Obama should not be president – Franklin Graham questions Obama’s Birth Certificate issue. Trump seems “very capable” and “PROVEN”.

April 25, 2011

Christiane Amanpour  comes from  Al Jezeera.  Aljazeera1

She is currently working for ABC.  Al Jezeera is a network fostered in propaganda of Middle Easterners.  They get the news that is filtered by their Imams.

Is this really the type of information that WE Americans want?

Mon, Apr. 25 2011 08:23 AM EDT

Franklin Graham Troubled by Obama, Softening to Donald Trump

By Ethan Cole|Christian Post Reporter

Franklin Graham said Sunday that the nation is in “big trouble” under the leadership of President Obama and that he is having an increasingly positive view of billionaire Donald Trump running for president as he hears more from him.

Franklin Graham on ABC

Franklin Graham, president/CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse, speaks to journalist Christiane Amanpour of ABC’s “This Week” on Easter Sunday, April 24, 2011

Obama is “a very nice man” and “very gracious,” said Graham to Christiane Amanpour of ABC’s “This Week” onEaster Sunday.

“But I think our country is in big trouble,” said Graham, the president/CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

While Graham did not elaborate why the United States is in trouble under Obama, he did express support for Trump’s questioning of why Obama hasn’t produced his birth certificate.

“I don’t know why he can’t produce that (birth certificate),” said Graham. “I don’t know, but it’s an issue that looks like he could answer pretty quickly.”

Graham was one of the three prominent Christian leaders, the other being Pastor Tim Keller and the Rev. Al Sharpton, invited to discuss the topic of God and government with journalist Christiane Amanpour on Sunday.

 <When did Al Sharpton become anything but a  shyster?  He’s a crook.  He’s demeaning to blacks.  Black people should denounce him as their representative.  Seriously, this man is a clown.>

The questions and answers were kept brief, but even Franklin Graham’s short responses managed to draw controversy.

Among his most surprising comments is that Graham finds himself politically attracted to Donald Trump, the twice divorced U.S. real-estate developer. Graham described Trump as “very capable” and someone who has “proven himself.”

“Donald Trump, when I first saw that he was getting in, I thought, well, this has got to be a joke. But the more you listen to him, the more you say to yourself, you know? Maybe the guy’s right,” said Graham.

When Amanpour asked if Trump might be Graham’s “candidate of choice,” the evangelical leader responded, “Sure, yes, sure.”

In a recent interview with Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Trump said he was a Christian and described himself as a Presbyterian. But his description of his religious life leaves some puzzled and skeptical about his Christian faith.

Trump in the CBN interview said that he is a “Sunday church person,” but also said he always goes on Christmas, Easter, major occasions and “as much as I can.” And he revealed that he keeps all his Bibles that people send him in a “very nice place.”

“There’s no way I would ever throw anything, to do anything negative to a Bible, so what we do is we keep all of the Bibles,” said Trump. “I would have a fear of doing something other than very positive so actually I store them and keep them and sometimes give them away to other people.”

The Manhattan business magnate recently expressed his interest in running for president as a Republican nominee and has done a number of interviews on his possible political run.

Graham in the ABC interview also questioned Obama’s definition of Christian, saying for Obama a Christian might be simply someone that goes to church.

“For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith, and we have trusted him as our Lord and Savior,” said Graham, whose father Billy Graham received Obama at his North Carolina home in April 2010. “That’s the definition of a Christian, it’s not as to what church you’re a member of. A membership doesn’t make you a Christian.”

Graham also remarked again that the spirit of the anti-Christ, or secularism, is in the world today, and pointed to natural disasters as biblical signs that the world is in the end times.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-troubled-by-obama-softening-to-donald-trump-49970/

Advertisements

Landrieu Dance (featuring James O’Keefe) – Investigative Journalist / dancer?

April 20, 2011

Hat Tip

Dakota Voice

This is an awesome videoMade me get up and dance!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Landrieu Dance (featuring James O’Keefe), posted with vodpod

US – Downgraded! The OBAMA PLAN revealed. – Obama Should not be President.

April 18, 2011

His incompetence and illegal Presidency should be REDACTED.

This man has destabilized the country as the nail in the coffin.

Soros’ henchman is what he is.  The Communists (Globalists) tool.

He is in direct violation of Article 1 section 9 – nobility clause.

His birth is questionable

His actions are directly contrary to American security and sovereignty.

It’s said that one knows one by ones friends and associates.   Obama cavorts with thugs and thieves.  Truly, horrible people.  People who are terrorists and those who would seek to do harm to people in America and America ITSELF.  This is not an American President.  He is the Anti American President.  People from other countries come and have babies who take advantage of America.  Voter fraud is sanctioned through sanctuary cities.

This is EVIL

Stocks sink after US debt outlook downgrade

(AP) – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Stocks are falling sharply lower after Standard & Poor’s dropped its outlook on U.S debt quality to negative.

Even as it cut its outlook, the agency reaffirmed the U.S. debt rating itself at AAA.

International concerns are also weighing on stocks even after several companies reported earnings that beat expectations.

Traders are facing the renewed threat of a Greek debt default. China took another step to curb its runaway inflation.

In morning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average is down 175 points, or 1.4 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 is down 19, or 1.5 percent. The Nasdaq composite is down 40, or 1.5 percent.


Ayn Rand – movie – Atlas Shrugged Part One – 50 years in fermentation – opens in select theaters – APRIL 15th

April 11, 2011
Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

 

AtlasShrugged.jpg Cover Zoom [+]

Atlas Shrugged: Is A (the Movie) Really A (the Novel)?

The film should please fans, but might not please everyone.

| March 11, 2011

Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Poster - In the Shadows

The official release of the movie Atlas Shrugged Part One, based on Ayn Rand’s controversial 1957 novel, is not until April 15. It then begins a limited theatrical rollout in 11 American cities (which the producers hope will grow from there).

It has already been previewed to selected audiences in Los Angeles, D.C., and New York. I saw it in Los Angeles, on the Sony Pictures lot, in a screening regretfully marred by technical problems (with a projector that put thin blue vertical lines throughout the film image).

Still, the film’s qualities—both good and bad—came through. Anyone with a passionate interest in Ayn Rand and her opus will want to see, and will surely appreciate on many levels, this film version of a third of the novel.

Early word is encouraging for the film’s producers, John Aglialoro (CEO of the Cybex exercise equipment company and sole financier of this independently-produced film) and Harmon Kaslow. The world of Objectivist fans, those with a passionate attachment to their own vision of the book, seem likely unsatisfiable by anything that doesn’t spring directly from their imaginations to the theater of their minds.

But the early reactions from Randians has been positive, with adulation from Rand’s closest friends and disciples during the years she wrote Atlas, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, who were both blown away, and love from the Atlas Society’s philosophical linchpin David Kelley (who advised Aglialoro in every step of the process, to ensure the resulting script passed Objectivist muster). By the same token, some people who don’t care for Rand have also hated the film.

When I interviewed him for a forthcoming May feature story in Reason, producer Kaslow told me that they knew expectations were low for the movie because of its relatively small budget and rushed production schedule (reported frequently as $5 million, though the shoot ended up costing $10 million). Indeed, some reviewers based their admiration for the finished product somewhat on theirhideous fears about it based on early reports.

The end result is definitely better than merely “not a disaster.” Atlas Shrugged the novel is divided into three parts, all named for different statements of Rand’s beloved Aristotelian “law of identity.” (A is A.) Part one is “non-contradiction.” So, is Atlas Shrugged Part One (the movie) equal to Atlas Shrugged(the novel, Part One)?

To give a mealy-mouthed answer, one that would cause Rand to condemn me as a mystical whim worshipper: It is and it isn’t. This movie has some of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen, based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons (which had its ownObjectivist angle). That is, it struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel, with as much faithfulness to the source as the time limits of a commercial film allow. But that doesn’t necessarily add up to a well-conceived movie that stands on its own. Despite its virtues as a filmed adaptation of the novel, the movie qua movie doesn’t have enough to offer those not familiar with the source material, even if they aren’t inclined to hate Rand for her message.

Atlas is a densely thought out and constructed work that takes its characters on a full and exhilarating arc, through a plot and theme and mystery with a dynamite resolution. This movie only takes you a third of the way, and I can’t imagine anyone not dimly aware of the book’s premise feeling anything but empty or puzzled at the movie’s ending (which is precisely the ending of Part One of the novel).

I am not trained to judge cinematography, but from a basic perspective this looked like a real professional film, with everything from the offices to the train rides to the parties looking how they needed to look—better than I expected from my three days on the set during the shooting, thanks to the magic of post-production and sharp editing.

As far as acting goes, I was not as impressed as others have been with Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart, the heroic railroad executive fighting to keep her company alive and the bloodlines of American oil pumping (and to make a buck, like a good Objectivist). She had moments where she conveyed the lithe, restrained, passionate steel of Dagny, but didn’t do so every moment. Some of her line readings fell flat, some of her expressions were too blank or sometimes too light and sunny. In what might count as a backhanded insult, she sometimes seemed too much like a normal human being for a Randian romantic heroine.

Grant Bowler as Henry Rearden, inventor of the wonder amalgam Rearden Metal, held down by his needy and contemptuous family and a government prepared to crush any industrial success, was more consistently solid. He manages, in a few seconds of screen time, to communicate something of the unspoken and complicated joy in his own creation that Rand took pages to explain.

Bowler especially shines in his interactions with his ne’er do well family and friends, and complicatedly hateful wife Lillian (Rebecca Wisocky), who I found the most perfectly acted role. (Bowler coped less well with the very slow-burn passion and eventual affair with Dagny.)

Smaller roles like former business genius turned dissolute playboy Francisco d’Anconia (Jsu Garcia) (all of whose backstory flashbacks from the novel were cut), Rearden frenemy Paul Larkin (Patrick Fischler), and striking philosopher Hugh Akston (Michael O’Keefe), shone as well in a way that felt very much right from the novel.

Matthew Marsden has a great, but more distinct, take on Dagny’s brother James Taggart. He reinvented a character that, in the novel, feels a harried pathetic wreck into something of a douchebag smoothie (Marsden plays younger and more handsome than I expect most imagined James to be), making it more clear and believable that he would be a successful empty shell in a world run by pull, not achievement.

It’s delightful for fans to hear on screen Randian lines about fools who consider knowledge to be superfluous, idiot “wise men” who talk of happiness as an illusion of the superficial, and the heroes bravely but foolishly taking on the burden “to move the world, and to pull all the others through.” It was less delightful to hear too much pseudo-scientific overexplaining of the amazing mystery motor, and clumsy and bludgeoning soundbites from John Galt selling the idea of the strike—“a place where heroes live…no government beyond a few courthouses…”

I wouldn’t be an Atlas fan if I didn’t have some objections, which I think are not merely a desire to see it be “more like the book” but to be a stronger film. Losing the scene where Dagny takes control of the stalled Taggart Comet (the introduction to Dagny in the book) hurt. It would have helped the weight of the character onscreen to see her efficacy up front, represented in something other than barreling over her weak brother in office arguments.

Not all my talks with writer Brian O’Toole convinced me that he “got” Rand’s philosophy the same way most libertarians do—a problem that O’Toole has been facing bravely with thousands of Rand fans on the movie’s Facebook page—but none of that was apparent on-screen. O’Toole saw analogies between one of his favorite films, Metropolis, and Rand that I don’t quite see. And he has a sense of absurd humor that’s decidedly un-Randian, joking after the screening that if he had his way, during the first successful run of the John Galt Line over a bridge made of Rearden Metal, Godzilla would have destroyed the bridge. That sense of humor isn’t in the film, of course, which hews tightly to a grim and tense Randian tone. There is not a moment where an honest fan of Rand could say that the makers of this film just didn’t get it.

But what about non-fans of Rand? My favorite example of the mental challenges placed in the path of any who would dare adapt Atlas came from Jeff Britting, who manages the official Ayn Rand archives. He wrote: “not until the writer of record is ready and willing to dramatize Atlas Shrugged in total silence, will he be able to adapt the novel.”

Well, Britting had his eccentric reasons for making the boldly nutty claim. But one of the failures ofAtlas Shrugged Part One (which had few in terms of faithfully putting Rand’s characters and plot on screen) is that it was too silent on one of the aspects of Rand that her detractors most hate: the speeches. While part one of the novel does not feature the greatest concentration of long disquisitions on the philosophical meaning of the story’s theme, the movie did skip some that would have been helpful in hitting the viewer who didn’t already understand where Rand was coming from.

Too much of Rearden and Dagny’s pride and pain aren’t fully felt in this movie without the movie being more precise about the philosophy that motivated them, and the alternate philosophy that motivated their enemies. Specifically, I think the movie would have been stronger if some version of Dan Conway’s speech to Dagny (on page 82) about how looters couldn’t run a railroad; some version of Francisco’s speech (on page 99) on how well you do your work being the only important thing in life; and some version of Lillian’s presenting Rearden (on page 290) with her theory about love as self-sacrifice.

For Rand, theme, character, and plot are all a seamless web, and this filmed version is unbalanced with the latter two at the expense of the former. I expect this movie’s fate will be to be mostly admired with caveats by Rand fans, mostly hated and condemned by her enemies (one of whom declared the filmsocially dangerous before it was made), and probably just a thin emotional experience for those who have no opinion or knowledge of the novel either way.

In a decision screenwriter Brian O’Toole disagreed with, wanting it to be more timeless, the movie is set in a near-future 2016, with a quick and neat scenario explaining why, in a world with limited gas coming in from overseas, Colorado oilman Ellis Wyatt would be central to the U.S. economy. It avoids seeming political in a current event sense by never using terms like liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, or naming any actually existing political office. Still, especially coming out now, its pro-business and anti-union overtones will make the movie read politically anyway.

Well, Rand wouldn’t have had it any other way. It seems churlish and perhaps besides the point to complain that a movie of a third of a novel lacks the emotional and intellectual coherence and punch of that novel, but there it is. But for a movie that its makers kept assuring me was intended to lead more people to read the book, it will probably only work as a fully satisfying movie for people who already have.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of This is Burning Man (BenBella), Radicals for Capitalism(PublicAffairs) and Gun Control on Trial (Cato Institute).

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/11/atlas-shrugged-is-a-the-movie/1


The Suicide of the WEST part 2- Main Stream Media’s “Al Jazeera” and the Government support of the Global Jihad -Kincaid, Kenney, and Timmons, clear the confusion.

April 8, 2011

 

 

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Cliff Kincaid & Charles Ortel on ” Al-Jazeera, …, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

 


 


Caroline Glick: The Way Forward for Israel – Strong, courageous, morally clear, and articulate – She reminds me of Golda Meir

April 7, 2011

Golda Meir

Now THATS a woman!

Now THATS a LEADER!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Caroline Glick: The Way Forward for Israel, posted with vodpod

Trump shows his – Asks if Obama CAN show his as well.

March 30, 2011

hehehheheheh!

Lovely!

If only Bloomberg was a Donald Trump type businessman.

I believe that the people of NY were duped.

 

Donald Trump

March 30, 2011

Trump birth certificate: asked and answered

Thomas Lifson

Media efforts to ridicule Donald Trump’squestions about President Obama’s birth certificate have backfired. JournOlist memberBen Smith of Politico ridiculed Trump’s release of the birth certificate issued by the hospital where he was born:

The paper that Trump released says “Jamaica Hospital” on top and lists the date and time of what he says was his birth to “Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Trump.” The piece of paper has a seal at the bottom.

But after several New York City-based readers contacted POLITICO’s Maggie Haberman, her call to city officials revealed that an actual birth certificate, which is issued by the Department of Health, would have the agency’s seal and also a signature of the city registrar – neither of which the Trump document has. Officials said the city Health Department is the “sole issuing authority” of official birth certificates in New York, and that the document would clearly say so, and “city officials said it’s not an official document.”

The Smoking Gun ridiculed Trump, asking, “What Is Donald Trump, Newborn Birther, Trying To Hide From Us? But Trump is having the last laugh, issuing the official New York City version of his birth certificate, telling Newsmax:

“It took me one hour to get my birth certificate. It’s inconceivable that, after four years of questioning,  the president still hasn’t produced his birth certificate. I’m just asking President Obama to show the public his birth certificate. Why’s he making an issue out of this?”

This issue isn’t going away, no matter what tricks Obama partisans in the media deploy, because at itsbase, it is a matter of transparency (and lack thereof). Why should the American public be denied access to basic documentation, including birth records, college records, and the like, that would be required for any job applicant aspiring to a responsible position? The Obama lickspittles in the media have no good answer.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/trump_birth_certificate_asked.html


%d bloggers like this: