Does the Cross Represent a Specific Religious Denomination?

-



A statue of a cross erected in the Mojave Desert on federal land in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign War to honor all those military killed in the service of the country is ruled a violation of the First Amendment. If this is upheld by the Supreme Court does that mean the thousands of crosses on graves at Arlington National Cemetery and throughout the nation and world have to be removed?



What nonsense. The First Amendment said no religious denomination could be favored. How does showing a cross constitute favoring a specific religious denomination? The Jewish lawyer arguing to get rid of the cross said Jews do not honor the cross.

Two questions arise. Does the Cross represent a specific religious denomination? What are religions? There are five major religions recognized by everyone who keeps track of religion. Here they are with estimates of their membership worldwide.

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.5 billion
3. Hinduism: 900 million
4. Buddhism: 376 million
5. Judaism: 14 million



Within the Christianity category there are estimated to be 34,000 to 38,000 denominations, with the largest being Roman Catholic with 1.3 billion members. Thousands of denominations reference the Cross as a symbol. In the Islam category the main groups are the Shiite and Sunni with 85% being Sunni. Clearly there are a lot of religious denominations.



Here in Maryland we are proud that the first colonists came to the original thirteen colonies and landed at St. Clements Island in 1634 with the first charter guaranteeing religious freedom in the New World. Not Jamestown nor Plymouth can say the same. How was this historic religious toleration moment celebrated, honoring an act that would eventually be incorporated into the Constitution in the Bill of Rights? The colonists erected a giant cross on St. Clements Island.

The Cross as a religious symbol may be recognized by many religions denominations but it was also accepted as the symbol of religious freedom in America 375 years ago. The Maryland colony was the only one guaranteeing religious freedom. So I say the Cross is a secular symbol of our Bill of Rights, the freedom of religion, all religions in America. The Cross does not reflect any one denomination of Christianity.



If the Cross as a secular symbol of America is abandoned in all of America that is public, whether federal, state, or local including schools, then the Star of David and the hechsher symbols, very specific religious symbols to Judaism, should also be banned from all public places.



The Star of David appears on the back of a one dollar bill while the hechsher, the circled-U symbol is on the labels of many commercial and consumer food products found in schools, the Capitol dining room, public auditoriums, and on and on.



Of course any symbols reflecting the original thirteen colonies including the Official US Seal, the Seal of the Office of President, money and flags could represent the 12 tribes of Israel plus Levi, the thirteen tribes of Israel. That is also a religious (Judaism) symbol, they all have to go as well. Do you see how foolish this can become?



Since the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is prosecuting this case and they have been in the forefront of making sure God has no role in America then they should see that if they get rid of the Cross which is a 375 year old secular symbol more so than a symbol of a specific religious denomination, then it is their responsibility to get rid of the far more religious symbols like the Star of David, anything that denotes the tribes of Israel and even the hechsher, the religious Hebrew symbol on food products.

-

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Iran & Israel Not in Compliance

-



The world is threatened by nuclear activity in Iran and North Korea, and the countries with nuclear stockpiles are considering additional sanctions against Iran to force compliance with the treaty provisions banning nuclear weapons development. Iran does not have nuclear weapons nor nuclear reactors but they are building reactors and plutonium enriching facilities that may violate the Treaty.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was approved in 1968 and closed in 1970. Today 189 countries have signed or acceded to approving the Treaty. North Korea originally signed the Treaty but withdrew in 2003. Three nations have never signed the Treaty, Israel, India and Pakistan. India, Pakistan and North Korea have admitted to testing nuclear weapons.



So we have these three nations who refused to sign the Treaty and refuse to work with the rest of the world for peace and they actually have nuclear weapons. That means we have no control over them even though they are allies of the USA and we are the world defender of Israel.



If we can't influence these nations with nuclear weapons of mass destruction why are we so concerned with Iran who has no nuclear operating facility nor nuclear weapons? We are prepared to let Israel go to war with Iran simply because Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons but the Administration and media never mention the three countries who do have nuclear weapons and gained them by ignoring the United Nations and the Treaty.

Of the nations refusing to recognize the Treaty it is estimated India and Pakistan have under 100 nuclear weapons while North Korea has under 25. Israel has never offered information nor inspection of their nuclear generating and weapons producing facilities but best estimates are Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons along with nuclear and enhancement facilities to make additional warheads.



The center of Israel's weapons program is the Negev Nuclear Research Center near the desert town of Dimona (the center is usually identified simply as "Dimona"). A nuclear reactor and plutonium production facility was secretly built by France at this facility in the late 1950s and early 60s. All of the production and fabrication of special nuclear materials (plutonium, lithium-6 deuteride, and enriched and unenriched uranium) occurs at Dimona.



Five nations make up the NWC (Nuclear Weapons Club) and are signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China. These are the nations currently in negotiations with Iran.

Ironically, these same nations were responsible for providing the nations refusing to sign the Treaty with the materials, equipment and fuel to build their own nuclear and nuclear weapons capability outside the Treaty. France provided Israel with the nuclear weapons support. The United States and Canada were the source for the India nuclear program. North Korea's nuclear weapons programs was helped by the Soviet Union and then Russia. China was behind the Pakistan nuclear weapons program.



So who is to blame for the nuclear mess we are in?


-

The Afghanistan War - Now is the Time for Patriotism, Not Politics

-




As President Obama ponders a new strategy for America's role in Afghanistan and over 60,000 of America's finest face the front lines of the war on terrorism it is time for the politicians and pundits to shut up and for all Americans to stand tall for the military, the nation, and even the Commander in Chief.

There is no room for politics when the lives of our soldiers are at risk. America has always stood behind our military, no matter what the opinion toward our president. Sometimes we like the president and sometimes we don't. President Johnson was literally forced out of office by Viet Nam while President Eisenhower was extraordinarily popular in spite of the Korean War.



Still it didn't matter as the public supported the troops. We may not like the war, but we always stood behind the Commander in Chief who is responsible for the conduct of the war and the protection of our troops. The swirling controversy over the future policy in Afghanistan does nothing to help the troops.

Of course we have a right to state our views. Even the military, who were not heard during the early years of the Bush administration have a right to state their views as long as it does not compromise the war plans on the ground. Much has been made about the public position taken by General Stanley A. McChrystal, a rare occurrence for a military officer. But the generals were not heard during the early years of the war and who can fault him for wanting to make sure the best plan to support the troops was put forward.



Secretary of Defense Gates scolded the general yesterday for making the public statements but Gates should have scolded Vice President Biden and others in the Administration who went public well before McChrystal. They set the tone for White House policy development for the war in Afghanistan and if the president is mad, he should start with his own VP who violated every rule in confidential policy development.

The White House is filled with liberals who demanded that Obama get out of Iraq, close Guantanamo, bail out the unions at the auto companies, prosecute the CIA and make Al Gore and Goldman Sachs rich off the efforts to change the energy policy of America. So far they have hurt the president badly and their own public whining shows they haven't got a clue when it comes to being the president for all the people, not just the radical fringe.




All America needs to step back and let the president give Afghanistan the consideration needed to protect the lives of those men and women risking their lives so we don't have another 9-11. When that policy is announced all Americans have a responsibility to support it like we have every time this nation has had to go to war to defend freedom.

Every day soldiers are dying in a land far away so that we may live in peace back home. Let us not let the ranting and raving of public mouthpieces distract us from that truth. No war is good, nor should it ever be considered a popular policy. It is the single worst trait of human nature to fight wars because it is the innocent victims of war that suffer the most.

We are fighting in Afghanistan to help free a people who have been the victims of a generation of war and to stop a terrorist organization who believe human life has no value. If you have to go to war there can no higher calling. Get behind the president and get behind the troops. What happens is his responsibility and their lives are at risk. It has always been the American way.

The Olympic Gods Smile on Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

-





O sorriso olímpico dos deuses em Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Rio de Janeiro did what Obama could not do, capture the 2016 Olympics, and for the first time South America will host the Olympics games. It was a great victory for the soft spoken committee from Brazil and a tribute to the people of Brazil and South America.



Not even the fleet of jets carrying the celebrities from the USA could stop the move to finally welcome the South American continent into the world community and now the world will get to see and share the rich culture and history of Brazil.




Few people know that more Italians live in Brazil than any other country outside of Italy and more Japanese live in Brazil than any other country than Japan. Yet the long tradition of Brazil remains intact. It is the only non-Hispanic speaking nation in South America with Portuguese the national language.






[Christ the Redeemer statue (Portuguese: O Cristo Redentor) is a statue of Jesus Christ in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; considered the largest art deco statue in the world.[1] The statue stands 39.6 metres (130 ft) tall, including its 9.5 metres (31 ft) pedestal, and 30 metres (98 ft) wide. It weighs 635 tons (700 short tons), and is located at the peak of the 700 metres (2,300 ft) Corcovado mountain in the Tijuca Forest National Park overlooking the city. It is one of the tallest of its kind in the world. A symbol of Christianity, the statue has become an icon of Rio and Brazil. The statue of Christ the Redeemer is a very important symbol of Brazil's Christianity.]




True to it's roots, Brazil has nearly 200 million people and is the largest Catholic nation in the world with 74% of the diverse population being Roman Catholic. The Brazilian football (soccer in the USA) team is ranked number one in the world and the Amazon Rain Forest is one of the environmental wonders of the world.



From a personal standpoint my band, Nashville Bound, enjoys its greatest following on the worldwide internet from the people of Brazil and over the past few years they have been my best fans. Everyone in America should be proud of the success of Brazil in landing the first Olympics Games in history for South America and the people of Chicago could not have lost out to a better nation.




God bless Brazil!
Deus abençoa Brasil!

-

IOC To Obama - Olympics About Athletes, Not Rock Stars

-



In a stunning vote by the International Olympic Committee the IOC rejected Chicago on the first ballot for the 2016 Olympics. With the high profile Obama personally changing his agenda to make a trip to Copenhagen to lobby the IOC was this just another case of the world saying "no to American arrogance"? So far Obama is yet to get any concessions from his numerous trips around the world and meetings with leaders from around the world.

Obama Meets General on Air Force One to Justify Olympic Trip?




Scrambling to create the illusion of "official" business while on a junket to lobby on behalf of his political buddies from Chicago, a potential billion dollar payback for these long time politicians and financers, Obama met with his Afghanistan advisor General Stanley McChrystal for 15 minutes in Copenhagen before heading back to the White House.

The war in Afghanistan got 15 minutes on the trip while Chicago and the Obama Rat Pack from the Windy City got about 5 hours of his time not to mention the entire day it took to get there and back. They also got Michelle Obama the last couple of days along with Oprah Winfrey and a massive effort by the Obama White House. That means two taxpayer jets of people crossing the ocean.

After holding only one phone conversation with McChrystal the last 70 days since he put him in charge of the war in Afghanistan, and delaying discussion on the urgent request for more troops from his general, the president talked to him three times in 48 hours. Was it political staging or a sincere effort to resolve the request for troops?

McChrystal had been in London, where he said in a speech Thursday that insurgents are gaining strength in Afghanistan and more troops are needed to "buy time" for the Afghan military and police forces to prepare to take control of the country in 2013.

A White House spokesman said the hastily scheduled meeting was part of the ongoing discussion about Afghanistan and no decisions were made. The pair met in the president's cabin of Air Force One. It seems "no decisions being made" is part of the new White House strategy.

"The president wanted to take the opportunity to get together with General McChrystal," spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard the presidential aircraft just before takeoff.

The meeting was the third conversation between the two since McChrystal disclosed in a television interview that aired Sunday that he had spoken with Obama only once since taking over the U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan. Obama tapped McChrystal in May to replace ousted Gen. David McKiernan.

McChrystal has been a thorn in the side of the Obama gang since going public with his analysis that we are losing the war in Afghanistan without more troops. Administration people like Rahm Emanuel, Vice President Biden and virtually every other liberal there oppose the troop build up. Now the media is saying the Administration is becoming too deliberate in taking action and is hurting their own agenda with their inertia.

As for the Olympic bid led by White House staffer Valerie Jarrett, Jarrett made sure a full court press was underway by the White House. According to The New York Times, "Barack Obama is a man with many mentors, but Ms. Jarrett has been one of his most longstanding and influential tutors, navigating him through Chicago civic and political circles. Ms. Jarrett coached both Obamas at once -- they first met when Michelle Obama applied for a job with Ms. Jarrett in the Chicago mayor's office -- and she has guided them ever since."




With both presidential jets dispatched to Copenhagen along with the many security and staff needed to support the travelling White House, opponents say hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars are being spent for Chicago, a city with a long history of corruption. Chicago spent about $40 million for the bid and numerous Obama people were already direct and indirect beneficiaries of the big bucks.

Even long time Obama backer Oprah Winfrey joined the delegation to lobby for the Olympic bid. As for the people of Chicago, polls showed only half even wanted to host the Olympics. Perhaps the IOC did what the Aerican politicians would not do, listen to the people.




Wasn't it Obama himself who promised there would be no lobbyists for special interests in the White House? Does that mean he has to fire his wife and himself?

The Washington Post is Right for a Change

-



It is not often that I find a political article in the Washington Post that makes a lot of sense but today Post reporter Dana Milbank wrote about a White House Press Briefing that gave credit to legendary White House reporter Helen Thomas and her exchange with Robert Gibbs, Obama press secretary. Rather than tell you what she said here is the article.

The Washington Post

White House That Acts With All Deliberate Deliberation

By Dana Milbank
Friday, October 2, 2009

Helen Thomas is 89 years old and requires some assistance to get to and from the daily White House briefing. Yet her backbone has proved stronger than that of the president she covers.

On Thursday afternoon, Thomas gave a clinic in fortitude to President Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, during the briefing. "Has the president given up on the public option?" she inquired from her front-row-middle seat.

The press secretary laughed at this repetition of a common Thomas inquiry, but this questioner, who has covered every president since Kennedy, wasn't about to be silenced. "I ask it day after day because it has great meaning in this country, and you never answer it," she said.

"Well, I -- I -- I apparently don't answer it to your satisfaction," Gibbs stammered.




"That's right," Thomas snarled.

"I -- I'll -- I'll give you the same answer that I gave you unsatisfactorily for many of those other days," Gibbs offered. "It's what the president believes in --"
"Is he going to fight for it or not?" Thomas snapped.

"We're going to work to get choice and competition into health-care reform" was Gibbs's vague response.

Thomas took that as a no. "You're not going to get it," she advised.
"Then why do you keep asking me?" Gibbs inquired.

"Because I want your conscience to bother you," Thomas replied. The room erupted; Gibbs reddened.

Actually, conscience isn't the problem for Gibbs and his boss; it's spine. Thomas's question got at an Obama administration trait that is puzzling opponents and demoralizing supporters: Why isn't the president more decisive and forceful? On many of the most pressing issues -- the public option in health reform, troop levels in Afghanistan, sanctions against Iran -- the administration has hewed to hemming and hawing.

The area in which Obama has been most forceful recently has been, of all things, his effort to win the Olympics for his home city of Chicago, which caused him to fly off Thursday evening on a quick lobbying trip to Copenhagen. The first lady announced that the Olympics campaign was a "take no prisoners" mission.

On Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House on Thursday, environmental activists were demanding to know why Obama wouldn't, as they put it, "show the same foresight and commitment to our climate that he's showing to Chicago with this emergency trip to Copenhagen for the 2016 Olympics." They dressed up in green track suits, put on Obama masks, and carried a banner with the Olympic logo and the message "Obama: Climate Change Is Not a Game."

Gibbs had been scheduled to give his daily briefing at 1 p.m., then pushed it back to 1:15. At 1:27, the public-address system gave a "two-minute warning" for the briefing. Gibbs walked in 10 minutes later. The extra prep time was probably unnecessary, because the answers ranged from namby to pamby.

The topic of the day was the meeting with Iran near Geneva, and Reuters's Matt Spetalnick pointed out that the meeting "appears to have given Iran more breathing space, several more weeks at least."

"Today's meeting was a constructive beginning" was Gibbs's noncommittal comment.
CBS's Chip Reid tried anew to see whether the White House would give anything in the way of deadlines and timetables for Iran's compliance; he failed. "We've worked this methodically," Gibbs said.

And that was one of the bolder positions the White House spokesman took. Negotiating with Republicans on health care? "I'm not going to get ahead of the bill." The Fed refusing to release the names of banks that received government funds? "I'm not going to get into discussing an active legal case." Gasoline sanctions against Iran? I'm not going to get into the pluses and minuses." Predator missile strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan? "Not going to get into discussing that," Gibbs said with a wave.

Neither could the press secretary commit to allowing the top general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, to testify before Congress. Gibbs's reason: He had not "seen the comments" requesting the general's testimony.

Sometimes, of course, the refusal to take a position is a tactic to thwart opponents, or reporters. But the reluctance to be forceful has emboldened Obama's opponents -- a fact pointed out to Gibbs on Thursday by the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman.

Weisman noted that the right wing had already forced the resignation of environmental adviser Van Jones and arts official Yosi Sergant and was now alleging that Kevin Jennings, who runs the Education Department's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, had failed to report statutory rape in an incident 21 years ago when he was a teacher in Massachusetts. "Do you have anything substantive to say about what they are saying about this guy?" the reporter asked.

Gibbs did not. "I think the Department of Education had a statement on this," he said, allowing that "it's a shame" to watch conservative critics go after administration officials.

"Some in your camp would say that the White House has the power to stop it simply by no longer pushing these guys out of their positions," Weisman pointed out.
Gibbs's bold answer: The two officials "resigned on their own volition."
Can he say that with a clean conscience?

-

Letterman - Liberal's Palin Basher Gets Bashed

-



It was just another joke on national television last night when David Letterman made a routine of his confession that he has been having sex with a number of his staff at CBS. Imagine that, the man who made millions of dollars bashing Sarah Palin and her teenage daughter under the banner of morality seems to have a different standard for his morality.







But then Hollywood and the liberal media are leading the way in condemning the arrest of the man convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old, Roman Polanski. Somehow those who paid big bucks to smear Palin by paying off anyone including her daughter's fiancé for unsubstantiated dirt think drugging and raping a thirteen year old is no big deal.




As for Letterman, did he use his position as one of the most powerful people in media and television to seduce staff or did he simply hire Letterman groupies that appealed to him. Were any of his conquests young pages, or married? In the corporate and political worlds such action would lead to firing, or in the case of politics destroying one's career. Letterman will most likely face neither, due to the strange silence of the liberals so quick to condemn Palin and her daughter.




CBS, struggling to drag itself out of last place in the media ratings race can ill-afford to dump the late night star but Letterman only averages about 5 million viewers per night. He is finally beating out the Tonight Show on NBC but that has more to do with Jay Leno being replaced by Conan O'Brien. Even Leno, now in prime time every night, draws only about 6.5 million viewers.




So the good news is not that many people really watch Letterman, 5 million out of 300million. The bad news is he influences far more because the liberal media uses him to attack their opponents. What does the liberal press have to say about this sordid affair?

The San Francisco Examiner, Pelosi's home base, said "Letterman creates brilliant hour of TV from woes." The Los Angeles Times says, "Letterman admits to affair, says he was a victim...". The New York Times buried the story on page four in a small story with no pictures.




Now in the first show of the new television season when Letterman was going aginst O'Brien and the Tonight Show for the first time who came to his rescue to give him a ratings boost, Barack Obama. Yes, the President of the United States pays back the television personality who did the most vicious and unsubstantiated attacks on Sarah Palin during the campaign, attacks that benefited the Obama ticket.




One wonders how the president will respond to the conduct of yet another supporter who went astray. So far those around him have been doing him no favors with their bizarre behavior.

Obama Caught Between Two Masters - Goldman Sachs & SEIU - Part 1. Goldman Sachs

-


President Obama has taken on one of the most difficult jobs possible, trying to please two master with very different agendas. On the one hand is Goldman Sachs, the undisputed king of Wall Street and his long time corporate sponsor. On the other the more traditional sponsor of liberal Democrats the SEIU labor union, the Service Employees International Union. Of course there is nothing normal about either of these two contenders and so far they are leaving all their competition in the dust when it comes to benefitting from the actions of the new president.

One is the epitome of corporate excess with over a billion dollars in bonuses paid even in the worst of times. Goldman not only is the only financial institution to actually improve their position during the world economic collapse but actually wiped out competition in the process while making money every time money flowed from the federal spigot during the bank bailout, the AIG bailout, the housing crisis and bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the economic stimulus and even the cap and trade bill making it's way through Congress.




Long before Obama became a household name, before he was even elected to a federal office, Goldman was shepherding his meteoric rise through the ranks of political wannabes. Of course it helped that Obama's closest advisor and mentor, Rahm Emanuel, was on Goldman's payroll before Obama ever thought about running for office. When he was raising money for the Clinton presidential run in 1992 he was also on the Goldman payroll and investigations were launched that stopped the illegal corporate subsidy.




After serving as a White House aide during Clinton's term, in 2000, just before leaving office, Clinton then appointed Rahm to the Board of Freddie Mac where the sub-prime mortgage plot was hatched that triggered the economic disaster years later. A major player in this market was Goldman Sachs who was to make billions of dollars before the sub-prime market dried up and the Obama Administration had to bailout the banks and mortgage companies.




Emanuel spent three years as an investment banker after his Clinton years making $16 million and then ran for Congress, with the generous help of Goldman and the Wall Street community. Making a name for himself as the most prolific Democratic fund raiser ever Emanuel rose to #4 in the party hierarchy before being tapped by Obama as his Chief of Staff.




While Emanuel was a Congressman from Illinois Obama was to get a tremendous shot in the arm in his presidential ambitions with the help of Goldman, starting from his first campaign for federal office, the US Senate, in 2004. In the Democratic primary Obama was a distant underdog to millionaire Blair Hull who was caught in a scandal and forced to resign from the race. Interestingly, Blair Hull's company was purchased by Goldman Sachs shortly afterward.




In the general election Obama was again a distant underdog to millionaire Republican Jack Ryan who was also forced to resign from the race because of a scandal. Ryan was a partner in Goldman Sachs. This cleared the way for Obama to be the new Senator from Illinois and launched his presidential bid. In 2006 Obama secretly met with Goldman Sachs executives in Chicago and soon after, thanks to the fund raising of Goldman, his presidential bid was launched.




In 2008 Goldman sponsored a secret meeting at the Metropolitan Museum where Obama was prepared for debating by none other than former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, who would moderate the final presidential debate of the campaign. Of course this was not disclosed to the media or public either.




Goldman was the leading contributor to Obama while the sub-prime mortgage market collapsed, while the oil futures market prices skyrocketed for no good reason, and for the economic collapse of the USA when the multi-billion dollar bank bailout was enacted. The bailout legislation was prepared by Bush Treasury Secretary Paulsen, a former Goldman CEO, steered through the House by Rahm Emanuel, a former Goldman Executive, and even approved by Senator Obama.




Once elected Obama immediately appointed Emanuel Chief of Staff and the AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts, and Stimulus bill were approved with Goldman benefitting with billions of dollars in revenues. Far outperforming everyone in the financial sector in the first 6 months of the Obama rein, the Goldman dominance was so great that at one week in the spring Goldman's program trading on the New York exchange was greater than the combined total of the next 14 traders worldwide.




Goldman has the inside track for controlling the "cap and trade" energy market, the bizarre centerpiece of the Obama Green energy program that will create immense wealth for Goldman, Al Gore and whoever else they decide to include. Gore's partner in his financial schemes which have already made him $100 million as the Green King is also from Goldman. What real benefit to the environment from cap and trade remains to be seen.




Now Emanuel is heading the White House efforts to regulate Wall Street and the financial markets and draft the necessary rules and regulations to tighten controls. Perhaps that explains why no action has been taken in nine months. If Obama does not know what the legions of former Goldman executives are doing in his administration he is merely a puppet. If he does know then he has a lot of explaining to do to the American public. I'd say to the media and Congress as well but they have ignored the Goldman factor for years. Perhaps the millions in campaign contributions from Goldman and Wall Street have influenced this ignorance by Congress.




Although Obama and Treasury have sternly criticized Wall Street and the investment banks for the manipulation of the stock market, sub-prime mortgage market and oil futures market, Obama has been silent on Goldman and their role in these activities. He has also never answered questions as to the role Goldman played in his Senate campaigns, his presidential campaigns and the extent of his contacts and those of the many former Goldman executives on his staff with current Goldman executives.

Obama promised transparency and gave us a brick wall. He promised reform and gave us more of the same. He promised to penalize the violators and he gave them unlimited wealth. Now he is trying to complete his deal and deliver to them the cap and trade and even health reform legislation on top of the trillion plus already given through the bank, insurance, auto, and housing bailouts and the stimulus bill. Just today the White House announced that the financial reforms are being scaled back from expectations. Imagine that?

In the tale of the two Masters, the SEIU has no chance against Goldman Sachs when it comes to deciding which master will win out with the Obama administration. Goldman has billions to manipulate while SEIU must borrow money to play the money game. So far the return to Goldman has already been in the billions of dollars while the token victories given to SEIU have not even made a dent in paying their debts.




Nor can SEIU match the vast army of former Goldman executives strategically placed throughout the Obama administration and throughout the world of finance and politics. No one has ever questioned the loyalty of this massive force. Andy Stern may have attended the Wharton School of Finance but Goldman wrote the course and probably financed the school's endowment fund.

-