The dhimmi NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has stood solidly by the Ground Zero imam and his plans to build a mosque and cultural center in the shadows of Ground Zero. You may have thought he was soft on Islam. But, there may just be more to his decision than defending freedom of religion. A little gain to the wallet, perhaps?
Read from Human Events:
Bloomberg’s Ground Zero Mosque Dividend
by Robert Spencer
"New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has continued to portray his support for the construction of an Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero as the moral high ground. But Bloomberg may be getting more out of this than just the glow of moral sanctity—billions more, in fact, courtesy his business dealings in Muslim countries.
If the mega-mosque at Ground Zero isn’t built, Bloomberg said, the terrorists win: 'We would compromise our commitment to fighting terror with freedom. We would undercut the values and principles that so many heroes died protecting. We would feed the false impressions that some Americans have about Muslims. We would send a signal around the world that Muslim Americans may be equal in the eyes of the law, but separate in the eyes of their countrymen. And we would hand a valuable propaganda tool to terrorist recruiters, who spread the fallacy that America is at war with Islam.'
There are numerous indications, however, that fighting terrorism and standing against bigotry are not the only things that Bloomberg has in mind when he stands with mosque proponents. His moral high ground is questionable in any case, since Bloomberg claims to be standing against terror and bigotry with Ground Zero mega-mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who refuses to denounce the jihad terror group Hamas, and is an open proponent of sharia, the Islamic legal system that relegates non-Muslims and women to a second-class status that denies them numerous basic rights.
But raising more pointed questions are Bloomberg’s increasing business dealings in the Islamic world. In October 2008, Bloomberg’s financial data and news corporation announced that it was expanding operations in Dubai, making its office there into one of the corporation’s regional hubs and quadrupling its staff in the process. Bloomberg Middle East and South Asia chief Max Linnington announced proudly: 'We are going to be bringing all the elements of what you would find in one of Bloomberg’s largest offices here in Dubai.'
And in the spring of 2009, Bloomberg opened a news bureau in Abu Dhabi, joining its existing offices not only in Dubai, but in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. And Bloomberg Chairman and Managing Director Peter T. Grauer announced plans to expand Dubai operations still more: 'Central to our growth strategy is the doubling of staff strength in Dubai office, our 10th regional hub, from 48 to 100 people within a year…. We will be investing not just in more people but also in infrastructure to support clients in the region.'
Grauer revealed that while Bloomberg was taking a bath worldwide, business was booming in the Middle East: 'Despite the difficulties faced by the financial sector in the economic turmoil, our terminal sales in the region grew by 2% in the past nine months, when globally we faced a major setback.' Khaleej Times reported that 'the New York-based company has drawn up a five-year plan that will see it achieving a two-fold increase in revenue from the Middle East region by 2014.'
Imagine how quickly that revenue stream would dry up if Bloomberg sided with the people whom Rauf and other leaders of the Ground Zero mosque initiative are busy smearing as 'Islamophobes' and 'bigots.' When his company is doing poorly worldwide except in the Middle East, it couldn’t have been hard for Bloomberg to see on which side his bread was buttered.
Business decisions are business decisions. But if Bloomberg was making a business decision when he came out so strongly in favor of the mega-mosque, he would have been more honest, and admirable, if he had just said so. He might even have retained some respectability if he had simply said that his business commitments in the Middle East made for a conflict of interest, and recused himself from the debate over the Ground Zero mega-mosque. But that conflict of interest does make his moral dudgeon over the mosque opponents appear hollow and hypocritical. It isn’t easy to be a saint, and it’s even harder when the material rewards for striking a saintly pose are as ample as they are for Saint Bloomberg of Brookline."
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Taliban Scum
For months now, I have read about frequent attacks against Christians in Pakistan. But, with the recent devastating floods, I hadn't heard any reports recently of Muslim attacks against infidels. The intolerant Muslims were too busy dealing with their daily struggles surviving the floods to concentrate on persecuting Christians.
Unfortunately, they are back to their old behavior. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.
From Weasel Zippers:
Pakistani Taliban Using Flood Misery to Enlist 50,000 New Fighters…
"One of the reasons they’re killing Christian aid workers, aside from being infidels they are also the competition…
London: 'Taliban guerrillas are taking advantage of the large-scale misery caused by the devastating floods in Pakistan by attempting to enlist 50,000 new fighters — in return for food and medicine.
The Taliban is eyeing the floods as an opportunity to begin their biggest recruiting drive in a decade, officials told The Sun.
Thousands of guerrillas are heading out to flood-ravaged areas to ‘help’ starving victims.
Their agenda is clear. For providing food and medicine, they demand that men pledge to take up their cause. This could lead to a significant upswing in Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and in adjoining Afghanistan.
The people have been hit by the country’s worst floods that killed about 1,600 people and affected more than 20 million over the past one month.
The media report pointed out that activists of the Al Qaeda supported Al Rehmat Trust and Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD) were behind the campaign to recruit new fighters. Experts have described it as ‘the Talibanisation of the flood’.
A Pakistan intelligence official said there were reports that the Taliban had set a target to recruit 50,000 new guerrillas.
The source said: ‘This is disastrous for Pakistan and the war against terrorism.’
A team from the daily Monday visited the Swat Valley in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province.
‘The Taliban are bringing us rice. We are hungry. People here have simple lives and are easily influenced,’ Abdul Jabbar, 50, whose home was destroyed in Mingora town, was quoted as saying.'"
Unfortunately, they are back to their old behavior. These people are nothing but the scum of the earth.
From Weasel Zippers:
Pakistani Taliban Using Flood Misery to Enlist 50,000 New Fighters…
"One of the reasons they’re killing Christian aid workers, aside from being infidels they are also the competition…
London: 'Taliban guerrillas are taking advantage of the large-scale misery caused by the devastating floods in Pakistan by attempting to enlist 50,000 new fighters — in return for food and medicine.
The Taliban is eyeing the floods as an opportunity to begin their biggest recruiting drive in a decade, officials told The Sun.
Thousands of guerrillas are heading out to flood-ravaged areas to ‘help’ starving victims.
Their agenda is clear. For providing food and medicine, they demand that men pledge to take up their cause. This could lead to a significant upswing in Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and in adjoining Afghanistan.
The people have been hit by the country’s worst floods that killed about 1,600 people and affected more than 20 million over the past one month.
The media report pointed out that activists of the Al Qaeda supported Al Rehmat Trust and Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD) were behind the campaign to recruit new fighters. Experts have described it as ‘the Talibanisation of the flood’.
A Pakistan intelligence official said there were reports that the Taliban had set a target to recruit 50,000 new guerrillas.
The source said: ‘This is disastrous for Pakistan and the war against terrorism.’
A team from the daily Monday visited the Swat Valley in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province.
‘The Taliban are bringing us rice. We are hungry. People here have simple lives and are easily influenced,’ Abdul Jabbar, 50, whose home was destroyed in Mingora town, was quoted as saying.'"
Monday, August 30, 2010
Public Schools Rewrite History Regarding Islam
Those who despise America and want to Islamicize our country must be laughing hysterically about how easy those in authority are making their job.
Some public schools in America are offering courses on Islam. That would be all fine and good if the lessons were based on educating our children about religions throughout the world. After all, that would be part of world history. But, for some reason, Islam seems to receive more time and more preferential treatment, and that is where my gripe lies.
Read from the NY Post:
HS test 'slams' Christianity, lauds Islam
By YOAV GONEN
"State testmakers played favorites when quizzing high-schoolers on world religions -- giving Islam and Buddhism the kid-gloves treatment while socking it to Christianity, critics say.
Teachers complain that the reading selections from the Regents exam in global history and geography given last week featured glowing passages pertaining to Muslim society but much more critical essay excerpts on the subject of Christianity.
'There should have been a little balance in there,' said one Brooklyn teacher who administered the exam but did not want to be identified.
'To me, this was offensive because it's just so inappropriate and the timing of it was piss-poor,' he added, referring to the debate over the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
The most troubling passage came from Daniel Roselle's 'A World History: A Cultural Approach,' observers said.
The passage reads: 'Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom.'
Meanwhile, an excerpt listing the common procedures used by Christian friars to introduce the religion in Latin America stated that 'idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism [were] destroyed,' and 'Christian buildings [were] often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples' -- and built with free Indian labor, to boot.
'I can see why some people might see these questions as skewed,' said Mark MacWilliams, a religious-studies professor at St. Lawrence University in upstate Canton. 'Why does the exam seem to have only documents that portray Islam as a religion of peace, civilization and refinement, while it includes documents about Christianity that show it was anything but peaceful in the Spanish conquest of the Americas?'
At the same time, MacWilliams criticized the presentation of Hernando Cortes' conquest of Mexico -- which he said portrayed him as a 'choirboy' rather than a 'conquistador.'
'It's quite a whitewash,' he said.
Some other religious-studies experts contacted by The Post said they didn't see what the fuss was all about.
'[The] selections seem about equal in terms of being historically/culturally focused, all relatively positive about the contributions made by each religion as it was introduced into various societies,' wrote Barbara Sproul, an associate professor of religion at Hunter College in Manhattan.
Yet Michael Dobkowski, chair of Religious Studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in upstate Geneva, asserted that it was only Christianity for which both positive and negative aspects were highlighted.
'Some [essays] suggest a kind of Christian triumphalism and the desire to convert the other that is not present in the treatment of Islam,' he said. 'My impression is that there is certainly a divergence of approaches and impressions that should not appear in a Regents exam of this caliber.'
State education officials said that every effort had been made to present accurate historical information through the excerpts.
They said the questions had been developed over a four-year period and require students to use their own knowledge of social studies to produce answers.
They added that they weren't aware of any complaints about the exam.
The Muslim reading:
* 'Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom.
* 'Some of the finest centers of Moslem life were established in Spain. In Cordova, the streets were solidly paved, while at the same time in Paris people waded ankle-deep in mud after a rain. Cordovan public lamps lighted roads for as far as ten miles; yet seven hundred years later there was still not a single public lamp in London!'"
Some public schools in America are offering courses on Islam. That would be all fine and good if the lessons were based on educating our children about religions throughout the world. After all, that would be part of world history. But, for some reason, Islam seems to receive more time and more preferential treatment, and that is where my gripe lies.
Read from the NY Post:
HS test 'slams' Christianity, lauds Islam
By YOAV GONEN
"State testmakers played favorites when quizzing high-schoolers on world religions -- giving Islam and Buddhism the kid-gloves treatment while socking it to Christianity, critics say.
Teachers complain that the reading selections from the Regents exam in global history and geography given last week featured glowing passages pertaining to Muslim society but much more critical essay excerpts on the subject of Christianity.
'There should have been a little balance in there,' said one Brooklyn teacher who administered the exam but did not want to be identified.
'To me, this was offensive because it's just so inappropriate and the timing of it was piss-poor,' he added, referring to the debate over the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
The most troubling passage came from Daniel Roselle's 'A World History: A Cultural Approach,' observers said.
The passage reads: 'Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom.'
Meanwhile, an excerpt listing the common procedures used by Christian friars to introduce the religion in Latin America stated that 'idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism [were] destroyed,' and 'Christian buildings [were] often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples' -- and built with free Indian labor, to boot.
'I can see why some people might see these questions as skewed,' said Mark MacWilliams, a religious-studies professor at St. Lawrence University in upstate Canton. 'Why does the exam seem to have only documents that portray Islam as a religion of peace, civilization and refinement, while it includes documents about Christianity that show it was anything but peaceful in the Spanish conquest of the Americas?'
At the same time, MacWilliams criticized the presentation of Hernando Cortes' conquest of Mexico -- which he said portrayed him as a 'choirboy' rather than a 'conquistador.'
'It's quite a whitewash,' he said.
Some other religious-studies experts contacted by The Post said they didn't see what the fuss was all about.
'[The] selections seem about equal in terms of being historically/culturally focused, all relatively positive about the contributions made by each religion as it was introduced into various societies,' wrote Barbara Sproul, an associate professor of religion at Hunter College in Manhattan.
Yet Michael Dobkowski, chair of Religious Studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in upstate Geneva, asserted that it was only Christianity for which both positive and negative aspects were highlighted.
'Some [essays] suggest a kind of Christian triumphalism and the desire to convert the other that is not present in the treatment of Islam,' he said. 'My impression is that there is certainly a divergence of approaches and impressions that should not appear in a Regents exam of this caliber.'
State education officials said that every effort had been made to present accurate historical information through the excerpts.
They said the questions had been developed over a four-year period and require students to use their own knowledge of social studies to produce answers.
They added that they weren't aware of any complaints about the exam.
The Muslim reading:
* 'Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom.
* 'Some of the finest centers of Moslem life were established in Spain. In Cordova, the streets were solidly paved, while at the same time in Paris people waded ankle-deep in mud after a rain. Cordovan public lamps lighted roads for as far as ten miles; yet seven hundred years later there was still not a single public lamp in London!'"
Now We're Funding Palestinians' Interests in Israel
Is America not a bankrupt nation? Do we have the funds to run ads in Israel on behalf of Palestinians? The Obama regime is obsessed with anything that promotes Muslims, and at taxpayer expense.
Do us a favor, Mr. President, put this much effort into solving out economic troubles, and maybe, just maybe, your polls numbers will rise. Oh, that's right, you are not interested in an economic recovery.
Cloward Piven, anybody? Are we moving closer to a collapse of our economy?
Read from the Fox Nation:
Obama Administration Funds Palestinian Campaign
"Washington is funding an ad campaign in Israel featuring billboards of Palestinian officials asking: 'We are partners -- what about you?'
The campaign launched Sunday includes the faces of senior Palestinian Authority officials Saeb Erekat, Jibril Rajoub and Yasser Abed Rabo, and Riad Malki, Palestinian foreign affairs minister, Yedioth Aharonoth said.
The aim of the campaign is to persuade Israelis that peace partners on the Palestinian side truly exist, and calls for support of a two-state solution, the Tel Aviv newspaper said.
The U.S. government was approached to fund the campaign by the Geneva Initiative founders, who drew up an agreement in 2003 to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the newspaper said.
The U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, invested close to $250,000 toward the creation of the billboards, the newspaper said.
Read The Full Article"
Get real, Mr. President. The Palestinians as peace partners? Perhaps, in your dreams. Reality is somehow much different. The only peace that the Palestinians will accept is peace with dead Jews forced into the Mediterranean Sea.
Do us a favor, Mr. President, put this much effort into solving out economic troubles, and maybe, just maybe, your polls numbers will rise. Oh, that's right, you are not interested in an economic recovery.
Cloward Piven, anybody? Are we moving closer to a collapse of our economy?
Read from the Fox Nation:
Obama Administration Funds Palestinian Campaign
"Washington is funding an ad campaign in Israel featuring billboards of Palestinian officials asking: 'We are partners -- what about you?'
The campaign launched Sunday includes the faces of senior Palestinian Authority officials Saeb Erekat, Jibril Rajoub and Yasser Abed Rabo, and Riad Malki, Palestinian foreign affairs minister, Yedioth Aharonoth said.
The aim of the campaign is to persuade Israelis that peace partners on the Palestinian side truly exist, and calls for support of a two-state solution, the Tel Aviv newspaper said.
The U.S. government was approached to fund the campaign by the Geneva Initiative founders, who drew up an agreement in 2003 to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the newspaper said.
The U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, invested close to $250,000 toward the creation of the billboards, the newspaper said.
Read The Full Article"
Get real, Mr. President. The Palestinians as peace partners? Perhaps, in your dreams. Reality is somehow much different. The only peace that the Palestinians will accept is peace with dead Jews forced into the Mediterranean Sea.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The Anti-Gun Administration's Stealth-Like Plan
It's time to stock up on ammo because the Obama Administration is working feverishly to undermine the Second Amendment. Oh, they can't get away with out-and-out banning guns, so they do what they do best: work in a stealth-like manner to regulate how they are used.
Have you ever noticed that liberals are notorious for being sneaky about their policy making? Why do they not do their dirty work right out in the open for all to see? Because they would be run out of office so fast our heads would spin. They are counting on an ill-informed American public.
Read about their latest ploy to make it difficult for gun owners, you know, those of us who "cling to our guns", via Red State:
Obama’s EPA to Regulate Hunters and Fisherman
"The Obama Administration is considering using the vast power of the federal government to ban the sale of certain types of ammunition. This administrative ban would increase cost for hunters and fisherman dramatically. If implemented, this ban would go against the will of the American people. Furthermore, this action is an inappropriate use of federal power.
U.S. News and World Report posted a story today indicating that President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a ban on lead bullets and sinkers in the name of protecting the environment. This ban, if put into place, would dramatically increase the cost of ammunition for hunters and lead sinkers for anglers. If gun owners needed any more evidence that the Obama Administration is looking for creative ways to take away the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, they need to look no further than this new proposed rule.
This is an idea that would have absolutely no chance of passing in Congress, yet liberals in the Obama Administration clearly are looking for ways to implement a creative means to raise the prices of ammunition and infringe on hunter’s rights. The American people reject gun control, yet the EPA does not care about the will of the American people. Remember, this is the same Administration that nominated two anti-Second Amendment lawyers to the Supreme Court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
From the story:
'The National Rifle Association, already on high alert over gun control rumors, has gone to battle stations to fight a new scheme before the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict hunters and anglers from using lead bullets, shot and sinkers.'
John McCormack of the Weekly Standard has an excellent piece where he explains that this creative means to regulate gun ownership through doubling the cost of ammunition for deer hunters.
'Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available. But here’s the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive. A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition. A box of deer hunting bullets in a popular caliber could be upwards of $55.'
The National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Director Chris Cox has written a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the EPA to stand down, because the EPA does not have authority under existing law to ban a certain type of ammunition.
'We are writing to urge you to reject a petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and others asking the EPA to ban lead shot and bullets under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Simply put, the Act does not grant the EPA the authority to regulate ammunition of any composition.'
Hunters and fisherman need to keep a close eye on environmental bureaucrats to make sure that they don’t ban lead fishing sinkers and ammunition under the pre-text of protecting the environment.
UPDATE: The Obama Administration has backed away from banning lead in bullets, but may allow a ban on lead fishing sinkers. From U.S. News and World Report:
'In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn’t have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.'"
Have you ever noticed that liberals are notorious for being sneaky about their policy making? Why do they not do their dirty work right out in the open for all to see? Because they would be run out of office so fast our heads would spin. They are counting on an ill-informed American public.
Read about their latest ploy to make it difficult for gun owners, you know, those of us who "cling to our guns", via Red State:
Obama’s EPA to Regulate Hunters and Fisherman
"The Obama Administration is considering using the vast power of the federal government to ban the sale of certain types of ammunition. This administrative ban would increase cost for hunters and fisherman dramatically. If implemented, this ban would go against the will of the American people. Furthermore, this action is an inappropriate use of federal power.
U.S. News and World Report posted a story today indicating that President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a ban on lead bullets and sinkers in the name of protecting the environment. This ban, if put into place, would dramatically increase the cost of ammunition for hunters and lead sinkers for anglers. If gun owners needed any more evidence that the Obama Administration is looking for creative ways to take away the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, they need to look no further than this new proposed rule.
This is an idea that would have absolutely no chance of passing in Congress, yet liberals in the Obama Administration clearly are looking for ways to implement a creative means to raise the prices of ammunition and infringe on hunter’s rights. The American people reject gun control, yet the EPA does not care about the will of the American people. Remember, this is the same Administration that nominated two anti-Second Amendment lawyers to the Supreme Court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
From the story:
'The National Rifle Association, already on high alert over gun control rumors, has gone to battle stations to fight a new scheme before the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict hunters and anglers from using lead bullets, shot and sinkers.'
John McCormack of the Weekly Standard has an excellent piece where he explains that this creative means to regulate gun ownership through doubling the cost of ammunition for deer hunters.
'Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available. But here’s the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive. A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition. A box of deer hunting bullets in a popular caliber could be upwards of $55.'
The National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Director Chris Cox has written a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the EPA to stand down, because the EPA does not have authority under existing law to ban a certain type of ammunition.
'We are writing to urge you to reject a petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and others asking the EPA to ban lead shot and bullets under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Simply put, the Act does not grant the EPA the authority to regulate ammunition of any composition.'
Hunters and fisherman need to keep a close eye on environmental bureaucrats to make sure that they don’t ban lead fishing sinkers and ammunition under the pre-text of protecting the environment.
UPDATE: The Obama Administration has backed away from banning lead in bullets, but may allow a ban on lead fishing sinkers. From U.S. News and World Report:
'In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn’t have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.'"
Iraqis Express Concern About U.S. Troops Leaving
The American Pravda keeps reporting that all combat troops have been removed from Iraq, when that is not the case. Let's just hope and pray that the Iraqis can handle securing their own nation and that the death of so many brave American men and women will not be in vain.
But, what do the Iraqi people have to say about the pullout of so many American soldiers? Do they feel confident that they can keep their citizens safe?
Read and find out from the American Thinker:
Poll: Iraqis miss Bush strategy
Ben-Peter Terpstra
"Not that I needed more proof, but a new poll reveals that white left-wingers don't speak for Arabs. From Baghdad (AFP):
'A majority of Iraqis believe it was the wrong time for a major withdrawal of US combat troops, a poll said on Tuesday, with more than half also warning that it would have negative consequences.
When asked if it was the right time for American soldiers to leave -- the US military earlier confirmed troop numbers in Iraq had fallen under 50,000 for the first time -- 59.8 percent said no, compared to 39.5 percent who said yes.'
Notable too is the fact that Obama (the left's messiah) isn't a unifying god:
'Some 53.1 percent of respondents said they disagreed with President Barack Obama's decision last year to end the combat mission in Iraq on August 31, a move that triggered a major reduction in the US military presence here.'
The information is extremely difficult for Hollywood to process.
(Side note: The poll carried out by the Asharq Research Centre, a private Iraqi company, was a representative nationwide sample of 1,150 people aged 18 and above in the country's 18 provinces between August 15-23.)"
But, what do the Iraqi people have to say about the pullout of so many American soldiers? Do they feel confident that they can keep their citizens safe?
Read and find out from the American Thinker:
Poll: Iraqis miss Bush strategy
Ben-Peter Terpstra
"Not that I needed more proof, but a new poll reveals that white left-wingers don't speak for Arabs. From Baghdad (AFP):
'A majority of Iraqis believe it was the wrong time for a major withdrawal of US combat troops, a poll said on Tuesday, with more than half also warning that it would have negative consequences.
When asked if it was the right time for American soldiers to leave -- the US military earlier confirmed troop numbers in Iraq had fallen under 50,000 for the first time -- 59.8 percent said no, compared to 39.5 percent who said yes.'
Notable too is the fact that Obama (the left's messiah) isn't a unifying god:
'Some 53.1 percent of respondents said they disagreed with President Barack Obama's decision last year to end the combat mission in Iraq on August 31, a move that triggered a major reduction in the US military presence here.'
The information is extremely difficult for Hollywood to process.
(Side note: The poll carried out by the Asharq Research Centre, a private Iraqi company, was a representative nationwide sample of 1,150 people aged 18 and above in the country's 18 provinces between August 15-23.)"
Ground Zero Mosque Organizer Is a Tax Cheat
Why are we not surprised that the organizer behind the Ground Zero mosque is a thug and tax cheat? Sorta sounds like he could be a member of the Obama Administration.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Ground Zero Deadbeat Thug Sharif El-Gamal Owes 224G tax
"Bloomberg is a disgrace. He is ramming this down our throats and having this thug with a rap sheet a mile long to Gracie mansion for official dinners.
Gamal, a low life who beats people up and threatens Muslims who speak out against the mosque, is a tax cheat, owing a quarter of a million in taxes. The slasher who attacked the Muslim cabdriver is affiliated with Gama's Park 51. Hmmmmm.
And this deadbeat is going to get taxpayer funds to build a $120 million Islamic supremacist mega mosque on Ground Zero? New York, November -- get thee to the polls!
And September 11th, join us to stop the mosque.
Mosque big owes 224G tax NY Post (hat tip Rod)
'The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.
Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.
El-Gamal's company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.
The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal's lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel.
The lease agreement, obtained by The Post, specifies that El-Gamal's company pay taxes on the property and submit receipts to Con Ed.
The utility said it would have to review any possible lease violations.
The late taxes are the latest wrinkle in the controversial plan to put the 15-story mosque near the World Trade Center site.
Before any building can go forward, the developers also must get approval from the MTA because the 2 and 3 subway lines run under a portion of the Park Place property, The Post has learned.'
What would we do without the NY Post?"
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Ground Zero Deadbeat Thug Sharif El-Gamal Owes 224G tax
"Bloomberg is a disgrace. He is ramming this down our throats and having this thug with a rap sheet a mile long to Gracie mansion for official dinners.
Gamal, a low life who beats people up and threatens Muslims who speak out against the mosque, is a tax cheat, owing a quarter of a million in taxes. The slasher who attacked the Muslim cabdriver is affiliated with Gama's Park 51. Hmmmmm.
And this deadbeat is going to get taxpayer funds to build a $120 million Islamic supremacist mega mosque on Ground Zero? New York, November -- get thee to the polls!
And September 11th, join us to stop the mosque.
Mosque big owes 224G tax NY Post (hat tip Rod)
'The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.
Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.
El-Gamal's company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.
The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal's lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel.
The lease agreement, obtained by The Post, specifies that El-Gamal's company pay taxes on the property and submit receipts to Con Ed.
The utility said it would have to review any possible lease violations.
The late taxes are the latest wrinkle in the controversial plan to put the 15-story mosque near the World Trade Center site.
Before any building can go forward, the developers also must get approval from the MTA because the 2 and 3 subway lines run under a portion of the Park Place property, The Post has learned.'
What would we do without the NY Post?"
8/28 Restoring Honor Rally
When God places His call upon an individual, that person will have no peace until he submits to the Lord and does His bidding. Glenn Beck is a man called by God to stand up for righteous in this land that we love so much, and he is doing a spectacular job of calling America back to faith in God and restoring this country to its past greatness.
From what I've seen of the 8/28 rally in DC, it must have been an awesome event for those who were privileged enough to attend. It looked like a little heaven on earth.
Watch out, libs, we are taking our country back!! Righteousness WILL prevail. God will not fail to honor those who apply 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
One small thing that stands out in all these conservative rallies is the respect for property exhibited by conservatives, unlike the slobbish disregard for others' property by the entitlement crowd.
Read and take a gander from Gateway Pundit.
A Tale of Two Rallies on the Mall: Clean Conservatives vs. Filthy Libs (Video)
"Here’s a look at the National Mall after the massive Restoring Honor Rally yesterday in Washington DC:
And, here is a look at the Post-Barackalyptic Wasteland back in January 2009 after the Inauguration of Barack Obama:
The litter on the National Mall after the Barack Obama inauguration was incredible. Barack Obama spoke to the need for more personal responsibility.
Don’t worry about the trash, someone else will get it.
Hat Tip Granny
Previously:
CLEAN Conservatives vs FILTHY Liberals– A Photographic Essay"
More Broken Promises
Remember Obama's promise to the American people that they could keep their own healthcare plan once ObamaCare began? Well, not exactly.
Read from Hot Air:
3 million seniors to lose their existing drug plans?
"Say, I seem to recall someone saying that under his plan to overhaul the American health-care system, if people liked their plans, they could keep them. Of course, this is the same man who spent last Saturday scaring Grandma about how Republican proposals to privatize part of Social Security would ruin the really great government investment strategies that have SSA producing prodigious amounts of red ink now and, well, for the foreseeable future. Grandma should be more worried about the bankrupt promises of Barack Obama on ObamaCare, as it appears over 3 million seniors on Medicare drug plans will have to look for other choices:
'More than 3 million seniors may have to switch their Medicare prescription plan next year, even if they’re perfectly happy with it, thanks to an attempt by the government to simplify their lives.
The policy change could turn into a hassle for seniors who hadn’t intended to switch plans during Medicare’s open enrollment season this fall.
And it risks undercutting President Barack Obama’s promise that people who like their health care plans can keep them.
A new analysis by a leading private research firm estimates that more than 3 million beneficiaries will see their current drug plan eliminated as Medicare tries to winnow down duplicative and confusing coverage, in order to offer consumers more meaningful choices. Instead of 40 or more plans in each state, beneficiaries would pick from 30 or so.
“As a result of this policy, there are going to be fewer plans offered in 2011,” said Bonnie Washington, a senior analyst with Avalere Health, which produced the study. “There is still going to be robust choice for beneficiaries, but those who have to change plans could experience some disruption and inconvenience.”'
In other words, 25% of the drug plan choices will get eliminated — in the first year of ObamaCare. There will still be 'robust choice,' at least in 2011. How many will vanish in 2012? 2013?
Medicare is obviously not like private health insurance. The government administers the benefits already, and they didn’t need ObamaCare to realign drug plans and make them more efficient. And that’s part of the point, too. The real problem for the federal government was in the federal entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Indian Health Service. If they wanted to save money and effect real reform, Obama and the Democrats should have fixed the entitlement programs we already have without arrogating the power to turn the private health-care sector into a command economy.
The President shouldn’t have made promises he couldn’t deliver, either. As the AP notes, this consolidation directly violates Obama’s pledge, offered incessantly and without qualification for almost a year. With seniors set to come out to the polls in large numbers this November, it’s a pledge that will perhaps go down as the worst political promise since “Read my lips — no new taxes!”
Read from Hot Air:
3 million seniors to lose their existing drug plans?
"Say, I seem to recall someone saying that under his plan to overhaul the American health-care system, if people liked their plans, they could keep them. Of course, this is the same man who spent last Saturday scaring Grandma about how Republican proposals to privatize part of Social Security would ruin the really great government investment strategies that have SSA producing prodigious amounts of red ink now and, well, for the foreseeable future. Grandma should be more worried about the bankrupt promises of Barack Obama on ObamaCare, as it appears over 3 million seniors on Medicare drug plans will have to look for other choices:
'More than 3 million seniors may have to switch their Medicare prescription plan next year, even if they’re perfectly happy with it, thanks to an attempt by the government to simplify their lives.
The policy change could turn into a hassle for seniors who hadn’t intended to switch plans during Medicare’s open enrollment season this fall.
And it risks undercutting President Barack Obama’s promise that people who like their health care plans can keep them.
A new analysis by a leading private research firm estimates that more than 3 million beneficiaries will see their current drug plan eliminated as Medicare tries to winnow down duplicative and confusing coverage, in order to offer consumers more meaningful choices. Instead of 40 or more plans in each state, beneficiaries would pick from 30 or so.
“As a result of this policy, there are going to be fewer plans offered in 2011,” said Bonnie Washington, a senior analyst with Avalere Health, which produced the study. “There is still going to be robust choice for beneficiaries, but those who have to change plans could experience some disruption and inconvenience.”'
In other words, 25% of the drug plan choices will get eliminated — in the first year of ObamaCare. There will still be 'robust choice,' at least in 2011. How many will vanish in 2012? 2013?
Medicare is obviously not like private health insurance. The government administers the benefits already, and they didn’t need ObamaCare to realign drug plans and make them more efficient. And that’s part of the point, too. The real problem for the federal government was in the federal entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Indian Health Service. If they wanted to save money and effect real reform, Obama and the Democrats should have fixed the entitlement programs we already have without arrogating the power to turn the private health-care sector into a command economy.
The President shouldn’t have made promises he couldn’t deliver, either. As the AP notes, this consolidation directly violates Obama’s pledge, offered incessantly and without qualification for almost a year. With seniors set to come out to the polls in large numbers this November, it’s a pledge that will perhaps go down as the worst political promise since “Read my lips — no new taxes!”
A Question for President Obama
Hey, Mr. President, if you don't want Americans to suspect that you are a secret Muslim, try doing something to prove that you are not. Like perhaps, not kissing up to every Muslim you encounter and not financing every disgusting act they commit.
Why are you carrying out the following policies, Mr. President? Inquiring minds want to know.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Obama Drops Prosecution of USS Cole
"Obama is dropping the case against the Cole bombing, a jihadist act of war. In October 2000, the Cole was attacked by Muslim terrorists in a homicide attack in the Yemeni post of Aden. Seventeen sailors were killed and thirty-nine were injured, and the ship was damaged.
Today we hear they are dropping the case. Another big fat lie, to what end? To advance what agenda? Whose interests? Certainly it's not America's."
Read it all.
From Big Peace, via Weasel Zippers:
Coming August 31: ‘Direct Access’ Stimulus Grants for the Muslim Brotherhood
"On August 31, this coming Tuesday, the Muslim Brotherhood-associated 'Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations' (CCMO) will bring 25-30 Muslim leaders of 20 national Muslim groups to attend a special workshop presented by the White House and U.S. Government agencies (Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services etc.) to provide the groups 'funding, government assistance and resources.' The workshop will apparently provide special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizations: the organizers pledge to provide 'direct access' and 'cut through red tape.' Government and Muslim groups will hold an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) after the workshop."
Read it all.
Then, there is this little jewel, in your own words, Mr. President, via the American Thinker:
How Christian is Obama?
Jill Meyer
"With all the discussions about whether or not the President is a Christian, I did something I'd never expected to do: I went to the library, checked out a copy of The Audacity of Hope, and read it.
We have to be careful judging - but in his own words, in his own book, in his own chapter on Faith (page 226 of the hard-cover edition) -- Obama recalls his little daughter asking what happens to us when we die. His response was to tell her she wouldn't have to worry about that for a long time, and, he writes, that seemed to satisfy her.
He goes on to say:
'"I wondered whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn't sure what happens when we die, any more than I was sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang."'
Christianity didn't seem to factor into his answer to his daughter, or into his own thoughts about life after death. You'd think a Christian father would have told his little girl at least something about God and heaven."
Now, granted, a young child may not be ready to hear about hell, but a Christian father would certainly be well aware of a place called Heaven where all believers will reside for eternity. Obama seems to have no concept of this promise for those who repent of their sins and accept Christ. A foreign idea for a man posing to be a Christian.
Why are you carrying out the following policies, Mr. President? Inquiring minds want to know.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Obama Drops Prosecution of USS Cole
"Obama is dropping the case against the Cole bombing, a jihadist act of war. In October 2000, the Cole was attacked by Muslim terrorists in a homicide attack in the Yemeni post of Aden. Seventeen sailors were killed and thirty-nine were injured, and the ship was damaged.
Today we hear they are dropping the case. Another big fat lie, to what end? To advance what agenda? Whose interests? Certainly it's not America's."
Read it all.
From Big Peace, via Weasel Zippers:
Coming August 31: ‘Direct Access’ Stimulus Grants for the Muslim Brotherhood
"On August 31, this coming Tuesday, the Muslim Brotherhood-associated 'Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations' (CCMO) will bring 25-30 Muslim leaders of 20 national Muslim groups to attend a special workshop presented by the White House and U.S. Government agencies (Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services etc.) to provide the groups 'funding, government assistance and resources.' The workshop will apparently provide special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizations: the organizers pledge to provide 'direct access' and 'cut through red tape.' Government and Muslim groups will hold an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) after the workshop."
Read it all.
Then, there is this little jewel, in your own words, Mr. President, via the American Thinker:
How Christian is Obama?
Jill Meyer
"With all the discussions about whether or not the President is a Christian, I did something I'd never expected to do: I went to the library, checked out a copy of The Audacity of Hope, and read it.
We have to be careful judging - but in his own words, in his own book, in his own chapter on Faith (page 226 of the hard-cover edition) -- Obama recalls his little daughter asking what happens to us when we die. His response was to tell her she wouldn't have to worry about that for a long time, and, he writes, that seemed to satisfy her.
He goes on to say:
'"I wondered whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn't sure what happens when we die, any more than I was sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang."'
Christianity didn't seem to factor into his answer to his daughter, or into his own thoughts about life after death. You'd think a Christian father would have told his little girl at least something about God and heaven."
Now, granted, a young child may not be ready to hear about hell, but a Christian father would certainly be well aware of a place called Heaven where all believers will reside for eternity. Obama seems to have no concept of this promise for those who repent of their sins and accept Christ. A foreign idea for a man posing to be a Christian.
Bush Polls Way Higher on Trust in Crisis Than Obama
Today marks the five-year anniversary of the devastating Hurricane Katrina. President Bush handled the crisis poorly and was maligned by the American Pravda, while Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin were given a free pass for their negiligence in evacuating people from the city prior to the category 5 hurricane. Bush never recovered from the hit-job on Katrina.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that Louisianans in a recent poll trust Bush over Obama in dealing with a crisis by a 21% margin. Yes, Louisiana is a red state, but 21%? That is, frankly, quite shocking.
I get the feeling that the average American did not hear about the real outrage and frustration directed against Obama by Gulf Coast residents in the recent disastrous oil spill. These folk down in the Gulf Coast recognize incompetence when they see it, and they don't particularly appreciate the oil drilling moratorium which cost them their livelihood.
Apparently, the American Pravda was once again covering for their beloved socialist/Marxist president.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Louisiana Voters Pick Bush Over Obama in a Crisis – 54% to 33%
"More Louisiana voters picked Bush over Obama in a crisis.
Bluegrass Pundit reported:
'Louisiana has face two major crisis in recent years. The first was hurricane Katrina handled by former President Bush. The second was the Gulf oil spill handled by current President Obama. A PPP poll asked likely voters who they think is better at handling crisis, Obama or Bush. 54% chose President Bush. Only 33% picked President Obama.'
It wasn’t even close."
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that Louisianans in a recent poll trust Bush over Obama in dealing with a crisis by a 21% margin. Yes, Louisiana is a red state, but 21%? That is, frankly, quite shocking.
I get the feeling that the average American did not hear about the real outrage and frustration directed against Obama by Gulf Coast residents in the recent disastrous oil spill. These folk down in the Gulf Coast recognize incompetence when they see it, and they don't particularly appreciate the oil drilling moratorium which cost them their livelihood.
Apparently, the American Pravda was once again covering for their beloved socialist/Marxist president.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Louisiana Voters Pick Bush Over Obama in a Crisis – 54% to 33%
"More Louisiana voters picked Bush over Obama in a crisis.
Bluegrass Pundit reported:
'Louisiana has face two major crisis in recent years. The first was hurricane Katrina handled by former President Bush. The second was the Gulf oil spill handled by current President Obama. A PPP poll asked likely voters who they think is better at handling crisis, Obama or Bush. 54% chose President Bush. Only 33% picked President Obama.'
It wasn’t even close."
Happy Birthday to the Forgotten Man
If only he were not a Jew, the world would be enraged. If only if it weren't Muslims who held him in captivity, the world would be enraged. But, since he is a Jew and his captors are Muslims, the media yawns. Imagine if the roles were reversed, there would be nonstop news coverage vilifying Israel.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Horror Birthday, Gilad!
"Why is it that the world is not agitating for the release of Gilad Shalit? What happened to resolution 1701? Why isn't Obama demanding his release before he keyster kisses Abbas?
The disgusting antisemitism inherent in the treatment of Israel and Jews across the world speaks to the incomprehensibly low state of the world. Worse still, Islamic antisemitism is legitimized and sanctioned.
Gilad Schalit turned 24 years old today. CiF Watch
'He is the son of Aviva and Noam Schalit from Mitzpe Hilla in the Western Galilee and the brother of Yoel and Hadas.
On Sunday, June 25, 2006, at 5:40 in the morning, a terrorist group of several Palestinians crossed the border south of the Gaza Strip into Israel through a tunnel near Kerem Shalom and attacked an army facility that was within the sovereign territory of Israel.
The force numbered 8-armed Palestinians. It penetrated about a hundred meters into Israeli territory and split into three groups. The first group shot at an armored car that stood there. It was empty so no one was hurt. The second group attacked an IDF post manned by soldiers of the Desert Patrol. This attack included explosives and gunfire from light weapons which wounded three Israeli soldiers. At the same time at least one rocket was fired and grenades were thrown at a tank positioned in the area. The tank was manned by four soldiers one of whom was Gilad Schalit. The missile hit the rear end of the tank causing the death of its commander and an additional soldier.
One soldier was wounded. Gilad Schalit, the fourth soldier in the tank, was wounded in the shoulder and was abducted from the tank and taken by the terrorists to the Gaza strip.
Gilad’s abductors were members of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing of Palestinian governing party Hamas), the Popular Resistance Committees (which includes members of Fatah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas), and the Army of Islam.
To date, attempts by the international Red Cross to communicate with Shalit have been thwarted, but there’s hope, among those organizing the Free Gilad Schalit Campaign, that their efforts will help facilitate communication with Gilad and lead to his release.
Here’s contact information for those wishing to express support:
In the U.S., mail cards to: Gilad Shalit c/o Conference of Presidents 633 Third Ave 21st Flr New York, NY 10017
In Israel, mail cards to: Gilad Shalit By Magen David Adom in Israel Post Office Box 101101 Tel Aviv 61950'
Read the rest."
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Horror Birthday, Gilad!
"Why is it that the world is not agitating for the release of Gilad Shalit? What happened to resolution 1701? Why isn't Obama demanding his release before he keyster kisses Abbas?
The disgusting antisemitism inherent in the treatment of Israel and Jews across the world speaks to the incomprehensibly low state of the world. Worse still, Islamic antisemitism is legitimized and sanctioned.
Gilad Schalit turned 24 years old today. CiF Watch
'He is the son of Aviva and Noam Schalit from Mitzpe Hilla in the Western Galilee and the brother of Yoel and Hadas.
On Sunday, June 25, 2006, at 5:40 in the morning, a terrorist group of several Palestinians crossed the border south of the Gaza Strip into Israel through a tunnel near Kerem Shalom and attacked an army facility that was within the sovereign territory of Israel.
The force numbered 8-armed Palestinians. It penetrated about a hundred meters into Israeli territory and split into three groups. The first group shot at an armored car that stood there. It was empty so no one was hurt. The second group attacked an IDF post manned by soldiers of the Desert Patrol. This attack included explosives and gunfire from light weapons which wounded three Israeli soldiers. At the same time at least one rocket was fired and grenades were thrown at a tank positioned in the area. The tank was manned by four soldiers one of whom was Gilad Schalit. The missile hit the rear end of the tank causing the death of its commander and an additional soldier.
One soldier was wounded. Gilad Schalit, the fourth soldier in the tank, was wounded in the shoulder and was abducted from the tank and taken by the terrorists to the Gaza strip.
Gilad’s abductors were members of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing of Palestinian governing party Hamas), the Popular Resistance Committees (which includes members of Fatah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas), and the Army of Islam.
To date, attempts by the international Red Cross to communicate with Shalit have been thwarted, but there’s hope, among those organizing the Free Gilad Schalit Campaign, that their efforts will help facilitate communication with Gilad and lead to his release.
Here’s contact information for those wishing to express support:
In the U.S., mail cards to: Gilad Shalit c/o Conference of Presidents 633 Third Ave 21st Flr New York, NY 10017
In Israel, mail cards to: Gilad Shalit By Magen David Adom in Israel Post Office Box 101101 Tel Aviv 61950'
Read the rest."
Allen West Talks to Mark Levin
I'm back from my week at the ocean and raring to go. Sorry to disappoint you, Diogenes, but no shark attacks.
That being said, I just can't get enough of Lt Col. Allen West; he's my kind of guy. South Florida needs him to represent them in the U.S. Congress, and so does all of America.
Take a listen to this great patriot, via Joshua Pundit:
That being said, I just can't get enough of Lt Col. Allen West; he's my kind of guy. South Florida needs him to represent them in the U.S. Congress, and so does all of America.
Take a listen to this great patriot, via Joshua Pundit:
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
David Limbaugh's New Book Exposing Obama
Another book for your conservative wish list, via Gateway Pundit:
Author David Limbaugh Talks “Crimes Against Liberty” With Sean Hannity (Video)
"Conservative columnist and author David Limbaugh was on with Sean Hannity tonight to discuss his latest book Crimes Against Libertywhich was released on Monday and is already #2 (now #1) on Amazon.
David says that Obama is running the nation into the ground and is the most destructive president in our nation’s history. Limbaugh also says the next election will be a turning point for our country on whether America will turn toward socialism-Marxism or go back to a democracy. He also says Obama has no respect for the US Constitution.
Agreed.
This was an excellent interview.
Congratulations to David for the success of Crimes Against Liberty.
I already have my copy and look forward to reading David’s latest best seller."
Author David Limbaugh Talks “Crimes Against Liberty” With Sean Hannity (Video)
"Conservative columnist and author David Limbaugh was on with Sean Hannity tonight to discuss his latest book Crimes Against Libertywhich was released on Monday and is already #2 (now #1) on Amazon.
David says that Obama is running the nation into the ground and is the most destructive president in our nation’s history. Limbaugh also says the next election will be a turning point for our country on whether America will turn toward socialism-Marxism or go back to a democracy. He also says Obama has no respect for the US Constitution.
Agreed.
This was an excellent interview.
Congratulations to David for the success of Crimes Against Liberty.
I already have my copy and look forward to reading David’s latest best seller."
Another Top Marine Voices Lack of Confidence in Obama
Yikes! Another Marine speaking out about Obama's pathetic war efforts in Afghanistan, and this one cannot be fired because he's retiring. Enjoy your vacation, Mr. President.
From Weasel Zippers:
Top U.S. Marine: Obama’s 2011 Withdrawal Date Has Given the Taliban a “Morale Boost”…
"No surprise General James Conway has already announced he’s retiring…
WASHINGTON, Aug 24 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama’s July 2011 date to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan has given a morale boost to Taliban insurgents, who believe they can wait out NATO forces, the top U.S. Marine said on Tuesday.
But General James Conway, who is retiring this fall as commandant of the Marine Corps, said he believed Marines would not be in a position to withdraw from the fight in southern Afghanistan for years.
Conway’s unusually blunt assessment is likely to fan criticism by opposition Republicans of Obama’s war strategy as public opinion of the nine-year-old war sours further. “In some ways, we think right now it is probably giving our enemy sustenance,” Conway said of the July 2011 deadline. “In fact we’ve intercepted communications that say, ‘Hey, you know, we only need to hold out for so long.’” …
Conway, quoting one of his own commanders, told reporters: “We can either lose fast or win slow.”
Conway echoed those sentiments, saying he believed Marines would remain in the south for years — a fact that would eventually dawn on Taliban insurgents and damage the “enemy psyche.”'"
From Weasel Zippers:
Top U.S. Marine: Obama’s 2011 Withdrawal Date Has Given the Taliban a “Morale Boost”…
"No surprise General James Conway has already announced he’s retiring…
WASHINGTON, Aug 24 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama’s July 2011 date to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan has given a morale boost to Taliban insurgents, who believe they can wait out NATO forces, the top U.S. Marine said on Tuesday.
But General James Conway, who is retiring this fall as commandant of the Marine Corps, said he believed Marines would not be in a position to withdraw from the fight in southern Afghanistan for years.
Conway’s unusually blunt assessment is likely to fan criticism by opposition Republicans of Obama’s war strategy as public opinion of the nine-year-old war sours further. “In some ways, we think right now it is probably giving our enemy sustenance,” Conway said of the July 2011 deadline. “In fact we’ve intercepted communications that say, ‘Hey, you know, we only need to hold out for so long.’” …
Conway, quoting one of his own commanders, told reporters: “We can either lose fast or win slow.”
Conway echoed those sentiments, saying he believed Marines would remain in the south for years — a fact that would eventually dawn on Taliban insurgents and damage the “enemy psyche.”'"
Our Tax Dollars Used to Promote Islam
Hey, American Pravda. You wanna know why so many of us average Americans suspect that President Obama is a closet Muslim? Here is a list of recent actions taken by the Obama Administration which may answer your question:
1) State Dept 'aware' of Ground Zero Imam Rauf's Islamic supremacist remarks, but doesn't care
2) The Imam's Wife Joins the Taxpayer Paid Free Ride
3) State Department Using Our Tax Dollars to Purchase and Hand out Copies of Ground Zero Mosque Imam’s Book
4) Obama Regime Using Taxpayer Money to Rebuild Mosques, Minarets Around the World as Part of 'Cultural Outreach' to the Ummah
5) Radical Ground Zero Mosque Imam: Obama’s Cairo Speech to Muslim World Came From Me
6) Excusing Islam for the Fort Hood Massacre
1) State Dept 'aware' of Ground Zero Imam Rauf's Islamic supremacist remarks, but doesn't care
2) The Imam's Wife Joins the Taxpayer Paid Free Ride
3) State Department Using Our Tax Dollars to Purchase and Hand out Copies of Ground Zero Mosque Imam’s Book
4) Obama Regime Using Taxpayer Money to Rebuild Mosques, Minarets Around the World as Part of 'Cultural Outreach' to the Ummah
5) Radical Ground Zero Mosque Imam: Obama’s Cairo Speech to Muslim World Came From Me
6) Excusing Islam for the Fort Hood Massacre
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Obama's Commitment to Destroying Our Relationship with Israel
Glenn Beck was on fire last night exposing Obama's hatred for Israel:
It's His Actions, Stupid
The American Pravda is freaking out because the American people are no longer in love with the golden boy, Barack Obama. Our corrupt media can't for the life of them understand why 1/5 of the country actually believes that the president is a closet Muslim.
In defense of Obama, the mainstream butt-kissing press is attacking those who have accused Obama of being a Muslim. How about they wake up and smell the roses? It's not us, you fools, it's Obama's actions and his speech which makes us doubt his "Christian" faith.
Read from the American Thinker:
Now, why would 20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim?
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
"According to this poll released last week, nearly one in five Americans believes that President Obama is a Muslim, despite his consistent claims to be a Christian. The White House commented that 'obviously,' the president is a Christian; 'he prays every day.' Various liberal columnists quickly ran to the president's aid with mouths agape over the obvious stupidity of this sizable chunk of the American peasant class.
The only thing truly obvious about this poll, in my opinion, is that it was meant to be a distraction from the growing, across-all-strata anger at the president's policies, a still-gloomy economy, and a widely held perception of the president as a lazy man who much prefers the perks of high office to the actual work required of the officeholder. So Pew decided to provide a neat little piñata of supposed stupidity at which the liberal-elitist media could poke with holier-than-thou glee.
Obviously, however, these petulant liberal columnists did not bother to do their homework. From their every rant so far over the persistence of the Obama-Is-Muslim perception, it's clear that none of them have looked at this with anything but the most shallow objective. Obama says he's a Christian; therefore, he is.
Ah, but the perception that he is a Muslim persists. Now, why might that be?
Let me count the reasons...
We could put aside the little Freudian slips Barack Obama uttered at unscripted moments during the campaign, but just for the record, and since they might indeed have added to the public perception of Obama as a Muslim, let's just remember a few of them.
There was that little episode where candidate Obama did reference 'my Muslim faith' to George Stephanopoulos and was corrected by the interviewer.
Then there was the little slip-up where candidate Obama, referring to his campaign travels, mentioned that he had already visited 57 states, a gaffe that might have had no religious/political significance were it not for the fact that the only world entity known to have precisely 57 states is the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Now, admittedly, these were short blurbs, uttered off-teleprompter by candidate Obama, but they indeed added weight to the perception that Obama might be attempting to cover a stealth Muslim faith behind his murky cloak of Christian proclamation.
And although this hardly qualifies as a Freudian slip, candidate Obama did pooh-pooh the dangers posed by that 'tiny country,' Iran, causing any sentient person to feel at least a little angst over where Obama's fidelity (and his senses) might be found. Then there was the lengthy rambling of candidate Obama on the hearty endorsement he received from Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam and the most well-known Jew-hater in America. Obama refused to reject the endorsement while cherry-picking certain statements of Farrakhan's to denounce and spent the rest of his ramble highlighting the Jewish contribution to the Civil Rights Movement. These were hardly clarifying moments in which either the candidate's wisdom or his self-proclaimed Christian faith shone.
All of these murky moments might have been buried under Obama's inauguration hoopla if not for the president's immediate moves towards the Islamic world. Instead of putting the 'Obama is a Muslim' perception to rest, President Obama revived this notion with apparent gusto.
First, there was the premier interview as president to the foreign press, which Obama gave to an Arab television network. Then there was the 'suck up to Islam' speech the president gave in Cairo, in which he purely made up Muslim history to make Islamists feel good. Throw in the obsequious bow to the Saudi king. Throw in Obama's claim on international television that America is 'not a Christian nation,' but is indeed 'one of the largest Muslim nations' (a claim which relied on more faulty Obama arithmetic), and it would take a nitwit not to question the president's credibility on every issue, including his religion.
Add the weight of Obama's outward and pronounced humiliations of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Obama's continual strong-arming the Israelis to stop building upon their own land so as not to irritate the Palestinians, and the perception of Obama's fealty to Muslims grows mightily. Throw in Obama's dictum to all American intelligence agencies that any mention of Islam in connection to modern terrorism is now a concerted no-no, and the 'Obama is a Muslim' perception becomes a big, fat elephant in the room.
With the elephant now growing great big tusks, the president one-ups himself and ceremoniously throws the weight of the presidency into the Ground Zero mosque debate. Choosing the symbolically significant White House Iftar dinner, in honor of Ramadan, with a roomful of prominent Muslims from around the world, the president clearly endorsed building the Cordoba House mosque. And no effort at political backtracking can remove that perception. The 'Obama is a Muslim' elephant is beginning to stink at this point.
Despite a later claim to Christian conversion, Barack Obama was born Muslim, to a Muslim father, who gave him a Muslim name, 'Barack Hussein.' As anyone who knows even a smidgen of Islamic theology well understands, Islam is a religion conferred by the father to his children at birth, in which the father claims his child for Allah, if you will. Since Barack Obama's mother openly professed -- throughout her life -- a rather pronounced disdain for all religion, it makes perfect sense that she would defer to her new husband on this religious ritual.
As all Westerners agree, however, there isn't much in a given name. Islamists, on the other hand, put a great deal of emphasis on this at-birth claim for Allah. And as the New York Times so eloquently pointed out during the campaign, whether Obama (or we) likes it or not, the Islamic world now views Barack Hussein Obama as an apostate to Islam, which under Islamic law is the most grievous offense a man born Muslim can commit.
Not only was Obama born a Muslim, but while living in Indonesia from age six to ten, he was registered in school as a Muslim, regularly studied the Koran, and openly stated in public in 2007 that the Muslim call to prayer was the 'prettiest sound' he had ever heard. Fine. I sincerely doubt that many Americans really wish to parse Obama's religious claims now on the strength of childhood experiences alone.
...Which brings us to the real heart of this matter: Jeremiah Wright, Jr. The undeniable reality concerning Obama's 'conversion' to Christianity is that it occurred under the mentorship of a man known far and wide as a purveyor of black liberation theology, which is about as unorthodox Christian as a sect can get. James H. Cone, the father of black liberation theology, has stated openly that he was attempting to forge a third way between Martin Luther King's orthodox Christianity and the Islamic beliefs (Nation of Islam, then Sunni Islam) of Malcolm X.
When I visited Trinity United Church of Christ in January of 2008, I spent about an hour perusing the books for sale in Obama's then-church home bookstore. The one unifying theme of books for sale at Trinity was not Christianity, but black nationalist politics, cunningly wrapped in religious language, both black Muslim and black liberation theology.
Obama's connection to Jeremiah Wright was, in fact, conspiratorially swept under the liberal-media rug, as we now know from recent JournoList e-mail revelations. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should have known that as Obama ascended to the presidency, his true colors would show themselves. And show they have.
Barack Obama unceasingly demonstrates that his disavowal of Wright's mentorship was every bit as hollow as his claim to unifying political grace.
In every apology for America that Obama has made, we hear Jeremiah Wright's voice 'G*d-damning' America. In Obama's decision to send an American apology envoy to Hiroshima, we hear Wright's anti-American screeds loud and clear. In Obama's sending back the bust of Churchill to the Brits, Wright's still-sore rants over the white Europeans and the slave trade -- dead for more than a century -- are seen clear as day. In Obama's open arms to Islam -- no matter what -- we see and hear Wright's love of the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X.
So here's to our formerly august media in their summer with American malcontents.
The truth always will out.
Obama lied; hope died.
And you people got caught with your pants down.
Deal with it."
In defense of Obama, the mainstream butt-kissing press is attacking those who have accused Obama of being a Muslim. How about they wake up and smell the roses? It's not us, you fools, it's Obama's actions and his speech which makes us doubt his "Christian" faith.
Read from the American Thinker:
Now, why would 20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim?
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
"According to this poll released last week, nearly one in five Americans believes that President Obama is a Muslim, despite his consistent claims to be a Christian. The White House commented that 'obviously,' the president is a Christian; 'he prays every day.' Various liberal columnists quickly ran to the president's aid with mouths agape over the obvious stupidity of this sizable chunk of the American peasant class.
The only thing truly obvious about this poll, in my opinion, is that it was meant to be a distraction from the growing, across-all-strata anger at the president's policies, a still-gloomy economy, and a widely held perception of the president as a lazy man who much prefers the perks of high office to the actual work required of the officeholder. So Pew decided to provide a neat little piñata of supposed stupidity at which the liberal-elitist media could poke with holier-than-thou glee.
Obviously, however, these petulant liberal columnists did not bother to do their homework. From their every rant so far over the persistence of the Obama-Is-Muslim perception, it's clear that none of them have looked at this with anything but the most shallow objective. Obama says he's a Christian; therefore, he is.
Ah, but the perception that he is a Muslim persists. Now, why might that be?
Let me count the reasons...
We could put aside the little Freudian slips Barack Obama uttered at unscripted moments during the campaign, but just for the record, and since they might indeed have added to the public perception of Obama as a Muslim, let's just remember a few of them.
There was that little episode where candidate Obama did reference 'my Muslim faith' to George Stephanopoulos and was corrected by the interviewer.
Then there was the little slip-up where candidate Obama, referring to his campaign travels, mentioned that he had already visited 57 states, a gaffe that might have had no religious/political significance were it not for the fact that the only world entity known to have precisely 57 states is the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Now, admittedly, these were short blurbs, uttered off-teleprompter by candidate Obama, but they indeed added weight to the perception that Obama might be attempting to cover a stealth Muslim faith behind his murky cloak of Christian proclamation.
And although this hardly qualifies as a Freudian slip, candidate Obama did pooh-pooh the dangers posed by that 'tiny country,' Iran, causing any sentient person to feel at least a little angst over where Obama's fidelity (and his senses) might be found. Then there was the lengthy rambling of candidate Obama on the hearty endorsement he received from Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam and the most well-known Jew-hater in America. Obama refused to reject the endorsement while cherry-picking certain statements of Farrakhan's to denounce and spent the rest of his ramble highlighting the Jewish contribution to the Civil Rights Movement. These were hardly clarifying moments in which either the candidate's wisdom or his self-proclaimed Christian faith shone.
All of these murky moments might have been buried under Obama's inauguration hoopla if not for the president's immediate moves towards the Islamic world. Instead of putting the 'Obama is a Muslim' perception to rest, President Obama revived this notion with apparent gusto.
First, there was the premier interview as president to the foreign press, which Obama gave to an Arab television network. Then there was the 'suck up to Islam' speech the president gave in Cairo, in which he purely made up Muslim history to make Islamists feel good. Throw in the obsequious bow to the Saudi king. Throw in Obama's claim on international television that America is 'not a Christian nation,' but is indeed 'one of the largest Muslim nations' (a claim which relied on more faulty Obama arithmetic), and it would take a nitwit not to question the president's credibility on every issue, including his religion.
Add the weight of Obama's outward and pronounced humiliations of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Obama's continual strong-arming the Israelis to stop building upon their own land so as not to irritate the Palestinians, and the perception of Obama's fealty to Muslims grows mightily. Throw in Obama's dictum to all American intelligence agencies that any mention of Islam in connection to modern terrorism is now a concerted no-no, and the 'Obama is a Muslim' perception becomes a big, fat elephant in the room.
With the elephant now growing great big tusks, the president one-ups himself and ceremoniously throws the weight of the presidency into the Ground Zero mosque debate. Choosing the symbolically significant White House Iftar dinner, in honor of Ramadan, with a roomful of prominent Muslims from around the world, the president clearly endorsed building the Cordoba House mosque. And no effort at political backtracking can remove that perception. The 'Obama is a Muslim' elephant is beginning to stink at this point.
Despite a later claim to Christian conversion, Barack Obama was born Muslim, to a Muslim father, who gave him a Muslim name, 'Barack Hussein.' As anyone who knows even a smidgen of Islamic theology well understands, Islam is a religion conferred by the father to his children at birth, in which the father claims his child for Allah, if you will. Since Barack Obama's mother openly professed -- throughout her life -- a rather pronounced disdain for all religion, it makes perfect sense that she would defer to her new husband on this religious ritual.
As all Westerners agree, however, there isn't much in a given name. Islamists, on the other hand, put a great deal of emphasis on this at-birth claim for Allah. And as the New York Times so eloquently pointed out during the campaign, whether Obama (or we) likes it or not, the Islamic world now views Barack Hussein Obama as an apostate to Islam, which under Islamic law is the most grievous offense a man born Muslim can commit.
Not only was Obama born a Muslim, but while living in Indonesia from age six to ten, he was registered in school as a Muslim, regularly studied the Koran, and openly stated in public in 2007 that the Muslim call to prayer was the 'prettiest sound' he had ever heard. Fine. I sincerely doubt that many Americans really wish to parse Obama's religious claims now on the strength of childhood experiences alone.
...Which brings us to the real heart of this matter: Jeremiah Wright, Jr. The undeniable reality concerning Obama's 'conversion' to Christianity is that it occurred under the mentorship of a man known far and wide as a purveyor of black liberation theology, which is about as unorthodox Christian as a sect can get. James H. Cone, the father of black liberation theology, has stated openly that he was attempting to forge a third way between Martin Luther King's orthodox Christianity and the Islamic beliefs (Nation of Islam, then Sunni Islam) of Malcolm X.
When I visited Trinity United Church of Christ in January of 2008, I spent about an hour perusing the books for sale in Obama's then-church home bookstore. The one unifying theme of books for sale at Trinity was not Christianity, but black nationalist politics, cunningly wrapped in religious language, both black Muslim and black liberation theology.
Obama's connection to Jeremiah Wright was, in fact, conspiratorially swept under the liberal-media rug, as we now know from recent JournoList e-mail revelations. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should have known that as Obama ascended to the presidency, his true colors would show themselves. And show they have.
Barack Obama unceasingly demonstrates that his disavowal of Wright's mentorship was every bit as hollow as his claim to unifying political grace.
In every apology for America that Obama has made, we hear Jeremiah Wright's voice 'G*d-damning' America. In Obama's decision to send an American apology envoy to Hiroshima, we hear Wright's anti-American screeds loud and clear. In Obama's sending back the bust of Churchill to the Brits, Wright's still-sore rants over the white Europeans and the slave trade -- dead for more than a century -- are seen clear as day. In Obama's open arms to Islam -- no matter what -- we see and hear Wright's love of the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X.
So here's to our formerly august media in their summer with American malcontents.
The truth always will out.
Obama lied; hope died.
And you people got caught with your pants down.
Deal with it."
Monday, August 23, 2010
Obama's Four Policy Disasters
America has never experienced a president so out-of-touch with the folks as is Barack Obama. The sleeping giant is aroused and ready to fight for its future and that of its offspring.
Enjoy your vacation, Mr. President, because we who love this country and its freedoms are bound and determined to stop you from destroying our nation.
Read from the Weekly Standard:
Obama's Four Disasters
Heckuva job, Mr. President.
BY Fred Barnes
"Recovery summer, opposition to Arizona’s immigration law, negative campaigning, and intervention in the Ground Zero mosque dispute—call them Obama’s Four Disasters. As policy, they’re questionable. As political exercises, they’re losers. As clues about Obama, they’re evidence he’s lost his political knack.
What was Obama thinking? These weren’t initiatives taken suddenly. They were carefully thought out and plotted, no doubt in expectation the president would gain politically and so would Democratic candidates. Whatever calculations the White House made, they were faulty.
Recovery summer. This was proclaimed in June, with fanfare, in a briefing by Vice President Biden and the issuance of a report titled 'Summer of Recovery: Project Activity Increases in Summer 2010.' The report said 'millions of Americans [are] on the job today thanks to the Recovery Act'—better known as the 'stimulus package'—but its work is not done. 'Summer 2010 is actually poised to be the most active Recovery Act season yet.'
Not quite. Obama, Biden, and company should have known better. It’s true there were indicators the economy would grow and hiring by private firms would increase. But anyone who traveled outside Washington would quickly discover that slow growth and minimal hiring were at least as likely to occur. And they have. The economy has hit the brakes, the stock market is stagnant, the jobs picture has -worsened, unemployment claims are up, and the notion of a summer of recovery has become an embarrassment.
If there were even a glimmer of doubt about a summertime boom, you wouldn’t want to put a chronic exaggerator like Biden out front. He tends to gush uncontrollably. The stimulus will cause 'even more ripple effects' than ever this summer, he declared. And more jobs means a lot more lunch breaks at the local diner because there weren’t any lunch breaks, there weren’t the jobs that existed; and a lot more trips to the barbershop, to the movies, to the department store, helping those businesses they go to maintain their employment base and increase the employment base.
Sounds nice. Too bad it hasn’t happened.
Opposition to the Arizona immigration law. This is what’s known as a 70-30 issue. Obama has taken the 30 percent position, which puts him athwart the vast majority of Americans. The White House said the decision to file suit against the Arizona law was made by Attorney General Eric Holder. But Holder works for Obama, who could have told him to back off.
There are several reasons this would have made sense. The law was not likely to have prompted a wave of profiling of Hispanics. It was (and is) popular in Arizona, and the more folks around the country heard about it, the more they liked it (and still do).
It also would’ve bolstered Obama’s drive for immigration reform. The president favors the comprehensive approach, which includes amnesty for the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Given the politics of the issue, the only way to get what Obama wants is by first stepping up enforcement of immigration laws. Instead he opted for nullifying a popular enforcement statute.
Negative campaigning. Obama’s great gift as a politician is the ability to rise above the normal pushing, shoving, and name-calling of politics and appear statesmanlike. He’s derided these days by Republicans for his rhetoric in 2008 about hope and change, ending polarization, and changing the way Washington does business. But it’s what elected him.
Now he’s abandoned it. In his current stump speech, he does two things. He talks about 'a lot of things I’m very proud of that we’ve done over the last two years,' including health care reform. And he attacks Republicans for 'constant, nonstop opposition on everything.' Guess which one the media devours. His criticism of Republicans is not limited to political appearances. He’s begun attacking them in his Saturday radio address from the White House. This is both unappealing and unpresidential.
Obama has fallen in love with an analogy about Republicans driving a car—a metaphor for the economy—into a ditch and asking for the keys back now that Obama has pulled it out. It’s not particularly clever, but he dwells on it. 'It has since become the Mr. Potato Head of campaign stump speech metaphors,' wrote Carol E. Lee of Politico. 'The president keeps expanding on it.' That’s not a compliment.
The Ground Zero mosque. This is another 70-30 issue, and Obama is again in the minority. We know his decision to defend the plan of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero wasn’t a spur of the moment thing. He put out a prepared text of his speech on this subject before it was delivered to a group of Muslims at a Ramadan event at the White House. He backtracked the next day.
Until then, he’d wisely stayed out of the controversy, his press secretary dismissing it as a 'local issue.' There was nothing to be gained and a lot to lose by jumping in. Yet he couldn’t resist holding forth, just as he couldn’t when his pal Skip Gates was arrested. Obama is not one to hold his tongue, no matter what the subject. He once again took the position of the elites against that of most Americans.
The contrast between the political adroitness of Obama as a presidential candidate and Obama as president is striking. His campaign was nearly error-free. As president, he’s made a string of unforced errors. He’s lost his touch, and chances are it won’t come back."
Enjoy your vacation, Mr. President, because we who love this country and its freedoms are bound and determined to stop you from destroying our nation.
Read from the Weekly Standard:
Obama's Four Disasters
Heckuva job, Mr. President.
BY Fred Barnes
"Recovery summer, opposition to Arizona’s immigration law, negative campaigning, and intervention in the Ground Zero mosque dispute—call them Obama’s Four Disasters. As policy, they’re questionable. As political exercises, they’re losers. As clues about Obama, they’re evidence he’s lost his political knack.
What was Obama thinking? These weren’t initiatives taken suddenly. They were carefully thought out and plotted, no doubt in expectation the president would gain politically and so would Democratic candidates. Whatever calculations the White House made, they were faulty.
Recovery summer. This was proclaimed in June, with fanfare, in a briefing by Vice President Biden and the issuance of a report titled 'Summer of Recovery: Project Activity Increases in Summer 2010.' The report said 'millions of Americans [are] on the job today thanks to the Recovery Act'—better known as the 'stimulus package'—but its work is not done. 'Summer 2010 is actually poised to be the most active Recovery Act season yet.'
Not quite. Obama, Biden, and company should have known better. It’s true there were indicators the economy would grow and hiring by private firms would increase. But anyone who traveled outside Washington would quickly discover that slow growth and minimal hiring were at least as likely to occur. And they have. The economy has hit the brakes, the stock market is stagnant, the jobs picture has -worsened, unemployment claims are up, and the notion of a summer of recovery has become an embarrassment.
If there were even a glimmer of doubt about a summertime boom, you wouldn’t want to put a chronic exaggerator like Biden out front. He tends to gush uncontrollably. The stimulus will cause 'even more ripple effects' than ever this summer, he declared. And more jobs means a lot more lunch breaks at the local diner because there weren’t any lunch breaks, there weren’t the jobs that existed; and a lot more trips to the barbershop, to the movies, to the department store, helping those businesses they go to maintain their employment base and increase the employment base.
Sounds nice. Too bad it hasn’t happened.
Opposition to the Arizona immigration law. This is what’s known as a 70-30 issue. Obama has taken the 30 percent position, which puts him athwart the vast majority of Americans. The White House said the decision to file suit against the Arizona law was made by Attorney General Eric Holder. But Holder works for Obama, who could have told him to back off.
There are several reasons this would have made sense. The law was not likely to have prompted a wave of profiling of Hispanics. It was (and is) popular in Arizona, and the more folks around the country heard about it, the more they liked it (and still do).
It also would’ve bolstered Obama’s drive for immigration reform. The president favors the comprehensive approach, which includes amnesty for the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Given the politics of the issue, the only way to get what Obama wants is by first stepping up enforcement of immigration laws. Instead he opted for nullifying a popular enforcement statute.
Negative campaigning. Obama’s great gift as a politician is the ability to rise above the normal pushing, shoving, and name-calling of politics and appear statesmanlike. He’s derided these days by Republicans for his rhetoric in 2008 about hope and change, ending polarization, and changing the way Washington does business. But it’s what elected him.
Now he’s abandoned it. In his current stump speech, he does two things. He talks about 'a lot of things I’m very proud of that we’ve done over the last two years,' including health care reform. And he attacks Republicans for 'constant, nonstop opposition on everything.' Guess which one the media devours. His criticism of Republicans is not limited to political appearances. He’s begun attacking them in his Saturday radio address from the White House. This is both unappealing and unpresidential.
Obama has fallen in love with an analogy about Republicans driving a car—a metaphor for the economy—into a ditch and asking for the keys back now that Obama has pulled it out. It’s not particularly clever, but he dwells on it. 'It has since become the Mr. Potato Head of campaign stump speech metaphors,' wrote Carol E. Lee of Politico. 'The president keeps expanding on it.' That’s not a compliment.
The Ground Zero mosque. This is another 70-30 issue, and Obama is again in the minority. We know his decision to defend the plan of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero wasn’t a spur of the moment thing. He put out a prepared text of his speech on this subject before it was delivered to a group of Muslims at a Ramadan event at the White House. He backtracked the next day.
Until then, he’d wisely stayed out of the controversy, his press secretary dismissing it as a 'local issue.' There was nothing to be gained and a lot to lose by jumping in. Yet he couldn’t resist holding forth, just as he couldn’t when his pal Skip Gates was arrested. Obama is not one to hold his tongue, no matter what the subject. He once again took the position of the elites against that of most Americans.
The contrast between the political adroitness of Obama as a presidential candidate and Obama as president is striking. His campaign was nearly error-free. As president, he’s made a string of unforced errors. He’s lost his touch, and chances are it won’t come back."
The Imam in His Own Words
Like a broken record, I agree that Muslims have the right legally to build a mosque in the shadows of Ground Zero. But, that does not make it right. Ever since 9/11, they have accused anyone who speaks out against what the Koran teaches of being guilty of Islamophobia.
Excuse me, but isn't ticking off the huge majority of Americans going to increase hostility toward those who practice the "religion of peace"? That doesn't sound like a move toward healing to me.
Check out this video of the controversial imam and his anti-American comments, via Weasel Zippers. He sorta reminds me of Obama's mentor, "Rev." Jeremiah Wright.
Audio of Ground Zero Mosque Imam Surfaces: U.S. Worse Than al-Qaeda, Drops the N-Word, Praises Suicide Bomber Condoning Cleric Yusuf al-Qardawi……
"This is sweet, sweet music to the ears of his liberal backers…
'“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. The West needs to begin to see themselves through the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world, and when you do you will see the predicament that exists within the Muslim community.” (Note: He uses Michael Moore’s propoganda film “Fahrenheit 911″ as a source)
“So men will say: women, you know, they’re emotional, whatever, whatever, and women will say: men, they’re brutes, insensitive, etcetera, and you have the beginning of a gender conflict. If gender is not what distinguishes us we’ll look at skin colouring and say, n*****s or whities, or whatever”
The broader community is in fact criticising and condemning actions of terrorism that are being done in the name of Islam. I just came from a conference in Jordan, Amman where there were over 170 leading Muslim scholars from almost every part of the Muslim world, including some of the most important names like Sheikh Tantawi of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who is the Chief Mufti of Egypt, the Chief Mufti of Jordan, the Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who is a very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world.'
Rest here>>>
Hamas has also praised Yusuf al-Qardawi, only it was for his justification of suicide bombings against Israel…
H/T:BBTV, Jason Mattera"
BTW, Americans are becoming more informed these days. As shocking as it is, 85% of those recently polled say that they are following the Ground Zero mosque controversy, and 62% oppose a mosque being built on America's graveyard.
Excuse me, but isn't ticking off the huge majority of Americans going to increase hostility toward those who practice the "religion of peace"? That doesn't sound like a move toward healing to me.
Check out this video of the controversial imam and his anti-American comments, via Weasel Zippers. He sorta reminds me of Obama's mentor, "Rev." Jeremiah Wright.
Audio of Ground Zero Mosque Imam Surfaces: U.S. Worse Than al-Qaeda, Drops the N-Word, Praises Suicide Bomber Condoning Cleric Yusuf al-Qardawi……
"This is sweet, sweet music to the ears of his liberal backers…
'“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. The West needs to begin to see themselves through the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world, and when you do you will see the predicament that exists within the Muslim community.” (Note: He uses Michael Moore’s propoganda film “Fahrenheit 911″ as a source)
“So men will say: women, you know, they’re emotional, whatever, whatever, and women will say: men, they’re brutes, insensitive, etcetera, and you have the beginning of a gender conflict. If gender is not what distinguishes us we’ll look at skin colouring and say, n*****s or whities, or whatever”
The broader community is in fact criticising and condemning actions of terrorism that are being done in the name of Islam. I just came from a conference in Jordan, Amman where there were over 170 leading Muslim scholars from almost every part of the Muslim world, including some of the most important names like Sheikh Tantawi of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who is the Chief Mufti of Egypt, the Chief Mufti of Jordan, the Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who is a very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world.'
Rest here>>>
Hamas has also praised Yusuf al-Qardawi, only it was for his justification of suicide bombings against Israel…
H/T:BBTV, Jason Mattera"
BTW, Americans are becoming more informed these days. As shocking as it is, 85% of those recently polled say that they are following the Ground Zero mosque controversy, and 62% oppose a mosque being built on America's graveyard.
What Do Liberalism and Islam Have in Common?
Isn't it interesting that after decades of leftists trying to remove religion out of our society, that they are all-consumed with the rights of Muslims to build a mosque in the shadows of the former Twin Towers destroyed by radical Islamists? And those who have a disdain for our Constitution are speaking out about "freedom of religion". That was never something that interested them before Islam became the topic of conversation. In fact, Islam is always the common theme when libs speak out about freedom of religion.
I find it disturbing that liberals who despise anything related to Christianity have a fetish with Islam. Liberalism and Islam do have something in common: they are both anti-American.
Read from the American Thinker:
Hell freezes over
Tony Gallardo
Question: What does it take for the lefties to 'get religion?'
Answer: A Muslim Imam who espouses anti-American views, who says America was complicit in the 9-11 attack, who says Osama Bin Laden was made in America, who wants America to be Shariah Law compliant, and who is opposed in his plans to build a mosque next to Ground Zero in New York.
Suddenly, the lefties are all sweated up, hyper-ventilating, and running around frantically waving the Constitution in our faces, yelling 'freedom of religion, freedom of religion!!'
Never mind that freedom of religion is not at issue; there are, by some estimates about 2,000 mosques in the U.S. including 100 in New York City alone, and there is no evidence of Muslims being prevented from practicing their faith. I have seen a Muslim kneeling on a prayer rug in a nook adjacent to a restroom in a department store in Northern Virginia.
This 'freedom of religion' mantra is coming from the same lefties, who, for the last 50 years, have been systematically trying to remove all religious practice from American life; no prayer in public schools or before football games, children being punished for writing an essay about a story in the Bible, or for wearing a T-shirt with a religious message. There are continuing attempts to remove the words 'under God' from the pledge of Allegiance, to remove the words 'In God We Trust' from coins, and to turn Christmas into a 'Holiday Season, or a Winter Festival.' They tell us that public displays of crosses and the crèche are offensive. They smirk and sneer when they see people singing 'God Bless America.'
Now, the lefties are sounding like they have suddenly been injected with a heavy dose of that 'good old time religion!'
In another stunning feat of verbal and political Jiu Jitsu, these same lefties who never miss an opportunity to smugly lecture the rest of us that the Constitution is outdated, and that it doesn't mean what it plainly says, have now been transmogrified into strict Constitutionalists.
One of my favorite TV characters from long ago, Gomer Pyle, might ask;
'Shazam!! How did that happen?'
Well, Gomer, it's like this. The lefties find someone who has anti-American views, who proposes ideas such as Sharia Law, which are antithetical to American law and traditions, and who turns his back on the pleas and sensitivities of the vast majority of Americans. They then elevate him to martyrdom status, and if all goes well, from their perspective, he will eventually be elevated to hero status for standing up to the Nazi, Fascist, racist, bigoted, American people.
The lefties are just doing what the lefties do.
Don't be surprised if soon you start seeing posters, bumper stickers, and T-shirts with the image of Imam Rauf, and the slogan, 'Free Imam Rauf!!'"
I find it disturbing that liberals who despise anything related to Christianity have a fetish with Islam. Liberalism and Islam do have something in common: they are both anti-American.
Read from the American Thinker:
Hell freezes over
Tony Gallardo
Question: What does it take for the lefties to 'get religion?'
Answer: A Muslim Imam who espouses anti-American views, who says America was complicit in the 9-11 attack, who says Osama Bin Laden was made in America, who wants America to be Shariah Law compliant, and who is opposed in his plans to build a mosque next to Ground Zero in New York.
Suddenly, the lefties are all sweated up, hyper-ventilating, and running around frantically waving the Constitution in our faces, yelling 'freedom of religion, freedom of religion!!'
Never mind that freedom of religion is not at issue; there are, by some estimates about 2,000 mosques in the U.S. including 100 in New York City alone, and there is no evidence of Muslims being prevented from practicing their faith. I have seen a Muslim kneeling on a prayer rug in a nook adjacent to a restroom in a department store in Northern Virginia.
This 'freedom of religion' mantra is coming from the same lefties, who, for the last 50 years, have been systematically trying to remove all religious practice from American life; no prayer in public schools or before football games, children being punished for writing an essay about a story in the Bible, or for wearing a T-shirt with a religious message. There are continuing attempts to remove the words 'under God' from the pledge of Allegiance, to remove the words 'In God We Trust' from coins, and to turn Christmas into a 'Holiday Season, or a Winter Festival.' They tell us that public displays of crosses and the crèche are offensive. They smirk and sneer when they see people singing 'God Bless America.'
Now, the lefties are sounding like they have suddenly been injected with a heavy dose of that 'good old time religion!'
In another stunning feat of verbal and political Jiu Jitsu, these same lefties who never miss an opportunity to smugly lecture the rest of us that the Constitution is outdated, and that it doesn't mean what it plainly says, have now been transmogrified into strict Constitutionalists.
One of my favorite TV characters from long ago, Gomer Pyle, might ask;
'Shazam!! How did that happen?'
Well, Gomer, it's like this. The lefties find someone who has anti-American views, who proposes ideas such as Sharia Law, which are antithetical to American law and traditions, and who turns his back on the pleas and sensitivities of the vast majority of Americans. They then elevate him to martyrdom status, and if all goes well, from their perspective, he will eventually be elevated to hero status for standing up to the Nazi, Fascist, racist, bigoted, American people.
The lefties are just doing what the lefties do.
Don't be surprised if soon you start seeing posters, bumper stickers, and T-shirts with the image of Imam Rauf, and the slogan, 'Free Imam Rauf!!'"
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Is Obama Losing Jewish Support?
Jewish Americans still overwhelmingly support liberals, but an interesting phenomenon is occurring. Many are fleeing from Democrats.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Poll: Thanks to Obama, American Jews Abandoning the Democratic Party in Droves…
"About time…
(NY Times)- Is President Obama good for the Jews? For more and more Jewish-Americans, the answer is no.
'In a Pew Research Center report issued on Thursday and entitled “Growing Number of Americans Say Obama Is a Muslim” (tragic in its own right), there was another bit of bad news for Obama: the number of Jews who identify as Republican or as independents who lean Republican has increased by more than half since the year he was elected. At 33 percent it now stands at the highest level since the data have been kept. In 2008, the ratio of Democratic Jews to Republican Jews was far more than three to one. Now it’s less than two to one.
This is no doubt a reaction, at least in part, to the Obama administration having taken a hard rhetorical stance with Israel, while taking “special time and care on our relationship with the Muslim world,” as Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, put it in June. If that sounds like courtship, it is.
Some of the president’s most ardent critics and some of Israel’s staunchest American defenders — two groups that are by no means mutually exclusive — have seized on what they see as the administration’s unfair and unbalanced treatment of Israel and have taken their denunciations to the extremes.
In September 2009, Obama went before the United Nations and declared, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” It was a line that the president had used a few months earlier in a speech in Cairo, but this time it threw critics into a tizzy. John Bolton, an ambassador to the United Nations during George W. Bush’s administration, responded: “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making.”
Rest here>>>'"
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Poll: Thanks to Obama, American Jews Abandoning the Democratic Party in Droves…
"About time…
(NY Times)- Is President Obama good for the Jews? For more and more Jewish-Americans, the answer is no.
'In a Pew Research Center report issued on Thursday and entitled “Growing Number of Americans Say Obama Is a Muslim” (tragic in its own right), there was another bit of bad news for Obama: the number of Jews who identify as Republican or as independents who lean Republican has increased by more than half since the year he was elected. At 33 percent it now stands at the highest level since the data have been kept. In 2008, the ratio of Democratic Jews to Republican Jews was far more than three to one. Now it’s less than two to one.
This is no doubt a reaction, at least in part, to the Obama administration having taken a hard rhetorical stance with Israel, while taking “special time and care on our relationship with the Muslim world,” as Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, put it in June. If that sounds like courtship, it is.
Some of the president’s most ardent critics and some of Israel’s staunchest American defenders — two groups that are by no means mutually exclusive — have seized on what they see as the administration’s unfair and unbalanced treatment of Israel and have taken their denunciations to the extremes.
In September 2009, Obama went before the United Nations and declared, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” It was a line that the president had used a few months earlier in a speech in Cairo, but this time it threw critics into a tizzy. John Bolton, an ambassador to the United Nations during George W. Bush’s administration, responded: “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making.”
Rest here>>>'"
Truths About American Combat Troops and Iraq
If you listen to the American Pravda, you are likely to believe that all U.S. combat forces have left Iraq. I thought so too. Not true.
Why can't the corrupt media be honest with the American people? Probably because the left would become enraged if they knew the truth, and Obama would not want that, now would he?
Speaking of the left, I found an interesting Bible verse which I need to share. "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
Read more about what is going on in Iraq from Washington Post, via Hot Air:
Five myths about the Iraq troop withdrawal
By Kenneth M. Pollack
"Early Thursday, less than two weeks before the president's Aug. 31 deadline for ending American combat operations in Iraq, the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division crossed the border from Iraq into Kuwait. With the departure of this last combat brigade, the U.S. military presence in Iraq is now down to 50,000 troops, fewer than at any time since the 2003 invasion. The shift offers a useful moment to take stock of both how much has been accomplished and how much is left to be done in what is fast becoming our forgotten war.
As of this month, the United States no longer has combat troops in Iraq.
1.Not even close. Of the roughly 50,000 American military personnel who remain in Iraq, the majority are still combat troops -- they're just named something else. The major units still in Iraq will no longer be called 'brigade combat teams' and instead will be called 'advisory and assistance brigades.' But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and the differences in brigade structure and personnel are minimal.
American troops in Iraq will still go into harm's way. They will still accompany Iraqi units on combat missions -- even if only as 'advisers.' American pilots will still fly combat missions in support of Iraqi ground forces. And American special forces will still face off against Iraqi terrorist groups in high-intensity operations. For that reason, when American troops leave their bases in Iraq, they will still, almost invariably, be in full 'battle rattle' and ready for a fight.
What has changed over the past 12 to 18 months is the level of violence in Iraq. There is much less of it: The civil war and the insurgency have been suppressed and the terrorists have been marginalized, so American troops have been able to pass the majority of their remaining combat responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces. Most U.S. troops now have little expectation of seeing combat in Iraq. Instead, they are spending more time acting as peacekeepers, protecting personnel and facilities, and advising Iraqi formations. But that didn't start this month: It's more or less what they have been doing since the 'clear and hold' operations to take back the country from militias and insurgents ended in 2008."
Read the rest.
Why can't the corrupt media be honest with the American people? Probably because the left would become enraged if they knew the truth, and Obama would not want that, now would he?
Speaking of the left, I found an interesting Bible verse which I need to share. "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
Read more about what is going on in Iraq from Washington Post, via Hot Air:
Five myths about the Iraq troop withdrawal
By Kenneth M. Pollack
"Early Thursday, less than two weeks before the president's Aug. 31 deadline for ending American combat operations in Iraq, the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division crossed the border from Iraq into Kuwait. With the departure of this last combat brigade, the U.S. military presence in Iraq is now down to 50,000 troops, fewer than at any time since the 2003 invasion. The shift offers a useful moment to take stock of both how much has been accomplished and how much is left to be done in what is fast becoming our forgotten war.
As of this month, the United States no longer has combat troops in Iraq.
1.Not even close. Of the roughly 50,000 American military personnel who remain in Iraq, the majority are still combat troops -- they're just named something else. The major units still in Iraq will no longer be called 'brigade combat teams' and instead will be called 'advisory and assistance brigades.' But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and the differences in brigade structure and personnel are minimal.
American troops in Iraq will still go into harm's way. They will still accompany Iraqi units on combat missions -- even if only as 'advisers.' American pilots will still fly combat missions in support of Iraqi ground forces. And American special forces will still face off against Iraqi terrorist groups in high-intensity operations. For that reason, when American troops leave their bases in Iraq, they will still, almost invariably, be in full 'battle rattle' and ready for a fight.
What has changed over the past 12 to 18 months is the level of violence in Iraq. There is much less of it: The civil war and the insurgency have been suppressed and the terrorists have been marginalized, so American troops have been able to pass the majority of their remaining combat responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces. Most U.S. troops now have little expectation of seeing combat in Iraq. Instead, they are spending more time acting as peacekeepers, protecting personnel and facilities, and advising Iraqi formations. But that didn't start this month: It's more or less what they have been doing since the 'clear and hold' operations to take back the country from militias and insurgents ended in 2008."
Read the rest.
Friday, August 20, 2010
It's Vacation Time!
Just to let you know, I will be leaving for a week's vacation to the beach tomorrow morning. No, it's not to the ritzy Martha's Vineyard where elitists like Obama prefer to frequent.
I will have wireless internet available, though I've never used it, so I'm not sure how that will work out. Nevertheless, there will be little action in the next week, but I'll come back rested up and raring to go in my effort to expose the evil and harm of the liberal agenda for which our president and his radical comrades are pursuing.
I will have wireless internet available, though I've never used it, so I'm not sure how that will work out. Nevertheless, there will be little action in the next week, but I'll come back rested up and raring to go in my effort to expose the evil and harm of the liberal agenda for which our president and his radical comrades are pursuing.
"Barack Obama's True Religion "
Another analysis of President Obama's religious beliefs comes from the American Thinker. Does our president worship at the feet of Allah, Jesus Christ, or does he look in the mirror at his god?
Obama's true religion
Neil Braithwaite
"We all know that a person's words are one thing, but when those words are backed up with actions, a true picture of that person will always begin to emerge.
Those who supported Barack Obama for president were certain that his provocative rhetoric would soon subside into a more moderate tone once he settled into the office of president. Setting aside his campaign mode, bowing to the will of his party for the sake of power and control in Washington and governing the country as many presidents have done before him.
But to the surprise and sometimes dismay of both political parties and independents, something unexpected happened on Obama's way to the oval office. The newly elected president not only made good on all of his provocative rhetoric, he proceeded to double, and even triple down on most of it - dragging the Democrat party along for what could turn out to be the wildest political ride of their lives.
Over the past two years, Barack Hussein Obama has begun to unapologetically paint a very clear picture of who he truly is.
The blank canvas that was Barack Obama became a clear portrait of reality to most Americans when he spoke those two revealing words regarding his original supportive statement for the Ground Zero mosque: 'No regrets.'
Those two words seemed to have solidified, for a majority of Americas, that the man who currently holds the office of President of the United States is no ordinary president.
President Barack Obama is someone who takes literally the unwritten title: ruler of the free world. Although I would suggest, at Obama's behest in the near future, the word 'free' will be omitted from that title.
President Obama answers to no one but himself, with his only alley being the man in the mirror and some warped socialist ideology of world governance based on his fundamental transformation of the United States of America.
His politics are dominated by expedience, with no exception or regard for a person's race, color, gender, religion or political affiliation. He tends to use them all equally well.
His conscience is governed by the basest sense of self-centered and self-serving egotistical emotion.
And although President Obama does comes across as a Muslim to many people, the only real similarity he has with them is sharing the same attitude Muslim extremists have toward America.
Obama does not now, nor will he ever, practice any religion remotely affiliated with worshiping a power higher than himself.
No America. Barack Obama's true religion is not Muslim or Christian - his true religion is himself. He answers to no one and serves to meet only his ends, by any means possible - no regrets."
Obama's true religion
Neil Braithwaite
"We all know that a person's words are one thing, but when those words are backed up with actions, a true picture of that person will always begin to emerge.
Those who supported Barack Obama for president were certain that his provocative rhetoric would soon subside into a more moderate tone once he settled into the office of president. Setting aside his campaign mode, bowing to the will of his party for the sake of power and control in Washington and governing the country as many presidents have done before him.
But to the surprise and sometimes dismay of both political parties and independents, something unexpected happened on Obama's way to the oval office. The newly elected president not only made good on all of his provocative rhetoric, he proceeded to double, and even triple down on most of it - dragging the Democrat party along for what could turn out to be the wildest political ride of their lives.
Over the past two years, Barack Hussein Obama has begun to unapologetically paint a very clear picture of who he truly is.
The blank canvas that was Barack Obama became a clear portrait of reality to most Americans when he spoke those two revealing words regarding his original supportive statement for the Ground Zero mosque: 'No regrets.'
Those two words seemed to have solidified, for a majority of Americas, that the man who currently holds the office of President of the United States is no ordinary president.
President Barack Obama is someone who takes literally the unwritten title: ruler of the free world. Although I would suggest, at Obama's behest in the near future, the word 'free' will be omitted from that title.
President Obama answers to no one but himself, with his only alley being the man in the mirror and some warped socialist ideology of world governance based on his fundamental transformation of the United States of America.
His politics are dominated by expedience, with no exception or regard for a person's race, color, gender, religion or political affiliation. He tends to use them all equally well.
His conscience is governed by the basest sense of self-centered and self-serving egotistical emotion.
And although President Obama does comes across as a Muslim to many people, the only real similarity he has with them is sharing the same attitude Muslim extremists have toward America.
Obama does not now, nor will he ever, practice any religion remotely affiliated with worshiping a power higher than himself.
No America. Barack Obama's true religion is not Muslim or Christian - his true religion is himself. He answers to no one and serves to meet only his ends, by any means possible - no regrets."
Healthcare Costs Going Up
In the midst of a faltering economy, Americans are about to get hit with huge increases in healthcare. I heard Bill O'Reilly say that he got notice that his healthcare costs are increasing by $2,100 and will now cost him over $20,000/year for four people. Sure, he can afford this, but the rest of us cannot.
America desperately needed healthcare reform because costs have been out of control for years. But, we needed a plan to lower costs; tort reform and selling insurance plans across state lines would have been a good place to start. Of course, the liberals in charge wanted no parts of either suggestion because they weren't interested in cost savings. Instead, their entire focus was on control and power over the American people. And don't forget, they promised us that costs would be lowered. What a crock that was!
How are we supposed to maintain our standard of living under these circumstances? Add the 2011 tax increases to this scenario, and we are all about to experience a lower standard of living.
Thanks a lot, Mr. President. While you and your lovely wife, Michelle Antoinette, are living high off the hog, much of it on our dime, there are hurting people in this country who need to be cut some slack.
Read about how healthcare costs are going up, via Hot Air:
Video: Large companies will get hit with 9% increase in health costs under ObamaCare
"Douglas Holtz-Eakin discusses a new survey on the impact of ObamaCare on large companies in this clip from Fox News. This survey of employers with five thousand employees shows that executives are planning for a sharp increase in health-care costs, mainly from new mandates in ObamaCare and the lack of control over the actual costs in providing health care. Those costs will get passed to employees in part, but it’s also likely to reduce their impulse to expand jobs in the next couple of years. The former CBO director also predicts that companies will look at shedding their retiree coverage programs, as predicted during the ObamaCare debate — and will end up pushing more people onto Medicare and Medicaid:
Some of these costs were expected, but Democrats argued that the tax breaks in the plan would offset the damage, especially for smaller businesses. The Orange County Register reports on another analysis of the bill that determined that less than half the number of small businesses predicted by ObamaCare advocates will actually qualify:
'Fewer than 2 million of the nation’s 6 million companies with employees qualify for the small-business tax credits included in the new health insurance reform law, says the National Federation of Independent Business.
The law’s supporters had projected that twice as many small businesses would qualify for the tax credit. NFIB has joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law.
An employer with 17 workers and an average wage of $39,000 will not qualify for a tax credit, NFIB says. Also, none of the 23 million-plus self employed Americans can get the tax credit either.'
In California, only a third of the state’s employers will wind up qualifying, thanks to the high salary level in the state. That won’t do anything to boost the economy, of course, but instead will give employers more reason to give up insurance benefits altogether. Cost increases that far outstrip inflation cannot be borne without either eliminating the source of the increase, reducing compensation, or raising prices. All of those options spell trouble for California’s economy — and that of the rest of the nation.
Bloomberg also reports on the same survey Holtz-Eakin reviews (h/t DogSoldier):
'Workers will pay more for their health care next year as U.S. companies prepare for provisions of the overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama, according to a survey released today.
About 63 percent of businesses plan to make employees pay a higher percentage of their premium costs in 2011, said the Washington-based National Business Group on Health, which surveyed 72 companies that employ more than 3.7 million people. The survey showed 46 percent plan to raise the maximum level of out-of-pocket costs that workers must bear.
The companies surveyed expect their costs of health-care benefits to rise an average of 8.9 percent next year. The legislation Obama signed in March will contribute an estimated 1 percentage point to the higher expense, Helen Darling, the business group’s president, said at a press conference in Washington today. Employee-paid portions may see small increases, she said.'"
America desperately needed healthcare reform because costs have been out of control for years. But, we needed a plan to lower costs; tort reform and selling insurance plans across state lines would have been a good place to start. Of course, the liberals in charge wanted no parts of either suggestion because they weren't interested in cost savings. Instead, their entire focus was on control and power over the American people. And don't forget, they promised us that costs would be lowered. What a crock that was!
How are we supposed to maintain our standard of living under these circumstances? Add the 2011 tax increases to this scenario, and we are all about to experience a lower standard of living.
Thanks a lot, Mr. President. While you and your lovely wife, Michelle Antoinette, are living high off the hog, much of it on our dime, there are hurting people in this country who need to be cut some slack.
Read about how healthcare costs are going up, via Hot Air:
Video: Large companies will get hit with 9% increase in health costs under ObamaCare
"Douglas Holtz-Eakin discusses a new survey on the impact of ObamaCare on large companies in this clip from Fox News. This survey of employers with five thousand employees shows that executives are planning for a sharp increase in health-care costs, mainly from new mandates in ObamaCare and the lack of control over the actual costs in providing health care. Those costs will get passed to employees in part, but it’s also likely to reduce their impulse to expand jobs in the next couple of years. The former CBO director also predicts that companies will look at shedding their retiree coverage programs, as predicted during the ObamaCare debate — and will end up pushing more people onto Medicare and Medicaid:
Some of these costs were expected, but Democrats argued that the tax breaks in the plan would offset the damage, especially for smaller businesses. The Orange County Register reports on another analysis of the bill that determined that less than half the number of small businesses predicted by ObamaCare advocates will actually qualify:
'Fewer than 2 million of the nation’s 6 million companies with employees qualify for the small-business tax credits included in the new health insurance reform law, says the National Federation of Independent Business.
The law’s supporters had projected that twice as many small businesses would qualify for the tax credit. NFIB has joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law.
An employer with 17 workers and an average wage of $39,000 will not qualify for a tax credit, NFIB says. Also, none of the 23 million-plus self employed Americans can get the tax credit either.'
In California, only a third of the state’s employers will wind up qualifying, thanks to the high salary level in the state. That won’t do anything to boost the economy, of course, but instead will give employers more reason to give up insurance benefits altogether. Cost increases that far outstrip inflation cannot be borne without either eliminating the source of the increase, reducing compensation, or raising prices. All of those options spell trouble for California’s economy — and that of the rest of the nation.
Bloomberg also reports on the same survey Holtz-Eakin reviews (h/t DogSoldier):
'Workers will pay more for their health care next year as U.S. companies prepare for provisions of the overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama, according to a survey released today.
About 63 percent of businesses plan to make employees pay a higher percentage of their premium costs in 2011, said the Washington-based National Business Group on Health, which surveyed 72 companies that employ more than 3.7 million people. The survey showed 46 percent plan to raise the maximum level of out-of-pocket costs that workers must bear.
The companies surveyed expect their costs of health-care benefits to rise an average of 8.9 percent next year. The legislation Obama signed in March will contribute an estimated 1 percentage point to the higher expense, Helen Darling, the business group’s president, said at a press conference in Washington today. Employee-paid portions may see small increases, she said.'"
The Fruits of ObamaCare
There will be many casualties to the "let grandma die" healthcare bill concocted by the libs. The lady in the following video from The Hot Joints unloads on her Democratic senator:
Video: Angry Mom Rips Into Senator Over ObamaCare At Townhall
by Chris Jones
"Whoa! Sen. Kay Hagan got chewed out royally by an outraged mom for supporting ObamaCare. This is clearly what a 'momma grizzly' looks like."
Video: Angry Mom Rips Into Senator Over ObamaCare At Townhall
by Chris Jones
"Whoa! Sen. Kay Hagan got chewed out royally by an outraged mom for supporting ObamaCare. This is clearly what a 'momma grizzly' looks like."
Jihad in American Mosques
Those on the left who are defending the Ground Zero mosque need to wake up and realize what goes on in many mosques throughout our nation. Jihad is being promoted. and those who are willing to give their lives for Allah do not care if their victims are Democrats or Republicans, as long as they are infidels.
Read from Dick Morris:
GROUND ZERO MOSQUE: THE REAL ISSUE
Dick Morris
"The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be — as many mosques throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia Law with its requirement of Jihad and violence that is the nub of the issue.
There is a global effort to advance Sharia Law and make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia Compliant Funds which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia Law. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed Mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia Index which rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia Law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.
Not only is Sharia Law a vicious anti-female code which orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage, decriminalizes abuse of women, and gives wives no rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the duty of all Muslims to wage Jihad against non-believers and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this respect, violent Jihad is as inherent in Sharia Law as revolution is in Communist doctrine.
But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant — terrorism.
Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west. That such a facility should be located right next to the place where Jihad achieved its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate.
President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.
Politically, President Obama’s defense of the mosque and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf he must have become to take such a position. He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans — the mosque and opposition to Arizona’s immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy. What is he using for brains these days?
To continue the efforts to battle Sharia Law and the attempts of radical Muslims to use it to destroy our values and the gains of feminism, please follow the work funded by the Center for Security Policy and conducted by David Yerushalmi. To help to fund their efforts, go to centerforsecuritypolicy.org."
Read from Dick Morris:
GROUND ZERO MOSQUE: THE REAL ISSUE
Dick Morris
"The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be — as many mosques throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia Law with its requirement of Jihad and violence that is the nub of the issue.
There is a global effort to advance Sharia Law and make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia Compliant Funds which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia Law. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed Mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia Index which rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia Law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.
Not only is Sharia Law a vicious anti-female code which orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage, decriminalizes abuse of women, and gives wives no rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the duty of all Muslims to wage Jihad against non-believers and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this respect, violent Jihad is as inherent in Sharia Law as revolution is in Communist doctrine.
But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant — terrorism.
Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west. That such a facility should be located right next to the place where Jihad achieved its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate.
President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.
Politically, President Obama’s defense of the mosque and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf he must have become to take such a position. He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans — the mosque and opposition to Arizona’s immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy. What is he using for brains these days?
To continue the efforts to battle Sharia Law and the attempts of radical Muslims to use it to destroy our values and the gains of feminism, please follow the work funded by the Center for Security Policy and conducted by David Yerushalmi. To help to fund their efforts, go to centerforsecuritypolicy.org."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
