VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
Like your life depended on it, it does!

You know what kill’s me? It’s the fact that I keep hearing how the media has been in the pocket of Senator Obama this hold time and how hard it’s been to run against an African American to the point of making me nauseas’. On shows such as morning Joe and race for the white house as well as various others all I hear is distain dripping from nearly every comment, even a supposed complement has a backhanded insult attached. But you hear not a word about Governor Palin’s background and that’s not right, so please take a look below and call your local news stations and ask why they refuse to bring these issues to light

Vigilante Pals of Palin's not so Distant Past
By Russ Bellant Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:51:52 AM EST
"...the most compelling hypocrisy of the "terrorism" issue is Palin's own contemporary associations with fringe groups more committed to themes of antigovernment violence. A number of reports have noted, for instance, Palin's association with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), a group that is trying to get Alaska to secede from the United States. Largely unreported is the deeper extremism of the AIP and its national party organization, the Constitution Party. The Ayers story is a distraction from the real and ongoing relationships that Sarah Palin has with armed rightists, a story she invites with her vacuous allegations on 'terrorism.' "
[vote up this story on Buzzflash] In the last weeks of their struggling national campaign, the McCain-Palin ticket and the Republican National Committee have chosen to attack Barack Obama for his rare and insignificant contact with Bill Ayres, a former Weather Underground member charged but not convicted of bombing federal targets at the height of opposition to the Vietnam War four decades ago.
Palin has led the charge that Obama "pals around" with terrorists, based solely on the very limited contact he had with Ayres decades after his Weather Underground days. Some of that contact is due to education projects funded by Walter Annenberg, who is also donating to the McCain campaign. Annenberg has not been accused of funding terrorism by McCain or Palin.

But the most compelling hypocrisy of the "terrorism" issue is Palin's own contemporary associations with fringe groups more committed to themes of antigovernment violence. A number of reports have noted, for instance, Palin's association with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), a group that is trying to get Alaska to secede from the United States. Largely unreported is the deeper extremism of the AIP and its national party organization, the Constitution Party. The Ayers story is a distraction from the real and ongoing relationships that Sarah Palin has with armed rightists, a story she invites with her vacuous allegations on "terrorism."
The Constitution Party, formerly known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party (USTP), was founded in 1992 as an electoral vehicle for the growing vigilante movements that called themselves militias, as well as racists and violent antiabortion militants.
The origins of the national party go back to the American Independent Party of 1968, which was a joint effort of the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan to run George Wallace for president. Various carryover elements, including the Birchers, led to the creation of the Constitution Party.
After the party was formed, a 1994 research report by Planned Parenthood, which was tracking antiabortion violence, characterized the group as "the new political home to a growing and unusual convergence of militant antiabortion leaders, elements of the violent and racist right, members of the John Birch Society and Far Right politicians."
Palin first attended an AIP event in 1994, according to ABC News interviews with party officials. By that time the theocratic and paramilitary elements of the party were manifest. An examination of who was part of the party at the time that she first made contact with the AIP and concurrent with her husband's joining the AIP, you can see the nature of the movement that she had comfort with:
* At a Wisconsin party convention in 1994, Rev. Matthew Trewhella called for the formation of church-based "armed militias" to fight abortion and bragged about training his 16 month old son on the identification of his trigger finger, according to a Planned Parenthood report on potentially violent antiabortion groups. Trewhella, a member of the national committee of the Constitution Party, also sold manuals on behalf of his Party titled Principles Justifying the Arming and Organizing of a Militia on methods of organizing and training "militias" and conducting house assaults. He recommended that that party members "buy each of your children an SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition." Trewhella also publically cosigned a statement saying that killing abortion doctors was morally justifiable.
* Florida party head and National executive committee member Jeffrey Baker in 1994 also endorsed the "justifiable homicide" of any doctors who performed abortions, or their associates.
* Organizer Michael Bray had been convicted in 1985 and served four years in prison for bombing 10 clinics. He later wrote A Time To Kill, advocating the killing of doctors who perform abortions. He was characterized as the "father of violence" in Wrath of Angels, a book about antiabortion violence. Prior to this convention, a number of doctors who perform abortions had been wounded or killed and about 200 clinics had been bombed, torched or vandalized. The endorsement of these murders was not merely a symbolic statement..* Byron Dale, a 1994 convention speaker and workshop leader, had been a "confidant" of Gordon Kahl of the Posse Commitatus, a racist and anti-Semitic paramilitary group. Kahl killed two U.S. marshals in South Dakota before dying in a shootout. Dale said that he would kill any feds that tried to encroach on him.
* Randall Terry, who led the Operation Rescue blockades of abortion clinics, ran for Congress on the US Taxpayers Party ticket. He called for Christians to "take up the sword" and to "overthrow the tyrannical regime that oppresses them" so that they can install a theocratic regime based on "Biblical law." Other OR leaders involved with arrests for antiabortion actions were also Party leaders and candidates, according to the Planned Parenthood report.
* Prior to founding the Constitution Party, Howard Phillips, was the foremost American organizing support for the apartheid regime of South Africa and its African surrogates in the 1980's. He organized trips to South Africa for American sympathizers to meet the top political, intelligence and military leaders of the apartheid regime, which was the only surviving post World War II nazi party still holding power. Phillips and his allies supported Renamo, which the Ronald Reagan's State Department had condemned for having murdered over 100,000 civilians in Mozambique, as well as Unita, which was conducting killings in Angola. This writer attended one of his private organizing meetings where he marshaled his decades of political networking experience to push the Reagan State Department and the Congress to support the slave state of South Africa. Phillips was the 1992 and 1996 presidential candidate for his Party.
* Joining the formation of the Party and holding a seat on the national executive committee in 1994 was William K. Shearer of Lemon Grove, California. Shearer took his position after the folding of the Populist Party, a group formed by Willis Carto and his Liberty Lobby. Most notorious for creating the-holocaust-didn't happen propaganda and maintaining links to white supremacist groups, the Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party were condemned by the Anti Defamation League and the Atlanta-based Center for Democratic Renewal for what the latter group called "an amalgamation of neo-Nazis, skinheads, former Klansmen and other extremists who banded together."
In 1989 this writer attended a Populist Party meeting in Chicago chaired by Shearer where the featured speaker was David Duke. Security was provided by Art Jones, Chicago's foremost uniformed Nazi, who choked a TV news reporter with his necktie for critically questioning Duke at the meeting. Jones was also a regular participant in Aryans Nation gatherings when they were planning insurrectionist activities, at least two of which were witnessed by this writer. It is not clear why Shearer picked Jones to provide security or why Phillips selected Shearer for national leadership of the new Party.
During and after this period Sarah Palin maintained friendly relations with the Alaska branch of the Constitution Party for many years, according to many news reports. She attended their convention again in 2000 and in 2006 sought their support for her run for governor. In June 2008 she sent them a video wishing them "good luck on a successful and inspiring convention, keep up the good work and God bless you."
Her husband Todd joined the party during the period of militancy in 1995 and changed his voter registration in 2002 to "undeclared."
A recent review of the websites of the AIP and its parent Constitution Party demonstrates that these groups are still the home of the violence-inclined far right. The national platform, for instance, pledges to "support and encourage unorganized militia at the county and community level."
Its origins in the southern racist elements is reflected in the group's calls for repealing "hate crime legislation," the Voting Rights Act (which ended the disenfranchisement of millions of voters in the deep South) and, most tellingly, supports the claim that states ( not just Alaska ) can secede from the United States at any time. The plank on secession states that "each state's membership in the Union is voluntary."
The well-reported fact that the AIP advocates secession from the United States is also supplemented by the group's constitution, which requires playing only the Alaska Anthem, not the national anthem. This could not be lost on Palin, who has attended at least three AIP conventions and continues to praise them.
Another element of extremism in the Constitution Party is its assertion that the U.S. should be governed by "Biblical law" and places as their first policy plank a complete prohibition on all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. They also call for the repeal of the federal law that restricts antiabortion militants from physically disrupting clinics where abortions are performed.
The influence for these views comes from the Christian Reconstructionist movement founded by the late R.J. Rushdoony, a Constitution Party cofounder. The conservative evangelical magazine Christianity Today in 1987 published a critical article about Reconstructionist goals to assert Old Testament law over society in which "homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, astrologers and others will be executed." The formation of so called militias ( read: vigilante groups ) as the armed forces of Reconstructionism is the core of what the Constitution Party is about.
Reporters for Salon.com, funded by the Nation Institute for Investigative Journalism, found that Palin had local ties to this extremist movement. They reported that in Palin's successful campaign for mayor of Wasilla, that Mark Chryson, a long time state leader of the AIP, and Steve Stoll, a leader of the John Birch Society, played influential roles. "During the 1990's, when Chryson directed the AIP, he and another radical rightwinger, Steve Stoll, played a quiet but pivotal role in electing Palin as mayor of Wasilla and shaping her agenda afterward. Both Stoll and Chryson not only contributed to Palin's campaign financially, they played a major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory."
Chryson told Salon that he stays in touch with secessionist groups in 30 states. He said that he and Palin worked to together to alter the state constitution "to better facilitate the formation of antigovernment militias." Chryson added that "every time I showed up her door was always open. And that policy continued when she was governor."
Palin also tried to install Stoll in a vacant city council seat when she was mayor, even though he was well known in the area as "Black Helicopter Steve," according to the Salon.com report, apparently due to his militia-like conspiracy theories.
When she was city council member, Palin posed for what appears to be her official photograph with a John Birch Society publication. The JBS is the ideological core of the so-called militia groups and coined the phrase that "the US is a republic, not a democracy" and opposed the public election of US senators, instead having them appointed by state legislatures, a view reflected in the Constitution Party platform. The Birchers became notorious years ago for characterizing the U.S. as partially communist and placed presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon as complicit in the "Communist conspiracy."
Another arena in which militant talk is associated with prospectively violent results is in Palin's church life. Since becoming Governor, she has attended the Juneau Christian Church, which has affiliated itself with leaders of the "Toronto Blessing." The Toronto Blessing an ultracharismatic practice centered on "Holy Laughter"(otherwise known as hysterical laughter) which includes howling, barking like dogs, screaming, spasmodic jerking and rolling on floors as part of, even the substance of, "church" services. This has been reported on, taped and criticized by traditional, conservative evangelical ministries but it has spread across North America.This may sound harmless, but it binds members together in perceived antidemonic "power evangelism" to turn their cities into citadels for the righteous. One of those leaders, Rodney Howard Browne, exhorted congregants to great applause when he claimed that their movement is "going to shake this nation to its very foundations, to its very core...its going to shake America like a tsunami" and told them that "if it means death, so be it."
In a video posted by Bruce Wilson on the website of Talk To Action, Browne is described as closely linked to Palin's Juneau church and its minister. They are identified as part of a movement that seeks to "restructure the churches of America to do battle with evil prior to the return of Jesus. They are also preparing a generation of youth to serve as "Joel's Army" and to attack the "demonic strongholds" of America." Joel's Army refers to a violent end time army in the Old Testament book of Joel. Wilson previously published videos that caused John McCain to drop his affiliation with controversial ministers John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
It is unclear what Palin believes regarding the themes of violence of most the extreme elements of the groups that she has associated with for many years. But if she is going to use guilt by association methods based on activities that occurred decades ago, she has some more recent associations of her own to explain. If she believes her frequents assertions that the US is a "great nation," then why does she associate with secessionists that try to break it up? If she opposes domestic violence for political ends, how can she be associated with a group with leaders that have embraced `justifiable homicide"? It is disturbing that she declined to condemn the violence and murder against abortion providers in the NBC interview with Brian Williams, even though he asked her twice about that matter.
There is no statewide elected leader, either as governor or U.S. Senator, that has more extreme right wing, violence-prone associations that Sarah Palin. John McCain has asked us to endorse her, but even if the ticket fails this time, he has elevated her to a contending position for the 2012, energizing and empowering the extreme right in the process. No wonder that even some informed elements of the Republican Party are abandoning him.


If Sarah Palin isn’t a Member of the John Birch Society, She Should be
By mark karlin
Created 10/27/2008 - 8:09am
MARK KARLIN'S EDITOR'S BLOG
October 27
Sarah Palin has got a pass because the corporate news media has largely let her off the hook for her radical anti-American beliefs.
The mainstream press hasn’t explored the close relationship of Palin and her husband with the extremist, secessionist Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), because the McCain campaign says that she was never officially a "member." Of course, that’s a technicality because the Palins have been close to Alaskan Independence Party members, ideas and conventions, [1] with Governor Palin even sending a video tape welcome to the AIP convention [2] this year in Fairbanks, in which she commends them and indicates that she shares their values. And AIP members were among her earliest promoters for elected office, and Palin hasn’t forgotten them, not by a long shot.
And the corporate media has largely left unexplored Palin’s fanatical "Third Wave" End Times religious beliefs that promote her as a "prayer warrior" destined to take over the U.S. government to turn America into a Christian nation in which the non-believers will be shown the door. Not to mention that Palin has had a minister personally lay hands on her to protect her from witch doctors, has sat through a "Jews for Jesus" presentation in which the speaker espoused an "Elders of Zion" conspiracy theory about Jews, and proclaimed that the Iraq War is divinely inspired. And that’s just for starters.
But the corporate media listens to the campaign evasion that Palin doesn’t officially belong to a church (even though she is tied at the hip, thigh, and ankle bone to the Wasilla Assembly of God) and proclaims, "case closed."
In short, what passes as the mass media in America is acting like it doesn’t have a curious brain in any of its multi-billion dollar corporate body.
Supposing a teenager was caught driving around drunk, smashing into cars, and doing untold damage on numerous occasions. Supposing that whenever the case came to court the teenager’s lawyer pleaded to the judge that the teen could not be guilty of drunken driving because he didn’t have a driver’s license. Supposing the judge dismissed each case by saying, "I don’t know how the young man could be charged with drunken driving when he doesn’t have a license to drive. Case dismissed."
Well, that, "my friends" (to quote John McCain), is the stance of the establishment press – with few exceptions – toward Sarah Palin’s stark raving bonkers extremist views on several fronts.
Now, we have another group that she doesn’t officially belong to, but to whose outlook she clearly subscribes: The John Birch Society. (There is a photo going around the Internet [3], provided by Palin’s family, of her holding a John Birch Society publication from 1995, but that’s not really evidence of much. The evidence is in her beliefs, not what she has in her hand.)
While in Iowa over the weekend, speaking to a group that reportedly was filled with shouts of "Marxist," "Socialist," and "Communist" every time that Palin mentioned Obama, Palin said [4]:
"See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody. Obama, Barack Obama has an ideological commitment to higher taxes, and I say this based on his record... Higher taxes, more government, misusing the power to tax leads to government moving into the role of some believing that government then has to take care of us. And government kind of moving into the role as the other half of our family, making decisions for us. Now, they do this in other countries where the people are not free. Let us fight for what is right. John McCain and I, we will put our trust in you."
Whoa, that is certainly crossing over into John Birch Society extra-terrestrial whacko terrain!
So let’s go to the source -- the John Birch Society website -- for this quotation [5], which mirrors Palin’s, but with correct syntax:
"It is understandable that the severe crisis of traditional family life is fueling our overall cultural breakdown. It is also understandable why revolutionaries who wage war against God and man, and who see the family as an obstacle in their path, would work to subvert and destroy the family. Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, explicitly called for the "abolition of the family." Both before and after Karl Marx, from ancient Sparta where children were taken away from their parents and brought up communally, to Nazi Germany, where the young were forced into the Hitler Youth, totalitarians have tried to supplant the family with the Almighty State. But try as they might, the family, though weakened at times, has never been destroyed."
On the John Birch Society website it also proclaims [6]: "Vibrant and healthy families are essential to securing limited government interference in a free society. Actions which empower families should be encouraged."
Of course, the corporate media will let this Palin John Birch Society affinity pass, because no doubt the McCain campaign will act indignant and say it is insulting to ask if she is a member.
Wake up dummies in the national press corps, membership is not the issue. If a person talks and acts like they are believers in the John Birch Society, membership doesn’t matter.
If Sarah Palin isn’t in the John Birch Society, she should be.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, just a few Google searches.

The First Amendment of the Constitution defends our rights as citizens to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to worship as we choose (with no involvement from the state), freedom to petition and to assemble peacefully in protest. It allows us to broach controversial topics without fear of persecution, to question our government without consequential incarceration and to follow our beliefs without subsequent oppression.
Which makes the past 3 decades even more confusing. The Party that founded itself in the idea of upholding the Constitution and little else, less government and more personal responsibility, has become an ideological authority for half of America. The Party of Lincoln has become the Party of "Values" (Re: Christian Values), imposing their rhetoric upon the nation in the form of laws and legislation.
That would be fine, if this were a country founded in theocracy; it is not. As we decry Radical Islam and it's stranglehold on Middle Eastern politics, it would do us well to remember that extremism begins not with an explosion, but with persuasion.
- Kirtley


As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state


By GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press WriterSat Oct 11, 12:59 PM ET


The camera closes in on Sarah Palin speaking to young missionaries, vowing from the pulpit to do her part to implement God's will from the governor's office.
What she didn't tell worshippers gathered at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown was that her appearance that day came courtesy of Alaskan taxpayers, who picked up the $639.50 tab for her airplane tickets and per diem fees.
An Associated Press review of the Republican vice presidential candidate's record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state.
Since she took state office in late 2006, the governor and her family have spent more than $13,000 in taxpayer funds to attend at least 10 religious events and meetings with Christian pastors, including Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical preacher Billy Graham, records show.
Palin was baptized Roman Catholic as a newborn and baptized again in a Pentecostal Assemblies of God church when she was a teenager. She has worshipped at a nondenominational Bible church since 2002, opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and supports classroom discussions about creationism.
Since she was named as John McCain's running mate, Palin's deep faith and support for traditional moral values have rallied conservative voters who initially appeared reluctant to back his campaign.
On a weekend trip from the capital in June, a minister from the Wasilla Assembly of God blessed Palin and Lt. Gov Sean Parnell before a crowd gathered for the "One Lord Sunday" event at the town's hockey rink. Later in the day, she addressed the budding missionaries at her former church.
"As I'm doing my job, let's strike this deal. Your job is going be to be out there, reaching the people — (the) hurting people — throughout Alaska," she told students graduating from the church's Masters Commission program. "We can work together to make sure God's will be done here."
A spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign, Maria Comella, said the state paid for Palin's travel and meals on that trip, and for other meetings with Christian groups, because she and her family were invited in their official capacity as Alaska's first family. Parnell did not charge the state a per diem or ask to be reimbursed for travel expenses that day.
"I understand the per diem policy is, I can claim it if I am away from my residence for 12 hours or more. And Anchorage is where my residence is and I'm based from. And this trip took about four hours of driving time and time at the event, so I did not claim per diem for this one," Parnell told the AP.
Palin and her family billed the state $3,022 for the cost of attending Christian gatherings exclusively, including visits to the Assembly of God here and to the congregation they attend in Juneau, according to expense reports reviewed by the AP.
Experts say those trips fall into an ethically gray area, since Democrats and Republicans alike often visit religious venues for personal and official reasons.
J. Brent Walker, who runs a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for church-state separation, said based on a reporter's account, Palin's June excursion raised questions.
"Politicians are entitled to freely exercise their religion while in office, but ethically if not legally that part of her trip ought to not be charged to taxpayers," said Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. "It's still fundamentally a religious and spiritual experience she is having."
The Palins billed the state an additional $10,094 in expenses for other multi-day trips that included worship services or religiously themed events, but also involved substantial state business, including the governor's inaugural ball and an oil and gas conference in New Orleans.
Palin also submitted $998 in expenses for a June trip to Anchorage that included a bill signing at Congregation Beth Shalom synagogue, the only non-Christian house of worship she has visited since taking office, according to the McCain campaign.
In response to an AP request, Comella provided a list showing that since January 2007 the governor had attended 25 "faith-based events," including funerals and community meetings held at churches. Many did not appear on the governor's schedule or her travel records.
Palin has said publicly her personal opinions don't "bleed on over into policies."
Still, after the AP reported the governor had accepted tainted donations during her 2006 campaign, she announced she would donate the $2,100 to three charities, including an Anchorage nonprofit aimed at "sharing God's love" to dissuade young women from having abortions.
An AP review of her time as mayor, from late 1996 to 2002, also reveals a commingling of church and state.
Records of her mayoral correspondence show that Palin worked arduously to organize a day of prayer at city hall. She said that with local ministers' help, Wasilla — a city of 7,000 an hour's drive north of Anchorage — could become "a light, or a refuge for others in Alaska and America."
"What a blessing that the Lord has already put into place the Christian leaders, even though I know it's all through the grace of God," she wrote in March 2000 to her former pastor. She thanked him for the loan of a video featuring a Kenyan preacher who later would pray for her protection from witchcraft as she sought higher office.
In that same period, she also joined a grass-roots, faith-based movement to stop the local hospital from performing abortions, a fight that ultimately lost before the Alaska Supreme Court.
Palin's former church and other evangelical denominations were instrumental in ousting members of Valley Hospital's board who supported abortion rights — including the governor's mother-in-law, Faye Palin.
Alaska Right to Life Director Karen Lewis, who led the campaign, said Palin wasn't a leader in the movement initially. But by 1997, after she had been elected mayor, Palin joined a hospital board to make sure the abortion ban held while the courts considered whether the ban was legal, Lewis said.
"We kept pro-life people like Sarah on the association board to ensure children of the womb would be protected," Lewis said. "She's made up of this great fiber of high morals and godly character, and yet she's fearless. She's someone you can depend on to carry the water."
In November 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that because the hospital received more than $10 million in public funds it was "quasi-public" and couldn't forbid legal abortions.
Comella said Palin joined the hospital's broader association in the mid-1990s. Records show she was elected to the nonprofit's board in 2000.
Ties among those active at the time still run deep: In November, Palin was a keynote speaker at Lewis' "Proudly Pro-Life Dinner" in Anchorage, and the governor billed taxpayers a $60 per diem fee for her work that day.
Palin also is one of just two governors who channeled federal money to support religious groups through a state agency, Alaska's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Palin has made it a priority to unite faith communities, local nonprofits and government to serve the needy, bringing her high marks — and $500,000 — from the Bush administration.
In fiscal year 2008, Alaska was one of only four states to receive $500,000 in federal grant money from the national initiative.
"The governor has a healthy appreciation for faith-based groups that serve Alaskans in need," said Jay Hein, who until recently directed national faith-based initiatives at the White House. "The grant speaks to their organizational strength, and the dynamism of Alaska's operation."
Several Catholic and Christian charities received funding, including $20,000 for a Fairbanks homeless shelter that views itself as a "stable door of evangelism and Christian service" and $36,000 for a drop-in center at an Anchorage mall that seeks to demonstrate "the unconditional love of Jesus to teenagers."
The state ensures all faith-based groups keep a strict separation between their work in the community and their prayer services to ensure recipients don't feel coerced, said Tara Horton, a special assistant to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Though staffers reached out to nonprofits and religious groups of many faiths, mostly Christian organizations applied for funding, she said.
In June, when Alaska legislators decided to cut $712,000 in state support for the office, Parnell sent lawmakers an urgent letter asking them to put it back in the budget. A small portion of state funding was later restored.
"Gov. Palin is motivated by the needs out there, and faith-based and community initiatives are a great way to do that," Parnell said. "It matters not to state government what religion people belong to, so long as they are serving the public and the money they receive is used appropriately."
Still, a state worker who directs an Anchorage-based group that advocates for church-state separation, Lloyd Eggan, said Palin's administration hasn't done enough to assure voters that government money doesn't support ministry.
"That sort of thing is exactly what courts have said is barred by the First Amendment," Eggan said.

I have heard all kinds of BS in my life, but this takes not only the cake but the table in was setting on. How in the hell can anyone support these assholes, yes I said it and I hear so many people I work with, people at the gym at the store talk about the maverick, and I say where the hell is he? People get a grip!

Palin: Ohio Vets Are Unqualified Voters?

Watching John McCain attack our veterans has become the norm these past few years, with his status as a symbol for the American veteran merely a weird plot twist in his history; We have watched him stand on the Senate floor for five-and-a-half hours, leading the fight against the dwell time amendment that would give our troops more time between tours. We have seen him speak out against the 21st Century GI Bill that would expand education benefits for our troops for the first time since the Senator himself used them to pay for college. Like a bizarro-world version of Mark Foley ruthlessly fighting pedophiles while being one himself, so goes McCain's inexplicable record on veterans issues.
But finally, he's put his mouth where his money is. McCain and Palin, who both have children in the Armed Forces, have declared Ohio troops and hospitalized vets unqualified voters.
I get emails from McCain's Ohio arm to try to keep an eye on what they're doing there, since the state will probably decide the election, but happens to have a Republican party establishment that would purge every voter without a butler from the rolls if it had the chance. This is what they sent out after the debate last night under Palin's name:
The Obama-Biden Democrats and their allies are exploiting loopholes in Ohio election laws that we fear may result in unqualified voters casting ballots.
The "loophole in Ohio election laws" that Palin is talking about is not a loophole at all, just a very sensible premise that is standard for absentee ballots -- that a vote is not technically cast until it is tabulated. Republican groups cited a rule that requires 30 days between registration and voting and sought to disqualify absentee ballots that were filled out on the same day as registration. Same-day registration and filling out of absentee ballots is the best option available to unregistered troops abroad and hospitalized vets in VA facilities. The "Obama-Biden Democrats and their allies" are non-partisan veterans advocacy groups like Veterans For America and IAVA that fought tooth and nail to defeat a lawsuit that challenged this very sensible notion to protect thousands of troops and vets from disenfranchisement.
With deployed troops donating 6:1 in favor of Obama, the cynic in me can see why the GOP doesn't want their votes to count. Then the decent person in me chimes in and says, "I can't see how anyone could try to block a deployed soldier's right to vote and be able to live with themselves."
Despite Gov. Palin's strange relationship with colloquialism ("Hockey Moms across America," anyone? How many are there?), the use of the term "unqualified voters" in a country that generally lets citizens over the age of 18 vote is the kind of phrase that should've been phased out long before the word "email" was phased in. With regards to the only American citizens who don't get to vote, felons, that's left up to the states. In Ohio, felons are only disqualified from voting while incarcerated, and I'm pretty sure she isn't talking about prison visitors stuffing stacks of voter registration forms and absentee ballots into God-knows-where in the name of democracy, though that would be quite the heist.
That leaves the troops and hospitalized veterans, the target of this power-grab. Nope, don't want those dangerously unqualified voters pulling the levers at all...

Once again Tim Wise lays it out there; I find it telling that it takes a Caucasian to say these truths while most people of color have known this their whole life. Why can’t the MSM just say what we already know?

White Privilege, White Entitlement and the 2008 Election
By Tim Wise
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin’ redneck," like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re "untested."
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it, a "light" burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.
White privilege is, in short, the problem.

I came across this today and the sad part is its true, the MSM and most of America is focusing on BS while the real issues are being ignored. Wake up people we are about to wash the future of this county down the drain.


While Rome Burned...They Talked About Lipstick


On 9/11 anniversary, aviation still vulnerable: "The nation's top domestic security official," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, "said Wednesday aviation remains vulnerable to terrorist attack seven years after 9/11."
Unemployment rising: The nation's unemployment rate has "bolted above the psychologically important 6 percent level last month for the first time in five years," the AP noted over the weekend, "and it's likely to go even higher in the months ahead, possibly throwing the economy into a tailspin as Americans pick a new president." Moreover, a new study released yesterday showed that pending home sales dropped 3.2% in July, reversing gains made in June.
Federal deficit ballooning: The weak economy is not only devastating the federal government's coffers -- likely driving the federal budget deficit over the $500 billion mark by January, according to government estimates -- but is also depleting state unemployment insurance trust funds.
U.S. 'running out of time' in Afghanistan: "The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today the U.S. is 'running out of time' to get the war in Afghanistan right and announced that he was developing a "new, more comprehensive strategy" to cover the entire region."
Military suicides reaching record levels: Suicides among active-duty soldiers this year "are on pace to exceed both last year's all-time record and, for the first time since the Vietnam War, the rate among the general U.S. population," according to Army officials.
U.S.-Russia relations worsening: "Just three months ago, President Bush reached a long-sought agreement with Russia intended to open a new era of civilian nuclear cooperation and sent it to Congress for review. Now, according to administration officials, Mr. Bush is preparing to scrap his own deal."
OPEC trying to prevent oil prices from falling: The OPEC oil cartel announced its intention to reduce oil production by approximately half a million barrels per day in what the New York Times described as "a bid to stem a rapid decline in oil prices in recent weeks."
And that's not even counting the 36 million Americans living in poverty this year, the sky high prices of gas and food, the sinking consumer confidence, and the 46.9 million people without health insurance (about 16 percent of the total population), etc.
No, the stories above are just from the last few days...

The GOP had no problem attacking Barack's patriotism for not wearing a flag pin; they had no issue with attacking Michelle for being really proud of her country for the first time her adult life. I wonde,r what did they think of this? At least, what did they think BEFORE they got the talking points...


The Alaska Independence Party
Sep 2, 2008
(Political Animal) THE ALASKA INDEPENDENCE PARTY.... What may prove to be the single most damaging angle to Sarah Palin's role on the Republican Party ticket? There are quite a few contenders (ethics scandal, earmarks, inexperience, outside-the-mainstream views), but following up on Hilzoy's item from last night, Palin's association with the Alaska Independence Party might be the most politically detrimental.It's practically impossible to make a "Country First" argument when your running mate is affiliated with a political party that puts country second.
Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which since the 1970s has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First," the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time."We are a state's rights party," Clark -- a self-employed goldminer -- tells ABC News. The AIP has "a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law."For all the talk about Barack and Michelle Obama's patriotism, John McCain's running mate was a member of a political party that liked the idea of seceding from the United States altogether. It's the kind of idea that would have been more common in the 1850s.Advocating secession is, practically by definition, un-American. How does the right go after Obama's patriotism while supporting a ticket with a candidate who joined a secessionist party?We are, after all, talking about a party founded by a man who said, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." The same man, AIP founder Joe Vogler, also said, "[T]he fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government."How is this any better than Jeremiah Wright? Why would Sarah Palin voluntarily join this man's political party?Complicating matters, Marc Ambinder has a video of a AIP leader explaining that party members "must 'infiltrate' -- his words -- the other two parties and push for the cause of Alaskan independence."I suspect McCain and his aides didn't know about any of this. Indeed, they couldn't have -- they didn't vet her. But now that this revelation has come to light, what's the defense?

I know I've been sort of out of the office but not really, I needed a break from everything. There are so many things going on, so many directions to head off into that in trying to navigate my way around I felt that whatever I wanted to talk about had to be worth talking about not just what’s in the MSM. This is someone whose writings I respect but very few see, and this is one that needs to be seen by as many as possible, so have a good read.

Your Whiteness is Showing: An Open Letter to Certain White WomenWho are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November
By Tim Wise
June 5, 2008
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.
I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified.
That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.
First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.
If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?
And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...
Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?
See, I told you your whiteness was showing.
And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?
See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?
Your whiteness is showing.
Look, I couldn't care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a security risk, and that I wouldn't be able to get clearance to be in some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important, the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b) demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been long ingrained in us as white folks--so that we believe we have the right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have done just that.
But that day is done, whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you've done so as a radical political act.

I had heard this on the airwaves but had not seen this in print, but once I came across it I just had to put it up incase anyone that may visit my site would have missed it. We all know that for the most part something like this will never hit the MSM, morning Joe and shows of that ilk rarely show something of substance they prefer to have a discussion about trivial non-issues, they would rather go on and on about Rev. Wright than to bring this up so I guess it’s up too the people to get the word out. I have to get this out the way I watched the show this morning and all Joe was talking about was the show John Adams, oddly enough that was the name of my high school in Cleveland Ohio, but before I digress I wonder if he is watching or if is really watching and learning.


Endorsing Obama
By Doug Kmiec
Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence, and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and that he wants to return the United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.
This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Gov. Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.
As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican and a constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.
In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.
No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that, and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or a clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen.
Sept. 11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety, and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, "draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. ... wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose." Sen. Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a worldwide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby stem radical Islam's threat to civil order. I await Sen. Obama's more extended thinking upon this vital subject as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Sen. McCain in the general campaign discussion to come.


About Doug Kmiec
Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.

I came across this by accident some of the information I already knew about (a good book to read called Free Thinkers; there is also a web site), but these are things that most in this country have no clue about. Most people have no idea of the road we are going down and I really think as a whole America needs to wake up.


Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular
by Jim Walker

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."
The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.
The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."
George Washington
Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."
Thomas Jefferson
Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
John Adams
John Adams
Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."
In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
James Madison
Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
Benjamin Franklin
Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."
In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."
Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)
Thomas Paine
This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "
The U.S. Constitution
The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.
If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.
The Declaration of Independence
Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli
More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.
Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.
Treaty of Tripoli
Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of AlgiersCopyright National Portait Gallery Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource NY
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).
Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.
Common Law
Signers of the Treaty of Tripoli
According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."
Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.
But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."
Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.
Christian Sources
Virtually all the evidence that attempts to connect a foundation of Christianity upon the government rests mainly on quotes and opinions from a few of the colonial statesmen who had professed a belief in Christianity. Sometimes the quotes come from their youth before their introduction to Enlightenment ideas or simply from personal beliefs. But statements of beliefs, by themselves, say nothing about Christianity as the source of the U.S. government.
There did occur, however, some who wished a connection between church and State. Patrick Henry, for example, proposed a tax to help sustain "some form of Christian worship" for the state of Virginia. But Jefferson and other statesmen did not agree. In 1779, Jefferson introduced a bill for the Statute for Religious Freedom which became Virginia law. Jefferson designed this law to completely separate religion from government. None of Henry's Christian views ever got introduced into Virginia's or U.S. Government law.
Unfortunately, later developments in our government have clouded early history. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892 did not contain the words "under God." Not until June 1954 did those words appear in the Allegiance. The United States currency never had "In God We Trust" printed on money until after the Civil War. Many Christians who visit historical monuments and see the word "God" inscribed in stone, automatically impart their own personal God of Christianity, without understanding the Framers Deist context.
In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Many Christians use this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta, as a personal opinion only and does not serve as a legal pronouncement. Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."
Conclusion
The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture.
Today we have powerful Christian organizations who work to spread historical myths about early America and attempt to bring a Christian theocracy to the government. If this ever happens, then indeed, we will have ignored the lessons from history. Fortunately, most liberal Christians today agree with the principles of separation of church and State, just as they did in early America.
"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point"
-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

If the MSM refuses to do the job they purport to do then I thing it’s up to the people, we the people (just words)

Clintons to face fraud trialJudge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.
At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.
Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.
The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.
Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.
The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.
Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.
Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.
Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.
Rosen, accused of concealing Paul's in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.
Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government."
The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.
"Why wouldn't that cause someone to inquire?" Paul asked. "Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn't take any more money from me."
Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation's top lawyers
Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul's case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing MoveOn.org but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former President Reagan.
Martin's group also is assisting in Paul's complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will "have aided and abetted in the commission" of a felony.
Paul's case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate "home

Clinton: Bought and Paid for By Saudi Arabia and China
by The Bagof Health and Politics Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:39:46 AM PST
There's a reason she hasn't released her tax returns--Bill is on the payroll of the Saudis and the Chinese Communist Party.Hillary Clinton still hasn’t released her tax return. We don’t know what she’s hiding, but if her tax return was clear, we’d have long since seen the return (which was filed in April of 2007). After 8 years of Dick Cheney raiding the public treasury for the benefit of his Halliburton stock, we must know the financial interests of potential future Presidents and the conflicts they pose. Since Clinton won’t release her tax return, I will speculate as to what may or may not be contained therein.Bill Clinton has been active on the international scene. We already know about the $131 million kickback Bill took from an Asian dictator. Still, Bill has been remarkably secretive about the funding for his presidential library. The full list of donors has never been released. But we know two things: the Clinton Library cost $165 million to build and fully 10% of that cost was covered by Saudi Arabia.Since he left office, Bill Clinton has mainly earned a living as a speaker, writer and "consultant." Companies, governments, and organizations pay him huge fees to speak at a gathering or lend his name to the business. Bill has lent his name to shady businessmen, like Ron Burkle. Clinton’s speeches have earned him millions; a typical speech with the former President costs href="25,000. Foreign interests in Japan, Australia, and Europe have all been more than happy to throw money at the Clintons. This has led the man who was making $45,000 a year as Governor of Arkansas to spectacular wealth; the kind of wealth that can buy million dollar vacation homes. Worse, this is also the kind of wealth that can cause politicians to be indebted to foreign interests and undermine our national interests and security.According to the Washington Post, a Saudi Arabian investment company with ties to the Saudi government and Royal Family has paid Bill Clinton at least $600,000 in lecturing fees. A quick search on Bill’s travel itinerary reveals that Bill Clinton met with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh in June of 2003. Two years later, Clinton met with the Crown Prince again, this time in the United States. One wonders what Bill promised in exchange for the $600,000 check. Other foreign interests who have paid Clinton include: $650,000 from a pro-NAFTA Canadian investment firm and $200,000 from a real estate firm which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.This is all money which can be turned around by the Clintons to support their political interests. By law, Hillary Clinton is entitled to use half of her spouse’s wealth to back her presidential campaign. In this campaign, she has already done this by donating $5 million to her campaign. Let’s think about the net effect of this; this allows Bill’s income to be used for political purposes. In effect the Saudis have given a $300,000 donation to her campaign, the Canadians have donated $325,000, and the Chinese Communist Party has donated $100,000.With gas at $4 a gallon, I don’t want anybody who is on the Saudi payroll near the Oval Office. It’s clear that foreign governments and the Clintons have been colluding to buy off the American process and open the store to foreign interests—like the Saudis and the Chinese Communist Party. This is why Hillary Clinton must be defeated in the Democratic Primary. Our national security depends on it.Hillary Clinton knows this. It is why she won't release her tax returns. Those returns will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she and her husband are on the payroll of corrupt foreign entities--like the Chinese Communist Party and the Saudi Arabian government. Enough is enough; let's not elect the Democratic version of Dick Cheney to the Presidency and allow this country to be swindled into poverty.Updates: Ourhispanicvoices wrote a diary yesterday which shows that the Clintons are also receiving large sums of cash from Dubai--the nation which tried to buy our ports!http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/7/132849/9985/... MORE ON DUBAI PORTS WORLD BUYOUT OF AMERICAN PORTS: Back in 2002, the Yucaipa Co. LLC hired the former president as a "senior adviser." He won't say how much that pays; Hillary's disclosure forms only put it at "more than $1,000" a year. A company lawyer recently disclosed that he gets a percentage of profits, if they're above 9 percent -and also says the firm's been averaging about a 40 percent.And Yucaipa last year with the Dubai Investment Group to create a new U.S. company: DIGL Inc, with, which invests the private funds of the Crown Prince. So Bill and Yucaipa have a big stake in keeping a positive image for the Dubai royals and their many companies. -----------------Severing the tie to Dubai, a U.S. ally, will remove a potentially tricky problem for Mrs. Clinton. Questions raised about the activities of sovereign wealth funds -- giant pools of money controlled by foreign governments -- have become a campaign issue, as the funds have made a spate of multibillion-dollar investments in such corporate giants as Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mrs. Clinton said such purchases are "a source of concern," partly because the foreign funds "lack transparency" and could be used by foreign governments as "instruments of foreign policy."...In an October filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the Xinhua investment, Yucaipa disclosed that one member of its global fund's general partnership was Dubai Investment Group (YGP) Ltd., which is connected to a much larger group of entities owned by Sheik Mohammed that has investments around the world.Since leaving the White House, Mr. Clinton has had various contacts with Dubai. For example, Sheik Mohammed last year pledged financial support to a Clinton charitable initiative, and the former president's foundation has a scholarship program at the American University in Dubai in cooperation with the emirate's ruler.http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1200974240219058...