Ground Zero Muslim center may get public financing

NEW YORK NEW STATE FLAG

Oh!!! this has to stop!!!!!

The Muslim center planned near the site of the World Trade Center attack could qualify for tax-free financing, a spokesman for City Comptroller John Liu said on Friday, and Liu is willing to consider approving the public subsidy.

The Democratic comptroller's spokesman, Scott Sieber, said Liu supported the project. The center has sparked an intense debate over U.S. religious freedoms and the sanctity of the Trade Center site, where nearly 3,000 perished in the September 11, 2001 attack.

"If it turns out to be financially feasible and if they can demonstrate an ability to pay off the bonds and comply with the laws concerning tax-exempt financing, we'd certainly consider it," Sieber told Reuters.

Spokesmen for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Governor David Paterson and the Islamic center and were not immediately available.

The proposed center, two blocks from the Trade Center site in lower Manhattan, has caused a split between people who lost relatives and friends in the attack, as well as conservative politicians, and those who support the project. Among those who support it are the mayor, civic and religious groups, and some families of victims.

The mosque's backers hope to raise a total of $70 million in tax-exempt debt to build the center, according to the New York Times. Tax laws allow such funding for religiously affiliated non-profits if they can prove the facility will benefit the general public and their religious activities are funded separately.

The bonds could be issued through a local development corporation created for this purpose, experts said.

The Islamic center would have to repay the bonds, which likely would be less expensive than taxable debt.

New York City's Industrial Development Authority could not issue debt for the center because the state civic facilities law, which governed this type of financing for non-profits, was allowed to expire about two years ago.

President Obama a Muslim?

“Obama a Muslim?"

Rumors Gain Steam Defying Facts"

"President Obama is a Muslim."

"He's not an American citizen." "He wasn't even born here."

"None of this is true?"

But to surprising levels, it is believed.”

Says who? What Facts? Show me the proof.

Bill “Dog in heat” Clinton did not have ….. with that …...

John “Barber Shop” Edwards was not the father of the love child.

None of that was true until the stained dress appeared and the Enquiror trapped Johnny in the mens room.

If you believe Chairman Obama give Bernie Madoff a call as he needs more clients.

Blame it on the media, or on human nature. All presidents deal with image problems — that they're too weak or too belligerent, too far left or far right. But Obama also faces questions over documented facts, in part because some people identify more with the rumormongers than the debunkers.

"Trust and distrust — that explains almost all of it," says Nicholas DiFonzo, professor of psychology at the Rochester Institute of Technology and an expert on rumor and gossip research. "We are in such a highly polarized political environment. Our country is sorting itself into more closely knit, opposing factions each year" — factions, DiFonzo suggests, that in turn become "echo chambers" for factoids that aren't fact at all.

Nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11 percent who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is just 34 percent, down from 48 percent in March of last year.

The White House even felt compelled to respond with a terse knockdown from spokesman Bill Burton: "The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day."

Obama is the Christian son of a Kenyan Muslim father and a Kansas mother. Born in Hawaii, he lived from ages 6 to 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim to many.

Confusion about Obama's religion was common, and sometimes encouraged, during the 2008 campaign. An Associated Press photograph that circulated on the Internet, and was posted on The Drudge Report, showed Obama dressed in traditional local garments — a white turban and a wraparound white robe — during a visit to Kenya in 2006. Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton may have contributed through her response to a question, during a "60 Minutes" interview, about whether he was a Muslim. "There's nothing to base that on," she said. "As far as I know."

Others have helped keep rumors about Obama's religion and birth alive. Conservative commentators including radio talk show host Michael Savage have repeated debunked claims that Obama attended a radical Muslim madrassa in Indonesia. Rush Limbaugh has facetiously referred to "Imam Obama" in recent days, and last year praised a woman who at a Delaware town hall meeting questioned Obama's citizenship. Lou Dobbs gave significant air time to such "birther" claims on CNN — despite his own insistence that he believed Obama was born in the U.S.

The new survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is based on interviews conducted before the controversy over whether Muslims should be permitted to construct a mosque near the World Trade Center site. Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center there, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.

We have never been without misperceptions, but they are speeded and multiplied in the Internet age. Last month, right-wing bloggers — citing unnamed sources within the Laredo Police Department in Texas — reported that the Mexican drug cartel Zetas had captured two Laredo ranches. The story was picked up by author-pundit Michelle Malkin and other conservatives.

Inquiries from local media and the liberal Web site Talking Points Memo turned up different news: The raids never happened.

"The Internet has made it worse," says Lori Robertson, managing editor of the website FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan project run under the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "Any of these rumors are more rampant, and there's more stuff about them — blogs writing about conspiracy theories. People are exposed to it more."

Robertson says her organization has been asked hundreds of times about Obama's religion, even after FactCheck published an explanatory article in early 2008 called "Sliming Obama." It focused on the chain e-mail that many believe helped spread the lie.

Despite what the e-mail claimed, FactCheck.org has noted that Obama was sworn into office as a U.S. senator using the Bible instead of the Quran; a photograph was posted to prove it. FactCheck also posted videos of Obama reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate, in an attempt to counter claims that he refused.

Still, the questions about Obama's faith didn't stop.

"Did Obama order creation of a postage stamp to honor a Muslim holiday?" FactCheck.org's answer: "The first class stamp honoring Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha was first issued eight years ago. Obama has followed Bush's practice of reaching out to Muslims on Ramadan."

Superstitions and myths are timeless and universal, and so are the people who exploit them, whether Holocaust deniers, race supremacists or conspiracy theorists.

Misinformation in the mass media age was captured by the author-columnist Walter Lippman in his classic "Public Opinion," published in 1922. Finding that world events were driven by a tiny minority manipulating the rest, Lippman noted "the comparatively meager time available in each day for paying attention to public affairs, the distortion arising because events have to be compressed into very short messages, the difficulty of making a small vocabulary express a complicated world."

The problem wasn't only with the media, but with the public.

"People, he wrote, "live in the same world, but think and feel in different ones." Lippman believed many "suffer from anemia, from lack of appetite and curiosity for the human scene."

And so millions have thought that the country was overrun with communists, that John F. Kennedy was taking orders from the pope, that AIDS spreads through casual contact, that Saddam Hussein or even the George W. Bush administration helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks. In the 1990s, when the government was running a surplus under the Clinton administration, a poll showed substantial numbers of people thought it was running a deficit.

DiFonzo was stunned when he heard one of those rumors stated as fact in his upper-level social psychology class last year. A student raised her hand and insisted, "But George Bush was behind the bombings of Sept. 11."

"She was serious," DiFonzo said, adding that he believes she accepted the rumor because other people in her life gave her the impression that it was plausible.

"This isn't a partisan thing," he said. "It's not a characteristic of Democrats or of Republicans. It's a human characteristic. It's a place that we happen to be at in our culture today. What seems outlandish is often based on what we think may be plausible."

Bush's failed promises

Green: Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises

By CHUCK GREEN
Columnist

Here's an opinion piece by Chuck Green who writes "Greener Pastures" for the Denver Post/Aurora Sentinel...one of the more liberal papers in the country. Additionally, Mr. Green is a lifelong Democrat...so this is rather a stunning piece...



Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow. Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.

It is all George Bush’s fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?

Chuck Green, veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post, syndicates a statewide column and is at chuckgreencolo@msn.com

Published: June 04, 2010

Op-Ed Contributor

Chuck Green on Obama

By Tracy Tomlinson

Today I opened a forwarded copy of the Chuck Green article condemning Pres. Obama on every level of his political record.

Admittedly, I am a disenfranchised Republican moderate, who in his fury to depose the neoconservative wing, has unwittingly thrust his nation into still another boiling pot of the same party politics.

Nevertheless, the Chuck Green article is a one dimensional approach that represents just another expression of public frustration lacking insight.

This sort of abrupt utterance feeds into a media frenzy popularized by hot button issues placing controversy over solutions. It will become one of the most referenced articles by the right as an example of the left's dissatisfaction with Obama performance. Unfortunately, rehashing public sentiment will keep people focused on everything but the realities and sources of social dilemma ultimately effecting the national climate. This is the main reason why I avoid mainstream public media in general.

Chuck Green is a journalist who writes a column for the Aurora Sentinel. His critique of Pres. Obama's performance emphasizes failure through a procession of statements sarcastically employing the blame tactic this administration has used against its Republican predecessor.

It looks like intelligence cooked by a right wing conservative think tank, rather than the work of an objective investigative writer with a degree in journalism. In any case the point stands as a matter of perception depending on how the reader is politically aligned. Subjectively, whatever Green really represents in this unbearable rant (if anything) is a mute point and simply detracts from the nature of the issues.

When my eyes are ravaged by shoddy, uninspired articles like this one, I defensively fall back on the logical assumption that most people who have opinions are trapped within a mindset limited by what is perceived as reality. In other words, the parameters for accepting or rejecting information are filtered through a static personal belief system. Thus, if a fact doesn't fit into those preset parameters it is left out of the equation. If it jives, it is integrated as a truth supporting elements of a set belief.

To be frank, most of us aren't looking for truth, reality or fact. We are simply applying a set of rules to build upon something we already think or believe as truth, reality. One obvious example is how many of my friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members have acquiesced to the patriotic notion that America is fighting a war on terrorism. In fact there is a plethora of information and evidence illustrating that our government has been covertly giving material support, organizing and expanding the rise of terrorist groups within regions that US policy places its highest economic and energy interests.

As for the pro-Bush, anti-Obama rhetoric by Chuck Green, it is a view that really doesn't consider the elemental, multi-level factionalism which has encroached upon the intentions of the White House.

The conditions that exist within the internal power struggle between parties and corporate power brokers, has had adverse consequences for the former Bush administration, as it now exerts upon the Obama agenda.

The growing influences of money mongering, power brokering corporate enterprise and the political inroads of foreign interests (political organizations acting as agents of foreign interests) has since WWII compromised national security interests and individual rights, and has reduced the constitutional superstructure which traditionally served as a foundation for the rule of law, the balance of justice and fair-handed foreign policies. As a result, political endeavor has also lost its place in protecting the hopes and aspirations of economic opportunity.

The private, strategic interests of wealthy and powerful people (domestic and foreign) have increasingly taken precedence over the economic welfare and security of the average American, and there is very little evidence of Washington representation of the voter. Simply stated, congress is bought and owned by a higher power.

In the midst of this morally corrosive, fascist collective we call a Congress; Americans are naively charmed by controversial articles that do little more than reiterate frustrations, while avoiding dialogue that identifies core issues and events that have brought us to the brink of social chaos.

I ask you, what are the possibilities of an altruistic first term president surviving a crucible where a defunct body of officials, which has effectively outlived its intended purpose, holds the keys to the failure or success of every beneficial agenda?

Even in the face of this enraging crisis, most Americans are intelligibly preoccupied by debates about the divisive nature of party politics, rather than the historical causation of this internal conflict.

Perhaps it is easier for people like Green and other gossip columnists to succumb to the mantras of the time rather than offering to interface the people with information pertinent to their needs. Let's concede the fact that those writers are as interested in keeping their jobs as anyone and are therefore unwilling to swim against the tide of corporate power and controls shaping public perception. After all, this is a web that is sown into every corner of American life and thought. And how about the fact that the average person is so conditioned by media traps like this that they have forgotten the discordant state of affairs they have helped to create?

Does anyone here know that a Republic is a form of government run by the people?

This means that folks are involved with politics from their neighborhoods to the White House. Citizens represent their neighborhoods in regular town meetings. They connect through the community with mayors and city council members, state representatives. Common people are the ones responsible for rearing their congressional representatives according to the Republic system.

The fact is that the voter is out of touch with Washington, not the other way around. This is the sad fact of a once great nation that has lost its vision. Those with the prime responsibility for saving the nation (the people) are no longer involved in the process.

The values which once reassured the national interests of the whole have been replaced by expressions of self-gratification and material individualism.

Freedom, which is based on decision-making, has been left to the unreachable bureaucrat and untouchable privileged.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty". Thomas Jefferson

In Barack Obama's maybe hometown: The Democratic turf battle, "stay off my turf"

The Hawaiian word kuleana roughly translates to turf, as in, "stay off my turf!"

Gangs fight over turf, and so do politicians. It turns out that an internecine Democratic turf battle may just help elect the first Republican to the U.S. Congress from Hawaii in two decades.

The last Republican to hold the seat was former school teacher Pat Saiki, who left the House in 1990 and who now chairs the campaign of the Republican who is trying to change that trend, Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou. He may be sitting in a good spot in a year Republicans hope is good enough to make them competitive -- even in the Aloha State.

The coming special election for Hawaii's 1st Congressional District pits two Democrats -- former Rep. Ed Case (whose cousin is AOL founder Steve Case) and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa -- against the GOP's Djou. What is more, it is winner takes all. There is no primary and no runoff election; whoever has the most votes on May 22 wins.

Further complicating matters for Democrats is that, for internal political reasons, party leaders cannot rally around either of the candidates. House leaders would reportedly like to support Case, but he angered both of Hawaii's U.S. senators when he "primaried" Sen. Daniel Akaka in 2006 and made an issue out of the fact that both Hawaii senators are over the age of 80. Not coincidentally, they are supporting Hanabusa.

"Ed Case has not been respecting U.S. Senator [Daniel] Inouye's kuleana," says Djou. "That's a concept people within the Beltway don't understand -- and that's why the division in this race is so sharp. Both of them dislike me, but they really hate each other."

Although Democrats cannot settle on a candidate, they have settled on a strategy of attacking the Republican interloper. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) recently released a TV ad blasting Djou for signing Americans for Tax Reform's "Taxpayer's Protection Pledge," saying it "protects tax breaks for companies who send jobs overseas." (ATR fired back, calling the claims "false".) Interestingly, the ad itself has actually stoked the Democratic divide. The ad's narrator says, "Hawaii needs a 'Congressman on our side," and some have speculated this may be a signal being sent from the DCCC that it actually prefers former Congressman Case.

Clearly, Democrats are concerned about Djou, as they should be. It appears that the Republicans are running the best candidate the GOP has fielded in years. Djou, 39, started fundraising for this campaign years ago, and has lined up respected advisers such as Web guru Patrick Ruffini and The Tarrance Group, a respected polling firm. His advantages don't end there. Djou tells me he is the only candidate in the race who actually resides in the 1^st District. Nor are those Democrats exactly political giants: Case previously defeated Hanabusa for the 2^nd congressional seat in a 2002 special election. He then abandoned his seat to run against Akaka in 2006. Hanabusa narrowly lost a congressional primary in 2006 in the 2^nd District.

Honolulu is the capital and largest city in Hawaii, and Djou, who serves on the City Council, is well known and highly qualified. He served as minority floor leader in the Hawaii Legislature, has a military background (he serves in the U.S. Army Reserve), is a law professor (on sabbatical at the University of Hawaii). He also is self-deprecating and easy-going -- always a plus in laid-back Hawaii -- and mainstream in his views. He is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate -- something that might harm him in other states, but which benefits him in Hawaii. In other words, he is a difficult candidate for Democrats to demonize.

Despite having a Republican governor, Hawaii is a deep blue state and the birthplace of President Obama. "I actually went to the same high school as the president," says Djou. "Had I known Maya's older brother would grow up to become president, I may well have asked her out to senior prom."

This will be the first-ever all-mail-in election in the state, with ballots being sent out on April 30 (voters have until May 22 to return them, but Djou expects most people will cast ballots during the first few days).

"The campaign is probably going to reach a fever pitch when the ballots are put in the mail to the voters," Djou tells Politics Daily.

Djou says the race is over "whether or not the people want another insider, or someone who's going to shake up the system. My opponents are running as insiders, and I am not." Djou favors a moratorium on earmarks, is a free trader, would have opposed the stimulus, and would have opposed health care reform. Djou is currently trailing both Democrats in the polls, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has not yet committed to coming to his rescue. But if Republicans can win in Massachusetts, then anything is possible.

"If Republicans win Barack Obama's hometown, it is going to make a profound statement about the 2010 midterm election," Djou says.

How can the Republican Party bosses in Washington resist that story line?
http://www.djou.com

Obama wanted change: Read people's bumpers messages

Bumper stickers for people who work and pay taxes
In California you measure highway distance not by miles...but by travel time.
Sometimes it can take forever to go a couple of miles--which gives you a lot of time to read people's bumpers.
Obama wanted change and he is getting it because the bumper messages...they are a changing.......

President Barack Obama Listening to a Liar

Listening to a Liar

by Thomas Sowell (more by this author)

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election?

If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.

Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.

Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days-- after which it sat on the President's desk for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money-- and the power that goes with it-- into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.

The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the President's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening.

The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way Cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late.

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing-- and how he has been doing it.

Thomas Sowell
CURRICULUM VITA

ADDRESS:	The Hoover Institution Stanford University Stanford, California 94305 (650) 723-3303
PERSONAL:	U.S. Citizen, born June 30, 1930

EDUCATION: Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968 A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959 A.B. in Economics, magna cum laude, Harvard College, 1958

EXPERIENCE: Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September 1980 - present Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., July 1974 - June 1980 Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September- December 1977 Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April- August 1977 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976 - March 1977 Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 - July 1974 Associate Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., September 1970 - June 1972 Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969 - June 1970 Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965 - June 1969 Economic Analyst, American Telephone & TelegraphCo., June 1964 - August 1965 Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963 - June 1964 Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962 - June 1963 Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961 - August 1962

PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS: On Classical Economics (Yale University Press, 2006) Black Rednecks and White Liberals (Encounter Books, 2005) The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press,1999) Conquests and Cultures (Basic Books, 1998) Migrations and Cultures (Basic Books, 1996) The Vision of the Anointed (Basic Books, 1995) Race and Culture: A World View ( Basic Books,1994 ) A Conflict of Visions (William Morrow, 1987) Ethnic America (Basic Books, 1981) Knowledge and Decisions (Basic Books, 1980) Say's Law: An Historical Analysis (Princeton University Press, 1972)

Great YouTube