cite Anderson as saying,“citizens get what they pay for”



Sheriff Candidate Brian Anderson


~ By Ron Lee
Investigative Reporter
US~Observer


Josephine County, OR - Recently, several ex-Josephine County sheriff deputies along with one on-duty officer have stepped forward with affidavits claiming that on many occasions Brian Anderson, current undersheriff, made disparaging remarks toward the public in briefings to his staff saying, "F--- 'em. They get what they pay for." According to an affidavit Anderson even went on to say that he would release the prisoners of the jail if the public didn’t want to fund it and let them deal with the criminals. In the affidavits Anderson also instructed deputies not to respond to anything other than emergency calls. Included as well was information alleging Anderson allowed "false investigations against deputies to proceed despite his knowledge the deputies were innocent," because they didn't belong to the "A Team" - a group some in the department call the good-old-boy club that currently exists. One of the affidavits even cites specific criminal misconduct. The US~Observer has also obtained a recent letter written by Grants Pass Chief of Police Joe Henner stating that the city police will no longer back the sheriff's department unless it is an absolute emergency. This is because there are no procedures in place within the sheriff's department to take care of many situations they face. In his letter Henner specifically mentioned that he had previously brought this to the attention of Undersheriff Anderson, but that no procedures have as yet been adopted. These affidavits and the letter by the city police chief come at a pivotal point for Anderson who is seeking to be elected as the county sheriff in the upcoming election on the grounds that he is well qualified for the position and has been doing a good job as undersheriff.

On October 10, 2006, US~Observer investigative reporter John Taft called Anderson for comment on the allegations stated in the affidavits, specifically that of him saying, "F--- the Public." Anderson at first responded that his remarks were taken out of context but later recanted saying that he never used the F-word. However, commenting on the grounds of anonymity one high-ranking public official stated that he had heard Anderson say this many times.

One of the affidavits reads in part, "... Brian Anderson a patrol lieutenant ... came in to briefing and told ALL of us, 'I want all of you to only go out on emergency calls and do NO patrolling f--- the public they don't want to give us any money then f--- them go out on the emergency call and come right back to the office.' ... We were not allowed to go to burglary or theft calls and many more."

The evidence supporting that Anderson told his staff in briefings to only work on emergency calls comes in the form of the department's own published reports on burglaries in 2004. The report says that they had received 516 burglary calls but that only 95 of these cases were reviewed and only 43 were actually investigated, something many, especially in the outlying county areas, know all too well. One resident stated that she had called the sheriff's department when her home was burglarized but didn't hear back and it was only after several calls and almost a week when they actually responded by sending out officers. According to this woman who wished to remain anonymous, when they did respond they were rude and never investigated the crime.

Anderson has, in part, based his platform on running for the position of sheriff that there needs to be an individual in the top position who has budgetary experience as funding is, according to Anderson, the biggest law enforcement challenge this county faces saying, "we don't have stabilized funding so we end up losing a lot of our officers to other agencies because they might not have a job next year. And to me you can't fight the meth problem and any of those other issues if you don't have the staff to do it. You need detectives. You need deputies out there handling calls. You need directors for when people call in. You need the jail, a jail that's adequately funded to house people. I think funding is the biggest issue." But mismanagement of funds is one of the many issues the affidavits address calling into question Anderson's ability to head the department, one which obviously has more issues than previously known. As for “budgetary experience;” any experience Anderson does have is for naught given the excessive amount of lawsuits (most successful) that have been filed against the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office while Anderson and Dave Daniel have overseen the department, or in better terms, failed to oversee the department.

The authors of the affidavits all feel the public need to be informed of what is going on in the department. One of the affidavits reads in part, "In making these statements, it is not my will or intent to bring disfavor upon the Josephine County Sheriff's office. I still have many friends there that are good people that work hard. I simply want the citizens to know the truth about what has been happening ..." Another even says, "I do not believe that the public would want someone like this (Anderson) to be our sheriff for Josephine County."

With the election now days away the effects of these affidavits remain to be seen. As for Gil Gilbertson, Brian Anderson's opponent in the election, he had no comment when asked if he had any opinion on the effects the affidavits might have.

Editor's Note: It has come to light that the editor, Denis Roler, of the Grants Pass, OR local news publication, the Daily Courier, also has the affidavits and has yet to publish any kind of story. Is Roler trying to protect Anderson by remaining silent, or does he feel that it isn't worthy news for their readers? Whatever the answer, it makes one wonder.

Denis Roler at the Daily Courier can be reached by calling:
(541) 474-3700
or by e-mail at newsdept@thedailycourier.com

To voice your opinion to Brian Anderson, he may be reached by calling the Josephine County Sheriff's Department:
(541) 474-5123
or by e-mail at jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us




© 2006, US~Observer. All Rights Reserved.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Friday, December 08, 2006

GOP Blames Constitution Party For Election Losses


POLITICS / DESPERATE REPUBLICANS -- IN NEED OF A COVER-UP SCAPEGOAT -- BLAME ELECTION 2006 LOSSES ON THE CONSTITUTION PARTY


Sierra Times

Sierra Times



Smiley Flag WaverThe potential losses to the Republican Party will be much higher in the 2008 presidential elections. If the Constitution Party continues to grow -- and it will, directly proportional to how far the Republican Party continues to move to the Left -- then the Constitution Party will take away not only votes, but also contributors, from the GOP. The Big Two political parties are full of people who earn their daily bread from politics: not only elected officials, but also staffers, administrators, analysts, and ... yes, operatives.

Has the GOP membership lost its collective mind for continuing to follow along? Either way, it is painfully obvious that the GOP is no longer the party of true conservatives. Thus, its members have only two choices: "go along" and become more liberal themselves, or "jump ship" to another party that is more conservative.

But, if there is a national party that is more conservative (and there is), then that leaves the Republican Party in the middle.



The GOP Blame Game: It'll Get Worse By 2008


~ Tom Kovach

The trouble has started already. And, if it has started this early, then I expect the Republican Party to behave even worse by the time the 2008 presidential election season heats up to near boiling.

In the recent election, the Republican Party got spanked. They lost control of both houses of Congress, plus several state legislatures, despite having had a fairly comfortable margin before the election. Now, instead of admitting that their own policies and methods caused them to lose the elections, the GOP is looking for a scapegoat.

Who will the Republican leaders blame for their losses?
  • Will it be the Congressional Page sex scandal of disgraced former representative Tom Foley?
  • Will it be the poor timing of the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Will it be the news of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (which is anything but any of those words!)?
  • Will it be the government's arrest, prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of two Border Patrol agents for doing exactly what the public expects all of them to do?
  • Will it be the point that the citizenry is finally waking up to the fact that President Bush invaded two countries without a formal declaration of war? ("Enforcing UN sanctions" does not meet the standard of our Constitution!)
  • Will it be the failure of the Republican Party, despite the control of both houses of Congress and the White House, to prevent the RU-486 abortion pill from getting into American drug stores?
The answer is a firm and resounding "no!" to all of the above.

Instead, they are blaming the Constitution Party.

The blog linked above is far from the only one spewing venom toward the one nationally recognized political party that is openly to the Right of the GOP on the political spectrum. For example, this blog displays amazing ill-logic. It simultaneously chides the Constitution Party, saying that it, " ... actually does more harm to Christianity, as it does to Republicanism, than it does to help, ... " and of having " ... the power of testimony which, granted, potentially can be positive." The author of that blog tries -- as do certain foolish talk-radio hosts -- to give the appearance of wisdom by being on both sides of the fence. The author accuses the Constitution Party of being "factious," while stirring up that condition himself by the epithets and arguments that he has chosen. Example: "They are wise in their positions. They are stupid in their place in politics ... and in their testimony." In other words, we that refuse to compromise should "know our place." And, in a single sentence, he attacks both our politics and our Christianity -- even though the author claims to be a Christian himself. Sounds like desperation to me.

I expect it to get worse, because the potential losses to the Republican Party will be much higher in the 2008 presidential elections. If the Constitution Party continues to grow -- and it will, directly proportional to how far the Republican Party continues to move to the Left -- then the Constitution Party will take away not only votes, but also contributors, from the GOP. The Big Two political parties are full of people who earn their daily bread from politics: not only elected officials, but also staffers, administrators, analysts, and ... yes, operatives. (Did you see the surveillance photos that Bob Corker and Harold Ford had on each other? It reminded me of "Spy vs. Spy" from Mad magazine!) The bottom line is that those people -- part of what I call "the hidden aristocracy in America" -- would need to go out and actually get a job if the Republicans fall from power.

And, when I saw "fall from power," I don't mean simply losing the majority. (They just did that, but still have power.) Here is the ugly secret: the Democrats know how to build coalitions, but the Republicans refuse to learn! (For even more details, click here.) Now, don't get me wrong. I do not like the goals of the Democrats, nor of their partners. (This year, the Communist Party encouraged its members to vote for Democrats, and not to even run their own candidates!) What I do admire about the Left is their willingness to work together. But, we on the Right cannot do that as long as the Republican Party -- while continuing to drift toward the Left -- pretends that it is the only conservative party in America. The GOP has the audacity to refer to the Constitution Party as the "spoiler." But, one can only be the spoiler if one is in the middle.

For example, in 1994, Bob Moppert -- a pro-abortion Republican -- lost the election for the 26th District of N.Y. because I was the only anti-abortion candidate. Moppert lost by 1,241 votes; I got 4,529 votes. Moppert, the compromiser, was in the middle. Thus, he was the spoiler. But, all that "the elephant" will choose to remember is that "Tom Kovach cost the Republicans the election." They will not even consider that their big-money, compromising candidate cost himself the election by trying to be Democrat Lite. And, as we saw with the 2006 elections, the elephant has a long memory, and is not prone to forgiveness.

So, as both the small example (my 1994 campaign), and the large example (the nationwide spanking of the Republicans this year) both prove, the Republican Party continues to drift toward the Left, while simultaneously continuing to claim that they are the only hope of the Right. Has their leadership lost its collective mind? Or, has the GOP membership lost its collective mind for continuing to follow along? Either way, it is painfully obvious that the GOP is no longer the party of true conservatives. Thus, its members have only two choices: "go along" and become more liberal themselves, or "jump ship" to another party that is more conservative.

But, if there is a national party that is more conservative (and there is), then that leaves the Republican Party in the middle.

The above statement is much more than political hair-splitting or name-calling. There is a tectonic shift in not only the balance of power in Congress, but in how we define power in Congress, hidden beneath that statement. You see, our Congress is structured around committees that are led by majority party chairmen, but with minority party input. If there is a third party, and if that party is stuck in the middle, then it has neither of those positions of power. It is left out to pasture.

During the heyday of the Republicans during the mid-1990s, they had no problem with the Constitution Party. Why? Because they were hoping that, if the Constitution Party grew and won, then any Constitution Party member elected to Congress would become a one-person minority. And, with the Republicans in the majority, that would put the Democrats out to pasture.

But, even with the possibility of effectively hamstringing the Democrats, the GOP didn't do anything the help the Constitution Party grow. They just didn't do anything to hurt the Constitution Party, either. The GOP had a wonderful opportunity to build a strong conservative coalition, but that wasn't good enough -- they want it all. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, though, it seems that the GOP is wasting no time in trying to make a scapegoat out of the Constitution Party. Personally, I think that such a strategy will backfire, and the Republicans will lose far more members than if they had kept their mouth shut.

Regardless of which of the Big Two is in the majority, the cat is now out of the bag. There are only eight nationally-recognized political parties. Chances are that another one could not be organized before the 2008 election cycle. So, as I've written before, multi-party politics is here to stay. And, the politics of compromise must give way to the politics of coalitions. Political beliefs are not either-or, they are aligned along a spectrum. Multiple parties give people an opportunity to join the group that most closely represents their position along that spectrum. Of course, multi-party politics would also require votes to think more, because it's not just "A or B" anymore.

Abused Becomes Abuser??

Here is the real irony of the Republican Party's current angst over the sudden growth of the Constitution Party. The GOP claims that any "third party" is a "spoiler." (The correct term is "smaller party," because only one party can be third) They try to maintain a myth that America has, and always did have, only a two-party system. But, that is not true. And, back in 1854, when a small group of anti-slavery activists got together in the Ripon Schoolhouse and founded a new political party, the Republicans were the fourth party involved in the slavery argument alone! (The others were the Whigs, the Democrats, and the Free Soil Party.) So, by the standard that they now proclaim, the Republican Party should never have been allowed on the ballot in the first place, because it would have disrupted the "two-party system" of their day! Ask some elephant how he likes those peanuts!

The Constitution Party got its start in 1992 as the U.S. Taxpayers Party. By 1994, the Republicans should have seen a golden opportunity to build a powerful conservative coalition. But, they either ignored or eschewed that opportunity. Now, the Republican Party -- by its own choice, via their leadership -- has become almost unrecognizable as a conservative organization. The proof is that, rather than try to woo conservatives back into the GOP by returning to the Right, the GOP tries to brand those conservatives as "traitors" or "spoilers." Well, 'ya know, with friends like that ...

Conservatives can no longer "fix" the Republican Party. They can either "loyally" ride it into the iceberg, or they can board the rescue ship. The Republicans are busy playing the blame game -- as though the crew of the Carpathia (which rescued scores of passengers) was somehow to blame for the captain driving the Titanic into the iceberg. So, even after being spanked by its own membership, the Republican Party is acting like the rebellious little toddler that says, "That didn't hurt." They are also acting like the prisoner that blames the police officer for his incarceration, instead of accepting responsibility for his own misdeeds. Sophisticated voters will not stick around to listen to the Republican blame game while the conservative Titanic sinks.

Here, let me throw you a safety line.





Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, has written for several online publications, and recently published his first book. He is also an inventor, a certified paralegal, and a former talk-radio host. Tom has been involved in politics since 1992, and recently got the highest total votes of any Constitution Party member that sought Federal office in the country (but not enough to win election to Congress). He is available to speak to your group. To learn more, click: www.Tom.Kovach.com

© Copyright 2006 by Tom Kovach


SierraTimes.com™ A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.

P.O.Box 101
Corning, New York
A Registered Nevada Corporation Contact Information:

Office 607.937.3443 Fax
607. 398.7914



E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Monday, November 27, 2006

Criticism Of Religion Reflected In Ignorance


RELIGION / HARSH CRITICISM OF ORGANIZED RELIGION REFLECTS CULTURAL AMNESIA, IGNORANCE, INDIFFERENCE AND INTOLERANCE OF WHAT CONSTITUTED RELIGION FROM ITS BEGINNING



ZENIT
The World Seen from Rome

- Daily Dispatch -



Smiley Flag Waver"In nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular."

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society."

"Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation." A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.



Religion In The Cross Hairs

Secular World Attacks Organized Belief



~ By Father John Flynn



LONDON, NOV. 26, 2006 (Zenit.org) - Organized religion is coming in for harsh criticism in many parts. English singer Elton John said religion turns people into "hateful lemmings." He also accused it of lacking compassion. His comments came in an interview with the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine, published Nov. 12.

The aging pop star's criticisms were sparked off by the matter of how religion deals with homosexuality. "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," he said.

He is far from being alone in this view. In the United States, talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell likened Christianity to radical Islam. Her attack, in a nationally broadcast program in October, was not well received, according to a Nov. 13 press release by the California-based Barna Group.

A nationwide survey by the Barna Group found that although few Americans would challenge O'Donnell's right to make such statements, just as few share her point of view.

Across the Pacific, Pamela Bone, writing in the Australian newspaper on Aug. 15, rejoiced over data which, she argued, showed that "in nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

Bone accused religion of being "directly responsible for countless world conflicts, resulting in the loss of millions of human lives." Religion is still a danger today, she contended: "The truth is that it is now too dangerous for religion to be given the special status it has always had."

Bone added: "The best hope for a less religious and thus safer world is for religion -- all religion -- to be open to rational and stringent examination and criticism, and yes, to ridicule."

Meanwhile, in Canada, author Christopher Hitchens recently explained why he "hates religion," reported the National Post on Nov. 18. Speaking at the University of Toronto, Hitchens declared he hates Islam because it exhibits a "horrible trio of self-hatred, self-righteousness and self-pity," while making a "cult of death, suicide and murder."

He also hates Judaism, because it leads to Christianity. His negative view of Christianity is well known, particularly after his infamous attacks on Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the 1990s.

In the midst of declaring his multiple hatreds, Hitchens declared: "I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion."

Anti-Religious Books


During the Toronto address Hitchens gave some details of his forthcoming book, "God Is Not Great." The book, he said, is "a general case against religion."

Anti-religious books are in fashion these days. American author Sam Harris has just published a brief (112-page) sequel to his 2004 book, "The End of Faith." At a recent presentation at the New York Public Library, Harris condemned the God of the Old Testament, in addition to the New Testament, "likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale," the Washington Post reported Oct. 26.

For good measure Harris also attacked the Koran, calling it "a manifesto for religious divisiveness."

According to the Washington Post, "The End of Faith" has sold more than 270,000 copies. In that book, Harris described religion as "a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance." He also slammed religion for promoting intolerance. Nor was his argument limited to extremist groups. "One of the central themes of this book," Harris declared in the opening chapter, " … is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma."

In a curious use of religious terminology, Harris concludes the book by describing faith as "the devil's masterpiece." The book also appeals for a sustained campaign against religion, and faith in general: "We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it."

British author Richard Dawkins also recently published a book decrying religion, "The God Delusion." Dawkins is well known for his hostility to religion. "The celebrated atheist and high priest of popular science" is how a review of the book in the Observer newspaper on Oct. 29 described him.

Dawkins is not limiting himself to publishing. The Sunday Times on Nov. 19 reported that he plans to set up a charity that will subsidize the publication of educational materials for distribution in schools.

His organization, according to the article, will also attempt to divert donations from the hands of "missionaries" and church-based charities. His foundation, which is in the process of seeking registration in the United Kingdom and the United States, will have a database of charities free of "church contamination."

The Times article cited the concern of Anglican clergyman John Hall, dean of Westminster. Hall criticized the project as not being based on reasoned argument.

Dawkins and other critics of religion have often come under fire for their superficial view of religion. This was repeated recently by Verbite Father Vincent Twomey, a retired professor of moral theology at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Ireland. He took part recently in a debate at the College Historical Society in Trinity College Dublin, on the topic "That Religion Is a Block to Progress."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular," Father Twomey noted, writing in the Irish Times on Nov. 13.

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society," he observed.

Bring Forth Treasure


While not referring to these recent attacks specifically, Benedict XVI recently addressed the issue of how religion is portrayed as a negative force. "So often the Church's countercultural witness is misunderstood as something backward and negative in today's society," he commented to visiting Irish bishops on Oct. 28.

What the Church needs to do in these circumstances, the Pope recommended, is to act like the wise householder who brings forth from his treasure "what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13:52). In this way the faithful will be able to discern what society offers them today. "Help them to recognize the inability of the secular, materialist culture to bring true satisfaction and joy," the Holy Father continued. "Be bold in speaking to them of the joy that comes from following Christ and living according to his commandments."

Moreover, even though the bishops need to warn against the evils around us, "we must correct the idea that Catholicism is merely ‘a collection of prohibitions,'" Benedict XVI said. In order to do that Catholic teaching must be formulated in such a way that it communicates "the liberating power of the Gospel."

The Gospel is good for society, the Pope argued in his Sept. 28 address to the new German ambassador to the Holy See. Commenting on the favorable reception by the German people to his recent pastoral visit, Benedict XVI noted: "Wherever society is growing and people are strengthened in good, thanks to the message of faith, this also benefits social coexistence, and the readiness of citizens to assume responsibility for the common good is reinforced."

This message is not imposed by the Church, and therefore faith exists in the context of tolerance. "Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation," the Pontiff pointed out. A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.


ZE06112623




Copyright 2006, Innovative Media, Inc.

ZENIT is an International News Agency.

SEND US YOUR NEWS:
Please send press releases, statements and other information to our international news desk at:
news@zenit.org.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Sunday, November 19, 2006

Pelosi's Democrat ''Culture Of Corruption''


POLITICS / PELOSI'S DEMOCRAT "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"




Smiley Flag Waver

Pelosi’s initial decisions as House Speaker call to question her commitment to rooting out corruption in Congress. In addition to backing Hastings, Pelosi’s first choice for House Majority Leader was Iraq war critic Frank Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 “Abscam” scandal, which led to the conviction of five House members for bribery and conspiracy. Murtha ultimately lost his bid for leadership to Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer earlier this week. In light of her bluster about corruption, Pelosi has been rightly criticized for throwing her lot in with the ethically-suspect Murtha. The more things change …




From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

JW To Pelosi: Hastings Unfit For Leadership Position


On November 15, I sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, urging the House Speaker to reject Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings for the chairmanship of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. According to a number of press reports, Hastings is Pelosi’s choice to assume the chairmanship when the new Congress convenes in January.


For Speaker Pelosi, who has been an outspoken critic of what she has mislabeled “the Republican culture of corruption” on Capitol Hill, Hastings is a terrible choice for this sensitive leadership post. As I noted in my letter, Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be removed from office through impeachment and has accumulated “staggering liabilities” ranging from $2,130,006 to $7,350,000.

Here’s an excerpt from my letter. (You can read it in its entirety by clicking here.)


“Any ordinary citizen with Rep. Hastings’ demonstrated record of lack of integrity, ethical misdeeds and financial problems would be denied a security clearance. Respectfully, you should not put our nation’s security at risk by placing Rep. Hastings at the head of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.


“That (Hastings) was elected to Congress simply does not mean he meets the high standards that might entitle him to committee leadership posts, let alone ‘select’ committee posts that concern highly secret national security information. I am confident there are other members of your caucus who could serve as head of the Committee.”


Some background on Hastings: On August 3, 1988, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against then-Judge Hastings. After a trial, he was convicted by the Senate and removed from office on October 20, 1989, for perjury and conspiracy to obtain a bribe. As The Washington Post reported in 1989, the Senate found that Hastings “engaged in the bribery conspiracy and repeatedly lied under oath at his [criminal] trial and forged letters in order to win acquittal.”

Moreover, according to his most recent financial disclosure statements, Hastings indicated that he has no more than $15,000 in assets … while listing millions of dollars in liabilities in the form of legal fees.


Pelosi’s initial decisions as House Speaker call to question her commitment to rooting out corruption in Congress. In addition to backing Hastings, Pelosi’s first choice for House Majority Leader was Iraq war critic Frank Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 “Abscam” scandal, which led to the conviction of five House members for bribery and conspiracy. Murtha ultimately lost his bid for leadership to Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer earlier this week. In light of her bluster about corruption, Pelosi has been rightly criticized for throwing her lot in with the ethically-suspect Murtha. The more things change …


Thomas Fitton

President



Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Fasten Your Seatbelts - Rough Ride Ahead


POLITICS / FASTEN YOUR SEATBELTS - WE ARE IN FOR A ROUGH RIDE AHEAD



JIm R Schwiesow



Smiley Flag WaverWe now have an unholy alliance to deal with, a Bush-Pelosi team for socialism and world governance. Look for social reforms that will put the new deal to shame. An amnesty for law-breaking illegal aliens is a certainty, which is a gleeful prospect for Mr. Bush who will then be a step closer to that North American Union that he dreams of. Continuing social depravity, which a Republican majority failed to engage, is now a foregone conclusion with humanist Democrats in charge. Fasten your seatbelts, brothers and sisters; we are in for a rough ride.



A NEW BURNS AND ALLEN SHOW



~ By Jim R. Schwiesow

November 14, 2006
NewsWithViews.com


Those of us old enough to remember the comic act of George Burns and Gracie Allen will recall that the recurring theme of the show was the interaction between a shrewd and astute husband, George Burns, and a simple-minded and intellectually vacuous wife, Gracie Allen. The show provided many hours of merriment for thousands of radio and TV listeners and viewers throughout the United States. I now announce that the country is soon to be introduced to a new Burns and Allen show in an all-new format. It will be called the George Bush and Nancy Pelosi show. I welcome you to view the new king and queen of vaudeville in a brand new serial comedy with an entirely new congressional cast.

George Bush has played straight man to socially debauched Democrats since the day that he first stepped into office. Not possessed of the sapience of a George Burns or the verbal expertise - he has done more to commit to genocide the English language than anyone I know - he has nevertheless stepped forward with craggy countenance and subservient deportment to play fool to the fools. In this regard we have to give tribute to his acting abilities, which rival, if not exceed, those of George Burns. Mr. Bush’s obsequious attention to the political wacko’s of our congressional la la land during his six years as president was not without a purpose, a purpose that I will enlarge upon herein.

I understand that Gracie Allen was possessed of superior intelligence and wisdom, and that her on-stage personality was simply the result of the high quality of her role-playing. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand is naturally possessed of naiveté and a room temperature I.Q. All one has to do is to catch her on the tube to discern that she is not the sharpest stick in the bundle. Actually I am being kind to her with that statement. Like Gracie Allen she also has an on-stage personality and an off-stage personality. And the two diverge significantly. Ever the woman of the common people with disdain for the tax-paying rich in her on-stage personage, she actually lives in capitalist splendor, with a personal wealth of $55 million, in her off-stage reality. It makes one wonder what these nitwits are going to do, and how they’re going to cope, when they have completely destroyed our constitutional republic and are forced to live under the dominance of communistic style despotism. I would imagine that Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, the Laurel and Hardy of the party of the Democrats, have never contemplated the ultimate consequence of their political stupidity.

The gentleman, who wrote me in behalf of his hero, George Bush, and substituted name calling for articulate discourse, is not going to like the content of this column. A perfectly legitimate and airtight case can be made that George W. Bush deliberately engineered the election debacle, which doomed the continuance in office of many congressional Republicans.

There are Republicans who in their hearts do value the freedoms granted by the constitution, and agonize over the socially repugnant course of the nation. There may be one or two Democrats also; we’ll just have to send out a search party to beat the bushes to find them. The real tragedy is that these people have attached more significance to a slavish commitment to party loyalty than to maintaining the freedoms and liberties wrought by constitutional principles. Their integrity can, and should, be called into question when they have not the courage to stand against the passage of tyrannical laws, which steal the freedoms of U.S. citizens. And if their party, or their president, insists that they capitulate to an ideology, which they know to be wrong and inimical to the best interests of a sovereign nation, they ought to remove themselves from that ideological cesspool, and realign themselves with a party, which better reflects their ethics and their values. If enough would do so a viable and competitive third party could be built and expanded.

I believe, and contrary to what some may think it is my perfect right to do so, that George Bush is extremely pleased by the election slaughter, which sunk the political hopes of so many of his fellow Republicans in congress. Too many of these Republicans had worked in opposition to his goal for a North American Union. Too many were furious over his continual refusal to secure the borders and to bring to a halt an ever-increasing influx of illegal aliens. Too many were angered by his completely dumb insistence on amnesty for law-breaking border intruders, and more than a few were beginning to question the wisdom of his policies in relation to an increasingly casualty ridden war in Iraq. The old adage, which holds that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time was coming into play.

Unquestionably President Bush did everything in his power to contribute to the disaffection and dissatisfaction of the people in regard to these issues, and he did nothing to dissuade them from their ever-increasing anger with their elected Republican representatives. What did he care, they were close to an election and he had two more years to dink with the fate of the nation. In his mind this was their misfortune and his good luck. He reasoned that the Democrats were more attuned to his quest for one world governance, so he opted to throw his lot in with the opposition. I would imagine that as time passes many of the losing Republicans, who were sold out by Mr. Bush, would most likely come to the inescapable conclusion that they were played for suckers, big time.

Some have taken issue with me concerning some of my contentions in previous articles. A very learned gentleman with a constitutional knowledge, which far surpasses mine, wrote and informed me that The Constitution, right or wrong, provided for one man to take control in times of military service, not War. Note: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; Not war, but service is the key.”

As I stated, this man’s credentials are impeccable when it comes to an understanding of the constitution. He also had this to say about presidential abuses of power, “Was there a check on this power? Of course there is. The Constitution provided for the impeachment of the President if he abused any power including the power of the Commander in Chief. Also, we have the right to vote him out of office at the end of his term. Remember that the same paragraph that gives him the role of Commander in Chief also says he has the power to overrule a court and even do away with a ruling the court has imposed except in cases of impeachment of officials. Instead of fighting what he is doing as being unconstitutional, we should be fighting to have a Supreme Court ruling or an Amendment to the Constitution to define the powers of the Commander in Chief more accurately. While Bush has done so many things he shouldn't to drag us further into socialism, his wiretaps and other "Patriot act" moves are all constitutional. As President he couldn't do any of those things but as Commander in Chief he can.”

I have no problem with a program to rid nation of the threat wrought by international terrorism. But, I do have a problem when a president, or anyone else, treacherously misrepresents the true nature of his actions. Ironically we find evidence of a similar kind of treachery in our historical archives. This has been documented, for readers, in an article by Devvy Kidd entitled, FDR and the Pearl Harbor Attack

Now, I know that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant of the most despicable kind. I also know that Kim Jong-il of North Korea and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran are of an equally contemptible disposition. And both of these countries are absolutely identified as having weapons of mass destruction.

Since we are nearly certain that Iraq posed no significant threat to our nation and that Iraq had not the means, or the intent, to launch an attack upon the United States, President Bush could not truthfully support a determination that Iraq was an immediate danger. So he did what most politicians do, he improvised and by subterfuge created the illusion that Saddam was poised for an act of aggression against the United States. Now, in my book this is called lying, and I have a very low tolerance for liars. My Dad taught me at a very early age that to be honest and forthcoming was a virtue, and that to be a liar was contemptible. In my boyhood to lie was to invite a session with the razor strop. God Bless him I am thankful that he instilled this in me. So, if Mr. Bush did not abuse his powers technically, he did so in substance. I submit that prevarication and misrepresentation to gain approval for a clearly uncalled for war indicates a moral deficiency too serious to ignore.

So, now we have an unholy alliance to deal with, a Bush-Pelosi team for socialism and world governance. Look for social reforms that will put the new deal to shame. An amnesty for law-breaking illegal aliens is a certainty, which is a gleeful prospect for Mr. Bush who will then be a step closer to that North American Union that he dreams of. Continuing social depravity, which a Republican majority failed to engage, is now a foregone conclusion with humanist Democrats in charge. Fasten your seatbelts, brothers and sisters; we are in for a rough ride.


© 2006 - Jim R. Schwiesow - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.





Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.

Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals.

E-Mail: jimr@orangecitycomm.net




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below