I just can't get enough of this guy. Too bad nobody knows who he is.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Herman Cain: “Anybody Who Takes the Oath of Office in My Administration Will Put Their Hand on the Bible, Not the Koran”…
"Ding. . . ding. . . ding — round 3!
Via Shark Tank:
'I don’t know one Muslim who will denounce Sharia Law, and then say they can support the Constitution of the United States of America. So my assumption based on what I know about their belief system is that they are not going to give up Sharia Law. Anybody that takes the oath of office in a Herman Cain administration will put their hand on the Bible, not the Koran!'"
Thursday, March 31, 2011
It's the Religion--Not the People
Since I frequently speak out against Islam, I want to make it clear that my grievance is not with Muslim people, but with their faith. God loves the Muslim people just as he loves Christians. They have been greatly deceived by a hateful, violent religion which is sadly leading them to the pits of hell. Most were born into this cult-like faith and know nothing else.
We should not hate Muslims because God has commanded us to love others. At the same time, it is absolutely necessary that we be vigilant when it comes to Muslims because it is difficult to determine which ones can be trusted. After all, most jihadists are not openly voicing their hatred for infidels, although there are plenty that are doing just that.
Franklin Graham handles this delicate situation in a Christ-like way. He has stated, "Islam is a very evil and wicked religion. I love the people of Islam but their religion, I do not agree with their religion at all. And if you look at what the religion does just to women, women alone, it is just horrid. And so yes, I speak out for women. I speak out for people that live under Islam, that are enslaved by Islam and I want them to know that they can be free."
Of course, the courageous Graham was villified by the American Pravda for his condemnation of Islam and banned by the Obama Administration from participating in the National Day of Prayer.
Someone else who has a Christ-like response to the manner in which we should treat Muslims is Usama Dakdok, an Egyptian-born Christian who has a ministry in the U.S. which reaches out to Muslims.
Read from One News Now:
100% pro-Muslim ... 100% anti-Islam
"An Egyptian-born Christian had his freedom of speech squelched after an Ohio school district bowed to pressure from groups that he not be allowed to speak at a tea party event on school property.
Usama Dakdok was raised by a Baptist minister and accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior at age 11. He later moved to the U.S. where he founded The Straight Way of Grace Ministry in 2001. Dakdok says he is very familiar with Islamic repression, having witnessed it first-hand growing up in Egypt.
According to the Mansfield News Journal, he was scheduled to address an event sponsored by the Mansfield North Central Ohio Tea Party Association at the local high school. But the event had to be moved to a private office building following complaints from the NAACP and the Islamic Society of Mansfield.
Dakdok says those groups labeled him 'racist' for wanting to tell the truth about Islam.
'I'm not a white guy! I'm an African. My father and my mother are both Egyptian. I'm 100-percent African,' he exclaims. 'So for somebody to call me a racist, that means he is literally stupid.'
The ministry leader explains that he is anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim. 'I personally believe there's no such a thing as moderate Muslims because of the simple fact that there is no moderate Islam,' he tells OneNewsNow. 'I am 100-percent for Muslims -- but I am 100-percent anti-Islam. Muslims are those who are the victims of the religion of Islam, the followers of this wicked cult.'
The Mansfield chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has expressed disappointment that the school district withdrew its permission for Dakdok to speak at the school facility."
With all the hatred and violence carried out against infidels, it is easy to get caught up in hating the Muslim people. But, as Christians, we must avoid that trap, and I'm preaching to myself here, as well. God has commanded us to love others. It is perhaps the most difficult thing we must do. Nevertheless, we must obey Him if we want His blessing and approval.
Remember, it is perfectly fine to hate the religion; God certainly does because it is not his plan that any should perish, and Muslims are perishing by the millions because they have bought into a lie. But do not hate the Muslim people, just watch 'em like a hawk because they are being taught to hate you.
We should not hate Muslims because God has commanded us to love others. At the same time, it is absolutely necessary that we be vigilant when it comes to Muslims because it is difficult to determine which ones can be trusted. After all, most jihadists are not openly voicing their hatred for infidels, although there are plenty that are doing just that.
Franklin Graham handles this delicate situation in a Christ-like way. He has stated, "Islam is a very evil and wicked religion. I love the people of Islam but their religion, I do not agree with their religion at all. And if you look at what the religion does just to women, women alone, it is just horrid. And so yes, I speak out for women. I speak out for people that live under Islam, that are enslaved by Islam and I want them to know that they can be free."
Of course, the courageous Graham was villified by the American Pravda for his condemnation of Islam and banned by the Obama Administration from participating in the National Day of Prayer.
Someone else who has a Christ-like response to the manner in which we should treat Muslims is Usama Dakdok, an Egyptian-born Christian who has a ministry in the U.S. which reaches out to Muslims.
Read from One News Now:
100% pro-Muslim ... 100% anti-Islam
"An Egyptian-born Christian had his freedom of speech squelched after an Ohio school district bowed to pressure from groups that he not be allowed to speak at a tea party event on school property.
Usama Dakdok was raised by a Baptist minister and accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior at age 11. He later moved to the U.S. where he founded The Straight Way of Grace Ministry in 2001. Dakdok says he is very familiar with Islamic repression, having witnessed it first-hand growing up in Egypt.
According to the Mansfield News Journal, he was scheduled to address an event sponsored by the Mansfield North Central Ohio Tea Party Association at the local high school. But the event had to be moved to a private office building following complaints from the NAACP and the Islamic Society of Mansfield.
Dakdok says those groups labeled him 'racist' for wanting to tell the truth about Islam.
'I'm not a white guy! I'm an African. My father and my mother are both Egyptian. I'm 100-percent African,' he exclaims. 'So for somebody to call me a racist, that means he is literally stupid.'
The ministry leader explains that he is anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim. 'I personally believe there's no such a thing as moderate Muslims because of the simple fact that there is no moderate Islam,' he tells OneNewsNow. 'I am 100-percent for Muslims -- but I am 100-percent anti-Islam. Muslims are those who are the victims of the religion of Islam, the followers of this wicked cult.'
The Mansfield chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has expressed disappointment that the school district withdrew its permission for Dakdok to speak at the school facility."
With all the hatred and violence carried out against infidels, it is easy to get caught up in hating the Muslim people. But, as Christians, we must avoid that trap, and I'm preaching to myself here, as well. God has commanded us to love others. It is perhaps the most difficult thing we must do. Nevertheless, we must obey Him if we want His blessing and approval.
Remember, it is perfectly fine to hate the religion; God certainly does because it is not his plan that any should perish, and Muslims are perishing by the millions because they have bought into a lie. But do not hate the Muslim people, just watch 'em like a hawk because they are being taught to hate you.
Dead After 70 Lashes
It is outrageous that young girls in the Muslim world are being treated so horrifically, and nobody cares here in the West, certainly not the feminists. If it doesn't concern their precious abortion, these haters of men don't want to be bothered.
Here's one more story of a Muslim girl raped and then murdered for the crime of "adultery". How does rape fall into the category of adultery?
Keep in mind, there must be many, many similar reports for which we are unaware. It's tragic what these poor females must endure all in the name of Islam.
What a wicked, wicked religion! What kind of god could be so cruel to his creation? And how could anyone devote themselves to such a harsh god? I don't understand it.
Read from The Blaze:
Muslim Girl, 14, Lashed to Death for Alleged Adultery
"14-year-old Hena Akhter was found guilty of adultery and sentenced to 101 public lashes under Shariah law.
She died from being flogged — despite Shariah law being outlawed in Bangladesh — but doctors tried to cover that up.
Her family claims she was raped by a cousin.
Police are now investigating the incident.
Up until her last breath, young Hena Akhter declared her innocence. But that didn’t matter. The 14-year-old Bangladeshi Muslim girl was lashed to death, accused of adultery.
The imam at the local mosque said she was guilty of having an affair with a married man. Her family said she was raped. The imam disagreed. He ordered a fatwa: 101 public lashes. She lasted only 70.
CNN reports:
'Bloodied and bruised, she was taken to hospital, where she died a week later.
Amazingly, an initial autopsy report cited no injuries and deemed her death a suicide. Hena’s family insisted her body be exhumed. They wanted the world to know what really happened to their daughter. [...]
Hena was the youngest of five children born to Darbesh Khan, a day laborer, and his wife, Aklima Begum. They shared a hut made from corrugated tin and decaying wood and led a simple life that was suddenly marred a year ago with the return of Hena’s cousin Mahbub Khan.
Mahbub Khan came back to Shariatpur from a stint working in Malaysia. His son was Hena’s age and the two were in seventh grade together.
Khan eyed Hena and began harassing her on her way to school and back, said Hena’s father. He complained to the elders who run the village about his nephew, three times Hena’s age.
The elders admonished Mahbub Khan and ordered him to pay $1,000 in fines to Hena’s family. But Mahbub was Darbesh‘s older brother’s son and Darbesh was asked to let the matter fade.
Many months later on a winter night, as Hena’s sister Alya told it, Hena was walking from her room to an outdoor toilet when Mahbub Khan gagged her with cloth, forced her behind nearby shrubbery and beat and raped her.
Hena struggled to escape, Alya told CNN. Mahbub Khan‘s wife heard Hena’s muffled screams and when she found Hena with her husband, she dragged the teenage girl back to her hut, beat her and trampled her on the floor.
The next day, the village elders met to discuss the case at Mahbub Khan’s house, Alya said. The imam pronounced his fatwa. Khan and Hena were found guilty of an illicit relationship. Her punishment under sharia or Islamic law was 101 lashes; his 201.'
The man, Mahbub Khan, escaped after receiving only a few lashes.
Shariah law and fatwas have been outlawed in Bangladesh, says CNN, but that hasn’t stopped imams from issuing them. Some human rights groups have documented up to 500 such cases in the last 10 years.
Despite Hena’s death, there appears to be some sort of justice on the horizon. Police are now conducting an investigation, and the doctors responsible for Hena’s initial autopsy face charges for falsifying their report. The country’s high court already stepped in to order her body exhumed, which led to the real cause of death: internal bleeding caused by massive external injuries.
Earlier this month police stood guard at the home of Darbesh and Aklima Khan, Hena’s parents. They fear a backlash from the community for speaking out against the imam.
'She was innocent,' Aklima, Hena’s mother, said. 'I’ve nothing to demand but justice,' Darbesh added.
Read the whole story from CNN."
Here's one more story of a Muslim girl raped and then murdered for the crime of "adultery". How does rape fall into the category of adultery?
Keep in mind, there must be many, many similar reports for which we are unaware. It's tragic what these poor females must endure all in the name of Islam.
What a wicked, wicked religion! What kind of god could be so cruel to his creation? And how could anyone devote themselves to such a harsh god? I don't understand it.
Read from The Blaze:
Muslim Girl, 14, Lashed to Death for Alleged Adultery
"14-year-old Hena Akhter was found guilty of adultery and sentenced to 101 public lashes under Shariah law.
She died from being flogged — despite Shariah law being outlawed in Bangladesh — but doctors tried to cover that up.
Her family claims she was raped by a cousin.
Police are now investigating the incident.
Up until her last breath, young Hena Akhter declared her innocence. But that didn’t matter. The 14-year-old Bangladeshi Muslim girl was lashed to death, accused of adultery.
The imam at the local mosque said she was guilty of having an affair with a married man. Her family said she was raped. The imam disagreed. He ordered a fatwa: 101 public lashes. She lasted only 70.
CNN reports:
'Bloodied and bruised, she was taken to hospital, where she died a week later.
Amazingly, an initial autopsy report cited no injuries and deemed her death a suicide. Hena’s family insisted her body be exhumed. They wanted the world to know what really happened to their daughter. [...]
Hena was the youngest of five children born to Darbesh Khan, a day laborer, and his wife, Aklima Begum. They shared a hut made from corrugated tin and decaying wood and led a simple life that was suddenly marred a year ago with the return of Hena’s cousin Mahbub Khan.
Mahbub Khan came back to Shariatpur from a stint working in Malaysia. His son was Hena’s age and the two were in seventh grade together.
Khan eyed Hena and began harassing her on her way to school and back, said Hena’s father. He complained to the elders who run the village about his nephew, three times Hena’s age.
The elders admonished Mahbub Khan and ordered him to pay $1,000 in fines to Hena’s family. But Mahbub was Darbesh‘s older brother’s son and Darbesh was asked to let the matter fade.
Many months later on a winter night, as Hena’s sister Alya told it, Hena was walking from her room to an outdoor toilet when Mahbub Khan gagged her with cloth, forced her behind nearby shrubbery and beat and raped her.
Hena struggled to escape, Alya told CNN. Mahbub Khan‘s wife heard Hena’s muffled screams and when she found Hena with her husband, she dragged the teenage girl back to her hut, beat her and trampled her on the floor.
The next day, the village elders met to discuss the case at Mahbub Khan’s house, Alya said. The imam pronounced his fatwa. Khan and Hena were found guilty of an illicit relationship. Her punishment under sharia or Islamic law was 101 lashes; his 201.'
The man, Mahbub Khan, escaped after receiving only a few lashes.
Shariah law and fatwas have been outlawed in Bangladesh, says CNN, but that hasn’t stopped imams from issuing them. Some human rights groups have documented up to 500 such cases in the last 10 years.
Despite Hena’s death, there appears to be some sort of justice on the horizon. Police are now conducting an investigation, and the doctors responsible for Hena’s initial autopsy face charges for falsifying their report. The country’s high court already stepped in to order her body exhumed, which led to the real cause of death: internal bleeding caused by massive external injuries.
Earlier this month police stood guard at the home of Darbesh and Aklima Khan, Hena’s parents. They fear a backlash from the community for speaking out against the imam.
'She was innocent,' Aklima, Hena’s mother, said. 'I’ve nothing to demand but justice,' Darbesh added.
Read the whole story from CNN."
Here's Looking Out for You, Compliments of the Obama Regime
This should instill a great level of confidence in the Obama team to keep gas prices from going sky-high. Between Obama's eagerness to make energy prices soar, and now his energy secretary's comment, we are in serious trouble in the U.S.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Flashback: Obama’s Top Energy Aide Advocated for $10-a-Gallon Gas Prices Like They Have in Europe…
"The most radical administration in history.
(Daily Caller) — 'During a speech in Washington Wednesday on the need to secure the country’s energy security, President Obama told Americans not to worry: “We’ve been down this road before.”
“Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon,” said Obama. “Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard . . . So here’s the bottom line — there are no quick fixes.”
The president’s speech comes after weeks of rising oil prices and outrage over the administration’s de facto moratorium on offshore drilling. But while Obama talked about the need to produce more oil domestically to help ease the pain at the pump, his chief energy adviser has a history of advocating for high gas prices, once saying, “coal is my worst nightmare.”
As director of the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Steven Chu, Obama’s secretary at the Department of Energy, said in an interview that gas taxes should slowly be increased over the next 15 years in order to force people to turn to alternative energy sources.
“Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe,” said Chu.
In Europe, the price for a gallon of gas consistently hovers around $10 a gallon.'
Keep reading…"
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Flashback: Obama’s Top Energy Aide Advocated for $10-a-Gallon Gas Prices Like They Have in Europe…
"The most radical administration in history.
(Daily Caller) — 'During a speech in Washington Wednesday on the need to secure the country’s energy security, President Obama told Americans not to worry: “We’ve been down this road before.”
“Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon,” said Obama. “Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard . . . So here’s the bottom line — there are no quick fixes.”
The president’s speech comes after weeks of rising oil prices and outrage over the administration’s de facto moratorium on offshore drilling. But while Obama talked about the need to produce more oil domestically to help ease the pain at the pump, his chief energy adviser has a history of advocating for high gas prices, once saying, “coal is my worst nightmare.”
As director of the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Steven Chu, Obama’s secretary at the Department of Energy, said in an interview that gas taxes should slowly be increased over the next 15 years in order to force people to turn to alternative energy sources.
“Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe,” said Chu.
In Europe, the price for a gallon of gas consistently hovers around $10 a gallon.'
Keep reading…"
Egypt Makes Nice with Iran
More fruits of an Obama foreign policy. It's a Carter rerun right before our very eyes.
From Joshua Pundit:
Egypt Now Says"Iran Is Not An Enemy State" And Wants To 'Open A New Page'
"Yes Obama leaning on Mubarak to step down certainly has brought dividends - for America's enemies.
For over thirty years, ever since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979, Egypt has cut all ties with Iran.
That has been an important part of America's Middle East strategy, with Egypt as one of the leaders of the Arab World along with the Saudis and a cornerstone of the Arab versus Persian, Sunni versus Shia balance in the region. No more.
Egypt's Foreign Minister Nabil el-Arabi said today that Egypt is ready to 'open a new page' with Iran.
'The Egyptian government doesn’t consider Iran to be an enemy state,' MENA cited el-Arabi as saying. 'We’re opening a new page with all countries, including Iran.'
The Iranians already have an alliance with Omar al-Bashri's Sudan as well as bases there. Egypt will just be one more stepping stone, especially when the Egyptians turn a blind eye to Iran's arming of Hamas via Sudan.
That has implications for NATO's soft underbelly in the Mediterranean as well as for Israel."
From Joshua Pundit:
Egypt Now Says"Iran Is Not An Enemy State" And Wants To 'Open A New Page'
"Yes Obama leaning on Mubarak to step down certainly has brought dividends - for America's enemies.
For over thirty years, ever since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979, Egypt has cut all ties with Iran.
That has been an important part of America's Middle East strategy, with Egypt as one of the leaders of the Arab World along with the Saudis and a cornerstone of the Arab versus Persian, Sunni versus Shia balance in the region. No more.
Egypt's Foreign Minister Nabil el-Arabi said today that Egypt is ready to 'open a new page' with Iran.
'The Egyptian government doesn’t consider Iran to be an enemy state,' MENA cited el-Arabi as saying. 'We’re opening a new page with all countries, including Iran.'
The Iranians already have an alliance with Omar al-Bashri's Sudan as well as bases there. Egypt will just be one more stepping stone, especially when the Egyptians turn a blind eye to Iran's arming of Hamas via Sudan.
That has implications for NATO's soft underbelly in the Mediterranean as well as for Israel."
Smooth Move, Mr. President
Nothing like helping the enemy. Al Qaeda and Obama on the same team. How scary is that?
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Wave of Al-Qaeda Fighters Heading to Libya From Afghanistan
"Al-Qaeda fighters can’t believe their luck that Americans are helping them bomb the Gaddafi regime back to the Stone Age.
The Daily Beast reported:
'As the battle for the future of Libya continues, the excitement is almost palpable among Libyan-born al Qaeda fighters and other Arabs hunkered down in Pakistan’s remote and lawless tribal area. According to Afghan Taliban sources close to Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group, some of the 200 or so Libyans operating near the Afghan border may be on their way home to steer the anti-Gaddafi revolution in a more Islamist direction.
“We have heard a number of fighters have already departed from the tribal area,” says an Afghan commander who is linked to the powerful Haqqani network, a North Waziristan-based organization that shelters many al Qaeda fighters. Others may be on their way. “Libyans and Arabs seem to be getting ready for departure and are eager to go home and fight,” says the Afghan source. “I’ve heard that some fighters are saying goodbye and giving thanks with kind words to their (Pakistani) tribal friends who have been sheltering them.”
Since the anti-Gaddafi revolution began last month, al Qaeda—especially Libyan-born affiliates—have viewed the fighting as an opportunity to spread their radical Islamist ideology. Indeed, as one Afghan Taliban operative who helps facilitate the movement of al Qaeda militants between the tribal area and Pakistani cities told The Daily Beast earlier this month: “This rebellion is the fresh breeze they’ve been waiting years for. They realize that if they don’t use this opportunity, it could be the end of their chances to turn Libya toward a real Islamic state, as Afghanistan once was.”
Now, as the White House and NATO continue to debate the possible ramifications of arming the Libyan opposition, the Haqqani network-linked Afghan commander says Libyan al Qaeda affiliates seem to be more “enthusiastic” about the war against Gaddafi every day. And from what the Afghan Taliban commander has seen, there appears to be more than “flickers” of al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, the description given by NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis. According to the Afghan commander, al Qaeda fighters can’t believe their good luck that U.S. and NATO aircraft—the same forces that have dropped bombs on their heads in Afghanistan and Pakistan—are now raining down ordnance against Gaddafi.'
Barack Obama, the gift that keeps on giving… to Al-Qaeda."
Before it's all said and done, we will have Barack Obama to thank for an Islamic caliphate.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Wave of Al-Qaeda Fighters Heading to Libya From Afghanistan
"Al-Qaeda fighters can’t believe their luck that Americans are helping them bomb the Gaddafi regime back to the Stone Age.
The Daily Beast reported:
'As the battle for the future of Libya continues, the excitement is almost palpable among Libyan-born al Qaeda fighters and other Arabs hunkered down in Pakistan’s remote and lawless tribal area. According to Afghan Taliban sources close to Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group, some of the 200 or so Libyans operating near the Afghan border may be on their way home to steer the anti-Gaddafi revolution in a more Islamist direction.
“We have heard a number of fighters have already departed from the tribal area,” says an Afghan commander who is linked to the powerful Haqqani network, a North Waziristan-based organization that shelters many al Qaeda fighters. Others may be on their way. “Libyans and Arabs seem to be getting ready for departure and are eager to go home and fight,” says the Afghan source. “I’ve heard that some fighters are saying goodbye and giving thanks with kind words to their (Pakistani) tribal friends who have been sheltering them.”
Since the anti-Gaddafi revolution began last month, al Qaeda—especially Libyan-born affiliates—have viewed the fighting as an opportunity to spread their radical Islamist ideology. Indeed, as one Afghan Taliban operative who helps facilitate the movement of al Qaeda militants between the tribal area and Pakistani cities told The Daily Beast earlier this month: “This rebellion is the fresh breeze they’ve been waiting years for. They realize that if they don’t use this opportunity, it could be the end of their chances to turn Libya toward a real Islamic state, as Afghanistan once was.”
Now, as the White House and NATO continue to debate the possible ramifications of arming the Libyan opposition, the Haqqani network-linked Afghan commander says Libyan al Qaeda affiliates seem to be more “enthusiastic” about the war against Gaddafi every day. And from what the Afghan Taliban commander has seen, there appears to be more than “flickers” of al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, the description given by NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis. According to the Afghan commander, al Qaeda fighters can’t believe their good luck that U.S. and NATO aircraft—the same forces that have dropped bombs on their heads in Afghanistan and Pakistan—are now raining down ordnance against Gaddafi.'
Barack Obama, the gift that keeps on giving… to Al-Qaeda."
Before it's all said and done, we will have Barack Obama to thank for an Islamic caliphate.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The British Media Lies About Israel
How shocking! The Brits are lying about the conflict between Israel and the savages living next door to them. Sounds familiar to us here in America.
How refreshing to find an Israeli supporter in the heavily anti-Semitic UK.
From Weasel Zippers:
British Writer Melanie Phillips Speaks Truth to Lies About the Real Victims in the Israeli and Arab Conflict
"There are a few victims: Israel, the truth, and those who blindly and stupidly follow the British and Western media.
How refreshing to find an Israeli supporter in the heavily anti-Semitic UK.
From Weasel Zippers:
British Writer Melanie Phillips Speaks Truth to Lies About the Real Victims in the Israeli and Arab Conflict
"There are a few victims: Israel, the truth, and those who blindly and stupidly follow the British and Western media.
Planned Parenthood: "A Surgical Center"
Wouldn't it be nice if liberals could be honest about their policies? That way both conservatives and liberals could offer their agendas to the American people, and they could choose which direction to take our country.
However, that scenario is not realistic. Libs cannot afford to be honest with the public because they would be soundly defeated in all elections.
The rhetoric being espoused by libs regarding the evil Planned Parenthood is a perfect example of the point I'm making.
Read from Hot Air:
Videos: PP lies about mammograms; former PP director slams abortion “profit center,” public funding
"When Congress debated legislation barring federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood, its CEO warned that 'millions of women are going to lose their health-care access, not to abortion services, but to basic family planning, you know, mammograms.' Sounds awful, doesn’t it? Live Action decided to start scheduling those mammograms at PP clinics before the funding disappeared, only to discover that Planned Parenthood clinics don’t actually perform mammograms. In fact, one center told the caller that 'we don’t deal with the health side of it so much. We’re mostly a surgical center':
And when Planned Parenthood tells people that their mission focuses on women’s health, one of their former directors begs to differ. Abby Johnson left the nation’s largest provider of abortions in 2009 after being pressured to increase the number of abortions at her Bryan, TX clinic, and after watching an ultrasound-guided abortion that convinced her to oppose abortion and work to actually improve women’s health. The Susan B Anthony List pro-life organization has produced this one-minute television ad that features Johnson explaining the actual profit motive at PP, and it’s not condom sales:
Matt Lewis calls this effective because Johnson doesn’t attack abortion itself, but the industrial nature of PP’s abortion mills rather than a presumed focus on 'health.' I’d say it does both. Johnson uses the widget mentality towards abortion to argue that low-income women are not getting substantive health care from the $360 million that flows from Congress each year to the organization under that rationalization — and that strikes at the core of the argument used by PP advocates to protect its funding.
It’s time to end government financing of the nation’s largest abortion mill. If PP wants to be McAbortion, let them run their business on private funds. While they’re at it, they can stop lying about where the money goes, too.
Update: Commenter Missy corrects me in that the ultrasound that convinced Johnson to quit was of an abortion in progress. I’ve corrected the text above."
However, that scenario is not realistic. Libs cannot afford to be honest with the public because they would be soundly defeated in all elections.
The rhetoric being espoused by libs regarding the evil Planned Parenthood is a perfect example of the point I'm making.
Read from Hot Air:
Videos: PP lies about mammograms; former PP director slams abortion “profit center,” public funding
"When Congress debated legislation barring federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood, its CEO warned that 'millions of women are going to lose their health-care access, not to abortion services, but to basic family planning, you know, mammograms.' Sounds awful, doesn’t it? Live Action decided to start scheduling those mammograms at PP clinics before the funding disappeared, only to discover that Planned Parenthood clinics don’t actually perform mammograms. In fact, one center told the caller that 'we don’t deal with the health side of it so much. We’re mostly a surgical center':
And when Planned Parenthood tells people that their mission focuses on women’s health, one of their former directors begs to differ. Abby Johnson left the nation’s largest provider of abortions in 2009 after being pressured to increase the number of abortions at her Bryan, TX clinic, and after watching an ultrasound-guided abortion that convinced her to oppose abortion and work to actually improve women’s health. The Susan B Anthony List pro-life organization has produced this one-minute television ad that features Johnson explaining the actual profit motive at PP, and it’s not condom sales:
Matt Lewis calls this effective because Johnson doesn’t attack abortion itself, but the industrial nature of PP’s abortion mills rather than a presumed focus on 'health.' I’d say it does both. Johnson uses the widget mentality towards abortion to argue that low-income women are not getting substantive health care from the $360 million that flows from Congress each year to the organization under that rationalization — and that strikes at the core of the argument used by PP advocates to protect its funding.
It’s time to end government financing of the nation’s largest abortion mill. If PP wants to be McAbortion, let them run their business on private funds. While they’re at it, they can stop lying about where the money goes, too.
Update: Commenter Missy corrects me in that the ultrasound that convinced Johnson to quit was of an abortion in progress. I’ve corrected the text above."
Who Is Muhammed?
In this age of terror, it is wise to know one's enemy. Our enemy consists of devout followers of the Islamic prophet Muhammed who are committed to jihad against infidels.
Few Americans are knowledgeable about this violent, misogynist Muhammed. For those who fall into this category, here is your chance to become informed.
From Atlas Shrugs:
Muhammad Unmosqued
"Do read Geert Wilders, international icon for free speech and MP in the Netherlands. He is the Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV). This article was published in the Dutch weekly magazine 'HP/De Tijd' of March 30, 2011.
Want to know more on this subject? Pick up Robert Spencer's, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion
Time To Unmask Muhammad (posted at Brussels Journal)
From the desk of Geert Wilders on Wed, 2011-03-30 12:12
'To know why Islam is a mortal danger one must not only consider the Koran but also the character of Muhammad, who conceived the Koran and the entirety of Islam.
The Koran is not just a book. Muslims believe that Allah himself wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version, the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven. Consequently one cannot argue with the contents. Who would dare to disagree with what Allah himself has written? This explains much of Muhammadan behaviour, from the violence of jihad to the hatred and persecution of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims and apostates. What we in the West regard as abnormal, is perfectly normal for Islam.
A second insuperable problem with Islam is the figure of Muhammad. He is not just anyone. He is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man. To become a Muslim one must pronounce the Shahada (the Muslim creed). By pronouncing the Shahada one testifies that there is no god that can be worshipped except Allah, and one testifies that Muhammad is his servant and messenger.
The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.
There has been much analysis of Muhammad’s mental sanity. In spite of all the available research, it is rarely mentioned or debated. It is a taboo to discuss the true nature of the man whom one and a half billion Muslims around the world regard as a holy prophet and example to be followed. That taboo must be breached in the West, and here in the Netherlands.
Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who established the organisation for apostates of Islam Faith Freedom International. In his latest book he posits that Muhammad is a narcissist, a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter. Sina has offered 50,000 dollars for the one who can prove otherwise. Nobody has claimed the reward as yet. And no wonder, as the description is based on the Islamic texts themselves, such as the hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of contemporaries.
The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.
In Vienna the women’s rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was recently sentenced to paying a fine for insulting a religion by calling Muhammad a paedophile. However, that is the truth. Numerous hadiths contain testimonies by Muhammad’s favourite wife, the child wife Aisha. Aisha literally says: “The prophet married me when I was six years old, and had intercourse with me when I was nine.”
According to the historian Theophanes (752-817) Muhammad was an epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations, perspiration form the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.
In his book “The other Muhammad” (1992) the Flemish psychologist dr. Herman Somers concludes that in his forties the “prophet” began to suffer from acromegaly, a condition caused by a tumor in the pituitary gland, a small organ that is situated just below the brain. When the tumor in the pituitary gland causes too much pressure in the brain, people start to see and hear things that are not there. Somers’s psychopathological diagnosis of Muhammad’s condition is: organic hallucinatory affliction with paranoid characteristics.
The German medical historian Armin Geus speaks of a paranoid hallucinatory schizophrenia. A similar analysis can be found in the book “The Medical Case of Muhammad” by the physician Dede Korkut.
In his book “Psychology of Mohammed: Inside the Brain of a Prophet” Dr. Masud Ansari calls Muhammad “the perfect personification of a psychopath in power.” Muhammad had a unhinged paranoid personality with an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he starts having visions that lead him to believe he has a cosmic mission, and there is no stopping him.
The truth is not always pleasant or politically correct. On the basis of the research referred to above it can be argued that the Islamic creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world, including the one million living in the Netherlands, to take Muhammad as their example. There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in Islam there is a death penalty for leaving the faith.
Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger – as I have experienced. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risks death. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam.
Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world. Party politics should not be at play in this matter. It is time for us to help these people by exposing Muhammad.'"
Few Americans are knowledgeable about this violent, misogynist Muhammed. For those who fall into this category, here is your chance to become informed.
From Atlas Shrugs:
Muhammad Unmosqued
"Do read Geert Wilders, international icon for free speech and MP in the Netherlands. He is the Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV). This article was published in the Dutch weekly magazine 'HP/De Tijd' of March 30, 2011.
Want to know more on this subject? Pick up Robert Spencer's, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion
Time To Unmask Muhammad (posted at Brussels Journal)
From the desk of Geert Wilders on Wed, 2011-03-30 12:12
'To know why Islam is a mortal danger one must not only consider the Koran but also the character of Muhammad, who conceived the Koran and the entirety of Islam.
The Koran is not just a book. Muslims believe that Allah himself wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version, the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven. Consequently one cannot argue with the contents. Who would dare to disagree with what Allah himself has written? This explains much of Muhammadan behaviour, from the violence of jihad to the hatred and persecution of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims and apostates. What we in the West regard as abnormal, is perfectly normal for Islam.
A second insuperable problem with Islam is the figure of Muhammad. He is not just anyone. He is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man. To become a Muslim one must pronounce the Shahada (the Muslim creed). By pronouncing the Shahada one testifies that there is no god that can be worshipped except Allah, and one testifies that Muhammad is his servant and messenger.
The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.
There has been much analysis of Muhammad’s mental sanity. In spite of all the available research, it is rarely mentioned or debated. It is a taboo to discuss the true nature of the man whom one and a half billion Muslims around the world regard as a holy prophet and example to be followed. That taboo must be breached in the West, and here in the Netherlands.
Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who established the organisation for apostates of Islam Faith Freedom International. In his latest book he posits that Muhammad is a narcissist, a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter. Sina has offered 50,000 dollars for the one who can prove otherwise. Nobody has claimed the reward as yet. And no wonder, as the description is based on the Islamic texts themselves, such as the hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of contemporaries.
The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.
In Vienna the women’s rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was recently sentenced to paying a fine for insulting a religion by calling Muhammad a paedophile. However, that is the truth. Numerous hadiths contain testimonies by Muhammad’s favourite wife, the child wife Aisha. Aisha literally says: “The prophet married me when I was six years old, and had intercourse with me when I was nine.”
According to the historian Theophanes (752-817) Muhammad was an epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations, perspiration form the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.
In his book “The other Muhammad” (1992) the Flemish psychologist dr. Herman Somers concludes that in his forties the “prophet” began to suffer from acromegaly, a condition caused by a tumor in the pituitary gland, a small organ that is situated just below the brain. When the tumor in the pituitary gland causes too much pressure in the brain, people start to see and hear things that are not there. Somers’s psychopathological diagnosis of Muhammad’s condition is: organic hallucinatory affliction with paranoid characteristics.
The German medical historian Armin Geus speaks of a paranoid hallucinatory schizophrenia. A similar analysis can be found in the book “The Medical Case of Muhammad” by the physician Dede Korkut.
In his book “Psychology of Mohammed: Inside the Brain of a Prophet” Dr. Masud Ansari calls Muhammad “the perfect personification of a psychopath in power.” Muhammad had a unhinged paranoid personality with an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he starts having visions that lead him to believe he has a cosmic mission, and there is no stopping him.
The truth is not always pleasant or politically correct. On the basis of the research referred to above it can be argued that the Islamic creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world, including the one million living in the Netherlands, to take Muhammad as their example. There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in Islam there is a death penalty for leaving the faith.
Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger – as I have experienced. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risks death. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam.
Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world. Party politics should not be at play in this matter. It is time for us to help these people by exposing Muhammad.'"
Who Are These "Freedom Fighters" in Libya?
The consummate liar who resides in the White House would like us to believe that the rebels in Libya consist of true freedom fighters who are respectable and who would just like to experience the same type of freedoms that we Americans receive.
Listen to the nonsense coming out of his mouth, and then find out what is really going on, via Weasel Zippers:
Obama: Libyan Rebels Comprised of “Professionals, Lawyers and Doctors”…
"Now he’s just making stuff up.
(Australian) — 'The US is considering giving weapons to rebels battling Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, despite concerns that some could have terrorist links to al-Qa’ida and Hezbollah.
“We are examining all options to support the opposition,” President Barack Obama said yesterday. His comments, a day after his nationally televised address on the reasons for US military involvement in Libya, came as leaders from countries involved in the military operation now under NATO leadership met in London to co-ordinate efforts against the Gaddafi regime
US officials also appear unclear about the allegiances of rebel groups and what sort of governmental system might replace the dictator’s rule after 41 years.
In one of three interviews yesterday, Mr Obama said the rebels were “saying the right things” so far. “Most of them are professionals, lawyers, doctors, people who appear to be credible,” he told CBS.
“That doesn’t mean that among all the people who oppose Gaddafi, there might not be elements that are unfriendly to the United States and our interests.”
He told the American ABC News he believed the dictator’s inner circle “understands that the noose is tightening” and that Gaddafi would step down.'"
Here's the real truth, also from Weasel Zippers:
Former Leader of Libya’s al-Qaeda Branch Says 1,000 “Freelance Jihadists” Have Joined Rebel Forces…
"And by 'freelance jihadists' I’m guessing he’s talking about non-Libyan foreign fighters. Either way, they’re not 'doctors and lawyers' like Obama told us yesterday.
(Washington Times) — 'A former leader of Libya’s al Qaeda affiliate says he thinks “freelance jihadists” have joined the rebel forces, as NATO’s commander told Congress on Tuesday that intelligence indicates some al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists are fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
Former jihadist Noman Benotman, who renounced his al Qaeda affiliation in 2000, said in an interview that he estimates 1,000 jihadists are in Libya.
On Capitol Hill, Adm. James Stavridis, the NATO commander, when asked about the presence of al Qaeda terrorists among the rebels, said the leadership of the opposition is made up of “responsible men and women.”
“We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda,Hezbollah,” the four-star admiral said. “We’ve seen different things. But at this point, I don’t have detail sufficient to say that there’s a significantal Qaeda presence, or any other terrorist presence, in and among these folks.”
The military is continuing to “look at that very closely,” he said, because “it’s part of doing due diligence as we move forward on any kind of relationship” with the opposition.
Outside observers generally estimate the number of trained Libyan fighters to be about 1,000.'"
Listen to the nonsense coming out of his mouth, and then find out what is really going on, via Weasel Zippers:
Obama: Libyan Rebels Comprised of “Professionals, Lawyers and Doctors”…
"Now he’s just making stuff up.
(Australian) — 'The US is considering giving weapons to rebels battling Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, despite concerns that some could have terrorist links to al-Qa’ida and Hezbollah.
“We are examining all options to support the opposition,” President Barack Obama said yesterday. His comments, a day after his nationally televised address on the reasons for US military involvement in Libya, came as leaders from countries involved in the military operation now under NATO leadership met in London to co-ordinate efforts against the Gaddafi regime
US officials also appear unclear about the allegiances of rebel groups and what sort of governmental system might replace the dictator’s rule after 41 years.
In one of three interviews yesterday, Mr Obama said the rebels were “saying the right things” so far. “Most of them are professionals, lawyers, doctors, people who appear to be credible,” he told CBS.
“That doesn’t mean that among all the people who oppose Gaddafi, there might not be elements that are unfriendly to the United States and our interests.”
He told the American ABC News he believed the dictator’s inner circle “understands that the noose is tightening” and that Gaddafi would step down.'"
Here's the real truth, also from Weasel Zippers:
Former Leader of Libya’s al-Qaeda Branch Says 1,000 “Freelance Jihadists” Have Joined Rebel Forces…
"And by 'freelance jihadists' I’m guessing he’s talking about non-Libyan foreign fighters. Either way, they’re not 'doctors and lawyers' like Obama told us yesterday.
(Washington Times) — 'A former leader of Libya’s al Qaeda affiliate says he thinks “freelance jihadists” have joined the rebel forces, as NATO’s commander told Congress on Tuesday that intelligence indicates some al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists are fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
Former jihadist Noman Benotman, who renounced his al Qaeda affiliation in 2000, said in an interview that he estimates 1,000 jihadists are in Libya.
On Capitol Hill, Adm. James Stavridis, the NATO commander, when asked about the presence of al Qaeda terrorists among the rebels, said the leadership of the opposition is made up of “responsible men and women.”
“We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda,Hezbollah,” the four-star admiral said. “We’ve seen different things. But at this point, I don’t have detail sufficient to say that there’s a significantal Qaeda presence, or any other terrorist presence, in and among these folks.”
The military is continuing to “look at that very closely,” he said, because “it’s part of doing due diligence as we move forward on any kind of relationship” with the opposition.
Outside observers generally estimate the number of trained Libyan fighters to be about 1,000.'"
Whose Coalition Was Bigger?
President Obama self-righteously speaks of how he has engaged in his "kinetic action" exercise in Libya with unilateral support from the international community. When doing so, I detect little jabs at the Bush Administration for what Obama calls a go-it-alone strategy. But, is he accurate in his statements?
Let's be serious here. Does this president ever speak an honest word, and is he ever held accountable by the American Pravda for his misstatements?
Get the true facts, via Gateway Pundit:
Figures. Bush’s Iraqi Coalition of Willing Had 4 TIMES AS MANY Active Members Than Obama’s Libya Group
"George Bush put together a 48 member coalition for the Iraq War in 2003.
40 of those members supported military operations.
'In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.'
Then there’s Mr. Internationalist’s coalition…
Barack Obama was only able to find 10 countries who would sign up for military action in Libya.
'Of the 35 countries that are supposed to be supporting the implementation of a no-fly zone, just ten of them have signed up for military action. And of those, three – Britain, France and America – are undertaking the lion’s share of the sorties. So much for international consensus.'
But despite the facts… Obama continues to attack President Bush for his unilateralist policies.
And, of course, the state-run media lets him."
Let's be serious here. Does this president ever speak an honest word, and is he ever held accountable by the American Pravda for his misstatements?
Get the true facts, via Gateway Pundit:
Figures. Bush’s Iraqi Coalition of Willing Had 4 TIMES AS MANY Active Members Than Obama’s Libya Group
"George Bush put together a 48 member coalition for the Iraq War in 2003.
40 of those members supported military operations.
'In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.'
Then there’s Mr. Internationalist’s coalition…
Barack Obama was only able to find 10 countries who would sign up for military action in Libya.
'Of the 35 countries that are supposed to be supporting the implementation of a no-fly zone, just ten of them have signed up for military action. And of those, three – Britain, France and America – are undertaking the lion’s share of the sorties. So much for international consensus.'
But despite the facts… Obama continues to attack President Bush for his unilateralist policies.
And, of course, the state-run media lets him."
Glenn Beck Gets It Regarding Israel
I have never been so proud of Glenn Beck as I was last night. The entire world may be turning against Israel, but Beck remains a firm supporter.
Watch this video, via Atlas Shrugs:
Glenn Beck: "I Stand with Israel"
"Thank you, Glenn Beck, for this rational and reasoned stand for freedom, decency, and goodness. The fog of evil is so thick and Orwellian language of death so perverse, what a breath of fresh air.
Restating the obvious, 'I stand with Israel.' Israel, the struggle of good against evil."
Watch this video, via Atlas Shrugs:
Glenn Beck: "I Stand with Israel"
"Thank you, Glenn Beck, for this rational and reasoned stand for freedom, decency, and goodness. The fog of evil is so thick and Orwellian language of death so perverse, what a breath of fresh air.
Restating the obvious, 'I stand with Israel.' Israel, the struggle of good against evil."
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Rapture Draws Near
Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes. Though I hate the growing anti-Zionism that is spreading like wildfire throughout the world, it is a sign of the End Times. Nation after nation will rise up against Israel, and we are witnessing that.
Wake up, and above all else, make sure that you are in a right relationship with Jesus. He gave His life for you and me on the cross. Just repent of your sins and ask Him to be Lord of your life. It will be the best decision you ever make. I did so nearly 27 years ago. I look back upon my life and don't know how I survived without Jesus by my side.
Read from David Wilkerson:
THE COMING OF JESUS
"I believe Jesus is coming very soon. We see the Lord gathering the nations together against Israel. Events are moving rapidly toward Armageddon.
'When you see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors' (Matthew 24:33).
'Of the day and hour knoweth no man, no, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only' (v. 36).
All signs point to a Mideast war against Israel. Out of the turmoil in Arab nations will come a united call to destroy Israel. We are beholding the fulfillment of prophecies we have preached about for many years.
Those who know the Scriptures have a Holy Ghost inner sense of the Lord’s return. We hear the call of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, crying, 'Even so, Lord Jesus, come.' Jesus said, 'Watch therefore: for you know not what hour your Lord will come' (v. 42).
'Be ready, for in such an hour as you think not the Son of man cometh' (v. 44).
'Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when he comes, shall find so doing' (v. 46).
Beloved, do you feel—do you sense—that these are the last of the last days? Do you share the longing for his appearance?
Look up; our redemption is drawing near!"
Wake up, and above all else, make sure that you are in a right relationship with Jesus. He gave His life for you and me on the cross. Just repent of your sins and ask Him to be Lord of your life. It will be the best decision you ever make. I did so nearly 27 years ago. I look back upon my life and don't know how I survived without Jesus by my side.
Read from David Wilkerson:
THE COMING OF JESUS
"I believe Jesus is coming very soon. We see the Lord gathering the nations together against Israel. Events are moving rapidly toward Armageddon.
'When you see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors' (Matthew 24:33).
'Of the day and hour knoweth no man, no, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only' (v. 36).
All signs point to a Mideast war against Israel. Out of the turmoil in Arab nations will come a united call to destroy Israel. We are beholding the fulfillment of prophecies we have preached about for many years.
Those who know the Scriptures have a Holy Ghost inner sense of the Lord’s return. We hear the call of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, crying, 'Even so, Lord Jesus, come.' Jesus said, 'Watch therefore: for you know not what hour your Lord will come' (v. 42).
'Be ready, for in such an hour as you think not the Son of man cometh' (v. 44).
'Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when he comes, shall find so doing' (v. 46).
Beloved, do you feel—do you sense—that these are the last of the last days? Do you share the longing for his appearance?
Look up; our redemption is drawing near!"
Rapists File Lawsuit Against Rape Victim--UPDATED
Only in Islam does a rape victim become the accused.
Read this disturbing story from Sky News, via Hot Air:
Libya Rape Claim Woman Now 'The Accused'
"A Libyan woman who rushed into a Tripoli hotel in an attempt to tell foreign journalists her story of rape is now facing possible criminal charges herself, a government spokesman says.
(See accompanying video here.)
'I heard that the attorney-general brought her in for questioning because she is now not just the accuser, she is the accused. There is a case against her,' Moussa Ibrahim told journalist in Tripoli.
A visibly distressed Eman al Obeidi had gone to the Tripoli hotel, where the media is based, shouting that she had been raped and tortured over two days after being picked up at a checkpoint in the capital.
A gun was pulled on the Sky News team as she was dragged away by security forces loyal to Gaddafi.
Mr Ibrahim said Ms al Obeidi had subsequently been asked about the alleged incident and 'not come up with anything substantial'.
'She says four people kidnapped and raped her, one of them is the son of someone in the state. That is hardly political, the son of someone in the state is a human being,' he said.
'Now the four guys are having a case filed against her because instead of going to a police station and filing a case against them she went to the media and exposed their names.'
'Now their honour is tainted, their families black-named and this in the Islamic law is a very grave offence.'
Earlier, Ms al Obeidi's mother told journalists she had been offered bribes to get her daughter to withdraw her allegations.
'Last night at three they called from Gaddafi's compound and asked me to convince my daughter Eman to change what she said,' Aisha Ahmad said.
Mrs Ahmad said she was told Eman al Obeidi would be freed if she changed her story and was offered 'anything you and your family would ask for - money, a new home'.
'I told my daughter: "Keep silent",' she said.
The authorities have said that Ms al Obeidi was allowed to return home after over the weekend, but her family said she has not yet been seen.
Pushed on her current whereabouts, Mr Ibrahim said: 'If you ask me about this hour, I don't know if she is with her family or if she is being questioned again.'
(View accompanying video here.)
Before she was hauled away, Ms al Obeidi told the journalists she had been targeted at the checkpoint because she was from rebel-held Benghazi.
Residents of the eastern city staged a demonstration in support of her on Sunday.
Wadad Omar, who said she was a cousin of Ms al Obeidi, told an Arabic news channel she had first been arrested after taking part in an anti-government protest in the western city of Zawiyah in the early days of the uprising.
She also claimed other members of the family had been targeted by the regime.
'Her sister's married. Eman says that they killed her sister's husband and kidnapped their son.'"
UPDATE: Rape victims are not treated as victims in Muslim nations:
Woman Jailed for Being Raped in Muslim Country Sues
Read this disturbing story from Sky News, via Hot Air:
Libya Rape Claim Woman Now 'The Accused'
"A Libyan woman who rushed into a Tripoli hotel in an attempt to tell foreign journalists her story of rape is now facing possible criminal charges herself, a government spokesman says.
(See accompanying video here.)
'I heard that the attorney-general brought her in for questioning because she is now not just the accuser, she is the accused. There is a case against her,' Moussa Ibrahim told journalist in Tripoli.
A visibly distressed Eman al Obeidi had gone to the Tripoli hotel, where the media is based, shouting that she had been raped and tortured over two days after being picked up at a checkpoint in the capital.
A gun was pulled on the Sky News team as she was dragged away by security forces loyal to Gaddafi.
Mr Ibrahim said Ms al Obeidi had subsequently been asked about the alleged incident and 'not come up with anything substantial'.
'She says four people kidnapped and raped her, one of them is the son of someone in the state. That is hardly political, the son of someone in the state is a human being,' he said.
'Now the four guys are having a case filed against her because instead of going to a police station and filing a case against them she went to the media and exposed their names.'
'Now their honour is tainted, their families black-named and this in the Islamic law is a very grave offence.'
Earlier, Ms al Obeidi's mother told journalists she had been offered bribes to get her daughter to withdraw her allegations.
'Last night at three they called from Gaddafi's compound and asked me to convince my daughter Eman to change what she said,' Aisha Ahmad said.
Mrs Ahmad said she was told Eman al Obeidi would be freed if she changed her story and was offered 'anything you and your family would ask for - money, a new home'.
'I told my daughter: "Keep silent",' she said.
The authorities have said that Ms al Obeidi was allowed to return home after over the weekend, but her family said she has not yet been seen.
Pushed on her current whereabouts, Mr Ibrahim said: 'If you ask me about this hour, I don't know if she is with her family or if she is being questioned again.'
(View accompanying video here.)
Before she was hauled away, Ms al Obeidi told the journalists she had been targeted at the checkpoint because she was from rebel-held Benghazi.
Residents of the eastern city staged a demonstration in support of her on Sunday.
Wadad Omar, who said she was a cousin of Ms al Obeidi, told an Arabic news channel she had first been arrested after taking part in an anti-government protest in the western city of Zawiyah in the early days of the uprising.
She also claimed other members of the family had been targeted by the regime.
'Her sister's married. Eman says that they killed her sister's husband and kidnapped their son.'"
UPDATE: Rape victims are not treated as victims in Muslim nations:
Woman Jailed for Being Raped in Muslim Country Sues
Samantha Powers Bragging on Her Boss
What a fool! Obama's foreign policy advisor, the anti-Semitic Samantha Power, who suggested America invade Israel, is now bragging about Obama's part in the overthrow of Egypt's dictator, Hosni Mubarak.
With the Muslim Brotherhood on the march, she would be wise to shut her mouth and not remind the world of her boss's part in this foreign policy disaster. But, in her excitement to see the Arab world on fire with one common goal, the destruction of Israel, the poor girl can't think straight.
Read from the Washington Times:
Anti-genocide advocate credits Obama for Libyan uprising
"White House aide Samantha Power, a former news reporter turned anti-genocide advocate, said President Obama’s two-year campaign to promote human rights helped trigger the uprising in Libya against Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s rule.
In a speech Monday at Columbia University, Ms. Power, director of multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, defended her support for the military operation against Libyan government forces and said the president’s efforts, through speeches in various foreign capitals, made it easier for other nations to stand with the United States against tyrants.
'The president has argued our interests and our values cannot be separated,' Ms. Power said, speaking to a friendly crowd of about 130 people. 'These values have caused the people of Libya to risk their lives on the street.'
Ms. Power sidestepped questions about reports she was among three female Obama administration aides who pressed the president to go to war in Libya.
On the military operation to impose a no-fly zone, however, Ms. Power, said that 'force can be justified on humanitarian grounds.'
Ms. Power said the international coalition acted to save the rebel-stronghold city of Benghazi because of Col. Gadhafi’s attacks. 'On a single day, he killed 1,200 people on suspicion' of being anti-government rebels, she said.
'To put Libyan events in historical perspective,' she said, 'in Libya, it took us nine days impose asset freezes and travel bans,' while pressuring regimes in the Balkans and other places took years.
News reports first disclosed in the New York Times said that Ms. Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton helped overrule reluctant defense and military leaders in persuading Mr. Obama to launch military operations against Col. Gadhafi’s forces under the guise of protecting civilians from those forces.
Mrs. Clinton on Sunday defended the Libyan intervention on ABC, stating that 'we learned a lot' from not doing enough to stop genocide in Rwanda and ethnic killings in the Balkans in the 1990s.
The Ireland-born Ms. Power is the author of the 2002 book 'A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide,' which won a Pulitzer Prize."
Samantha Power's key phrase: "force can be justified on humanitarian grounds". Mark my words, this phrase and this policy is ultimately intended for Israel.
Interestingly, when I went to the Washington Times Web site to copy the second page of this article, the entire story had been taken down. Why?
With the Muslim Brotherhood on the march, she would be wise to shut her mouth and not remind the world of her boss's part in this foreign policy disaster. But, in her excitement to see the Arab world on fire with one common goal, the destruction of Israel, the poor girl can't think straight.
Read from the Washington Times:
Anti-genocide advocate credits Obama for Libyan uprising
"White House aide Samantha Power, a former news reporter turned anti-genocide advocate, said President Obama’s two-year campaign to promote human rights helped trigger the uprising in Libya against Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s rule.
In a speech Monday at Columbia University, Ms. Power, director of multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, defended her support for the military operation against Libyan government forces and said the president’s efforts, through speeches in various foreign capitals, made it easier for other nations to stand with the United States against tyrants.
'The president has argued our interests and our values cannot be separated,' Ms. Power said, speaking to a friendly crowd of about 130 people. 'These values have caused the people of Libya to risk their lives on the street.'
Ms. Power sidestepped questions about reports she was among three female Obama administration aides who pressed the president to go to war in Libya.
On the military operation to impose a no-fly zone, however, Ms. Power, said that 'force can be justified on humanitarian grounds.'
Ms. Power said the international coalition acted to save the rebel-stronghold city of Benghazi because of Col. Gadhafi’s attacks. 'On a single day, he killed 1,200 people on suspicion' of being anti-government rebels, she said.
'To put Libyan events in historical perspective,' she said, 'in Libya, it took us nine days impose asset freezes and travel bans,' while pressuring regimes in the Balkans and other places took years.
News reports first disclosed in the New York Times said that Ms. Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton helped overrule reluctant defense and military leaders in persuading Mr. Obama to launch military operations against Col. Gadhafi’s forces under the guise of protecting civilians from those forces.
Mrs. Clinton on Sunday defended the Libyan intervention on ABC, stating that 'we learned a lot' from not doing enough to stop genocide in Rwanda and ethnic killings in the Balkans in the 1990s.
The Ireland-born Ms. Power is the author of the 2002 book 'A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide,' which won a Pulitzer Prize."
Samantha Power's key phrase: "force can be justified on humanitarian grounds". Mark my words, this phrase and this policy is ultimately intended for Israel.
Interestingly, when I went to the Washington Times Web site to copy the second page of this article, the entire story had been taken down. Why?
Losing Our Sons Trailer
The case of Carlos Bledsoe is a tragic story of a young American who got caught up in the hateful Islamic faith which led him to kill an American soldier and wound another.
From Jihad Watch:
New documentary explores jihad attack in Arkansas
"'Losing our Sons' is a documentary film investigation into the first successful homegrown jihad terrorist attack on American soil. This is the story of a young African-American man from Memphis who converted to Islam, went to Yemen for terrorism training, and came back to murder a young Marine in Little Rock, Arkansas."
From Jihad Watch:
New documentary explores jihad attack in Arkansas
"'Losing our Sons' is a documentary film investigation into the first successful homegrown jihad terrorist attack on American soil. This is the story of a young African-American man from Memphis who converted to Islam, went to Yemen for terrorism training, and came back to murder a young Marine in Little Rock, Arkansas."
Obama's Friends and Enemies
Who is this man, Barack Obama? What kind of American president mistreats U.S. allies and caters to our enemies?
Watch this insightful video from Israel Matzav:
Watch this insightful video from Israel Matzav:
Demands from the Muslim Brotherhood
The Muslim Brotherhood is growing more and more emboldened, and Israel will bear the brunt of its evil agenda. We can all thank President Obama for helping to usher in to power this terror group.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Muslim Brotherhood Demands Egyptian Military Break Israel’s “Siege of Gaza”…
"They’ve always said crap like this, the main difference now being the Brotherhood is on the cusp of assuming power.
'Buoyed by its new-found legal status under Egypt’s provisional military leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood wants the Supreme Council of the Egyptian armed forces to “break the siege which is suffocating the lives of the people of Gaza.”
The Brotherhood also is demanding that the “Arab peoples must take a decisive stand on this issue.”
In what appears to be a response to the Brotherhood’s appeal, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Elaraby issued a warning to Israel against rushing into military operations in Gaza.
At the same time, he called on Palestinian groups not to give Israel any excuse to use violence, saying that Egypt condemned any violence against civilians.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s statement, which appeared on its “Ikhwanweb,” said that the revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa reflect “the winds of change that have uprooted the Mubaraks and other U.S.-backed Arab regimes.”
The Brotherhood also is known as the Ikhwan in Arabic.
The statement went on to say that protesters will not be dissuaded from their “fundamental cause of Palestine and other Islamic and Christian sanctities,” explaining that it is time for the “Zionists to review their accounts, after the ouster of their dog, who saw him as the strategic ally and a treasure for Israel that promotes the latter’s policies, and supports their malicious scheme and strikes with its sword.”'
Keep reading…"
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Muslim Brotherhood Demands Egyptian Military Break Israel’s “Siege of Gaza”…
"They’ve always said crap like this, the main difference now being the Brotherhood is on the cusp of assuming power.
'Buoyed by its new-found legal status under Egypt’s provisional military leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood wants the Supreme Council of the Egyptian armed forces to “break the siege which is suffocating the lives of the people of Gaza.”
The Brotherhood also is demanding that the “Arab peoples must take a decisive stand on this issue.”
In what appears to be a response to the Brotherhood’s appeal, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Elaraby issued a warning to Israel against rushing into military operations in Gaza.
At the same time, he called on Palestinian groups not to give Israel any excuse to use violence, saying that Egypt condemned any violence against civilians.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s statement, which appeared on its “Ikhwanweb,” said that the revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa reflect “the winds of change that have uprooted the Mubaraks and other U.S.-backed Arab regimes.”
The Brotherhood also is known as the Ikhwan in Arabic.
The statement went on to say that protesters will not be dissuaded from their “fundamental cause of Palestine and other Islamic and Christian sanctities,” explaining that it is time for the “Zionists to review their accounts, after the ouster of their dog, who saw him as the strategic ally and a treasure for Israel that promotes the latter’s policies, and supports their malicious scheme and strikes with its sword.”'
Keep reading…"
Blame Obama's Policies for Higher Food and Energy Prices
The party of compassion, my foot. The libs care nothing whatsoever about the suffering people in this nation. Not when it gets in the way of seeking power.
A little advice: do not listen to Democrats' rhetoric. Instead, scrutinize their actions and the consequences of their radical agenda.
Read this revealing article from the American Thinker:
Obama's High Food Price Policy Stealing Milk from Babies
By Jeffrey Folks
"The price of corn has reached a record $7 a bushel. Other basic foodstuffs, including wheat, sugar, and soybeans are selling at or near record prices. Milk prices as well have risen to record levels, making it more difficult for families to purchase milk for their children. It is Obama, more than anyone, who is responsible for this state of affairs.
While food prices have always been volatile, today's high prices are not just the result of weather and other natural forces. They are the consequence of a sinister conspiracy on the part of the left to raise prices and force an ever larger number of Americans into dependency. As of early March, milk prices were setting new record highs, along with near record highs for corn, wheat, soybean, and other staples. Where is the President on this? He is out there promoting ethanol mandates that burn 40% of the U.S. corn crop, raising the price of everything from milk and meat to pop-tarts.
Obama claims to care deeply about the lives of ordinary working Americans, but he is the one responsible for rising food and energy prices. When Americans went to the store in February and found that their food costs had risen at an annualized rate of 7.2%, they had Obama to thank for it.
It is not just the President's policy of expanding ethanol subsidies. It is also a weak-dollar policy that forces Americans into competition on unequal terms with foreign buyers. On March 25 the USDA revealed transactions that strongly suggest the return of China to U.S. corn markets. As a result, corn future prices climbed 14%. That increase of 14% will affect what American consumers can expect to pay in the months ahead for basic foodstuffs. If the dollar weakens further against the Chinese yuan, as many expect (and against other currencies), American consumers may find themselves paying more than that for global commodities like food.
The President's solution to rising food prices is, of course, more government. With 25 million Americans unemployed, over 15 million Americans on Social Security disability (SSDI or SSI), and over 43 million Americans on food stamps, Obama's 'solution' is to increase dependency even further. The President's 2012 budget proposal includes increases in funding for the government's food stamp and WIC programs, while it continues funding at record levels for a myriad of other food programs.
If Obama were truly concerned about food security, he would address the fundamental issues, not try to paper them over by paying out ever larger sums of borrowed money to an ever larger number of recipients. But the Democrats are never going to address the fundamental issues -- partly because of pressure from environmentalists, unions, and corn-state lobbyists and partly because they want more Americans to be dependent on government assistance.
Democrats actually seem pleased to find that 43 million Americans are dependent on food assistance and that the number has risen by almost 30% million since Obama took office. That level of dependency translates into a large block of reliable votes.
Once they become dependent on government food aid, welfare recipients constitute a lifetime constituency focused exclusively on maintenance and expansion of benefits. No wonder Democrats aren't interested in reducing the cost of food and other essentials. Or, for that matter, increasing the number of jobs within the private sector. Their interest lies in nudging more and more Americans onto the dole.
This is not the first time that a left-wing president has consolidated his power by expanding dependency. During the Great Depression, FDR's alphabet-soup of relief agencies enrolled millions in unproductive make-work projects, even as crops went unharvested and industrial plants lay idle. As Amity Shlaes has shown in The Forgotten Man, Roosevelt's socialist boondoggles prolonged the Depression by years.
What is happening today, however, is unique: this is the first time in American history when an administration is deliberately forcing food prices higher in order to increase dependency and extend government control over the economy.
There is hardship ahead even for those not dependent on government aid. Despite our nation's vast agricultural resources, Americans are not immune to the kinds of food shortages that have existed throughout human history and that continue to exist in developing countries today. It takes only a short time for a nation to slip from abundance into impoverishment.
Most Americans do not think of Romania as a resource-rich nation, but a century ago Romania, with its productive agricultural sector, was among the richest countries in Europe. At that time no one could have imagined the suffering that lay ahead as the country descended into 80 years of war and communist rule. The abundant harvests that had once fed Romania's people were commandeered by the government and shipped abroad to bankroll the extravagant lifestyle of the rulers and to fund the state security apparatus necessary to defend it. This and fundamental mismanagement resulted in decades of hunger for the Romanian people.
For America the combination of corn ethanol mandates and a weak-dollar policy is, in effect, a 'Romania-style' seizure of the nation's food supply. The left is intent on gaining control of America's natural resources -- its agricultural and energy sectors, in particular -- and for exactly the same reason they were seized in communist states such as Romania. The control of food and energy is the means by which the left hopes to gain permanent power over the American people.
America is approaching a future in which food will be expensive and in short supply. The combination of an ever expanding corn ethanol program and the demands of a tighter global market will make food less affordable and less available. What may not be so obvious is that the American left, led by Obama and Democrats in Congress, actually want food prices to rise, just as they want energy prices to rise, so as to create further dependency. If they did not, they would take simple measures to lower prices: eliminate ethanol mandates, eliminate protective tariffs, strengthen the dollar, and allow the free market to govern prices. But none of this will happen with the left in charge because high prices and shortages serve the interest of a party intent on centralized control of the economy.
This disaster can only be averted by the defeat of Obama and of the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2012, and by the removal of leftists from government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Agriculture. Above all, the nation must return to a free-market economy in which prices for food and all else are determined by supply and demand, not by the ambitions of leftists in Washington."
A little advice: do not listen to Democrats' rhetoric. Instead, scrutinize their actions and the consequences of their radical agenda.
Read this revealing article from the American Thinker:
Obama's High Food Price Policy Stealing Milk from Babies
By Jeffrey Folks
"The price of corn has reached a record $7 a bushel. Other basic foodstuffs, including wheat, sugar, and soybeans are selling at or near record prices. Milk prices as well have risen to record levels, making it more difficult for families to purchase milk for their children. It is Obama, more than anyone, who is responsible for this state of affairs.
While food prices have always been volatile, today's high prices are not just the result of weather and other natural forces. They are the consequence of a sinister conspiracy on the part of the left to raise prices and force an ever larger number of Americans into dependency. As of early March, milk prices were setting new record highs, along with near record highs for corn, wheat, soybean, and other staples. Where is the President on this? He is out there promoting ethanol mandates that burn 40% of the U.S. corn crop, raising the price of everything from milk and meat to pop-tarts.
Obama claims to care deeply about the lives of ordinary working Americans, but he is the one responsible for rising food and energy prices. When Americans went to the store in February and found that their food costs had risen at an annualized rate of 7.2%, they had Obama to thank for it.
It is not just the President's policy of expanding ethanol subsidies. It is also a weak-dollar policy that forces Americans into competition on unequal terms with foreign buyers. On March 25 the USDA revealed transactions that strongly suggest the return of China to U.S. corn markets. As a result, corn future prices climbed 14%. That increase of 14% will affect what American consumers can expect to pay in the months ahead for basic foodstuffs. If the dollar weakens further against the Chinese yuan, as many expect (and against other currencies), American consumers may find themselves paying more than that for global commodities like food.
The President's solution to rising food prices is, of course, more government. With 25 million Americans unemployed, over 15 million Americans on Social Security disability (SSDI or SSI), and over 43 million Americans on food stamps, Obama's 'solution' is to increase dependency even further. The President's 2012 budget proposal includes increases in funding for the government's food stamp and WIC programs, while it continues funding at record levels for a myriad of other food programs.
If Obama were truly concerned about food security, he would address the fundamental issues, not try to paper them over by paying out ever larger sums of borrowed money to an ever larger number of recipients. But the Democrats are never going to address the fundamental issues -- partly because of pressure from environmentalists, unions, and corn-state lobbyists and partly because they want more Americans to be dependent on government assistance.
Democrats actually seem pleased to find that 43 million Americans are dependent on food assistance and that the number has risen by almost 30% million since Obama took office. That level of dependency translates into a large block of reliable votes.
Once they become dependent on government food aid, welfare recipients constitute a lifetime constituency focused exclusively on maintenance and expansion of benefits. No wonder Democrats aren't interested in reducing the cost of food and other essentials. Or, for that matter, increasing the number of jobs within the private sector. Their interest lies in nudging more and more Americans onto the dole.
This is not the first time that a left-wing president has consolidated his power by expanding dependency. During the Great Depression, FDR's alphabet-soup of relief agencies enrolled millions in unproductive make-work projects, even as crops went unharvested and industrial plants lay idle. As Amity Shlaes has shown in The Forgotten Man, Roosevelt's socialist boondoggles prolonged the Depression by years.
What is happening today, however, is unique: this is the first time in American history when an administration is deliberately forcing food prices higher in order to increase dependency and extend government control over the economy.
There is hardship ahead even for those not dependent on government aid. Despite our nation's vast agricultural resources, Americans are not immune to the kinds of food shortages that have existed throughout human history and that continue to exist in developing countries today. It takes only a short time for a nation to slip from abundance into impoverishment.
Most Americans do not think of Romania as a resource-rich nation, but a century ago Romania, with its productive agricultural sector, was among the richest countries in Europe. At that time no one could have imagined the suffering that lay ahead as the country descended into 80 years of war and communist rule. The abundant harvests that had once fed Romania's people were commandeered by the government and shipped abroad to bankroll the extravagant lifestyle of the rulers and to fund the state security apparatus necessary to defend it. This and fundamental mismanagement resulted in decades of hunger for the Romanian people.
For America the combination of corn ethanol mandates and a weak-dollar policy is, in effect, a 'Romania-style' seizure of the nation's food supply. The left is intent on gaining control of America's natural resources -- its agricultural and energy sectors, in particular -- and for exactly the same reason they were seized in communist states such as Romania. The control of food and energy is the means by which the left hopes to gain permanent power over the American people.
America is approaching a future in which food will be expensive and in short supply. The combination of an ever expanding corn ethanol program and the demands of a tighter global market will make food less affordable and less available. What may not be so obvious is that the American left, led by Obama and Democrats in Congress, actually want food prices to rise, just as they want energy prices to rise, so as to create further dependency. If they did not, they would take simple measures to lower prices: eliminate ethanol mandates, eliminate protective tariffs, strengthen the dollar, and allow the free market to govern prices. But none of this will happen with the left in charge because high prices and shortages serve the interest of a party intent on centralized control of the economy.
This disaster can only be averted by the defeat of Obama and of the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2012, and by the removal of leftists from government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Agriculture. Above all, the nation must return to a free-market economy in which prices for food and all else are determined by supply and demand, not by the ambitions of leftists in Washington."
Dick Durban's Kiss Up to the Muslim Population
The union between the Left and Islam continues to strengthen with Dick Durbin's ludicrous hearing on the nearly non-existentent persecution of Muslims in this country. Where are the hearings on anti-Semitism, which is more of an epidemic?
One thing is sure to result from this stupidity: the emboldening of Muslim demands upon our society. Why not, when they get so much help from the Left?
Read from Human Events:
Durbin Hearing to Fuel the Muslim Victimhood Myth
by Robert Spencer
"The FBI reports that anti-Jewish hate crimes are nearly eight times more common than anti-Muslim attacks—yet Sen. Richard Durbin (D.-Ill.) announced last week that he was going to hold a Senate hearing not on the resurgence of anti-Semitism, but on 'anti-Muslim bigotry.'
For the truth-adverse Left, it was just another day at the office.
Compounding the irony was the fact that as Durbin announced his plans for this orgy of Muslim victimhood posturing, Islamic jihadists set off a bomb at a bus stop in Jerusalem, murdering at least one woman and wounding 30, while other Islamic jihadists opened fire on and killed two Christians who had committed the crime of attending a church in Pakistan. And don’t ask Egyptian Christian Ayman Anwar Mitri what he heard about this: Muslims in Egypt cut off his ear last week for the crime of having an affair with a Muslim woman (which he denies). Islamic law forbids Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, and so as his Muslim attackers severed Mitri’s ear, they told him: 'We have applied the law of Allah, now come and apply your law.'
No doubt Durbin’s Islamic supremacist puppet masters told him nothing about any of this. They were intent on making sure he retaliated for the hearings recently conducted by Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.), who himself bowed to politically correct pressure and dropped several witnesses that he had originally announced his intention to call, including ex-Muslim human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and terror analyst Walid Phares.
Durbin’s retaliatory hearings were unnecessary in the first place. King, after all, gave a prime platform at his hearings to the weepy Rep. Keith Ellison (D.-Minn.), whose pilgrimage to Mecca was paid for with $13,350 from the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief operating arm in the U.S. Ellison used the bully pulpit King gave him to paint a lurid picture of Muslim victimhood, all the while saying nothing (of course) about the sharp increase in jihad terror plots in this country during the last two years.
Durbin can’t top Ellison, no matter which Muslim leader he brings in and coaches on how to shed crocodile tears.
The crocodile tears flow copiously: The Muslim victimhood industry is big business. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have cornered the market on saline, not hesitating even to fabricate hate crimes, including attacks on mosques. CAIR wants and needs hate crimes against Muslims, because it can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.
In the same vein, Durbin’s hearings are almost certain to be an orgy of Muslim claims of victimhood and demonization of freedom fighters trying to defend Constitutional freedoms against Islamic supremacism.
If Durbin really wants to know the cause of what 'anti-Muslim bigotry' may actually exist, he need look no farther than Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Tex., Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore, Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland, Ore., Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer, Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber, and so many other jihad murderers and would-be murderers.
If anyone in the United States today is suspicious of Muslims in general, it is because of those jihadis and others like them—and because of Muslim spokesmen such as Keith Ellison and CAIR’s Ibrahim 'Honest Ibe' Hooper, who never acknowledge that the Muslim community in the U.S. has any responsibility whatsoever to teach against the jihadist view of Islam that they supposedly reject.
Instead, Ellison, Hooper, and others like them contrive the picture of Muslim victimhood that snares dupes and useful idiots such as Durbin—and in doing so, end up increasing the 'anti-Muslim bigotry' they decry. Americans aren’t fools, and they can spot liars and deceivers when they see them. The complete lack of Muslim spokesmen who will acknowledge jihad activity honestly and forthrightly and stand against it in both word and deed has not gone unnoticed. The 'anti-Muslim bigotry' industry is generated by Muslims and perpetuated by Muslims. And only Muslims have the power to end that bigotry.
But they can only do that by dropping their manipulative self-pity act and coming clean about jihadist and Islamic supremacist activity in American mosques. Don’t hold your breath."
One thing is sure to result from this stupidity: the emboldening of Muslim demands upon our society. Why not, when they get so much help from the Left?
Read from Human Events:
Durbin Hearing to Fuel the Muslim Victimhood Myth
by Robert Spencer
"The FBI reports that anti-Jewish hate crimes are nearly eight times more common than anti-Muslim attacks—yet Sen. Richard Durbin (D.-Ill.) announced last week that he was going to hold a Senate hearing not on the resurgence of anti-Semitism, but on 'anti-Muslim bigotry.'
For the truth-adverse Left, it was just another day at the office.
Compounding the irony was the fact that as Durbin announced his plans for this orgy of Muslim victimhood posturing, Islamic jihadists set off a bomb at a bus stop in Jerusalem, murdering at least one woman and wounding 30, while other Islamic jihadists opened fire on and killed two Christians who had committed the crime of attending a church in Pakistan. And don’t ask Egyptian Christian Ayman Anwar Mitri what he heard about this: Muslims in Egypt cut off his ear last week for the crime of having an affair with a Muslim woman (which he denies). Islamic law forbids Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, and so as his Muslim attackers severed Mitri’s ear, they told him: 'We have applied the law of Allah, now come and apply your law.'
No doubt Durbin’s Islamic supremacist puppet masters told him nothing about any of this. They were intent on making sure he retaliated for the hearings recently conducted by Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.), who himself bowed to politically correct pressure and dropped several witnesses that he had originally announced his intention to call, including ex-Muslim human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and terror analyst Walid Phares.
Durbin’s retaliatory hearings were unnecessary in the first place. King, after all, gave a prime platform at his hearings to the weepy Rep. Keith Ellison (D.-Minn.), whose pilgrimage to Mecca was paid for with $13,350 from the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief operating arm in the U.S. Ellison used the bully pulpit King gave him to paint a lurid picture of Muslim victimhood, all the while saying nothing (of course) about the sharp increase in jihad terror plots in this country during the last two years.
Durbin can’t top Ellison, no matter which Muslim leader he brings in and coaches on how to shed crocodile tears.
The crocodile tears flow copiously: The Muslim victimhood industry is big business. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have cornered the market on saline, not hesitating even to fabricate hate crimes, including attacks on mosques. CAIR wants and needs hate crimes against Muslims, because it can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.
In the same vein, Durbin’s hearings are almost certain to be an orgy of Muslim claims of victimhood and demonization of freedom fighters trying to defend Constitutional freedoms against Islamic supremacism.
If Durbin really wants to know the cause of what 'anti-Muslim bigotry' may actually exist, he need look no farther than Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Tex., Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore, Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland, Ore., Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer, Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber, and so many other jihad murderers and would-be murderers.
If anyone in the United States today is suspicious of Muslims in general, it is because of those jihadis and others like them—and because of Muslim spokesmen such as Keith Ellison and CAIR’s Ibrahim 'Honest Ibe' Hooper, who never acknowledge that the Muslim community in the U.S. has any responsibility whatsoever to teach against the jihadist view of Islam that they supposedly reject.
Instead, Ellison, Hooper, and others like them contrive the picture of Muslim victimhood that snares dupes and useful idiots such as Durbin—and in doing so, end up increasing the 'anti-Muslim bigotry' they decry. Americans aren’t fools, and they can spot liars and deceivers when they see them. The complete lack of Muslim spokesmen who will acknowledge jihad activity honestly and forthrightly and stand against it in both word and deed has not gone unnoticed. The 'anti-Muslim bigotry' industry is generated by Muslims and perpetuated by Muslims. And only Muslims have the power to end that bigotry.
But they can only do that by dropping their manipulative self-pity act and coming clean about jihadist and Islamic supremacist activity in American mosques. Don’t hold your breath."
The Many Lies of Barack Obama--UPDATED
I usually make it a point to NEVER listen to President Obama's speeches because our commander-in-chief doesn't have an honest bone in his body. So, why waste my time listening to his nonsense when I can get clips of it, including an analysis, off the internet. However, I was curious to hear how he would handle his Libyan strategy. Therefore, I tuned in for part of his speech.
Obama's concern for potential genocide is pathetic as I remember that he had NO concern whatsoever for the poor Iraqi people suffering under Saddam Hussein. And where was his empathy when the Iranians were on the streets protesting against the Islamic regime after the fixed election in June 2009? What a hypocrite! It's almost enough to make one barf just listening to him. And nobody dares to confront him on his hypocrisy.
When it comes to honesty, our president did not change his stripes. There were plenty of lies to be found. But, our president is counting on the ignorance of the American people because that strategy has worked for him successfully in the past.
Surprisingly, the AP actually publicized some of his falsehoods, though this report will likely be hidden from the public. We'll certainly hear nothing about it from the rest of the American Pravda. Perhaps, the NY Times may bury it on page 87.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
AP Fact Check Shreds Obama’s Libya Speech…
"Ouch.
WASHINGTON (AP) — 'There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama’s statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.
And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive.
Here is a look at some of Obama’s assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:
___
OBAMA: “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role.”
THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.
NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same “unique capabilities” that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.
The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO’s budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral’s boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an America
OBAMA: “Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives.”
THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.
Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi’s forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. “Clearly they’re achieving a benefit from the actions that we’re taking,” Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.
The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.
Obama said “we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people,” but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.
___
OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has “an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” He added: “I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”
THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
“The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. “History has shown us time and again … that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”
Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest.”
___
OBAMA: “And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.”
THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya’s air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi’s ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that “the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.”
Only small numbers of Gadhafi’s troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.
At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. “It is not a very robust organization,” he said. “So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that.”
___
OBAMA: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.
More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.
The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.
Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.
In his pre-presidential book “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily “without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands.”
He questioned: “Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”
Now, such questions are coming at him.'"
More from Joshua Pundit:
[...]
"According to Obama, this was all about what a great humanitarian he is.
[...]
After dithering for weeks and letting all those other Libyan cities get sacked? He ummm...'refused to wait'?
And if it's all about being a humanitarian, where was Obama when the Mullahs were murdering protesters en masse in Tehran and Ishfahan? How about Darfur? What about Syria? And didn't a certain Senator from Illinois do everything he could to sabotage the efforts of President Bush to take out another tyrant who made a specialty of slaughter and mass graves?
You see, that's the thing about President Obama. He thinks we're all stupid except him."
UPDATE: Remember when America had a true leader? Check out this speech from Ronald Reagan on how to deal with Libya, via Joshua Pundit
Obama's concern for potential genocide is pathetic as I remember that he had NO concern whatsoever for the poor Iraqi people suffering under Saddam Hussein. And where was his empathy when the Iranians were on the streets protesting against the Islamic regime after the fixed election in June 2009? What a hypocrite! It's almost enough to make one barf just listening to him. And nobody dares to confront him on his hypocrisy.
When it comes to honesty, our president did not change his stripes. There were plenty of lies to be found. But, our president is counting on the ignorance of the American people because that strategy has worked for him successfully in the past.
Surprisingly, the AP actually publicized some of his falsehoods, though this report will likely be hidden from the public. We'll certainly hear nothing about it from the rest of the American Pravda. Perhaps, the NY Times may bury it on page 87.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
AP Fact Check Shreds Obama’s Libya Speech…
"Ouch.
WASHINGTON (AP) — 'There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama’s statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.
And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive.
Here is a look at some of Obama’s assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:
___
OBAMA: “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role.”
THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.
NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same “unique capabilities” that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.
The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO’s budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral’s boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an America
OBAMA: “Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives.”
THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.
Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi’s forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. “Clearly they’re achieving a benefit from the actions that we’re taking,” Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.
The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.
Obama said “we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people,” but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.
___
OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has “an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” He added: “I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”
THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
“The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. “History has shown us time and again … that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”
Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest.”
___
OBAMA: “And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.”
THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya’s air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi’s ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that “the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.”
Only small numbers of Gadhafi’s troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.
At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. “It is not a very robust organization,” he said. “So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that.”
___
OBAMA: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.
More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.
The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.
Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.
In his pre-presidential book “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily “without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands.”
He questioned: “Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”
Now, such questions are coming at him.'"
More from Joshua Pundit:
[...]
"According to Obama, this was all about what a great humanitarian he is.
[...]
After dithering for weeks and letting all those other Libyan cities get sacked? He ummm...'refused to wait'?
And if it's all about being a humanitarian, where was Obama when the Mullahs were murdering protesters en masse in Tehran and Ishfahan? How about Darfur? What about Syria? And didn't a certain Senator from Illinois do everything he could to sabotage the efforts of President Bush to take out another tyrant who made a specialty of slaughter and mass graves?
You see, that's the thing about President Obama. He thinks we're all stupid except him."
UPDATE: Remember when America had a true leader? Check out this speech from Ronald Reagan on how to deal with Libya, via Joshua Pundit
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Costs of ObamaCare
Oh, the joys of ObamaCare. Can't wait until it is fully implemented.
Read from Penn Live, via Gateway Pundit:
Obamacare a year later: It will prove costly
BY MICHAEL TANNER AND NATHAN BENEFIELD
"In the days before the new health care law passed Congress last year, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said that we would 'have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.'
Well, it has been a year since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed, and we are now learning what was in it — much to the detriment of Pennsylvania taxpayers, businesses, doctors and patients.
Here’s some of what we now know: You probably will not be able to keep your current insurance plan. Although the president constantly reassured us that Americans would not be forced to change their current insurance plans, that increasingly appears untrue.
For example, 877,000 Pennsylvania seniors participate in the Medicare Advantage program. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that PPACA 'could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums or withdraw from the program.' And, the Medicare program’s chief actuary has testified that more than a quarter of seniors could be forced out of the program.
If you get your insurance at work, you will almost certainly have to change plans. The administration now admits that more than two-thirds of companies could be forced to change the coverage they offer their workers. For small businesses, the total could reach 80 percent. The new plans will have to offer additional benefits and meet new federal requirements, likely making them more expensive.
Already, thousands of Pennsylvania workers with Flexible Spending Accounts have seen how much can be contributed to the accounts cut in half, and FSA funds can no longer be used to purchase over-the-counter medications.
Workers with Health Savings Accounts remain in limbo, awaiting rules from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to determine if their plans will survive. Moreover, the law’s individual mandate continues to pose a threat to Pennsylvanians’ ability to keep their current coverage.
That mandate not only requires everyone to buy insurance, it requires insurance to meet strict government requirements, offering the benefits that the government thinks you should have, not necessarily the benefits you want or need.
The Congressional Budget Office officially 'scored' the health care bill as costing $950 billion. However, those numbers do not reveal the new law’s true cost. For example, CBO’s estimates do not include roughly $115 billion in implementation costs such as the cost of hiring new IRS agents to enforce the individual mandate.
The arcane budget rules of Medicare, Social Security and the law’s new long-term care program also allow the government to double count savings while ignoring future costs outside the budget window.
Finally, the law front-ends taxes while deferring costs, providing a misleading 10-year budget outlook. True accounting suggests that the law will cost as much as $2.7 trillion over 10 years of full operation and add $823 billion to the federal deficit.
Any Pennsylvanian opening their health insurance bills recently can see that their premiums are not going down. BlueCross of Northern Pennsylvania was just granted permission to increase its rates from 9 percent to 15 percent. Capital BlueCross and Geisinger Health are predicting steady increases during the next decade. Highmark has increased its rates for small businesses by an astonishing 50 percent.
While not all of the increase can be traced to Obamacare, there is no doubt that the law has done nothing to slow rising health care costs. And the law does add its own costs. Aetna cites provisions of Obamacare as a significant reason for its recent 10 percent hike in premiums for its Individual Advantage Plan. Your taxes are going up. The PPACA imposes more than $569 billion in new or increased federal taxes during the next 10 years.
And, it’s not just federal taxes that are rising. PPACA will add more than 454,000 people to Pennsylvania’s Medicaid rolls, driving up the cost of the state’s program by more than $840 million by 2019. That means state taxes will go up or other state services will be cut. Now that we’ve had a year to see what is in the bill, Pennsylvanians should say 'no thank you.'"
Gateway adds, 62% of Americans favor repealing the unpopular bill."
Read from Penn Live, via Gateway Pundit:
Obamacare a year later: It will prove costly
BY MICHAEL TANNER AND NATHAN BENEFIELD
"In the days before the new health care law passed Congress last year, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said that we would 'have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.'
Well, it has been a year since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed, and we are now learning what was in it — much to the detriment of Pennsylvania taxpayers, businesses, doctors and patients.
Here’s some of what we now know: You probably will not be able to keep your current insurance plan. Although the president constantly reassured us that Americans would not be forced to change their current insurance plans, that increasingly appears untrue.
For example, 877,000 Pennsylvania seniors participate in the Medicare Advantage program. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that PPACA 'could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums or withdraw from the program.' And, the Medicare program’s chief actuary has testified that more than a quarter of seniors could be forced out of the program.
If you get your insurance at work, you will almost certainly have to change plans. The administration now admits that more than two-thirds of companies could be forced to change the coverage they offer their workers. For small businesses, the total could reach 80 percent. The new plans will have to offer additional benefits and meet new federal requirements, likely making them more expensive.
Already, thousands of Pennsylvania workers with Flexible Spending Accounts have seen how much can be contributed to the accounts cut in half, and FSA funds can no longer be used to purchase over-the-counter medications.
Workers with Health Savings Accounts remain in limbo, awaiting rules from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to determine if their plans will survive. Moreover, the law’s individual mandate continues to pose a threat to Pennsylvanians’ ability to keep their current coverage.
That mandate not only requires everyone to buy insurance, it requires insurance to meet strict government requirements, offering the benefits that the government thinks you should have, not necessarily the benefits you want or need.
The Congressional Budget Office officially 'scored' the health care bill as costing $950 billion. However, those numbers do not reveal the new law’s true cost. For example, CBO’s estimates do not include roughly $115 billion in implementation costs such as the cost of hiring new IRS agents to enforce the individual mandate.
The arcane budget rules of Medicare, Social Security and the law’s new long-term care program also allow the government to double count savings while ignoring future costs outside the budget window.
Finally, the law front-ends taxes while deferring costs, providing a misleading 10-year budget outlook. True accounting suggests that the law will cost as much as $2.7 trillion over 10 years of full operation and add $823 billion to the federal deficit.
Any Pennsylvanian opening their health insurance bills recently can see that their premiums are not going down. BlueCross of Northern Pennsylvania was just granted permission to increase its rates from 9 percent to 15 percent. Capital BlueCross and Geisinger Health are predicting steady increases during the next decade. Highmark has increased its rates for small businesses by an astonishing 50 percent.
While not all of the increase can be traced to Obamacare, there is no doubt that the law has done nothing to slow rising health care costs. And the law does add its own costs. Aetna cites provisions of Obamacare as a significant reason for its recent 10 percent hike in premiums for its Individual Advantage Plan. Your taxes are going up. The PPACA imposes more than $569 billion in new or increased federal taxes during the next 10 years.
And, it’s not just federal taxes that are rising. PPACA will add more than 454,000 people to Pennsylvania’s Medicaid rolls, driving up the cost of the state’s program by more than $840 million by 2019. That means state taxes will go up or other state services will be cut. Now that we’ve had a year to see what is in the bill, Pennsylvanians should say 'no thank you.'"
Gateway adds, 62% of Americans favor repealing the unpopular bill."
Virginity Testing for Egyptian Female Demonstrators--UPDATED
Once again American feminists seen running from this outrageous story from Egypt. Can you even imagine the outrage if the perky Katie Couric had had to submit to a virginity test in her younger days of reporting? Or perhaps some female union boss rioting in any American city?
Mr. President, your support for an Egyptian revolution has surely improved the lives of women in Egypt. Can't wait to see what you'll accomplish in Libya.
Read from the American Thinker:
Obama, Islam, and the Forcible Virginity Test
By James Lewis
"Two months after Obama insisted that President Mubarak had to resign after 30 years in office for not being nice enough to the 'young democracy demonstrators' in Tahrir Square, the New York Times has finally stated the obvious: the Muslim Brotherhood is winning the power struggle in Egypt. Duh. Ya think?
The media have also belatedly seen fit to print the fact that sixteen unmarried women were arrested in the demonstrations in Tahrir Square, and that Egyptian military submitted all sixteen to a compulsory 'virginity test' in jail, just to see if they were properly modest Muslim virgins.
Think about the sadistic 'logic' of that. To see if unmarried Muslim women were virgins, obedient to Islam, they were essentially humiliated, abused, and perhaps raped in public.
Will somebody please tell Germaine Greer? Or Helen Thomas? Christiane Ahmanpour? The nearest Women's Studies Department at your local university? Or are their phones busy again, and they're not paying attention? Maybe they're afraid of 'Islamophobia'?
Those Cairo cops represent the forces of law and order in Egypt, the same forces we are expecting to work out an enlightened, democratic regime after Hosni Mubarak. That 'virginity test' shows what this Muslim revolution is about. It's not about Jeffersonian democracy. It is all about the never-ending failure of Islam to come to terms with civilized values, the ones the West chose two centuries ago during the period called the Enlightenment.
The United States Constitution is still by far the most successful political outcome of the Enlightenment. Nothing else comes close. Constitutionalism is the only successful political tradition that has ever been designed to deal with the disease of abuse of power. If you want an image of raw abuse of power, think Tahrir Square and the forcible virginity test.
Apparently the White House and every liberal looneytunes airhead in the West is stunned, just stunned, m'dear, by the Muslim reactionaries who are grabbing power all over the Arab world. Who coulda thunk? Obama meant so well. All the good libs are eager to vote for him again in 2012, 'cause of all the good intentions and lovely words he has brought to our foreign policy. Liberal delusions are always stronger than reality. If reality had anything to do with it, they would have dumped their dysfunctional beliefs fifty years ago.
Conservatives have known about the threat of Islamic fascism for 30 years, ever since Jimmy Carter let 'some kind of saint' Ayatollah Khomeini assume absolute power in Tehran in 1979. When Carter stopped Iran's military from supporting the Shah, Khomeini promptly had assassinated, imprisoned, and tortured the Shah's supporters, plus any democratic opposition groups, plus the Communist faction of the Mujahhedin Khalq, plus anybody else who stood in this way -- including those American diplomats he kept locked up at the US Embassy for a year until Ronald Reagan got elected.
Then Khomeini had a war with Saddam that killed a million people. But Jimmy Carter is still completely convinced that he Did the Right Thing back in 1979. None so blind as will not see.
Obama has never understood the US Constitution, apparently, because he has that basic delusion of all the little leftocrats everywhere: He's the good guy. All that stuff about 'power corrupts' just doesn't apply to him. That's only for the bad people, you see. Like Christian conservatives.
Obama is a power-happy ideologue, and the biggest question today is whether the United States Constitution can survive his years in power. The founders knew about the Obamas of this world, because they saw them everywhere. There is nothing new about grandiosity and fragile self-esteem. You can read all about it in Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and before that, the Biblical Book of Kings. It's even in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Human nature hasn't changed one little bit in 6,000 years.
The American founders built the Constitution to withstand narcissistic power grabbers. After their handiwork was adopted, some of them saw Napoleon rise to power after the French Revolution, the original Man on a White Horse, come to rescue humanity from the anarchy of revolution. Napoleon killed more Europeans than anybody else before the two world wars. The founders didn't like what they saw in France. Jefferson and Franklin both had been US Ambassadors there. They could see it for themselves.
After Napoleon, Europe wandered away from its own Enlightenment tradition into Marxism, National Socialism, monarchism, revenge-driven nationalism, imperialism, Islam (in the Ottoman Empire), and any number of other tyrannies. The trendiest thinkers over there are boasting how they are 'post-modern,' which means 'I'm dead set against the Enlightenment.'
That's how Marxism has now become big on American campuses. Our professors are aping their European idols' love affairs with totalitarian ideologies, in spite of the millions of victims those pathologies always leave behind. In the ass-backwards world of the Left this is called 'Progressivism.' Really. Just check 'em out on Huffpo.
Islam came straight from the Arabian desert of the 7th century. It reflects the lives of desert pirates, robbers, rapists and genociders, which was perfectly suited to nomadic life in the desert. That's how tribes conquered each other, as Lawrence of Arabia found out again in World War I. Desert Arabs literally took no prisoners -- except for women and children, who became slaves. Lawrence was a British romantic who hero-worshipped the desert Arabs, and then, after putting King Faisal into power, he decided to disappear forever, in deep disgust with his own romance with murderous primitives.
Wherever reactionary Islam takes over it re-creates the 7th century desert. Since the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the Muslim world has been zig-zagging between modern values, like equality for women, and medieval desert values. Iran was a great victory for the reactionary throwbacks, and Obama has just tipped the balance in that direction again.
This is exactly what the likes of Code Pink and Bill Ayers were agitating for six months ago, in alliance with Hamas and Hezb'allah. It was so Progressive. The Muslim Revolt may spell the end of women's rights around the Muslim world, as well as electoral government and the whole Constitutional order that made the modern world possible -- including nations of laws, science, technology, free speech, the works. Reactionary Islam took over in Iran thirty years ago, and now it's out of control, thanks to the criminal collusion of the Left. Don't forget that. This is not just the Mo Bros. It's the Mo's plus Code Pink that makes this happen. If you want to know whom to blame for the forcible 'virginity test,' yes, you can blame Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamins.
The New York Times reports that the Egyptian Bros and the military are now allied to take over. Right at the start the Bros called for war with Israel, because it was their enemy Mubarak who kept the Egyptian-Israeli Peace treaty going for three decades. The Bros also brought back from exile their own Ayatollah Khomeini, Al Qaradawi, and celebrated with their own Million Muslim March in Tahrir Square. They also threw out the Google twitter mobster who helped make the revolt happen.
So much for the 'young democracy demonstrators.' They are being treated like the demonstrators in Tehran, the ones Obama didn't give a hoot about for fear of offending ol' bloody-handed Ahmadinejad.
Are you surprised? I hope not. We are seeing a chain reaction from Morocco to Pakistan. In two years the chain reactions may be nuclear, starting with Iran, but then followed by everyone who can pay for nukes from Pakistan and North Korea: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, maybe Bahrain and the UAE. Every Saudi billionaire will want his own nuke, and some of them will pass them on to Al Qaida. Islam is all about charity, you see.
The Middle East has always been a powder keg, and Obama just tossed in a match to see what was gonna happen, like a kid with fireworks. Community agitators live to agitate, and now we see one community after another crumbling as a direct result of all that agit-prop. This is the biggest victory for Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: Let's light it up and see what happens! No wonder Alinsky dedicated that book to Lucifer.
'All the best revolutions are organic' was Obama's Leninist piece of wisdom when he was yelling at Hillary in the White House several weeks ago. 'All the best revolutions.' Think about that.
Libya is now being bombed, because, after under-reacting to Ahmadinejad in Tehran, Obama is now over-reacting in Egypt and Libya. Hey, it's a revolution, baby! Celebrate!
Before the Watts Riots of 1966, a famous black radio jockey had this signature slogan: Burn, Baby, Burn! Then the riots happened, with people actually burning down houses, and the jock changed his slogan to: 'Have Mercy, Baby!' That's Obama.
What is it about liberals that they can't figure out murderous ideologies?
Future historians will look back and ask 'Who lost the Middle East?' The answer is going to hit them right between the eyes: It was Obama's gross arrogance and ignorance, in kowtowing to Islamic fascism just by apologizing to them and giving them the Peace Sign, like some Indian chief in the Lone Ranger. 'How! Friend!' 'You, me, smoke peace pipe!'
This is because Obama really understands the Underdeveloped World, you see.
Will the US Constitution survive this president? I don't know. Maybe that sturdy old vessel might sail back to harbor, with considerable damage to those old timbers, those strong sails and ropes.
Or maybe it will sink.
What are the odds?
Do we have any takers?"
UPDATE: More ill treatment toward women, this time in Gaza.
Gaza cops use "Beatings, Stun guns" on Women Reporters
Mr. President, your support for an Egyptian revolution has surely improved the lives of women in Egypt. Can't wait to see what you'll accomplish in Libya.
Read from the American Thinker:
Obama, Islam, and the Forcible Virginity Test
By James Lewis
"Two months after Obama insisted that President Mubarak had to resign after 30 years in office for not being nice enough to the 'young democracy demonstrators' in Tahrir Square, the New York Times has finally stated the obvious: the Muslim Brotherhood is winning the power struggle in Egypt. Duh. Ya think?
The media have also belatedly seen fit to print the fact that sixteen unmarried women were arrested in the demonstrations in Tahrir Square, and that Egyptian military submitted all sixteen to a compulsory 'virginity test' in jail, just to see if they were properly modest Muslim virgins.
Think about the sadistic 'logic' of that. To see if unmarried Muslim women were virgins, obedient to Islam, they were essentially humiliated, abused, and perhaps raped in public.
Will somebody please tell Germaine Greer? Or Helen Thomas? Christiane Ahmanpour? The nearest Women's Studies Department at your local university? Or are their phones busy again, and they're not paying attention? Maybe they're afraid of 'Islamophobia'?
Those Cairo cops represent the forces of law and order in Egypt, the same forces we are expecting to work out an enlightened, democratic regime after Hosni Mubarak. That 'virginity test' shows what this Muslim revolution is about. It's not about Jeffersonian democracy. It is all about the never-ending failure of Islam to come to terms with civilized values, the ones the West chose two centuries ago during the period called the Enlightenment.
The United States Constitution is still by far the most successful political outcome of the Enlightenment. Nothing else comes close. Constitutionalism is the only successful political tradition that has ever been designed to deal with the disease of abuse of power. If you want an image of raw abuse of power, think Tahrir Square and the forcible virginity test.
Apparently the White House and every liberal looneytunes airhead in the West is stunned, just stunned, m'dear, by the Muslim reactionaries who are grabbing power all over the Arab world. Who coulda thunk? Obama meant so well. All the good libs are eager to vote for him again in 2012, 'cause of all the good intentions and lovely words he has brought to our foreign policy. Liberal delusions are always stronger than reality. If reality had anything to do with it, they would have dumped their dysfunctional beliefs fifty years ago.
Conservatives have known about the threat of Islamic fascism for 30 years, ever since Jimmy Carter let 'some kind of saint' Ayatollah Khomeini assume absolute power in Tehran in 1979. When Carter stopped Iran's military from supporting the Shah, Khomeini promptly had assassinated, imprisoned, and tortured the Shah's supporters, plus any democratic opposition groups, plus the Communist faction of the Mujahhedin Khalq, plus anybody else who stood in this way -- including those American diplomats he kept locked up at the US Embassy for a year until Ronald Reagan got elected.
Then Khomeini had a war with Saddam that killed a million people. But Jimmy Carter is still completely convinced that he Did the Right Thing back in 1979. None so blind as will not see.
Obama has never understood the US Constitution, apparently, because he has that basic delusion of all the little leftocrats everywhere: He's the good guy. All that stuff about 'power corrupts' just doesn't apply to him. That's only for the bad people, you see. Like Christian conservatives.
Obama is a power-happy ideologue, and the biggest question today is whether the United States Constitution can survive his years in power. The founders knew about the Obamas of this world, because they saw them everywhere. There is nothing new about grandiosity and fragile self-esteem. You can read all about it in Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and before that, the Biblical Book of Kings. It's even in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Human nature hasn't changed one little bit in 6,000 years.
The American founders built the Constitution to withstand narcissistic power grabbers. After their handiwork was adopted, some of them saw Napoleon rise to power after the French Revolution, the original Man on a White Horse, come to rescue humanity from the anarchy of revolution. Napoleon killed more Europeans than anybody else before the two world wars. The founders didn't like what they saw in France. Jefferson and Franklin both had been US Ambassadors there. They could see it for themselves.
After Napoleon, Europe wandered away from its own Enlightenment tradition into Marxism, National Socialism, monarchism, revenge-driven nationalism, imperialism, Islam (in the Ottoman Empire), and any number of other tyrannies. The trendiest thinkers over there are boasting how they are 'post-modern,' which means 'I'm dead set against the Enlightenment.'
That's how Marxism has now become big on American campuses. Our professors are aping their European idols' love affairs with totalitarian ideologies, in spite of the millions of victims those pathologies always leave behind. In the ass-backwards world of the Left this is called 'Progressivism.' Really. Just check 'em out on Huffpo.
Islam came straight from the Arabian desert of the 7th century. It reflects the lives of desert pirates, robbers, rapists and genociders, which was perfectly suited to nomadic life in the desert. That's how tribes conquered each other, as Lawrence of Arabia found out again in World War I. Desert Arabs literally took no prisoners -- except for women and children, who became slaves. Lawrence was a British romantic who hero-worshipped the desert Arabs, and then, after putting King Faisal into power, he decided to disappear forever, in deep disgust with his own romance with murderous primitives.
Wherever reactionary Islam takes over it re-creates the 7th century desert. Since the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the Muslim world has been zig-zagging between modern values, like equality for women, and medieval desert values. Iran was a great victory for the reactionary throwbacks, and Obama has just tipped the balance in that direction again.
This is exactly what the likes of Code Pink and Bill Ayers were agitating for six months ago, in alliance with Hamas and Hezb'allah. It was so Progressive. The Muslim Revolt may spell the end of women's rights around the Muslim world, as well as electoral government and the whole Constitutional order that made the modern world possible -- including nations of laws, science, technology, free speech, the works. Reactionary Islam took over in Iran thirty years ago, and now it's out of control, thanks to the criminal collusion of the Left. Don't forget that. This is not just the Mo Bros. It's the Mo's plus Code Pink that makes this happen. If you want to know whom to blame for the forcible 'virginity test,' yes, you can blame Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamins.
The New York Times reports that the Egyptian Bros and the military are now allied to take over. Right at the start the Bros called for war with Israel, because it was their enemy Mubarak who kept the Egyptian-Israeli Peace treaty going for three decades. The Bros also brought back from exile their own Ayatollah Khomeini, Al Qaradawi, and celebrated with their own Million Muslim March in Tahrir Square. They also threw out the Google twitter mobster who helped make the revolt happen.
So much for the 'young democracy demonstrators.' They are being treated like the demonstrators in Tehran, the ones Obama didn't give a hoot about for fear of offending ol' bloody-handed Ahmadinejad.
Are you surprised? I hope not. We are seeing a chain reaction from Morocco to Pakistan. In two years the chain reactions may be nuclear, starting with Iran, but then followed by everyone who can pay for nukes from Pakistan and North Korea: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, maybe Bahrain and the UAE. Every Saudi billionaire will want his own nuke, and some of them will pass them on to Al Qaida. Islam is all about charity, you see.
The Middle East has always been a powder keg, and Obama just tossed in a match to see what was gonna happen, like a kid with fireworks. Community agitators live to agitate, and now we see one community after another crumbling as a direct result of all that agit-prop. This is the biggest victory for Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: Let's light it up and see what happens! No wonder Alinsky dedicated that book to Lucifer.
'All the best revolutions are organic' was Obama's Leninist piece of wisdom when he was yelling at Hillary in the White House several weeks ago. 'All the best revolutions.' Think about that.
Libya is now being bombed, because, after under-reacting to Ahmadinejad in Tehran, Obama is now over-reacting in Egypt and Libya. Hey, it's a revolution, baby! Celebrate!
Before the Watts Riots of 1966, a famous black radio jockey had this signature slogan: Burn, Baby, Burn! Then the riots happened, with people actually burning down houses, and the jock changed his slogan to: 'Have Mercy, Baby!' That's Obama.
What is it about liberals that they can't figure out murderous ideologies?
Future historians will look back and ask 'Who lost the Middle East?' The answer is going to hit them right between the eyes: It was Obama's gross arrogance and ignorance, in kowtowing to Islamic fascism just by apologizing to them and giving them the Peace Sign, like some Indian chief in the Lone Ranger. 'How! Friend!' 'You, me, smoke peace pipe!'
This is because Obama really understands the Underdeveloped World, you see.
Will the US Constitution survive this president? I don't know. Maybe that sturdy old vessel might sail back to harbor, with considerable damage to those old timbers, those strong sails and ropes.
Or maybe it will sink.
What are the odds?
Do we have any takers?"
UPDATE: More ill treatment toward women, this time in Gaza.
Gaza cops use "Beatings, Stun guns" on Women Reporters
Think Progress Calls Cain "the Islamophobia Candidate"--UPDATED
Love this guy, so full of courage and common sense. Not a politically correct bone in his body. So refreshing after 2+ years of Obama.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Herman Cain: “I Would Not” Appoint A Muslim In My Administration…
"Shockingly, the Soros-funded toolbags at Think Progress are losing their marbles over Cain’s comments.
'KEYES: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?
CAIN: No, I would not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.
The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.'"
UPDATE: More from Cain, via Weasel Zippers:
Herman Cain Refuses to Back Down: “There Are Many Muslims Who Are Not Totally Dedicated to This Country”…
'The reporter didn’t tell you this, I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this United States. And many of the Muslims – they are not totally dedicated to this country, they are not dedicated to our Constitution. Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country.'"
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Herman Cain: “I Would Not” Appoint A Muslim In My Administration…
"Shockingly, the Soros-funded toolbags at Think Progress are losing their marbles over Cain’s comments.
'KEYES: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?
CAIN: No, I would not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.
The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.'"
UPDATE: More from Cain, via Weasel Zippers:
Herman Cain Refuses to Back Down: “There Are Many Muslims Who Are Not Totally Dedicated to This Country”…
'The reporter didn’t tell you this, I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this United States. And many of the Muslims – they are not totally dedicated to this country, they are not dedicated to our Constitution. Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country.'"
Norwegian Leftists Frothing at the Mouth to Bomb Israel
Maybe I wasn't so far off after all. Obama must be giddy with the report out of Norway.
From Gateway Pundit:
Norwegian Socialists to Vote on Bombing Israel
"The Norwegian socialist party announced that they will vote to bomb Israel at their convention.
Tundra Tabloids reported on this, via ROP:
'The junior partner in the Norwegian government, the Socialist Left Party of Kristin Halvorsen, (Sosialistisk Venstreparti), plans to vote on a measure calling for military action against Israel if it decides to act against the Hamas in Gaza. Norway, Israel and the Jews blog informs the Tundra Tabloids of the following:
The SV annual convention goes to vote. The deranged junior partner in the current government coalition will among other proposals vote on a motion to use armed force against Israel should it attack Gaza.
The motion is the blood money required to pay off SV card carrying members who find it hard to accept that they have taken the nation to war, again. Last time it did so was back in 1999, when the party backed the NATO bombing of Serbia. As a result, we got ourselves involved in a war crimes probe because of high number of civilian casualties and bombing illegal targets.
Therefore, the only way it can be palatable to bomb Libya for these morally deranged people is if Israel can be bombed too.
Here is the less than lucid reasoning behind the motion:
- The credibility of the world community in its confrontation with the Gadafi regime is undermined when there is no reaction against other states in the region who commit injustices against civil population. The greater world community must therefore also react against Israeli air attacks on the Gaza strip.'
That wouldn’t be a good idea.
Not if they value Oslo."
From Gateway Pundit:
Norwegian Socialists to Vote on Bombing Israel
"The Norwegian socialist party announced that they will vote to bomb Israel at their convention.
Tundra Tabloids reported on this, via ROP:
'The junior partner in the Norwegian government, the Socialist Left Party of Kristin Halvorsen, (Sosialistisk Venstreparti), plans to vote on a measure calling for military action against Israel if it decides to act against the Hamas in Gaza. Norway, Israel and the Jews blog informs the Tundra Tabloids of the following:
The SV annual convention goes to vote. The deranged junior partner in the current government coalition will among other proposals vote on a motion to use armed force against Israel should it attack Gaza.
The motion is the blood money required to pay off SV card carrying members who find it hard to accept that they have taken the nation to war, again. Last time it did so was back in 1999, when the party backed the NATO bombing of Serbia. As a result, we got ourselves involved in a war crimes probe because of high number of civilian casualties and bombing illegal targets.
Therefore, the only way it can be palatable to bomb Libya for these morally deranged people is if Israel can be bombed too.
Here is the less than lucid reasoning behind the motion:
- The credibility of the world community in its confrontation with the Gadafi regime is undermined when there is no reaction against other states in the region who commit injustices against civil population. The greater world community must therefore also react against Israeli air attacks on the Gaza strip.'
That wouldn’t be a good idea.
Not if they value Oslo."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
