Here are this weekís results.
See you next week!
Iím just surprised to see it coming out of this man, who I met several times while I was in the seminary and who I knew to be no conservative Republican Ė though I never doubted he was staunchly pro-life.
There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding "political" and didn't say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party's official "unequivocal" support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.
* * *
Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.
I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.
Distilled to its essence, we have the moral crux of the matter of this election.
One party supports intrinsic evils, while the other does not.
Support for and participation in intrinsic evils is morally wrong and puts one in danger of suffering eternal damnation.
You face an eternity of regret if you choose poorly.
What profiteth a man if he receiveth Food Stamps, 99 Weeks of Unemployment, Government Health Care and a Free Cell Phone if he loseth his eternal soul?
The U.S. economy grew at a sluggish 1.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter, held back by the severe drought that reduced farm production in the Midwest.
The growth rate was lowered from a previous estimate of 1.7 percent, the Commerce Department said Thursday.
This is what the Obama Regime calls a recovery Ė which leads me to ask when we will recover from the recovery.
Especially in light of this news.
New orders for manufactured durable goods in August decreased $30.1 billion or 13.2 percent to $198.5 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today. This decrease, down following three consecutive monthly increases, was the largest decrease since January 2009 and followed a 3.3 percent July increase. Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 1.6 percent. Excluding defense, new orders decreased 12.4 percent. Transportation equipment, down following four consecutive monthly increases, had the largest decrease, $27.8 billion or 34.9 percent to $51.9 billion.
Just call it the Great Dem-Pression
They think they have an argument for banning freedom of speech about Islam Ė but they are wrong.
Muslim-Americans in Michigan called for ďdeterrent legal measuresĒ to fight Islamophobia in the wake of videos such as the movie trailer that contributed to protests in the Middle East.
ďThere is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence,Ē Osama Siblani, Publisher of The Arab American News said in a statement. ďIt is a need that Americans should seriously consider.Ē
Iím sorry, but it isnít those of us who think that Islam is a false religion who are the problem. It is the followers of Islam who think that they have a right to suppress any speech that they donít like through violence or threat of violence Ė folks like Osama Siblani. His own words damage relations between those who believe in the Constitution and Muslims and spread hate of the First Amendment of the Constitution, and it is Islam itself that incites violence by claiming that those who fail to abide by its barbaric code of conduct merit death. Obviously, then, there needs to be some sort of legal deterrent to the preaching or practice of Islam in America Ė if you believe this American Osama who would do through law what bin Laden tried to do through violence.
These Michigan Muslims therefore join these Kansas City Muslims and Mona Eltahawy in demonstrating the incompatibility of Islam and a free society -- and why we may need to consider making an exception to our guarantee of religious freedom as a result.
Could it be because it was easier to blame a lousy video than it was to admit the failure of his own policies?
Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al QaedaĖaffiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.
How deep is Obamaís denial? Even though the American government has known for two weeks that the attack in Libya and the murder of our ambassador was a terrorist attack, Obama was still blaming a crappy film this week at the UN. The man is pathetic, and he needs to go immediately.
Charging that millions of citizens, two-fifths of them black, have been denied the right to vote because of felony convictions, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People called on the United Nations this week to investigate Americaís ďracially discriminatory election laws.Ē
An NAACP delegation visiting Geneva hosted a panel on the ďdisenfranchisementĒ of U.S. citizens and addressed the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is in session in the Swiss city.
* * *
ďToday, nearly 5.3 million U.S. citizens have been stripped of their voting rights on a temporary or permanent basis, including more than 4.4 million citizens who are no longer incarcerated,Ē said Lorraine Miller, who chairs the NAACP national boardís advocacy and policy committee.
ďMore than two million are African American, yet African Americans make up less than 13 percent of the U.S. population,Ē she said.
Iíd like to point two things out.
First, those who have lost their right to vote due to felony convictions have lost them because of their own choices. To the degree that they are victims, they are victims of their own poor decisions.
Second, rather than demanding that the UN intervene in American election, why donít you instead do something about the fact that blacks commit crimes out of proportion to their percentage in the population. You donít deserve an apology and restitution Ė you should be making them to the rest of us.
No, Mona Eltahawy hasn't blown up anything or flown a plane into a building (yet) -- but she wants to silence criticism of Islam and jihad every bit as much as the radical bastards who have attacked our embassies and murdered a US ambassador.
An Egyptian-born U.S. columnist was arrested Tuesday for spray-painting an advertisement equating Muslim radicals with savages at a New York City subway station.
Mona Eltahawy, 45, of New York, was arrested on charges including criminal mischief and making graffiti, police said. Her arrest was captured on video by a New York Post camera crew and posted online.
Eltahawy is a women's rights defender and lecturer on the role of social media in the Arab world. She calls herself a liberal Muslim who has spoken publicly against violent Islamic groups. She's seen in the video spraying pink paint on the ad while another woman tries to block her.
"This is nonviolent protest; see this, America," Eltahawy said in the video as police officers were arresting her. "I'm an Egyptian-American, and I refuse hate."
Non-violent? Sort of -- if you ignore the part where she threatened to assault someone who objected to her covering up the message she disliked. And silencing messages you don't like is unAmerican.
But then again, I'm not surprised by this -- after all, Eltahawy works for MSNBC, which seems to think that any point of view other than the officially approved liberal ones are illegitimate and therefore need to be shut down.
By the way, here's the ad that Eltahawy found so offensive that she had to prevent its message from getting out.
Frankly, not only do I not find the ad offensive, I believe it to be common sense.
Well, maybe I'm not the most scientific guy on the internet, but I do have an interest in science -- always have, ever since I was a kid. That's why I have long been a fan of Science News Daily. They are a fantastic website that presents lots of different aspects of science news in a single place for interested readers. The information is accurate, timely, and, best of all, accessible to those who are living life with something other than a PhD in an advanced scientific field. So i can get interesting news about space (my great interest) without having to wade through all of the hyper-technical jargon that goes over my head.
But there is another great thing about the site you will find at SciTechDaily.com. Not only is there science news, there are also coupons and links to savings in a lot of different areas. So not only can you learn about how the Fukushima nuclear disaster is causing mutations in the area's butterflies, but you can also get ProFlowers coupons or discount codes for other sites that those who live and work online find to good values when we go to spend money on ourselves or others. Really, seriously, think about dropping by the site and checking out all they have to offer.
[A]t the time, Love was down by 15 points to six-term incumbent Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, 53-38. That lead is now gone.
According to a new Public Opinion Strategies poll, Love is now beating Matheson 51-36. And Democrats are not taking Loveís blooming well.
Which explains why the Left is targeting her with hateful articles like this one. The comments are even worse than the article, showing how "Progressives" are quick to get back to the racist roots of their movement when they encounter a minority who dares to believe something other than what the white leadership of that movement tells them is for their own good.
Of course, some of those folks with the articles and comments that express their hate for uppity black folks like the future congresswoman -- they are sending their hate speech to her directly. I guess that they are just getting back to the roots of the Democrat Party -- slavery, segregation, and the KKK.
Do you reject that sort of racist stuff -- which is real racism, not "disagreeing with Barack Obama is racist" race card playing stuff -- and believe that this lovely, intelligent, talented woman should win hands down in a part of the country where her views are the majority? Then send her some help!
Let's be honest -- there are a lot of scams out there on the internet. Some of those scams are based upon the exploitation of software flaws and glitches that can make your computer vulnerable to all sorts of mischief and havoc by some unknown hacker who could be anywhere on the face of the planet earth. Whatever are you to do to deal with this problem?Continue to be enlightened while reading "Marcus Evans Scam Prevention Series" ¬Ľ
Well, there are lots of places you can turn for help, but I'd like to suggest that you consider Marcus Evans and the scam prevention series as one of the resources that you need to consider. After all, Marcus Evans is one of the world's most respected companies in offering business seminars, conferences and trainings on significant issues facing businesses today. Their scam prevention series is getting rave reviews from those who have participated in it and benefited from the information and suggestions provided at the conferences.
What is most significant about this scam prevention series is that marcus Evans long ago recognized that hackers are not just local teenagers in some basement trying to take over your network for a little bit of mischief. They are now professionals who can drain accounts and steal proprietary information that can put you at a distinct disadvantage if it falls into the wrong hands. Moreover, they can wreak havoc with your information technology systems and shut you down for a long stretch if that is their desire. So you might find it important to take their conference on phishing on Twitter or their one on detecting and preventing financial fraud. There is likely at least one element of their scam series that will apply directly to your business and the challenges that you and it face moving forward -- and the vulnerabilities you may not even know you have. So look into the matter and consider signing up!
¬ę All done with "Marcus Evans Scam Prevention Series"?
There was some good stuff in Barack Obamaís speech to the UN. Iíd offer him praise for those things, but in the midst of his speech were words that were fundamentally wrong.
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well Ė for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion Ė we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
Letís break it down.
The video did not spark outrage throughout the Muslim world. Nobody had heard of the video Ė until it was used as a pretext to cover anti-Americanism and terrorism on September 11. Only after the fact Ė when the American government legitimized the acts of violence by casting the blame on those who made the film Ė did the video become a source of outrage.
Fair enough Ė the US government had nothing to do with the video. But the blame game Ė designed to take the focus off the failed policies of the Obama Administration Ė is shameful. The notion that ďall who respect our common humanityĒ must reject the message that Muhammad used violence to advance Islam, that he took a child bride, and that there is nothing divinely inspired about the Quran is utterly false Ė and is no different than saying that followers of faiths other than Islam do not ďrespect our common humanityĒ. In effect, Obama has established Islam as the official religion of the American government, despite the fact that most Americans do not follow Islam!
Odd Ė in that same city (New York City) there is a play running that ridicules Mormonism, the faith of Barack Obamaís opponent in the current election. The taxpayer-funded work ďPiss ChristĒ is about to go on display in that city, despite the fact it offends the religious sensitivities of Christians. At the United Nations itself, the leader of Iran has made statements insulting to and demeaning of Jews and Judaism. And yet somehow Barack Obama managed to leave these examples of outrageous speech against religion and religious believers out of his speech to the United Nations Ė because followers of those faith are not rioting and murdering those who they blame for the speech and because Obama does not see devout followers of those faiths as likely supporters of his candidacy.
True Ė but as noted in another post today, those Muslims demand that the speech of non-Muslims be censored to protect their religious sensitivities even as the concerns and sensitivities of non-Muslims are swept aside by Barack Obama and his appointees. Indeed, the Obama Administration has adopted policies that trample the religious beliefs and practices of many Americans Ė arguing that religious freedom does not extend beyond the confines of their houses of worship and into their daily lives Ė even as our president kowtows to the followers of Muhammad.
Yes, we do understand what about the video offends Muslims Ė but we really donít care because this president has never shown the same sort of sensitivity to the beliefs and feelings of non-Muslims in this country. And we are tired of the favored treatment of the tantrum-throwing followers of Islam, who compose only a tiny fraction of Americans. While we expect Ė indeed, demand Ė that our government will not discriminate against the followers of any minority faith, we equally insist that our government not place the sensitive feelings of such a faith above the fundamental rights guaranteed by both the Bill of Rights and the UNís Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After all, there is in neither document the right not to have oneís feelings hurt, the right not to be insulted, or the right to silence opposition to oneís beliefs. If there were, Christians and Jews would certainly have a strong case for banning Islam and the Quran, which contradicts and insults their own religious teachings and beliefs!
Let me be clear Ė Barack Obama does not speak for me on this matter.
Whatís more, I do not believe that he speaks for the vast majority of Americans on this matter.
And his words are certainly not consistent with the letter or the spirit of the First Amendment, given the way they implicitly give special regard to Islam and mere lip service to freedom of speech and freedom of religion for those who reject that faith.
After all, there is something refreshing about headlines like this.
Letís consider their demand.
The undersigned Board Of Directors and members of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City (ISGKC) urges you to sponsor a bill that outlaws any action that may insult oneís religion. We utterly disagree with the violence that has taken place and the death of United States Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and other members of the United States embassy staff in Libya. We support the apprehension and conviction of those responsible for such acts.
We understand the First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and, as such, prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, etc., but when the allowance of ďfreeĒ speech incites violence it should be banned.
The film behind the violence that is occurring in part of the Muslim world, ďThe Innocence of MuslimsĒ, although it may be amateurish, its contents are very disturbing and insulting to the religion and has ignited an already volatile part of the world. The film is repulsive to the sensibilities of Muslims and offends the religion of Islam in multiple ways; by denigrating the seriousness of Islam, our Prophet and the Muslims in general. We believe that it would be in everyoneís interest to ban such actions from reoccurring.
The problem, of course, is that the violence we have repeatedly seen when Muslims take offense tells us that the problem is not the speech Ė the problem is that the same religion immediately leaps to violence and calls for censorship and subordination of others the minute that they hear a word or see an image they donít like. As such, the thing that is provoking the violence is not ďanti-Muslim speech Ė it is Islam. After all, the film ďInnocence of MuslimsĒ is not what is behind the violence we have seen over the last few weeks (or, in the face of other ďprovocationsĒ, the last few years) Ė Islam itself is. Logically, therefore, what it would be in everyoneís best interests to see banned is not speech that offends Muslims, but Islam itself because it is the source of constant waves of violence on the part of its adherents any time someone takes a contrary position to Islamic beliefs or practice.
Donít believe me? Then think back to the waves of outrage over Pope Benedict XVI quoting a passage from a historical document that was deemed offensive by Muslims. Churches were attacked and protesters urged that the pope be beheaded for offending Islam. But Benedict was not engaged in amateurish or intentionally offensive speech, but rather included one sentence in a much longer scholarly lecture. So it is clear that Muslims are not simply outraged by the outrageous (and the movie that was the pretext for the recent unrest is outrageous for many reasons), but by even mildly negative comments from respected figures in other religious traditions. Thus it is clear that Muslim calls to ban ďinsultsĒ directed at religious beliefs are really efforts to silence or subordinate all other religious views Ė and if tolerance of Islam requires that, then such ďtoleranceĒ is itself intolerable.
Iíve been blessed to know many Mormons in my life. Indeed, in my youth I dated a Mormon girl and gave serious consideration to joining the LDS Church. In my experience, Mormons as a group are some of the kindest, most decent people you could ever wish to know. In fact, I can think of only one Mormon with whom Iíve had any sort of extended relationship who has not been, on balance, a wonderful person (and that individual had the excuse of being a teenager in the midst of raging hormones, uncertainty about college plans, and the general existential angst of mid adolescence). As I have observed Mormon public figures over the years, I have found the same to be true Ė and I think Mitt and Ann Romney are typical of that group. That said, I agree with Senator Harry Reid that Mitt Romney is not the public face of Mormonism Ė though I disagree with the reasons that Reid gives.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he agrees with a fellow Mormon who wrote recently that Mitt Romney has "sullied" the LDS faith and that the GOP presidential candidate is "not the face of Mormonism."
Reid, a Mormon Democrat from Nevada, blasted Romney in a conference call for reporters over a litany of things the Republican nominee has said recently. And Reid added that Latter-day Saints arenít buying Romneyís rhetoric.
"Heís coming to a state where there are a lot of members of the LDS Church," Reid said in advance of Romneyís Friday visit to Nevada. "They understand that he is not the face of Mormonism."
And Reid is right in noting that Romney is not Ė or at least should not Ė be the public face of Mormonism, any more than the Kennedys should ever have been the public face of Catholicism. However, I disagree with Reid about Romney being a poor representative of their shared faith Ė as Iíve noted above, Romney is rather typical of Mormons Iíve known.
In fact, Iíd argue that it is Reid Ė an angry, hateful, and dishonest man who somehow became wealthy while engaged in ďpublic serviceĒ rather than in the private sector Ė who projects a negative image of the Mormon faith. Politics aside, Iíd argue that Romney presents a much more positive and attractive face for that faith than does Reid Ė who interestingly enough appears to be significantly less popular than Romney among his fellow members of the LDS Church.
Well, maybe that isn't exactly what Stephanie Cutter said, but it is implicit in her words.
ďWeíre going to talk about what the president wants to do in the future. Thatís the other thing that you find most often with women. Theyíre not really concerned about whatís happened over the last four years, they really want to know whatís going to happen in the next four years.Ē
As women face disproportionately high unemployment, as the country faces economic collapse, and as America's standing in the world drops due to the policies of Obama since he took office, women don't care about what he's done and presumably don't recognize that the past is prologue for our country's continuing decline? Really?
Personally, I give women much more credit that Stephanie Cutter does -- despite the fact that I'm one of those conservative neanderthals and Cutter is a feminist.
Matthews has been blatantly shilling for Barack Obama for the last four years Ė and in particular for the last several months. Now the Democrat political operative and Democrat political candidate is just flat out lying in an attempt to make his guy look like an improvement over his predecessor.
ďWhen your guy left town, Dubya Ė who nobody asked him to come back by the way at the Republican convention Ė unemployment was well past ten percent and skyrocketing.Ē
Damning stuff Ė except for the fact that the unemployment rate at the end of George W. Bushís term was 7.8% It has never been so low during 3 Ĺ years of the Obama presidency. And by the way Ė under Obama unemployment did skyrocket to 10%. But like Obama, Matthews doesnít want to talk about that Ė and when he does, he wants to blame Obamaís failures on Bush.
At what point can we quit pretending that Matthews qualifies as a journalist any longer? Indeed, by what standard did he ever qualify as one?
After all, Bill Nye has launched an attack on a great religion, and Obama has said that such things go against Americaís value of tolerance.
The man known to a generation of Americans as "The Science Guy" is condemning efforts by some Christian groups to cast doubts on evolution and lawmakers who want to bring the Bible into science classrooms.
Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer and star of the popular 1990s TV show "Bill Nye The Science Guy," has waded into the evolution debate with an online video that urges parents not to pass their religious-based doubts about evolution on to their children.
Christians who view the stories of the Old Testament as historical fact have come to be known as creationists, and many argue that the world was created by God just a few thousand years ago.
"The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old," Nye said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It's not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs."
Millions of Americans do hold those beliefs, according to a June Gallup poll that found 46 percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago.
Of course, Barack Obama will remain silent on this matter. After all, attacking the beliefs of Christians is A-OK to him and his supporters, because they believe that Christians who take their religious faith seriously are extremists. On the other hand, donít you dare offend a Muslim Ė thatís intolerant and un-American!
By the way Ė Iím quite sure that we wonít be hearing Bill Nye telling Muslim parents to refrain from passing any of their beliefs on to their children. After all, he wants to keep his head on his shoulders, and that might not happen if he attacks the teachings of the false prophet Muhammad and his big book of lies and blasphemies.
(BTW Ė Iím a Christian who believe in evolution.)
Iím a teacher Ė and Iíd like to think Iím a good one.
I know a great deal about my content area, as well as about some related content areas.
One of the things I donít know anything about is the practice of medicine. Thatís why, even though I keep a bottle of ibuprofen in my desk drawer, I will never give one of those pills to a student.
Well, not only that. There are also the district policies and state laws that would cost me my job and impose great personal liability upon me if I gave one of my under-age students (or even one of my 18-year-old students) this over the counter medication. Heck, not even the school nurse can give out such pills without parental permission Ė and even then, only if the parent has brought the medication to school first.
Which is why I find this policy in New York to be mind-bogglingly dangerous Ė not to mention a violation of parental rights.
he Department of Education is giving morning-after pills and other birth-control drugs to students at 13 high schools, The Post has learned.
School nurse offices stocked with the contraceptives can dispense ďPlan BĒ emergency contraception and other oral or injectable birth control to girls without telling their parents ó unless parents opt out after getting a school informational letter about the new program.
CATCH ó Connecting Adolescents To Comprehensive Health ó is part of a citywide attack against the epidemic of teen pregnancy, which spurs many girls ó most of them poor ó to drop out of school.
Wow! Educators canít give out common medications like that ibuprofen in my drawer, Pepto Bismol or cough syrup to help deal with minor maladies Ė though we can still give out bandages provided we donít also give put on an over the counter antibiotic ointment when we do. Even our school nurses canít do so without explicit permission. But medications that produce huge hormonal changes in a studentís body and bring about the death of an unborn child? Sure, no problem! What have we come to as a society that we have inverted common sense so as to forbid the simple and the commonplace while permitting that which is much more serious and morally dubious?
I like this comment from one staff member at one of the schools involved because it sums up my view exactly.
ďWe canít give out a Tylenol without a doctorí s order,Ē said a school staffer. ďWhy should we give out hormonal preparations with far more serious possible side effects, such as blood clots and hypertension?Ē
Frankly, our priorities are really out of whack on this one.
After all, when a government official has solicited murder on American soil because someone exercised their First Amendment rights, that constitutes terrorism in my book.
A Pakistani government minister has offered a $100,000 (£61,616) reward for the death of the maker of an anti-Islam film produced in the US.
Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour told reporters that he would pay the reward for the "sacred duty" out of his own pocket.
Given all the apologies by the Obama Regime for free speech in this country, we won't see the right thing done. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to see Barry Hussein order a drone strike on those who made the film.
UPDATE: I'll be damned -- the State Department has condemned the bounty. Too bad there aren't more serious repercussions, such as a cut in aid to Pakistan, criminal charges against the government official making the offer, or my suggested done strike.
No, I don't mean by the Catholics for refusing to teach Islam in a Catholic school (though perhaps he might condemn THAT). I mean the efforts by the Muslim controlled government to force Catholics to teach a religion directly contrary to theirs in a church run school.
The demand to include Islamic teaching in Catholic schools is proving controversial again. A few months ago, the Education Department in Tegal District (Central Java) warned St Pius Catholic Schools to include Islamic courses for Muslim students.
Local authorities summoned Sister Madeleine, of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, to meet the district council to discuss the issue. The woman religious runs the Asti Dharma Foundation, which manages various St Pius schools, from primary to secondary as well as vocational training.
In yesterdayís meeting with Tegal administration, the nun used all her eloquence and power of persuasion, backed by the moral and political support of Catholic lawyers and Fr Frans Widyanatardi Pr, who is in charge of Sacred Heart parish.
The row over Islamic education for Muslim students goes back a while, first raised by the Education Department and then the Religious Affairs Bureau, until local media, radio and TV, picked up the story and made it public.
The situation is critical because the sisters of the St Pius Catholic Schools have received threats and warnings, including the threat of having their schools shut down if they do not comply with the requests.
In response to critics, Sister Madeleine said that only two Muslim kids attend the St Pius Catholic Kindergarten, nine are in primary school, 12 in junior high and nine in high school, this out of a total school population of around 1,400 pupils, Fr Frans told AsiaNews.
If the Muslim parents CHOOSE to send their kids to Catholic schools and those schools don't teach Islam, why should the government even be intervening here? You know, especially since Obama himself was enrolled as a Muslim at a Muslim school even though he putatively has never been a Muslim or practiced that faith.
Frankly, this is jut one more test for the Obama Regime, and will provide more evidence regarding the issue of whether or not Islam has been established as the de facto religion of the US government, the beliefs of the people and guarantees of the Constitution notwithstanding.
Here are this weekís full results:
See you next week!
Fewer jobs Ė more people dependent on government. That equals failure.
If Democrats were to take control of the House of Representatives after the November elections, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said her party would ďamend the [U.S.] ConstitutionĒ on the ďvery first dayĒ to overturn the Supreme Courtís ďCitizens UnitedĒ decision.
That Pelosi believes she and the Democrats can simply amend the Constitution in a single day proves that she is so gobsmackingly unfamiliar with the actual amendment process as to be unfit for office. After all, the Constitution sets out a very specific process for amending our foundational document.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
As you can see, such an amendment would be impossible unless the Democrats secure a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress AND majorities in three-quarters of the state legislatures sufficient to ratify the amendment sent to the states. Setting aside the reality that this is beyond the realm of possibility in terms of both electoral politics and the timing of her promise, the notion that a simple vote of Congress could make such an amendment by itself is indicative of her failure to comprehend the process of amendment set forth in the Constituion.
I wonder Ė have Pelosiís botox injections gone to her brain? Or has the constant squeezing of her skull by the skin stretched in her facelifts cut off the oxygen supply necessary to keep her thinking rationally?
However, I agree with him that it is unseemly for those to be on the list to be Americans who disagree with the president politically rather than, you know, actual enemies of the United States.
Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, likened President Barack Obama to President Richard Nixon on Thursday, slamming Obama for having ďan enemies list.Ē
ďNot since Richard Nixon have we seen a president who puts together an enemies list and has a whole team pursuing it,Ē Issa said on Fox Newsís ďFox and Friends.Ē ďThatís whatís happened in this administration. Itís sad. Itís not the America I want to see going forward. I sincerely hope that after the election, regardless, the American people will have made a statement that they wonít tolerate this.Ē
Issaís remarks came in the wake of a story in the Daily Caller, much-discussed in the conservative blogosphere, highlighting what some consider a collaboration between Department of Justice officials and the liberal watchdog group Media Matters and an effort to target critics of the administration.
Ronald Reagan had an enemies list Ė it included the Soviet Union and Muammar Gadaffi. George W. Bush had such a list, and it included al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. For Obama to have such a list composed of American citizens whose only offense is having different policy priorities Ė and then to politicize the Justice Department by having it work with a biased partisan outfit funded by a Holocaust-collaborating convicted currency manipulator in order to attack those Americans for engaging in what was ďpatriotic dissentĒ under other Administrations Ė is thoroughly unacceptable, and downright un-American.
The answer is easy Ė Roe. v. Wade and its progeny make the decision to abort the sole province of the pregnant woman. Any contractual agreement to the contrary would, presumably, be void as contrary to public policy.
(TMZ) The twin boys -- David Mitt and William Ryder -- were born on May 4, 2012. We've learned Tagg and his wife Jen, along with the surrogate and her husband, signed a Gestational Carrier Agreement dated July 28, 2011. Paragraph 13 of the agreement reads as follows:
"If in the opinion of the treating physician or her independent obstetrician there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate."
Translation: Tagg and Jen gave the surrogate the right to abort the fetuses even if her life wasn't in danger. All the surrogate has to show is "potential physical harm," which could be something like preeclampsia -- a type of high blood pressure that could damage the mother's liver, kidney or brain, but is not necessarily life-threatening.
Sorry, folks, but Tagg and Jen Romney gave the surrogate NOTHING regarding a right to abort that she did not have when she walked into the room. Since 1973, a woman has effectively had an unfettered right to abort without the permission of her husband, the babyís father, her employer, a physician, or any other individual. What appears in the contract is therefore nothing more than a boilerplate rehashing of a pre-existing right putatively discovered in the penumbras of emanations of various provisions of the Constitution by a group of Supreme Court justices nearly 40 yeas ago. That Mitt and Ann Romney gifted their son and daughter-in-law with the funds needed for the surrogacy is even less of a scandal Ė it is, indeed, a beautiful gift that speaks volumes about love and generosity in the Romney family.
But it is odd how pro-abortion liberals seeking to gin up a controversy are effectively arguing that the contract should instead have included a provision that forbade the surrogate from aborting without permission from the couple, the doctor, or some other source. If, however, such a clause existed, they would instead be outraged by THAT clause and the implicit subjugation of women that was implied by whatever language that hypothetical clause might have contained. We would instead be hearing that the GOP presidential candidate was personally responsible for an oppressive agreement that sought to strip a woman of her rights and that this ďraises serious concerns about the candidate and the GOPís war on women.Ē We would hear various anti-Mormon slurs about the place of women, and comparisons to Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale as well. In other words, the current furor is not a case of critics acting in good faith.
By the way -- the lawyer who handled this contract and a prior one says that he, the younger Romneys and the surrogate had removed the clause in a 2009 contract, but that in the 2011 contract nobody thought about it and so it was left in without anyone giving it any further thought. No doubt the couple assumed that the prior arrangement would be in lace for the second contract. That makes the terms of the contract even less scandalous. And as I pointed out above, it seems to me that the precedents in Roe and its progeny would make any attempt to enforce the clause null and void in any event.
First, let me say that I believe that what is depicted in this picture is wrong Ė not because of issues having to do with race. I made this same point four years ago when there was a different effigy strung up in a different part of the country regarding a different political figure Ė but also noted two years ago that such things are speech fully protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. But when a different effigy Ė one that does not even depict a human being but instead uses a symbol to represent a particular political figure Ė is used, then liberals get all bed-wettingly bent out of shape.
Do I think that folks should be depicting an effigy of Barack Obama Ė or even the ďempty chairĒ surrogate used by Clint Eastwood during the RNC Convention Ė being executed? No, I do not. But at the same time, I canít help but note that there was a general lack of outrage over the Palin effigy that was lynched in 2008. And while I will be among the first to admit that there is a particular ugly history of black men being lynched Ė often by the Democrat Partyís paramilitary terrorist wing, the KKK Ė that does not exist with regard to whites, I view that history as irrelevant in this case.
Why? Because Barack Obama is President of the United States.
If it is acceptable to hang an effigy of a white politician, it is acceptable to hang one of Barack Obama Ė and for the same reason I argued that depicting Barack Obama as a monkey was no more offensive than depicting George W. Bush as one.
Because Barack Obama is the president of the United States.
He happens to be a black man Ė but that is only an incidental thing. He is not ďthe black President of the United StatesĒ.
Because he is President of the United States and only incidentally black, anything that can be said about or depicted about a white individual holding the same or similar office is just fine when it is done regarding him. Quit hiding behind that race card like it is a shield that somehow immunizes him from criticism and delegitimizes criticism of him.
Indeed, I said as much back in 2009.
Barack Obama is President of the United States. He happens to be black. He is not the African-American President. We degrade the office, the man, and his accomplishments if we give Obama a special pass or special protection from certain criticism or certain imagery that would be otherwise acceptable if directed against a President of another race.
To my Democrat friends Ė quit trying to impute racism to Republicans, because it was YOUR party that condoned and encouraged and enabled lynchings, not ours. Indeed, it was not just blacks your party murdered -- it was also Republicans.
But lest anyone misunderstand my view on the display causing liberals to develop a case of the vapors, I have this message to the idiot with the display in his tree Ė as an American and as a GOP party official in a different county here in Texas Ė QUIT SHOWING YOURSELF TO BE AN ASSHOLE AND TAKE THE DAMN THING DOWN!
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Wednesday said the cybersecurity executive order that the White House is drafting is "close to completion."
* * *
The White House began to explore an executive order last month after Senate Republicans blocked a sweeping cybersecurity bill from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). The executive order aims to encourage critical infrastructure operators to beef up the security measures they use to protect their computer systems and networks from hackers.
* * *
Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said he was encouraged to hear that the administration was close to wrapping up work on the draft order. He said the White House should move forward on implementing the executive order and not wait to see if Congress passes cybersecurity legislation during the lame-duck session after the election.
What is troubling here is that the president is again going around Congress and doing by fiat that which Congress explicitly refuses to do Ė and is being encouraged to do so. This flies in the face of what our Constitution has to say about the lawmaking process. That is something we should all be concerned about, whether we agree with the proposals in question or not.
And if my understanding of the melting point of water and the physical geography of the region, that means that the temperature is most likely cooling.
Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.
National Public Radio (NPR) published an article on its website last month claiming, ďTen years ago, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island disintegrated and melted in the waters off Antarctica. Two other massive ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula had suffered similar fates a few years before. The events became poster children for the effects of global warming. Ö Thereís no question that unusually warm air triggered the final demise of these huge chunks of ice.Ē
NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.
In other words, global warming fear-mongering appears to be wrong. Just saying.
An Iranian cleric said he was beaten by a woman in the northern province of Semnan after giving her a warning for being ďbadly covered,Ē the state-run Mehr news agency reported.
Hojatoleslam Ali Beheshti said he encountered the woman in the street while on his way to the mosque in the town of Shahmirzad, and asked her to cover herself up, to which she replied ďyou, cover your eyes,Ē according to Mehr. The cleric repeated his warning, which he said prompted her to insult and push him.
ďI fell on my back on the floor,Ē Beheshti said in the report. ďI donít know what happened after that, all I could feel was the kicks of this woman who was insulting me and attacking me.Ē
Quit trying to take women back to the seventh century and maybe you wonít have this problem. Hereís hoping this becomes a trend throughout the Islamic world, and that the casualty rate is a high one.
I believe that militant atheist writer Sam Harris is dead wrong on most things related to religion. When he is right, I often find him to be right for the wrong reason. But every now and then he gets something so right that I cannot help but agree with him Ė even Iím not willing to agree with all of his reasoning that leads up to it.
The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance. And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking.
Now setting aside his assessment of Mitt Romney Ė I support Romney because I consider him and his proposed policies to be superior to what we have gotten for the last four years from Barack Obama Ė Harris has got it mostly right here. Iíll even agree with him about the need for strong secular governments (though we might well differ on what a secular government, properly understood, should look like) are needed to get us away from the notion that ďblasphemy should be a crime. After all, government should not be enforcing religious prohibitions on speech that offends believers and their moral code.
But while Harris would likely disagree, Iíd like to add that progressivism is one of those faiths that must be put in its place by such a government Ė lest we continue to see officials trying to punish those who say the wrong thing (like Chick-Fil-A), coerce people to say the right thing (like school districts and colleges seeking to compel students and staff to espouse progressive values) and declare opposition to the tenets of the progressive faith to be hateful and subject to prohibition. After all, what are ďhate speechĒ laws other than modern analogs to the blasphemy laws of old?
It isnít the 50 sovereign states that matter Ė its Barack Obama.
And if you object, you must be some sort of racist.
Matt Drudge says it all right here.
My caption? I got to party with Jay-Z and Beyonce, go on Letterman and now meet with a guy dressed like a pirate -- screw Israel!
I asked a version of this question about six years ago , but find myself coming back to it today in the wake of the last week's attacks upon freedom of speech by the followers of the false prophet Muhammad. Even the mildest disrespect for the teachings of Islam and those things it holds sacred have been deemed grounds for mayhem and murder around the world -- and led to calls for restrictions on the human right of freedom of speech by Muslim religious and political leaders.
Egypt's Prime Minister Hisham Qandil has said the US must do all it can to stop people insulting Islam.
In an interview with BBC Arabic, Mr Qandil said it was "unacceptable to insult our Prophet" but also not right for peaceful protests to turn violent.
His comments come amid protests in the Middle East and north Africa over an anti-Islam film made in the US.
And this from from an Egyptian religious leader.
Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Ahmed al-Tayyeb has demanded a UN resolution criminalizing blasphemy against Islam and other world religions, as well as demanding that those he described as ďmisledĒ be punished for committing ďthese heinous acts of abuse to the Prophet.Ē
In a statement released Saturday, Tayyeb called on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to criminalize the defamation of religion, saying that such actions and words threaten world peace and international security.
Echoed by a leading Saudi cleric.
The Kingdomís Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh called on the international community to criminalize acts of abusing great prophets and messengers such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), according to a statement issued today.
The statement was issued in response film in the United States denigrating Islam and ridiculing the Prophet (pbuh).
And then there is this from Pakistan.
If one well-known Pakistani politician gets his way, international law will forbid ďanti-IslamĒ material from the Internet.
Friday afternoon, Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik wrote in a series of tweets that he has spoken with and written to the Secretary General of Interpol about enacting an international law to stop all anti-Islam propaganda online.
But again it is the leader of "liberal" and "secular" Turkey who is taking the real lead, as it was in my 2006 piece.
Erdoğan said he will continue to give messages at the next UN General Assembly meeting about adopting international legislation against insulting religion. ďI am the prime minister of a nation, of which most are Muslims and that has declared anti-semitism a crime against humanity. But the West hasnít recognized Islamophobia as a crime against humanity ó it has encouraged it. [The film director] is saying he did this to provoke the fundamentalists among Muslims. When it is in the form of a provocation, there should be international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred, on religion. As much as it is possible to adopt international regulations, it should be possible to do something in terms of domestic law.Ē
He further noted, ďFreedom of thought and belief ends where the freedom of thought and belief of others start. You can say anything about your thoughts and beliefs, but you will have to stop when you are at the border of othersí freedoms. I was able to include Islamophobia as a hate crime in the final statement of an international meeting in Warsaw.Ē
The problem, of course, is that my saying that Islam is a false religion, that Muhammad was a false prophet, and that the Quran is a book of lies and blasphemies in no way impinges upon the freedom of a Muslim (or of all Muslims) to believe to the contrary. It may offend them -- but then again, Islamic teachings on Jesus (that Jesus was not the Son of God, that he was merely a prophet, that he was inferior to Muhammad, that he was not crucified) are offensive to me and my religious beliefs -- but certainly Erdoğan would not argue that statements of those Islamic beliefs ought to be banned as interfering with my religious rights. No, he wants my views suppressed and punished under international law instead!
Consider the other violations of human rights that Islamic law countenaces in the nations where it holds sway.
And I could go on.
Muslims argue that daring to speak against Islam is offensive to Muslims, violates their religious freedom, and ought therefore be treated as a crime against humanity. I find myself asking again today -- doesn't the wholesale violation of human rights AND efforts to limit those rights worldwide show that Islam is the true crime against humanity?
I have great respect for the John Lewis who marched at Selma and who participated in the Freedom Ride. I have a whole lot less respect for this one.
Continuing with its obsession over voter ID laws, MSNBC once again treated viewers to a one-sided segment to trash Republican efforts to maintain voter integrity. Speaking with MSNBCís Richard Lui on Wednesday, Congressman and civil rights activist John Lewis (D-GA) slammed GOP voting efforts as racist, suggesting the success in numerous states in passing these laws showed Americans have forgotten the lessons of the civil rights movement.
Lewis, who was brutally beaten in Selma, Alabama, as a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, is essentially put forward as an infallible expert on voting issues in the eyes of MSNBC. Lui offered up a softball interview, pulling at the heartstrings of his audience by saying: [video below page break]That march almost killed you, and Republicans deny there is necessary connection here between these moments and that time in history. What's your reaction?
Lewis insisted that ďthere is a deliberate, systemic attempt to make it almost impossible for hundreds and thousands and millions of our citizens to be able to participate in a democratic process.Ē
The John Lewis I admire had great moral authority. Unfortunately, he died the day that he filed to seek office as a Democrat, joining the party of slavery, segregation, and the KKK. The John Lewis who we see today -- and who we have seen for the last couple of decades did precisely thing that Democrats have expected of black men since the days of Reconstruction -- say "Uncle" and then become one. That a strong, bold, and admirable men would take such a craven path is a sad commentary on the fall of the civil rights movement from an effort to bring about equality to one that has sold out on that promise.
Not just because it is the right thing to do if one believes in the Constitution.
Also because Americans are with us and against Obama on this one.
Voters overwhelmingly rate protecting freedom of speech as more important than not offending other nations and cultures despite claims that the latest outbreak of anti-American violence in the Middle East is due to an amateur YouTube video that mocks Islam.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 72% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is more important for the United States to guarantee freedom of speech. Only 15% consider it more important for the United States to make sure that nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.
In other words, we Americans believe in the Bill of Rights, not the Code of Sharia. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said to be true of the Obama Administration.
Here are this weekís full results.
*(*WARNING Ė Language advisory for some of the Gifs on this one!!)
See you next week!
The Obama Regime blames a lousy video for anti-American furor around the globe, and vows to crack down on
freedom of speech freedom of religion those who offend Muslims. Now they blame American troops for our ďalliesĒ in Afghanistan murdering them.
Afghan security forces, our supposed allies, are slaughtering American troops. Thirty-three soldiers have been killed by ďgreen on blueĒ attacks this year alone. The situation is so bad that the training of Afghan forces has been temporarily suspended.
How has the Pentagon responded?
By blaming our troops.
Top officials believe culturally offensive behavior is the motivation behind the killings, so itís stepped up Islamic sensitivity training for our troops.
If you donít want to be shot in the back by your Afghan training partners, the Pentagon advises, donít offend their religious sensibilities. Donít kick your feet up on a table, for instance, and never ask to see a picture of their wives and kids. ďThereís a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,Ē Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a recent interview.
If our Muslim ďalliesĒ are such savages, it is time to get our troops and our tax dollars out of Muslim countries Ė and to get the son-of-a-Muslim out of the White House, so that US policy is not to blame the victims of jihad.
After all, it has been used before to pay down the national debt, it will impact the wallets of millionaires and big corporations, and the only way that any individual will be expected to contribute to it is if they voluntarily consume the product that is being taxed.
Professor Glenn Reynolds points out as well that the industry being taxed should be all for it, given its liberal, pro-Obama bent.
The last time America was this deep in debt was the end of World War II. One of the ways we paid the debt down was through a 20 percent tax on the gross receipts of movie theaters. (That's right -- gross, not net.) That tax was repealed in the 1950s -- I guess we could call that the "Hollywood tax cut," since we're still talking about the "Bush tax cut" in 2012. To secure that repeal, Hollywood launched a major PR campaign about how taxes kill jobs and hurt prosperity. We haven't heard that kind of talk from them since.
But, hey, by that time, we were bringing the debt under control. Now, we're facing debt levels similar to those we faced after World War II, and it seems entirely appropriate to respond with similar measures. Of course, technological change means we'd need to update the 20 percent tax to apply not only to movie theaters, but to DVD sales, movie downloads, pay-per-view and the like. That just means more revenue, which should please Eva Longoria.
And that's just the beginning. To be sure that fat cats are paying their fair share and not getting away with things that Wendy's workers can't, it's time for the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on Hollywood's shady accounting practices, which let studios make even highly successful films look like money losers. (Just look up "Hollywood accounting" on Wikipedia.) I feel sure that if the IRS took a hard look at studios' and producers' books, they could squeeze out a good deal of additional revenue. Wendy's workers don't get to engage in that kind of fancy accounting. Why should Hollywood?
And then get rid of the tax subsidies used to attract the film industry to different states and localities -- make them pay their fair share instead of shifting their production costs onto the bHollywood what they are asking for -- higher taxes on millionaires and corporations. End The Hollywood Tax Breaks Now!
Oddly enough, I'm the child of two natural born American citizens, was born in an American military hospital in the continental United States, and am able to immediately produce my birth certificate -- but Barack Obama announced to the world today that I'm not an American.
ďI have made it clear that the United States has a profound respect for people of all faiths. We stand for religious freedom. And we reject the denigration of any religion ó including Islam,Ē the president said in the prerecorded remarks."
I guess I've been stripped of my citizenship by the son-of-a-Muslim in the White House -- because I don't reject denigration of any religion by non-believers, and in particular don't reject the denigration of Islam.
Interestingly enough, at the same time President Obama also stripped million-dollar donor super-PAC donor Bill Maher of his citizenship in the same address, along with the producers and cast of the award winning play The Book of Mormon. Also millions of Americans who still embrace freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion as American values, and with it the right to speak and write disrespectfully about any and/or all religions that one rejects or holds in low regard.
When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to ďgrow the economy.Ē He does not swear to institute ďfairness.Ē The only oath the President takes is this one:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
By sending ó literally ó brownshirted enforcers to engage in ó literally ó a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (Itís just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but thatís whatís happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.
And specifically what line has Obama crossed (and I would argue he has crossed many) to spark this call from the always temperate professor who has long blogged as Instapundit? This one.
WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN. Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made a film that made the Obama Administration uncomfortable:
Yeah, that's right -- at the request of federal authorities, the LA County Sheriff's Department dispatched deputies to take into custody the maker of the film "Innocence of Muslims", the putative provocation of the Muslim murder and mayhem in the Middle East this week. As noted by Reynolds, it is truly appropriate that those making the arrests are wearing brown shirts, for it puts them in their proper historical context.
Of course, this incident is not the only instance of Obama failing to uphold his oath of office, as I noted just the other day.
Yes, if the claims of Col. David Hunt regarding rules of engagement approved by Secretary Clinton are correct.
Hunt told Breitbart News that the new State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, approved and signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton since the 2011 fall of Khadafi's regime, severely compromised the safety and security of murdered Ambassador Stevens and all American diplomatic staff in Libya.
He also stated that the decision not to staff Benghazi with Marines was made by Secretary of State Clinton when she attached her signature to the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya document. Breitbart News has subsequently learned that under those rules of engagement, Secretary Clinton prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in Libya.
Hunt told Breitbart News that "the rules of engagement have been changing drastically over the last 10 years. . . The reason the surge in Iraq worked was we had another 40,000 soldiers and the rules of engagement were changed to allow our guys to shoot. Whatís happened in Libya is the final straw of political correctness. We allowed a contractor to hire local nationals as security guards, but said they can't have bullets. This was all part of the point of not having a high profile in Libya."
According to Hunt, the debacle at the American mission in Benghazi is directly the result of Obama's new policies. "The policy of the Obama administration led to this," he said.
The response of Barack Obama to these murders will tell us if he is serious about foreign policy in the Middle East. He needs to fire Hillary Clinton immediately -- even if that causes a breach between him and his current top campaign surrogate, former President Bill Clinton. He needs to fire his national Security Advisor, Thomas E. Donilon, who would have known about the rules of engagement and should have warned him of the danger they created for US diplomats in Libya. He arguably should be firing his Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, and Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, for not speaking up on the matter when the new rules were promulgated by the Secretary of State. Failure to fire at least Clinton -- the person most directly responsible for the decision to leave our diplomats unguarded -- will show he is more interested in appeasing the Islamists and keeping Clinton's husband on the campaign trail for him.
I love my country. I love my flag.
This is what Islamists in London did to my flag today.
Islamists love the false prophet Muhammad.
They love the Quran, Muhammad's big book of lies and blasphemy.
So I hope the Islamists can understand that they brought this on themselves by their own actions.
That said, I will not reproduce the picture here because it is personally offensive to my religious beliefs AND goes against my standards regarding sexually graphic images.
That said, here is how the Huffington Post reported on it.
Satirical news site "The Onion" is stoking some already raging flames with one of its latest headlines.
"No One Murdered Because Of This Image," currently at the top of its front page, features an illustration of Moses, Jesus Christ, Ganesha and Buddha depicted, as the story explains, "engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity."
Notably absent from the illustration is the Prophet Mohammed, whose depiction in an anti-Islamic film sparked the protest in Libya that took the life of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other embassy officials.
Indeed, the text from the Onion's story (WARNING -- NSFW) goes a little bit too far for my taste, so I will only give you this excerpt.
Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image. . . reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way.
The satrical piece then notes that those of the insulted faiths who were offended simply closed the page and went on about their lives.
I'd like to note that no member of the Executive Branch has spoken out either for or against the offensive image, leading me to wonder what makes them so sensitive to Muslim outrage but not that of Christians, Jews, Muslims or Hindus.
UPDATE: Over at Q and O (WARNING -- NSFW), there are some quite pointed observations about this picture.
The FBI will not launch an investigation to find out the identity of the artist involved. The offices of The Onion will not be besieged by angry Christians, demanding death to the editors. No heads will be cut off. No Internet-wide debate will be sparked on whether or not this image should be reproduced. No calls for the arrest and imprisonment of the author will be made.
But, if you were to add a bearded fellow with a turban into this depraved scene, we all know the response would be far different.
Amen and amen!
After all, the intelligence we had in 2001 offered vague statements that there were plans afoot to engage in some sort of terrorism attack somewhere against US interests. On the other hand, in 2012 there was much more specific information.
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.
We knew our diplomatic outposts were targets, and we knew when they were targets. Nothing was done, and those compounds were attacked, invaded, and some of our personnel murdered Ė on the watch of a President who doesnít bother getting national security briefings any more. Osama bin Laden may be dead, but so is Chris Stevens Ė and Barack Obama is much more directly responsible for the latter than for the former.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharpened her criticism of the film that led to the protests. She called the film "disgusting and reprehensible" -- but said that the U.S. would never stop Americans from expressing their views, and that the movie is no excuse for violence, according to reports from the Associated Press.
Given that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech Ė especially as it relates to religious matters due to the religious freedom clauses of that portion of the Bill of Rights Ė she is absolutely correct in taking the position that the US canít stop free speech (even if it offends Muslims) here in the United States. Of course, there should be no official statement condemning the content of speech on religious matters (that strikes me as going over the line in terms of the Establishment Clause), but the essential element of respecting free speech is correct.
But the Obama Administration has made efforts to do precisely that by seeking to cut off the dissemination of the video that has been used as an excuse by the murderous Muslims of the Middle East.
Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.
The administration flagged the 14-minute "Innocence of Muslims" video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site's terms of service, officials said Thursday. The video, which has been viewed by nearly 1.7 million users, depicts Muhammad as a child molester, womanizer and murderer -- and has been decried as blasphemous and Islamophobic.
Whoa! The US government has stepped in to push for censorship of a movie it disapproves of. That is unprecedented and very dangerous territory. It is doubly so since the government regularly remains mute as offensive and blasphemous speech regarding other religions is broadcast on a regular basis by broadcasters licensed by the government to use the public airwaves. This is clearly preferential treatment being given to Islam Ė whether because of Christians, Jews and the followers of other religions do not engage in terrorist activities when their beliefs are mocked or because of a special sympathy for Muslims (especially for Muslim terrorists) on the part of the son-of-a-Muslim in the White House is open for debate.
So says my fellow Watcherís Council member and good friend Dan over at Gay Patriot. He makes three excellent points Ė some of which Iíve touched on here at this site or on Twitter Ė to show why the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue isnít fit for his current job.
There are (at least) three stories each of which, if it were about a Republican chief executive, which surely have generated a spate of stories:
- Obamaís aloofness from the process of governing*: The reports from Bob Woodwardís forthcoming book, The Price of Politics showing how Obama has not been particularly engaged in negotiations with congressional leaders over matters requiring legislative action.
- Obamaís failure to attend over half of daily intelligence briefings since he took office, attending none in the six days leading up to and including September 11, 2012.
- His decision to forego meeting with his national security team and congressional leaders in the wake of the attacks on our embassies that day and to jet off instead to a campaign event in Las Vegas.
Now, there are surely other matters reported in the past week which further demonstrate his administrationís incompetence.
Clear, concise, and spot-on. Not to mention all the reason that sensible Americans need to vote the feckless fop out of the Oval Office.
Could be, if these numbers hold.
Texas could be heading toward a record state budget surplus just two years after facing a historic deficit.
Texas Comptroller Susan Combs reported Wednesday that total tax collections for the 2012 budget year, which ended Aug. 31, were $3.7 billion higher than had been estimated in December.
That total amounts to 13 percent more than the $40.3 billion in tax revenue that Combs had projected would come in during the first half of the state's two-year budget cycle and was even higher than the estimates lawmakers used to write the 2012-13 budget in May.
Soaring oil and gas production in West Texas and the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas are major drivers of the better-than-expected revenue collections.
The production taxes for oil and natural gas together came in about $1 billion, or 39 percent, higher than projected, and the industry also contributed heavily to strong sales tax collections, which were up 12.6 percent from the previous year. The franchise tax, which is paid by businesses, also exceeded expectations by more than $500 million.
The robust tax collections in 2012 have already blown the official estimates out of the water, and 2013 should add to that surplus, said Dale Craymer, an economist and president of the business-backed Texas Taxpayers and Research Association.
Certain budget areas took a big hit during the 2011 legislative session. One of these was education Ė and speaking as one who disliked the cuts made but supported them anyway because they were necessary, I expect to see those cuts restored and perhaps even a state-mandated pay raise for teachers to be included in the budget. After all, we were expected to suck it up last time around and continued to do our best with less, so we deserve to be rewarded now that there are funds available to do so.
You know, these folks just are not very big on the whole ďrule of lawĒ thing Ė you know, the notion that ďthe law applies to everyone, both the powerful and the ordinary citizenĒ. The White House has now made it clear that senior administration officials can violate the law with impunity and get away scot-free with offenses that will cost ordinary federal employees their jobs.
Independent federal legal officials have concluded that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated federal law by conducting political activity ďin an official capacity,Ē according to a statement released on Wednesday.
ďSebelius violated the Hatch Act when she made extemporaneous partisan remarks in a speech delivered in her official capacity on February 25, 2012,Ē the news release from the U.S. Office of Special Council states.
So it is clear that Secretary Sebelius violated federal law Ė and the ordinary penalty for such a violation is a long suspension or termination. That is what happened down here in Houston some years ago when a local blogger/Democrat activist (now a senior official of the Texas Democrat Party) violated the Hatch Act Ė he ended up suspended without pay for 180 days from his job as a computer jockey at NASA, though he apparently dodged the termination bullet (rumor has it by negotiating a settlement that involved his not contesting the charges and requiring him not to speaking publicly about the matter).
The Obama White House appears to be offering special treatment to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in the wake of the news Wednesday afternoon that President Barack Obamaís cabinet official violated the Hatch Act ó activity that is illegal and normally results in the offenderís termination from government employment.
ďThese were extemporaneous remarks. Ö The U.S. Treasury has been reimbursed, and Secretary Sebelius has met with ethics experts to ensure this never happens again,Ē White House spokesman Eric Schultz told The Associated Press in response to the news that Sebelius violated the Hatch Act.
Wow! I mean, wow! This isnít even subtle Ė it is an out-and-out declaration that the law will not be enforced when it is politically detrimental to the Obama Administration. Iíd say I was shocked, but the regular declarations of the president that the laws donít apply when he doesnít want them to apply are so common as to not even be surprising any more. No doubt he'll let these violations go unpunished as well.
Besides, there is no doubt that Barack Obama had his fingers crossed when he spoke these words in 2009.
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Agree or disagree with the content of this video, it is still a legitimate exercise of a fundamental human right -- a right that is antithetical to Islam.
The acting, dialogue, and production are awful -- but there is nothing there that justifies riots and murders. Nor is there anything there that our political leaders should not have unambiguously defended as fully in keeping with the true values of America contained in the Bill of Rights.
At 11:53pm last night Talking Points Memo released a statement from the Obama campaign condemning Mitt Romney for criticizing something the White House itself disavowed -- an appalling apology issued by the State Department.
Eight hours later, President Obama finally got around to condemning the monsters who attacked us on our own soil and killed our fellow citizens.
Of course, Obama spends relatively little time in ďstatesman modeĒ during the course of a day. The rest of it he spends in ďcandidate modeĒ or ďgolf modeĒ Ė which explains why he is a failed president.
While the president may have spoken out more forcefully than the Cairo Embassy and his Secretary of State on the violence and murder committed in the name of Islam, he still failed to defend the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
And here is what Obama actually said.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
Notice Ė there is no defense of the right of Americans to speak out on matters of social, political, or religious importance Ė only condemnation of those who dare to speak in a manner that offends the religious beliefs of others. But since Obama has never made such a statement in the past EXCEPT on behalf of Islam, I repeat my earlier assertion that what we have here is a de facto establishment of the Islamic religion by the Obama Administration.
But since Barack Obama indicates his rejection of all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, I would like him to publicly reject and condemn the following individuals and organizations:
Please feel free to add additional suggestions in the comment section.
H/T Bookworm Room
You see, it isnít the fault of the Islamists that they attacked our diplomatic compounds and murdered our ambassador Ė it is the fault of those who made a movie that offended their religious sensibilities.
MIKE BARNICLE: Given this supposed minister's role in last year's riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where, not yet nailed down, but at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.
DONNY DEUTSCH: I was thinking the same thing, yeah.
This is, of course, on MSNBC Ė a network so out of tune with American values that its commentators call for criminalizing First Amendment protected activities if followers of the ďReligion of PeaceĒ and their left-wing fellow travelers donít like what is said. Never mind that this constitutes a de facto establishment of religion Ė and the end of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion as we know it. Frankly, it is sad that little more than a decade after 9/11, the left is insisting that we surrender our liberties in the face of violence by the same group savages that attacked us because of our freedom in 2001.
The assaults on American diplomatic posts today are proof that Barack Hussein Obama must go -- because either this statement was approved at the highest levels of his administration OR he has no control of US foreign policy.
U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement -- September 11, 2012
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims ó as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Let's break this down for everyone.
American territory -- and that is what an embassy or consulate is, American territory -- has been attacked by Islamist extremists on the anniversary of the day that Islam murdered some 3000 Americans. What is the response? An attempt to appease the attackers and an attack on the First Amendment.
Consider this closely.
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims ó as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. In other words, the United States government has no take the position that speaking against Islam is "misguided" and an illegitimate use of freedom of speech. Never mind that it is a perfectly legitimate and proper use of freedom of speech to express opposition to Islamic religious beliefs and practices, and to seek to encourage others (including Muslims) to reject the teachings of Islam. it is not up to the United States government to decide that people are "misguided" for doing so -- indeed doing so shows a preference for Islam that is antithetical to the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment In addition, I would be most interested to see the statements from the Cairo Embassy -- or the Obama Administration generally -- regarding offense given to the religious beliefs of any other group of believers, especially when the offense is given by Muslims.
Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Yeah -- and attack by Muslims upon America and its freedoms in the name of Islam. So how does the US Embassy "honor" the victims of 9/11, those who have died in the war against Islamist extremism, and those still fighting that battle? By apologizing to extremist Muslims because an American dared use his freedoms in a way that Muslims don't like! That, my fellow Americans, is SURRENDER!
Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. This is dead wrong. Respect for religious beliefs is not a cornerstone of American democracy. Respect for the right to hold the religious beliefs of one's choice and for the right to practice that religion are one of those cornerstones. There is a big difference between the two. I am under no obligation to respect any particular group's religious beliefs, nor am I a bad American if I do not respect some set of beliefs. What I am expected to do as an American is to tolerate those beliefs and the practice even if I disagree with or despise those beliefs -- much as I am expected to tolerate the free expression (in spoken or written form) of ideas I reject. And let's not forget that respect for freedom of speech and freedom of the press are UNDENIABLY among the foundational values of the American constitutional republic.
We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. On its face, there is nothing objectionable here. A moment's thought, however, leads inevitably to the recognition that even though there is a defense of freedom of speech, it is a tepid defense that has the effect of subordinating the right to speak freely to the sensitivities of Muslims. As Christians, Terry Jones and members of the Coptic Church have radically different views of Muhammad and his teachings than do a Muslims -- where a Muslim views Muhammad as a prophet and his message divine, Jones and the Copts view Muhammad as a fraud who speaks falsehood. The United States government has no place in entering into the matter -- but once again, the Obama Administration places the sensitivities of Muslims above the rights of those who choose to speak or write or act in a way that is contrary to that which Muslims find acceptable. This constitutes an implicit endorsement of the Islamic view and establishment of Islam by the American government, in violation of the First Amendment.
Of course, we should not be surprised. This is typical of the double standard applied by the Obama Administration when it comes to Islam. For example, Obama gave wholehearted support to the building of a mosque and Islamic cultural center on the site of a building within blocks of Ground Zero where plane parts and human remains were found after the destruction of the World Trade Center -- despite the fact that many Americans found the choice of site to be offensive and the reality that the decision to go ahead with the project was grossly insensitive to the feelings of many of those who lost loved ones on that 9/11. Saudi Arabia makes it policy to destroy Bibles confiscated from travelers to that country without a peep of protest from the Obama Administration -- but the decision of an obscure pastor of a tiny church to burn a Quran was met with ferocious condemnation by the President and his subordinates. Islam is not being treated as equal to other religions by this administration -- it is being shown preference, undermining the governmental neutrality on religious matters that is supposed to be the rule in this country.
And now, on the anniversary of the 9/11, the Obama Administration folds in the face of mobs attacking our diplomatic posts. Not even Jimmy Carter conducted himself so weakly in the face of such a violation of American sovereignty. Now comes word that at least one member of the consular staff in Libya is dead (UPDATE -- murdered diplomat is US Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed along with three security personnel) and that others may be injured as a result of the attack. The response -- no defense of our diplomatic outposts and a retreat from American constitutional values and the rights that they are supposed to protect. In effect, our government has surrendered to those who showed themselves to be our enemy eleven years ago today,and in doing so have provided the Islamists with aid and comfort as they make war upon our nation and our way of life.
Religion of peace? More like a savage cult bent on stamping out freedom.
CAIRO (AP) ó Mainly ultraconservative protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Egypt's capital Tuesday and brought down the American flag, replacing it with a black Islamist flag to protest a U.S.-produced film attacking the Prophet Muhammad. Hours later, armed men in eastern Libya also stormed the US consulate there and set it on fire as anger spread.
It was the first time ever that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo has been breached and comes as Egypt is struggling to overcome months of unrest following the ouster of Hosni Mubarak's autocratic regime. U.S. officials said no Americans were reported harmed in the assaults in Cairo or the eastern city of Benghazi.
Apparently this is all over some movie allegedly being produced by Quran burning Pastor Terry Jones. The followers of the cult of Muhammad remind us again that the exercise of fundamental human rights by those who do not adhere to their faith will not be tolerated -- and that we must all pay homage to their false prophet and his false god. For those shocked by my words, let us remember that the teachings of Islam regarding Jesus and the Bible can only be viewed as blasphemy by followers of the Christian faith -- and yet Muslims have no problem with proclaiming those blasphemies even in places and at times sacred to the Christian faith. But when Terry Jones -- a many for whom I have little use -- is rumored to have made a film which exposes the blasphemous teachings of Islam, it is grounds for violence by the followers of Muhammad.
On September 11, 2001, America and its freedoms were attacked in the name of Islam by followers of that faith. Today -- the eleventh anniversary of that attack -- followers of Islam have again attacked America because of its freedom and its rejection of the doctrines of Muhammad. This should serve as a reminder to all of us what this day must always represent to every American patriot. While some, including the enabler of Muslim extremism in the White House, may argue that the United States is not at war with Islam, we cannot ignore the essential truth that much of Islam is at war with America and has been since September 11, 2001 -- and long before that as well. Today's events in Egypt and Libya ought to serve as a pointed reminder of that reality.
It was eleven years ago today.
A Democratic congressional candidate from Maryland has dropped out of the race after the state party said she had voted in both Maryland and Florida in the 2006 general election and in the 2008 presidential primaries.
Wendy Rosen confirmed to The Associated Press that she was withdrawing from the 1st District congressional race. She did not elaborate beyond a statement citing ďpersonal issues.Ē
The ďpersonal issuesĒ here probably relate to her felonious conduct.
This means, of course, that Rosen will be on the ballot Ė but will in all likelihood lose her race to her honest competitor.
I teach Ė and I love it.
Iím the nephew of a former union local leader in Illinois Ė someone who I love but who I have disagreed with about strikes and teacher compensation more than once over the years.
Frankly, Iím outraged by the strike in Chicago.
After all, Chicago teachers are among the best compensated in the country.
They also have some of the worst student outcomes, based upon test scores and graduation rates.
So when I hear that Chicago teachers are on strike because they consider a 16% pay raise to be insufficient and object to student test scores being considered in their evaluations.
In much of the country, test scores already figure into evaluations Ė if not on an individual basis, then on a campus-wide basis.
And around the United States, teachers are being laid off, and are facing either stagnant wages or pay cuts as districts balance budget. I know that my district could not afford to give us a pay raise this year, even as our insurance premiums increased. We have, over the last 4 years, seen our pay raises increase by an aggregate of less than 8%. So to hear these ďprofessionalsĒ in Chicago complaining that they find a 4% annual increase each of the next 4 years to be insufficient is personally and professionally offensive.
Let me say for the record that I support Mayor Rahm Emmanuel doing the conservative thing here and opposing extortionate union demands. And let me take it a step further Ė I believe he should make it clear that the offered pay increase will decrease 1% for each day of the strike. After all, Chicago Public Schools will need that money to pay for the extra help the students harmed by this strike are going to need to catch up after their teachers are done with their tantrum.
Sorry for running behind, but a broken molar, abscess, and tooth extraction got in the way of posting for the last couple of days. So without any further delay, here are this weekís full results.
See you next week!
There are lots of affiliate programs out there for bloggers and other website owners to participate in. You know what I'm talking about -- you provide links or ad space for a company and they offer you a cut of the action in return. I think we've all looked into them a time or two -- but this one for Freestyler.net seems really interesting to me.Continue to be enlightened while reading "Freestyler.Net Affiliate Program" ¬Ľ
Of course, you may be wondering what the product is. Well, the Freestyler is a workout system that makes some pretty remarkable claims about its benefits and its efficiency as a workout tool relative to other products on the market. How much better do they claim it to be? Well, they say that their research has shown an increase in workout efficiency of 86%! That seems like quite an improvement over what one would normally expect -- after all, that means that you get nearly twice the benefit using this system than you would without it. Wow!
Now what I find interesting about this system is that it is so versatile. You can use it for dance, you can use it for individual workouts, you can use it in groups, and you can use it for Pilates. You can even use it for rehabilitation purposes -- and you know how difficult it is to get back into the swing of things after that injury. So it is a truly versatile product for you to use as you seek to improve your fitness.
So what is so great about the fitness affiliate program that they have that sets it apart from other programs that may be out there for other products? Their website, for starters. Most affiliate programs have a single page laying out what your cut of the profit is. Not this one -- they have a multi-layer website that deals with the affiliate program itself, including how to be a simple affiliate, how to become a distributor, and even how to become a professional representative of the company. In other words, they have a program for all different sorts of people, depending upon how involved in the marketing of the product you want to be and what your particular focus is.
By the way, how much do basic affiliates make? Well, you get a 25% share of your sales -- which by my calculation works out to be around $75.00 per sale referred from your website. That's not bad at all!
¬ę All done with "Freestyler.Net Affiliate Program"?
We as a people may not want war with Islam -- but there is a hefty segment of Islam that wants war with us.
Instead of turning on each other, weíve resisted the temptation to give in to mistrust and suspicion. I have always said that America is at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates ó and we will never be at war with Islam or any other religion. We are the United States of America. Our freedom and diversity make us unique, and they will always be central to who we are as a nation.
The thing is, it isn't "al Qaeda and its affiliates". As has been demonstrated again and again in polling data, there is a large segment of the Muslim world that agrees with the idea that opposition to -- and war against -- America and the West is an essential part of Islam. That is true in the Muslim world -- and it is true among native-born Muslims in the West. That is a reality that we have to recognize and accept for our own security.
Especially since you get this rhetoric on a daily basis from leaders in the Islamic world -- and sometimes even in our own country.
Praising The Traits Of The Jihad Fighter
ďFasting [during Ramadan] is one of the most powerful means to educate the human spirit for jihad. Fasting involves a spiritual effort to act in a way contrary to what is accepted, and to completely abandon desiresÖ It also schools the Muslim in patience, resilience, endurance, and sacrifice, which are all traits of the jihad fighter. [...]
ďWe call upon those who fastÖ to remember their brothers, those who wage jihad for the sake of Allah: in Palestine, against the Jews, the descendants of apes and pigs; in Iraq, against the Americans; in Bosnia-Herzegovina, against the crusader Serbians; in Chechnya, against the Russians; in Kashmir, against the idolatrous Indians; in Eritrea, against the Zoroastrian Habeshas; in Somalia, against the arrogant Americans; and everywhere in [the lands of] the Islamic ummah, against those who fight the Muslims.
See -- they make no bones about being at war with us.
But in his defense, perhaps Obama does not mean what he said here. After all, he's said many things over the last several years that we know he did not mean. Or maybe he just does not understand what is going on.
So let me correct Obama, and hope that this is what he really mean. We as Americans did not and do not choose to be at war with Islam -- but if Islam chooses war with us, we will not shirk our obligation to subdue it as surely as we subdued Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII.
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 96,000 in August, and the unemployment rate edged down to 8.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in food services and drinking places, in professional and technical services, and in health care.
Fantastic! Unemployment has dropped. That is good news -- isn't it? I mean, we are now tied with the lowest it has been at any point during the Obama presidency!
However, there's bad news, too.
Nonfarm payrolls increased only 96,000 last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July, it was largely due to Americans giving up the search for work.
Yeah, that's right -- the anemic job creations numbers are not the reason for the decrease in unemployment. Unemployment dropped because people quit looking for jobs and are therefore no longer counted in the figure used to determine the unemployment rate. The Obama recovery is going so great that Americans are GIVING UP!
Even worse are these numbers.
Both the civilian labor force (154.6 million) and the labor force participation rate (63.5 percent) declined in August. The employment-population ratio, at 58.3 percent, was little changed.
Obama has driven the American worker out of the labor force. Way to go, Barry!
And there is this ominous observation from Reuters.
The economy has experienced three years of growth since the 2007-09 recession, but the expansion has been grudging and the jobless rate has held above 8 percent for more than three years ó the longest stretch since the Great Depression.
If the numbers are that high -- and at a level reached only during what is regarded as the worst economic collapse in modern American history -- can we really say that we are in the midst of some sort of Obama Recovery? Heck, can we quit calling it a recession -- even the "Great Recession". Why don't we call it what it is, a depression of the sort that has not been seen since my parents were infants?
And may I offer this observation to MSNBC's Howard Fineman, once he's done fellating his false god, Barack Obama -- there is absolutely nothing "brilliant" about Barack Obama's claim that it is unpatriotic to question the state of the economy. It is very bad -- and while the problems started during the Bush years, they have magnified greatly under Obama's policies. We don't question whether or not the American people or the American economy can be great -- we are merely looking at the evidence and asserting that those things cannot happen as long as Obama's policies are in place.
I never thought I'd be able to say something like that, given the level of ignorance involved in reaching such depths. However, Representative Yvette Clarke shows that she can plumb those depths with Queen Sheila.
During Stephen Colbert's "Better Know A District" segment, the comedian-cum-political commentator interviewed U.S. Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, who represents New York's 11th District. The results were both humorous and painfully awkward, as the Democratic politician took a hypothetical trip back in time with Colbert, only to claim slavery would still have existed in New York in 1898.
"If you could get in a time machine and go back to 1898, what would you say to those Brooklynites?" Colbert asked in the segment.
"I would say to them, 'Set me free,'" Clarke responded.
Gamely pressing on, Colbert inquired from what would the Congresswoman wish to be free from. "Slavery," Clarke replied.
"Slavery. Really? I didnít realize there was slavery in Brooklyn in 1898," Colbert said, perhaps in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to give the native Brooklyner a do-over.
"Iím pretty sure there was," Clarke responded.
"It sounds like a horrible part of the United States that kept slavery going until 1898," Colbert commented, struggling to keep a straight face.
"Who would be enslaving you in 1898 in New York?" Colbert pressed. According to Clarke, none other than the Dutch.
Slavery was ended in the United States in 1865. It did not exist in the state of new York during that time period. And the Dutch had lost control of the region that Clarke represents in the late 1600s.
And the party ID? Democrat, of course.
I expressed my disagreement with certain aspects of the Hatch Act back when a certain local Democrat activist and blogger ran afoul of it a few years back, but I certainly support other provisions (including some of those he violated). But as bad as that activist/blogger's violations were (and they were bad, but not bad enough to keep him from being elected to the body that runs the Democrat Party here in Texas), they were not as gross as the violations found here in Seattle.
On Wednesday, Cause of Action, a government watchdog group, released documents involving two supervisors at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who may have told employees how to vote in order to keep their job in violation of federal law.
CoA revealed that John J. Hickey, deputy associate administrator for aviation safety at the FAA, told employees at a May 23 staff meeting at the Seattle Flight Standards Division Office that ďif the Republicans win office our jobs may be effected (furloughs)Öif the Democrats win office then our jobs would not be effected [sic],Ē according to one e-mail.
ďTherefore, when Mr. Hickey made the following short summation of comments,Ē another employee wrote in an e-mail, ďĎIf a conservative Republican congress is elected we would probably see continued and/or additional budget cutsÖ If a Democratic congress was elected, thing would probably remain flat.íĒ
ďMy understanding is that more than one employeeís perception was that Mr. Hickey was essentially telling them how to vote if they wanted to keep their job,Ē Ken Snyder, Supervisor for the Seattle FSDO, in an email released by CoA.
Hickey and another FAA supervisor, Raymond Towles, deputy director of flight standards field operations, may have made similar comments at other mandatory meetings at other FAA field offices.
The Hatch Act forbids supervisors to try to influence or coerce subordinates to vote for or against any party or candidate, especially while on duty. These violations are particularly egregious. They need to be fired. Surely even the most partisan observer can agree with that assessment.
Being here in Charlotte, North Carolina, for the 2012 Democratic National Convention, having watched the Republican National Convention religiously on television, one thing that is explicitly different between the two national conventions is the diversity of delegates.
Walking the convention hallways, the arena stairways, and the Charlotte sidewalks, there is every race, creed, color and orientation here. And they are smiling. Why? Because the Democratic Party is home to them. They feel safe here. They feel welcomed here. They feel represented here.
This is in direct contrast to the Republican Party where nine out of ten voters are white and where much of this diversity is unwelcomed or even shunned.
Set aside the bullshit factor found in that last paragraph Ė thereís a reason that there is such diversity at the Democrat convention that Shank fails to mention. The party rules MANDATE it, complete with a quota system (that the Democrats go to great lengths to avoid calling a quota system) to ensure it.
Take, for example, the Maryland plan (found on pages 32-33 of this document) that lists a numerical floor for delegates to represent certain groups Ė including African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, the disabled, and young people. They even require that the at large delegates be selected to make up for shortfalls at the district level. The Texas process is even more convoluted (found on pages 27-29 of this document). Interestingly enough, the Democrats have implemented a system designed to ensure the OVER-REPRESENTATION of these groups, implicitly under-representing and disenfranchising a disfavored group within the electorate in a manner would be deemed to be illegal under civil rights laws if it were any other group.
So yes, professor, there is great diversity. But it isnít a natural diversity that reflects America (after all, these groups are represented all out of proportion to their presence in the American population), but rather an artificially created hyper-diversity that has over the last couple of decades put the Democrats out of touch with the majority of Americans -- and the words of Martin Luther King proclaiming that we should judge people based upon the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
Can anyone really argue that the words of the Democrat in the Oval Office 32 years ago do not fit the situation we face with Obama in the Oval Office today?
Americans did the right thing in 1980, putting out a likeable guy who just was not up to the job. We need to do the same today.
Give a good listen to this clip from a video the Dems showed earlier today at their convention.
Got that -- the government is the only thing we all belong to.
Yes, you did that right -- the Obamunists have now declared that WE BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT!
On the other hand, I'd like to review something said by Clint Eastwood in the single most maligned bit of oratory at last week's GOP convention.
I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we -- we own this country.
We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it.
Translated in terms equivalent to those used in the video above, that means THE GOVERNMENT BELONGS TO US!
In other words, to paraphrase Locke and Jefferson, We the People have instituted this government to protect our rights and our freedoms.
There it is in a nutshell -- what is the relationship between the American people and the government? Are we above the government or below it? Are we the masters of those who operate the levers of government power, or are they our masters? Personally, I believe only one of these views is consistent with the principles of our nation's founding -- and the other is fundamentally unAmerican.
Think government isnít big enough? Michelle Obama wants to make it bigger Ė even bigger than her ample posterior!
Asked by Parade magazine, "What do you hope to accomplish in your second term?Ē First Lady Michelle Obama said she wants to "impact the nature of food in grocery stores" with the aim of cutting sugar, fat and salt. ďWith 'Lets Move!,' our goal is to end the problem of childhood obesity in a generation,Ē Mrs. Obama said. ďAnd while weíve seen some very profound cultural shifts, we still have communities that donít have access to affordable and healthy foods. We still need to find a way to impact the nature of food in grocery stores, in terms of sugar, fat, and salt.Ē
Iíll tell you what, Mrs. Obama Ė you take care of feeding the girls and their idiot father, and the rest of us will make our own decisions free of your influence and the supervision of the nanny state.
It sure looks that way. After all, what are 50 Chicago cops doing working at the Democrat Convention in North Carolina Ė while Chicago is in the middle of another wave of murder and mayhem in the streets?
Only days after Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel asked for federal agents and U.S. Marshals to help combat the city's wave of violence, about 50 Chicago police officers have arrived in Charlotte to work perimeter security details for a week at the Democratic National Convention.
The Chicago officers, in their distinctive uniforms and checkerboard-brimmed hats, said they had been instructed not to talk with reporters about their out-of-town assignment.
A Charlotte police department spokesperson confirmed that "roughly 50 officers from Chicago" were on duty at the convention.
"These are officers on their days off and were specially trained as mobile field force officers for the recent NATO summit in Chicago," said a spokesperson for the Chicago police department, Melissa Stratton.
Now I have a question Ė if they are down there ďon their days offĒ, on what basis are they operating under instructions to not talk to reporters? Whatís more, how is it that a whole group of specially trained officers just happen to be available for this work with conveniently scheduled days off? Doesnít Chicago need those cops with that special training now? Also, who is paying these officers, and who authorized the payments and the extra-duty assignments if these truly are officers on their off days. These questions need to be fully investigated by someone Ė not that the Obama lapdog media or the Obama Justice Department will look into the matter.
And in the mean time, people are dying in the streets of Chicago.
Two stories stand in stark contrast.
President Obama gave himself an "incomplete" when asked in Colorado over the weekend to grade his first term.
"I would say incomplete," Obama told Colorado's KKTV 11, in an interview aired Monday evening. "But what I would say is the steps that we have taken in saving the auto industry, in making sure that college is more affordable and investing in clean energy and science and technology and research, those are all the things that we are going to need to grow over the long term."
Never mind that all of those steps have failed to accomplish their goals and we are living in an economy worse than when he came into office Ė Obama seems to think that his policies are working and that we should wait until later to assign him a grade.
The American people, however, have noted that the Constitution has set a date for the grade to be turned in Ė and as that date approaches in November, they have assessed Obamaís work thus far to be a failure.
A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in ďworse conditionĒ now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.
Seems to me that Barry Hussein has an unrealistic view of his performance that is outside the mainstream.
"I'm not sure I'm going to state this exactly right," she said, sitting amidst a sea of convention-related activity and daytime wine drinkers in the Westin hotel lobby in downtown Charlotte. "But I think there are some who believe they are actually protecting women, you know, and that it is better for women to be taken care of. I think women want to take care of themselves, and I think having a voice in how that is done is very important. And frankly, I donít understand -- I mean, I'm obviously a card-carrying Democrat -- but I can't understand why any woman would want to vote for Mitt Romney, except maybe Mrs. Romney."
Given the misogyny that floats around the Democrat Party, I canít understand why any woman would want to vote for any Democrat. Look at how they have treated Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, and other prominent Republican women over the years. Heck, consider how they treated Bill Clintonís long trail of victims Ė and the fact that he is a featured speaker at a convention that will supposedly be about exposing the alleged GOP ďWar on WomenĒ.
Face it Ė Republicans want every American to be given the opportunity to succeed. On the other hand, Democrats want everyone to become a ward of the nanny state.
Well, maybe not always Ė sometimes, as Albright says, they want women to take care of themselves. After all, wasnít it Bill Clinton who said ďďYou better put some ice on that.Ē
Forget the milestones of obtaining a driver's license at 16 and being able to legally drink at 21 - getting sterilized at 15 is now the first step in the social maturity process of an American youth.
The "Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines" set forth by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states: "Non-grandfathered plans and issuers are required to provide coverage without cost-sharing consistent with these guidelines in the first plan year.that begins on or after August 1, 2012.All [FDA] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity."
Under Oregon State Law, the state's revised statutes (ORS) defines "informed consent" for 15-year-olds independently pursuing reproductive sterilization as being "(a) Based upon a full understanding of the nature and consequences of sterilization pursuant to information requirements set forth in ORS 436.225(1); (b) Given by an individual competent to make such a decision; and (c) Wholly voluntary and free from coercion, express or implied."
Someone will argue that this is Oregonís law and not a federal statute. However, because of Obamacare the rules and regulations in every state are or will be similar to this. What this means is that Iím not allowed to give an aspirin to my students who are fifteen and our school nurse can do so only with written parental permission Ė but these same kids can get a life-changing invasive surgical procedure without any parental involvement whatsoever. Thatís incredible Ė and shocking.
By the way Ė Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out that the Democrat platform adopted now endorses the notion of women being able to get abortions ďregardless of ability to payĒ Ė which means that someone, namely the taxpayer, will be picking up the tab. So I ask again Ė are Obamacare (and Obama) values in line with those of the American people?
Donít you love it when hypocritical liberal 1%-ers act to avoid paying their fair share of taxes?
Actor Johnny Depp has moved out of France and returned to America because he didnít want to become a permanent French resident and pay income tax there. ÖDepp has now moved his family out of France after government officials asked him to become a permanent resident, as he feared he would end up paying tax in both countries. He tells Britainís The Guardian newspaper, ďÖFrance wanted a piece of me. They wanted me to become a permanent resident. Permanent residency status Ė which changes everything. They just wantÖ Dough. MoneyÖ Ē Depp goes on to explain that if he spends more than 183 days a year in France he will have to pay income tax in both Europe and America, adding, ďSo you essentially work for free.Ē
Odd Ė I thought thatís what liberals have said the top 1% should have to do Ė and certainly the semi-talented Mr. Depp has enough money squirreled away to live on the interest from his bank accounts and investments for the rest of his life without being allowed to keep a penny of what he earns from his new films.
So tell me Ė when will we hear the condemnation of Johnny Depp by all those who say the rich donít pay enough in taxes?
Not that I object to people of faith being involved in politics, and not that I believe that government should be taking tax exemptions from churches over political activity Ė but it is the law, after all. And this does raise some questions.
College students from across North Carolina will arrive in Charlotte by the busload. Same with members of predominantly black churches in neighboring South Carolina.
Their goal: help fill a 74,000-seat outdoor stadium to capacity when President Obama accepts the Democratic nomination Thursday night.
* * *
Lonnie Randolph, the president of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP, said several large black churches in his state are planning to send busloads of members on Thursday to watch the president's speech.
Churches will be loading up their buses to take members to a political event? That certainly appears to cross a line into partisan activity that the tax code says should cost a church its tax exemption.
Of course, that wonít happen. Because this is the Obama Administration, and they donít enforce the law against their supporters. And besides, the IRS only applies the no partisan activity rules to white churches Ė black churches have always been allowed to violate those regulations with impunity and to function as adjuncts of the Democrat Party.
Still, one can hope that one day equal protection of the laws comes into play and that white and black churches get treated the same. Maybe this will be the time.
And if anyone can get a list of the churches taking members to this partisan event, Iíd love to publicize them here Ė and to file complaints against them with the IRS in the hope that we can get a little bit of equal treatment.
I loved the original Star trek series. I loved Star Trek: The next Generation. I even enjoyed Deep Space 9 and Voyager, though I sometimes fell away from those series due to events in my life. And I mourned Enterprise, because it was a show of great potential that was never permitted to become all that it could.
And frankly, I love the reboot, and look forward to the next installment of the newly revised universe.
But let's be honest -- there are characters from the older shows who have a place in my heart and who I would love to see again.
That is why this excites me so.
Geek favorites Bryan Fuller and Bryan Singer have been forthcoming about their hopes for bringing Star Trek back to the small screen, after the release of J.J. Abramsí elusive sequel to his Trek movie reboot next summer. However, it turns out those two arenít the only ones with big dreams about a new TV series set in that sci-fi universe Ė Michael Dorn is also taking steps to reprise his signature Trek role on a spinoff, tentatively titled Star Trek: Captain Worf.
Worf, Son of Mogh, of course, is the first Klingon main character on a Star Trek TV series. He appeared on The Next Generation throughout its seven-season run, then became a Deep Space Nine regular for its last four seasons. Dorn portrayed Worf in all four Next Generation films; in addition, he played Worfís grandfather, Colonel Worf, in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.Rumors and reports about a prospective Worf spinoff began circulating earlier this year Ė which, perhaps not-so-coincidentally, marks the 25th anniversary of The Next Generation. Trek News caught up with recently with Dorn, who gave them the following exclusive ďscoopĒ on the project:
ďI had come up with the idea because I love [Worf] and I think heís a character that hasnít been fully developed and hasnít been fully realized. Once I started thinking about it, it became obvious to me that I wanted to at least put it out there, which I have, and the response has been pretty amazing. Weíve been contacted by different individualsĖI canít say who and all thatĖabout wanting to come on board and be part of this. Ē
This could be the start of something really good, especially if some of the creative minds behind the earlier incarnations of Star Trek -- and some of the authors who have kept the franchise alive in text format -- get involved and invested.
Pakistani police arrested a Muslim cleric who allegedly tampered with evidence submitted in the case against a Christian girl accused of desecrating a Quran, an investigating officer said Sunday, the latest twist in a religiously charged affair that has focused attention on the countryís harsh blasphemy laws.
The case against the Christian girl accused of burning pages of a Quran has sparked controversy at home and abroad in large part because of her age and questions about her mental capacity. It also has triggered an exodus of hundreds of Christians from the neighborhood where the girl lived, fearful of retribution by their Muslim neighbors outraged by the alleged desecration of Islamís holy book.
The cleric, Khalid Chishti, was arrested late Saturday for allegedly planting pages of a Quran in a shopping bag containing burned papers and ash that had been carried by the Christian girl, said Munir Jaffery, an investigating officer in the case. The bag was then submitted as evidence to the police.
Jaffery said a member of the mosque where the cleric works came forward Saturday and said man said the imam had placed the evidence in the bag. According to police, the man claimed Chishti said it was a way to get rid of the Christians.
So let's get this straight -- the imam trashed the Quran in an attempt to get the child killed and the Christians driven from their homes. It certainly seems have provoked at least one murder.
I'd love to say I found all this shocking. Unfortunately, I don't -- it is just par for the course among the extremists of Islam. And a big hat tip to Bob Owens for noting that those who attend the mosque are standing with their imam and still say his innocent victim should die.
Falsani: Do you believe in sin?
Falsani: What is sin?
Obama: Being out of alignment with my values.
Ordinarily, religious believers thing sin is being out of alignment with God's values. Well, given his cult of personality, maybe we are learning exactly what Obama believes regarding God.
Yeah, his religious faith is somewhat "unorthodox" by Christian standards -- but Sun Myung Moon was certainly influential in some parts of the world.
The Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the self-proclaimed messiah who turned his Unification Church into a worldwide religious movement and befriended North Korean leaders as well as U.S. presidents, has died, church officials said Monday. He was 92.
Moon died Monday at a church-owned hospital near his home in Gapyeong, northeast of Seoul, two weeks after being hospitalized with pneumonia, Unification Church spokesman Ahn Ho-yeul told The Associated Press. Moon's wife and children were at his side, Ahn said.
Moon, born in a town that is now in North Korea, founded his religious movement in Seoul in 1954 after surviving the Korean War. He preached new interpretations of lessons from the Bible.
The church gained fame ó and notoriety ó in the 1970s and 1980s for holding mass weddings of thousands of followers, often from different countries, whom Moon matched up in a bid to build a multicultural religious world.
May he rest in peace -- and may his family and those who followed and admired the man find comfort in their faith in this time of loss.
OK, here are this weekís full results:
See you next week!