The Wall Street Journal reports: Intelligence Policy to Stay Largely Intact. “President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.”
Wikipedia defines conscription as “a general term for involuntary labor demanded by an established authority.”
This is from President-elect Barack Obama’s official transition web site (This is a link to the original, cached version. See the update comment thread, below.):
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
This sounds like conscription to me. I understand this is a well meaning plan, but as the saying goes: “The road to hell path to destruction is paved with good intentions.”
Update: The America Serves web site has been updated since my post and no longer uses the word require. It also includes details about refundable tax credits. As it reads now, Obama’s America Serves project is a substantially different proposition than outlined previously. I’ve updated my link above to hit the cached version. I’m not sure how long that will work.
As I noted in the comments, I think it’s fine for local school districts to include public service in their curriculum. I don’t believe the federal government should mandate it, especially for college. I’m all for public service, as long as it’s voluntary. I have volunteered (i.e. served) in the military and with various civic organizations. The experience was great and I encourage everyone to volunteer.
From the Washington Post:
Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations, Contributions Reviewed After Deposits
Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.
Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.
Roger Simon explores the incongruent reality of Barack Obama.
The inescapable conclusion is that Barack Obama is a highly deceptive, often dishonest individual. Again, many would say this is standard operating procedure for politicians in our culture (and most others too). But Obama presents himself as something different, a new kind of post-modern politician above the conventional dirty dealings of backroom politics.
Like Roger, the crux of my problem with Obama is not his left wing past, but that he tries to hide it. It’s the dishonesty that is troubling. The willful, even enthusiastic, participation of the MSM in promoting the lies and deception disturbs me.
The MSM keep referring to William Ayers as a 1960’s radical, as if his politics have moderated. Here’s some fairly recent video of Ayers being interviewed by Luis Bonilla-Molina, President of the Centro Internacional Miranda, where he shares his views on the role he believes critical education can serve in the promotion of Bolivarian Revolution.
[Three minutes and fifty-eight seconds into the interview.]
Ayers: One way of looking at is the Weather Underground was a great teaching moment; and to the extend that we didn’t fully realize what we attempted we were bad teachers.
It is obvious Ayers, the Chicago education reformer, has radical views about the role of education in politics, and vice versa. I don’t know exactly when this video was filmed, but I’m pretty certain it was after the years Obama and Ayers worked together at the Annenberg Challenge.
As Stanley Kurtz points out, “Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it.”
George Friedman, Chief Intelligence Officer at Stratfor, is preparing a four-part report on the United States Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy. That debate is scheduled for Friday, 26 September 2008. The first installment frames the questions that the next president will face and is linked below. I’ll update this post daily with links to the other three installments as they are made available.
Part 1 - The New President and the Global Landscape - September 23
This introductory piece frames the questions that the next president will face. Regardless of a given candidate’s policy preferences, there are logistical and geographical constraints that shape US and foreign options. The purpose of this analysis is to describe the geopolitical landscape for the next administration. The analysis concludes with a list of questions for the debate that define the parameters facing both candidates.Part 2 - Obama’s Foreign Policy Stance - September 24
Senator Obama has issued position papers and made statements about his intended foreign policy. Like all Presidents, he would also be getting input from a variety of others, principally from his own party. This second analysis analyzes the foreign policy position of Sen. Obama and the Democratic Party.Part 3 - McCain’s Foreign Policy Stance - September 25
Senator McCain has issued position papers and made statements about his intended foreign policy. Like all Presidents, he would also be getting input from a variety of others, principally from his own party. This second analysis analyzes the foreign policy position of Sen. McCain and the Republican Party.Part 4 - George Friedman on the Presidential Debate - September 29
The final installment in this series will be produced after the debate. This is NOT an effort to call a “winner” or “loser.” That’s for pundits, not an intelligence service. This will be an analysis of the candidates’ statements and positions.
I have frequent email exchanges of political nature with friends I’ve made throughout my journey of life. This post documents a recent exchange I had regarding the religious affiliations of Sarah Palin.
Subject: Sarah Palin, Morningstar Ministries, The Third Wave and Joel’s Army
These are dangerous times my friends.
Listen, read and learn.
Indeed, these are mentally sick and dangerous people, the American Taliban.
Sarah Palin’s Churches and The Third Wave: New Video Documentary
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/sarah-palins-churches-and_b_124611.htmlIs this the world in which you wish to live? Not me.
I read the piece and responded to it, point by point, below. I have to say, it was actually fun and much easier to pick apart than I had expected. I kept waiting for the part where they stoned a women for being raped or hung a teenage boy for being gay…but it wasn’t there.
Palin’s dedication to the Wasilla church is indicated by a Saturday, September 7, 2008, McClatchy news service story detailing possibly improper use of state travel funds by Palin for a trip she made to Wasilla, Alaska to attend, on June 8, 2008, both a Wasilla Assembly of God “Masters Commission” graduation ceremony and also a multi-church Wasilla area event known as “One Lord Sunday.”
Have any formal charges of improper use of state travel funds specific to this event been filed, or is this simply McClatchy news’ assertion that it may have been an improper use of state travel funds? I suspect the latter, as it is well known that the Palin home is in Wasilla. Therefore, it would not be unusual for her to travel home for a weekend at state expense. Would attending church on the weekend make the entire trip home for the weekend an “improper use of state travel funds?” Doubtful.
At the latter event, Palin and Alaska LT Governor Scott Parnell were publicly blessed, onstage before an estimated crowd of 6,000, through the “laying on of hands” by Wasilla Assembly of God’s Head Pastor Ed Kalnins whose sermons espouse such theological concepts as the possession of geographic territories by demonic spirits and the inter-generational transmission of family “curses”. Palin has also been blessed, or “anointed,” by an African cleric, prominent in the Third Wave movement, who has repeatedly visited the Wasilla Assembly of God and claims to have effected positive, dramatic social change in a Kenyan town by driving out a “spirit of witchcraft.”
Surprise, surprise. Laying on of hands is common practice in many Christian denominations, most famously the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. Palin and her Lt Governor simply joined the ranks of countless other politicians who have been publicly blessed by preachers, priests, and the Pope. Wow, that’s scary!!
Well, I suppose it would be frightening to anyone who is supportive of demonic spirits, inter-generational transmission of family curses, and is opposed to positive social change. Perhaps this fear of blessings is an insight into the hidden agenda of the Left. I should note, however, the author said nothing of the actual blessing bestowed upon Palin and her Lt Governor. He simply notes that the preachers who bestowed the blessings have preached about theological concepts of demonic spirits, etc. Once again, that isn’t uncommon in Christianity, or most religions for that matter.
The Wasilla Assembly of God church is deeply involved with both Third Wave activities and theology. Their Master’s Commission program is part of an three year post-high school international training program with studies in prophecy, intercessory prayer, Biblical exegesis, authority and leadership.
And the point is? Perhaps big words like intercessory and exegesis frighten Liberals. Guess what, intercessory prayer is prayer “on behalf of another”. Intercessory prayer, then, is intended to benefit someone else. For shame!! Leave it up to those devious “fundamentalists” to pray on behalf of others. Exegesis is the art of close reading in order to interpret a text. What an outrage, the “fundamentalists” are teaching their future leaders to read and comprehend the Bible.
The Third Wave is a revival of the theology of the Latter Rain tent revivals of the 1950s and 1960s led by William Branham and others. It is based on the idea that in the end times there will be an outpouring of supernatural powers on a group of Christians that will take authority over the existing church and the world. The believing Christians of the world will be reorganized under the Fivefold Ministry and the church restructured under the authority of Prophets and Apostles and others anointed by God. The young generation will form “Joel’s Army” to rise up and battle evil and retake the earth for God.
I can certainly understand someone not understanding such beliefs. However, what is there to fear? I mean, if you don’t believe in God, the end times, and supernatural powers what is there to fear?
The beliefs and manifestations of the movement include the use of ’strategic level spiritual warfare’ to expel territorial demons from American and world cities. Worship includes excessive charismatic manifestations such as hundreds of people falling, ’slain in the spirit,’ and congregations laughing, jerking, and shrieking uncontrollably.
And exactly why would a non-believer feel threatened by such beliefs? If you don’t believe in spirits or the spiritual what is there to fear? If you aren’t a territorial demon then, so what? If you don’t worship in a “fundamentalist” church then why all the concern over their “excessive charismatic manifestations?”
In early 2008 an outbreak of those phenomena commenced at the palatial former ministry estate of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, recently bought up and restored by prominent Third Wave author and leader Rick Joyner’s Morningstar Ministries. The (spiritual) “breakout” lasted for many weeks and was publicized in an extensive collection of video footage available on YouTube. Healing services in the Third Wave movement claim to heal the sick and injured through methods that in some cases can appear bizarre - including, as in recent cases involving Todd Bentley, the patient being head butted or kicked by the anointed healer. Recipients of such “spiritual” or miraculous healing make a wide range of astonishing claims - to have been cured of life-threatening illnesses, had joints repaired or replaced, been given gold teeth or gold fillings, regrown stunted limbs and even had deformed skeletal structures straightened and reshaped. Worldwide mission efforts of the movement are built around the idea of combating witches, warlocks, and generational curses, which prevent churches from being able to take root.
Was Palin there? Is this a church she attends? What is the point? Aside from the fact that this behavior would be considered bizarre and perhaps ignorant by many, is there any harm in this “phenomena?” Unless you are opposed to miraculous healing and in favor of witches, warlocks and generational curses this actually sounds positive.
Thomas Muthee’s Word of Faith Church is featured in the “Transformations” video which details an account on how Muthee drove “the spirit of witchcraft” out of Kiambu, Kenya, liberating the town from its territorial demonic possession and enabling a miraculous societal transformation. The “Transformations” video set is used as an argument for social improvement through spiritual instead of human means, and as the best method for fighting corruption, crime, drugs and even environmental degradation.
So I gather this is all bad, too? Is the author so ignorant that he believes the Word of Faith Church is the first to invoke spiritual means to fight corruption, crime, drugs, and environmental degradation?
In the video, producer George Otis declares that after Thomas Muthee and his followers banished the “spirit of witchcraft” from the town, the crime rate in Kiambu dropped almost to zero, along with the rate of alcoholism, and according to Otis most of the residents of the town joined churches.
Sounds great!! Zero crime and alcoholism. Why does that frighten Liberals? I suspect they hate to see people help themselves via any means other than Big Government.
Wagner’s top leaders often conduct spiritual warfare campaigns against the demons that block the acceptance of their brand of Christian belief, such as ‘Operation Ice Castle’ in the Himalayas in 1997. Several of their top prophets and generals of intercession spent weeks in intensive prayer to “confront the Queen of Heaven.”
This sounds horrifying, presuming you are a demon that believes in the power of prayer. To be honest, this point appears to be focused entirely on the Christian practice of prayer. How is this different than any other religion or spiritual belief that places value on the practice of prayer or meditation?
The Third Wave movement is cross-denomination and is not synonymous with any specific denomination, nor is it synonymous with Evangelical or Fundamentalist. Although the movement emerged from Pentecostalism, it draws its support from a variety of denominations and religious streams. They believe they are forming a post-denominational church to take the world for the end times.
Bingo. The author has now widened suspicion to all Christian denonimnations and even castes a cloud of suspicion over all religion. Thus, in summary, the piece was written to paint Christianity as an abomination.
I’m not surprised in the least. I’m extremely skeptical of anything published on the Huffington Post. In my opinion that web site is simply a mouth piece and echo chamber for the Liberal Left.
For what it’s worth, I lived in communities with a high proportion of Christian “fundamentalists” until I was 26 years old. They didn’t, and don’t, frighten me in the least bit. Yes, many of my of Christian “fundamentalists” acquaintances did, and still, do hold beliefs more conservative than mine. However, I have never felt uncomfortable around them. I’ve never felt like I was despised for holding different beliefs or having a different opinion.
On the other hand, since I’ve moved to Bellingham I have found myself extremely bewildered and frightened by the Left’s willingness to buy into outrageous conspiracy theories, their desire to censor diversity of opinion and thought, their disrespect of individual rights, their animosity towards capitalism, and their desire to cede all aspects of personal responsibility to the state.
During the previous two election cycles I got sick of hearing Liberals talk about the “theocracy” Bush would establish. In the intervening years I have grown quite weary of the repeated jokes about and crude remarks aimed at fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals. Yet, there is no comparative treatment of Obama and his church. In my opinion this is yet another example of the hypocrisy so common in Liberals today.
For those who are afraid of Palin’s religion or churches, I would ask “Why are you not equally afraid of Obama’s?”
The Freddie Mae/Fannie Mac problem was reported by the Wall Street Journal back in October 2004. (emphasis mine)
We’ve looked closely at the 211-page report issued by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (Ofheo), and the details are more troubling than even the recent headlines. The magnitude of Fannie’s machinations is stunning, and in two key areas in particular they deserve to be better understood. By improperly delaying the recognition of income, it created a cookie jar of reserves. And by improperly classifying certain derivatives, it was able to spread out losses over many years instead of recognizing them immediately.
In the cookie-jar ploy, Fannie set aside an artificially large cash reserve. And — presto — in any quarter its managers could reach into that jar to compensate for poor results or add to it to dampen good ones. This ploy, according to Ofheo, gave Fannie “inordinate flexibility” in reporting the amount of income or expenses over reporting periods.
[…]
Well, in its wisdom, Fannie decided to recognize only $200 million, deferring the other half. That allowed Fannie’s executives — whose bonus plan is linked to earnings-per-share — to meet the target for maximum bonus payouts. The target EPS for maximum payout was $3.23 and Fannie reported exactly . . . $3.2309. This bull’s-eye was worth $1.932 million to then-CEO James Johnson, $1.19 million to then-CEO-designate Franklin Raines, and $779,625 to then-Vice Chairman Jamie Gorelick.
[…]
Fannie Mae isn’t an ordinary company and this isn’t a run-of-the-mill accounting scandal. The U.S. government had no financial stake in the failure of Enron or WorldCom. But because of Fannie’s implicit subsidy from the federal government, taxpayers are on the hook if its capital cushion is insufficient to absorb big losses. Private profit, public risk. That’s quite a confidence game — and it’s time to call it.
Who are James Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick?
Obama’s Choice of Insider Draws Fire, Republicans Assail Head of VP Vetting
Last month, Sen. Barack Obama turned to James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae chief executive and Washington insider since the Carter administration, to lead the vetting of potential running mates for the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee.
But four years earlier, as Johnson was angling for a job if Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) was elected president, Fannie Mae did some vetting of its own. Company executives had grown so worried about the lucrative consulting deal they had cut with their former CEO that they considered enlisting an outside investigator to comb through the deal “in light of issues that could come up during Senate confirmation . . . or White House review of the consulting contract,” according to company documents unearthed by federal regulators.
Isn’t it curious that Obama is the second largest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac campaign contributions?
All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
#1 Senator Christopher Dodd (D) $165,400
#2 Senator Barack Obama (D) $126,349
#3 Senator John Kerry (D) $111,000
There must be some history there.
Fanny, Freddie, and Obama (They go way back)
Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.
[…]
It isn’t just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. According to Freddie Mac insiders, Emanuel during his time on the board opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration that would have impacted Freddie and Fannie Mae.
Emanuel claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination.
As it turns out, the real culprit in this meltdown is Big Government.
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the “trickle-down” economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”
[…]
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
[…]
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today’s nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we’ll all be paying for Clinton’s social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
[…]
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
This is just another example of Big Government Gone Bad. I still can’t comprehend why so many people keep looking to the government for solutions to their problems. We see example after example of well meaning government intervention that only exacerbates the problem, yet we have roughly 50% of the electorate who believe the government should have a greater role in providing health care, education, and jobs.
Make no mistake, I’m not a free market extremist. The government certainly has a role as an infrastructure-builder. This however, is a prime example of the problems associated with government involvement in the economy. Too often the goals are wrong. Even when they are right, progress is often hampered by politicians, their friends, and businesses hoping to game the government system to benefit themselves at the taxpayers’ expense.
The New York Times finally publishes an article article that probes the links between Obama and William Ayers. Steve Diamond has an excellent post that disects the article and points out all the unanswered questions.
Voters deserve to know. Would the NYT give a conservative presidential candidate a pass if he had launched his political career in the home of Terry Nichols?
And, there is still that unanswered question. Where has the mainstream media been on this topic?
Richard Fernandez poses a third question regarding the Obama’s work a the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, his only significant executive experience.
But the third and unasked question the National Review should have raised is where the MSM has been in all of this. The major parties and the press are large components of the quality control process of the political system.
One wonders. I find it incredible that a major political party has nominated a presidential candidate to who:
Powered by WordPress 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
