Sat, Sept. 22, 2012
Egotistical president confuses the privilege to serve with slave ownership.
Click here for video
H/T: ExposingObama.com
Saturday, September 22, 2012
More Americans Added to Food Stamps Than Find Jobs
10:30 AM, Sep 21, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
The Weekly Standard:
An alarming data point from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee: More Americans are being added to food stamps than are finding jobs. The data is detailed in this chart, provided by the committee:
As the chart shows, between April-June 2012 (the most recent three month block for which government data is available), only 200,000 jobs have been created while 265,000 individuals have been added to the food stamp rolls. Additionally, in that time period, 246,000 workers were awarded disability.
Another chart shows that the last three month block is part of a larger trend. The chart, also from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, shows that "Workforce Shrinks Since January 2009 While Millions Sign Up For Disability And Food Stamps."
As the chart shows, since January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, the net change jobs has been negative (-1.3 million), while 5.7 million workers and dependents have been awarded disability and a whopping 15.1 million have been added to the food stamp rolls.
"A total of 46,670,373 Americans are now on food stamps," according to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. "The food stamp program has doubled in size since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001."
And the government program isn't cheap: "Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $770 billion over the next decade."
The Weekly Standard:
An alarming data point from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee: More Americans are being added to food stamps than are finding jobs. The data is detailed in this chart, provided by the committee:
As the chart shows, between April-June 2012 (the most recent three month block for which government data is available), only 200,000 jobs have been created while 265,000 individuals have been added to the food stamp rolls. Additionally, in that time period, 246,000 workers were awarded disability.
Another chart shows that the last three month block is part of a larger trend. The chart, also from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, shows that "Workforce Shrinks Since January 2009 While Millions Sign Up For Disability And Food Stamps."
As the chart shows, since January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, the net change jobs has been negative (-1.3 million), while 5.7 million workers and dependents have been awarded disability and a whopping 15.1 million have been added to the food stamp rolls.
"A total of 46,670,373 Americans are now on food stamps," according to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. "The food stamp program has doubled in size since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001."
And the government program isn't cheap: "Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $770 billion over the next decade."
Video:Obama Lied About Bin Laden Raid (Part 2)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jXOGerKjkaw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
(Editor’s note:Watch Part 1 here.)
Obama leaked top secret details of the Bin Laden raid within hours of the Seal Team 6 mission. He invited Hollywood to the CIA to be briefed about the mission,so that a blockbuster movie would be ready by November starring Barry Obama as the leading man. He continuously fed information to the New York Times to present himself as the greatest Commander-in-Chief this country had ever known.
Of course,leaking—or hemorrhaging may be a better word—massive amounts of top secret information put all those involved in the mission at risk:from the Black Hawk pilots to the Seal Team 6 members to their families. Apparently,putting Americans at risk was well worth it to Obama in order to guarantee his reelection.
With literally every bit of information out there already spilled except the names of the SEALS,why then would Team Obama be steaming mad about Mark Owen’s recently published book,No Easy Day:The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama Bin Laden? Team Obama is threatening Owen with criminal charges for spilling state secrets. But why? If all of the information is already out there,why bother?
Because Obama lied about the Bin Laden raid.
Obama literally lied through his teeth about the raid,from the so-called “firefight” between the SEALs and Bin Laden to his role in the raid. Per Owen,there was no “firefight.” In fact,Owen shows that not only did Bin Laden not fire a weapon,but the weapons he had weren’t even loaded.
In the Tom Hanks-narrated propaganda film,The Road We’ve Travelled,Obama is presented as being in the Situation Room,receiving live video from the raid,being on the edge of his seat. As Owen shows,this was one of many other lies Obama advanced. In fact,all Obama had was a video feed from a drone 10,000 feet in the air,in which the helicopter was nothing but a speck;and in fact when one of the Black Hawks crashed,Obama thought it had “parked” in the compound’s courtyard.
Owen shows Bin Laden for what he is—a coward—and by implication shows Obama a coward for using the SEALS as a prop for his reelection campaign by perpetuating lies.
The question is,who is more of a coward? Bin Laden,for sending his followers into battle,flying planes into buildings—something he himself was too much of a coward to do? Or Barack Obama,who lied about the Bin Laden raid and used SEAL Team 6 as a prop to help get himself reelected?
I say both are cowards,and both should be despised.
SOURCE: ExposeObama.com
(Editor’s note:Watch Part 1 here.)
Obama leaked top secret details of the Bin Laden raid within hours of the Seal Team 6 mission. He invited Hollywood to the CIA to be briefed about the mission,so that a blockbuster movie would be ready by November starring Barry Obama as the leading man. He continuously fed information to the New York Times to present himself as the greatest Commander-in-Chief this country had ever known.
Of course,leaking—or hemorrhaging may be a better word—massive amounts of top secret information put all those involved in the mission at risk:from the Black Hawk pilots to the Seal Team 6 members to their families. Apparently,putting Americans at risk was well worth it to Obama in order to guarantee his reelection.
With literally every bit of information out there already spilled except the names of the SEALS,why then would Team Obama be steaming mad about Mark Owen’s recently published book,No Easy Day:The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama Bin Laden? Team Obama is threatening Owen with criminal charges for spilling state secrets. But why? If all of the information is already out there,why bother?
Because Obama lied about the Bin Laden raid.
Obama literally lied through his teeth about the raid,from the so-called “firefight” between the SEALs and Bin Laden to his role in the raid. Per Owen,there was no “firefight.” In fact,Owen shows that not only did Bin Laden not fire a weapon,but the weapons he had weren’t even loaded.
In the Tom Hanks-narrated propaganda film,The Road We’ve Travelled,Obama is presented as being in the Situation Room,receiving live video from the raid,being on the edge of his seat. As Owen shows,this was one of many other lies Obama advanced. In fact,all Obama had was a video feed from a drone 10,000 feet in the air,in which the helicopter was nothing but a speck;and in fact when one of the Black Hawks crashed,Obama thought it had “parked” in the compound’s courtyard.
Owen shows Bin Laden for what he is—a coward—and by implication shows Obama a coward for using the SEALS as a prop for his reelection campaign by perpetuating lies.
The question is,who is more of a coward? Bin Laden,for sending his followers into battle,flying planes into buildings—something he himself was too much of a coward to do? Or Barack Obama,who lied about the Bin Laden raid and used SEAL Team 6 as a prop to help get himself reelected?
I say both are cowards,and both should be despised.
SOURCE: ExposeObama.com
Day of Rage – Bangladeshi Protesters Torch Coffin of Obama in Dhaka (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, September 21, 2012, 8:12 AM
(The Gateway Pundit) - In Dhaka thousands of protesters marched and torched a “coffin” of Obama:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YgzJfmrx_cA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
10,000 Bangladeshis protested the US today and torched a coffin of Obama.
Lebanon NOW reported:
About 10,000 Bangladeshis took to the streets of Dhaka on Friday to demonstrate against an anti-Islam film made in the US and cartoons in a French satirical magazine caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed.
The protesters, many carrying banners from half a dozen Islamist groups, burnt an effigy of Barack Obama outside the national Baitul Mokarram Mosque, the country’s largest, after Friday prayers.
They also set fire to a French flag as they carried placards and banners reading “Obama, you are a cheater”, “Protest the disgrace of Prophet Muhammed!”
Security was tightened around the protest area with the deployment of hundreds of police and elite Rapid Action Battalion, armored personnel carriers and water cannon.
(The Gateway Pundit) - In Dhaka thousands of protesters marched and torched a “coffin” of Obama:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YgzJfmrx_cA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
10,000 Bangladeshis protested the US today and torched a coffin of Obama.
Lebanon NOW reported:
About 10,000 Bangladeshis took to the streets of Dhaka on Friday to demonstrate against an anti-Islam film made in the US and cartoons in a French satirical magazine caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed.
The protesters, many carrying banners from half a dozen Islamist groups, burnt an effigy of Barack Obama outside the national Baitul Mokarram Mosque, the country’s largest, after Friday prayers.
They also set fire to a French flag as they carried placards and banners reading “Obama, you are a cheater”, “Protest the disgrace of Prophet Muhammed!”
Security was tightened around the protest area with the deployment of hundreds of police and elite Rapid Action Battalion, armored personnel carriers and water cannon.
LIBYA MURDERS: THE BUCK STOPS WITH OBAMA
Obama Failed: The Terrorist Murders of Americans in Libya
by Larry O'Connor
21 Sep 2012
(Breitbart.com) - Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated on September 11th by al-Qaeda terrorists in Libya. He and three other Americans were brutally and savagely murdered at the hands of America's enemies. The Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department were warned about the attacks. They should have seen it coming. Ambassador Stevens did.
The death of these Americans and the projection of weakness and humiliation of the United States to the Middle East is a direct result of President Barack Obama's fecklessness and incompetence. The attacks happened on his watch and represent the biggest failure of his tenure as Commander-in-Chief.
It has been ten days since the bloody attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the assassination of Amb. Stevens, and the facts paint a bleak picture of a disengaged and aloof Commander-in-Chief and a Secretary of State more concerned about the United States' image rather than the well-being of the diplomats in her charge.
On September 10th, the eve of the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a new video was released by al-Qaeda spiritual leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri calling Libyans to rise up against Americans and avenge the death of Al Qaeda #2 Abu-Yahya al-Libi, who had been killed by a US drone attack in June. Contemporaneous accounts of the video make no mention of any reference to the anti-Islam YouTube video that is now being blamed for the recent Middle East violence.
The al-Qaeda video calling for revenge for the death of Abu-Yahya al-Libi is significant to the attacks in Libya because Abu-Yahya was from Libya. Hence the suffix to his name "al-Libi." Libyan terrorists and Islamists knew Abu-Yaha well. He was a hero to the Islamist extremists in that country. The announcement of his "martyrdom" would surely have a significant resonance on the "Arab Street" of Libya. Add to that the built-in significance of the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and even an amateur observer of world events would see a security concern brewing in Libya.
According to a source close to Ambassador Stevens, the US diplomat was worried about his personal safety and "never-ending" security threats in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack. CNN reports that "Stevens specifically mentioned a rise in Islamic extremism and al Qaeda's growing presence in Libya" to the source close to him.
But, rather than respond to the obvious threats in a manner that emphasized the security and well-being of our American citizens serving in the most dangerous region in the world, our State Department's official Rules of Engagement (ROE) in Libya was to "keep a low profile." To that end, rather than use the Marine Embassy Guard in Libya, the Clinton State Department employed a British firm, because they would accept the primary condition of the ROE in Libya which included a "no bullet" policy. In other words, the objective to maintain a "low profile" was so paramount in Libya that the State Department sent un-armed security in despite the clear and present danger to our people and our interests as evidenced by the al-Qaeda video and Amb. Stevens' own concerns.
It is possible that President Obama was unaware of the threats facing our diplomats in Libya, considering the evidence that suggests he did not attend face-to-face intelligence briefings for the days leading up to the September 11th anniversary. If he did read the briefings as his administration claims, there is no evidence that he did anything about the threats. When the armed terrorists stormed the mission in Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens was left virtually undefended and abandoned by this President on a day when all Americans are instinctively on their guard and prepared for a reprisal of the horrific events from 2001. The unspeakable horror that awaited Stevens and the three other Americans who relied on Obama and Clinton to protect them is now a matter of history, but the Obama White House continues to attempt to re-write that history with distractions and obfuscation.
For days after the Libya attacks, the White House continued to conjoin the al-Qaeda inspired siege of our mission with street demonstrations in Cairo and Yemen over a YouTube video. On Sunday the 16th, US Ambassador the the UN Dr. Susan Rice continued to claim that the Libya attack began as a demonstration against the video and then got out of hand. Last night on Univision, President Obama continued to link the Libya attacks with the YouTube video by claiming, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose over the video were used by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” However, CBS News reports that eyewitnesses in Benghazi claim there were no protests at the mission, "natural" or otherwise.
Facts:
Amb. Stevens was aware and concerned about the growing terrorist threat in Libya.
Clinton's State Department chose to use un-armed security from Britain rather than the US Marine Embassy Guard for protection.
On September 10th, al-Qaeda called specifically for Libyans to target Americans to avenge the death of an al-Qaeda leader.
On September 11th, heavily armed terrorists attacked the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi and murdered Amb. Stevens and three other Americans.
President Obama was either unable or unwilling to protect American Citizens who were under threat from Islamist Terrorists. And now, despite all of those facts, he continues to deny they were even under threat, and instead attempts to scapegoat a YouTube video.
It seems clear that killing Osama bin Laden does not a foreign policy make.
by Larry O'Connor
21 Sep 2012
(Breitbart.com) - Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated on September 11th by al-Qaeda terrorists in Libya. He and three other Americans were brutally and savagely murdered at the hands of America's enemies. The Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department were warned about the attacks. They should have seen it coming. Ambassador Stevens did.
The death of these Americans and the projection of weakness and humiliation of the United States to the Middle East is a direct result of President Barack Obama's fecklessness and incompetence. The attacks happened on his watch and represent the biggest failure of his tenure as Commander-in-Chief.
It has been ten days since the bloody attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the assassination of Amb. Stevens, and the facts paint a bleak picture of a disengaged and aloof Commander-in-Chief and a Secretary of State more concerned about the United States' image rather than the well-being of the diplomats in her charge.
On September 10th, the eve of the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a new video was released by al-Qaeda spiritual leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri calling Libyans to rise up against Americans and avenge the death of Al Qaeda #2 Abu-Yahya al-Libi, who had been killed by a US drone attack in June. Contemporaneous accounts of the video make no mention of any reference to the anti-Islam YouTube video that is now being blamed for the recent Middle East violence.
The al-Qaeda video calling for revenge for the death of Abu-Yahya al-Libi is significant to the attacks in Libya because Abu-Yahya was from Libya. Hence the suffix to his name "al-Libi." Libyan terrorists and Islamists knew Abu-Yaha well. He was a hero to the Islamist extremists in that country. The announcement of his "martyrdom" would surely have a significant resonance on the "Arab Street" of Libya. Add to that the built-in significance of the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and even an amateur observer of world events would see a security concern brewing in Libya.
According to a source close to Ambassador Stevens, the US diplomat was worried about his personal safety and "never-ending" security threats in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack. CNN reports that "Stevens specifically mentioned a rise in Islamic extremism and al Qaeda's growing presence in Libya" to the source close to him.
But, rather than respond to the obvious threats in a manner that emphasized the security and well-being of our American citizens serving in the most dangerous region in the world, our State Department's official Rules of Engagement (ROE) in Libya was to "keep a low profile." To that end, rather than use the Marine Embassy Guard in Libya, the Clinton State Department employed a British firm, because they would accept the primary condition of the ROE in Libya which included a "no bullet" policy. In other words, the objective to maintain a "low profile" was so paramount in Libya that the State Department sent un-armed security in despite the clear and present danger to our people and our interests as evidenced by the al-Qaeda video and Amb. Stevens' own concerns.
It is possible that President Obama was unaware of the threats facing our diplomats in Libya, considering the evidence that suggests he did not attend face-to-face intelligence briefings for the days leading up to the September 11th anniversary. If he did read the briefings as his administration claims, there is no evidence that he did anything about the threats. When the armed terrorists stormed the mission in Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens was left virtually undefended and abandoned by this President on a day when all Americans are instinctively on their guard and prepared for a reprisal of the horrific events from 2001. The unspeakable horror that awaited Stevens and the three other Americans who relied on Obama and Clinton to protect them is now a matter of history, but the Obama White House continues to attempt to re-write that history with distractions and obfuscation.
For days after the Libya attacks, the White House continued to conjoin the al-Qaeda inspired siege of our mission with street demonstrations in Cairo and Yemen over a YouTube video. On Sunday the 16th, US Ambassador the the UN Dr. Susan Rice continued to claim that the Libya attack began as a demonstration against the video and then got out of hand. Last night on Univision, President Obama continued to link the Libya attacks with the YouTube video by claiming, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose over the video were used by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” However, CBS News reports that eyewitnesses in Benghazi claim there were no protests at the mission, "natural" or otherwise.
Facts:
Amb. Stevens was aware and concerned about the growing terrorist threat in Libya.
Clinton's State Department chose to use un-armed security from Britain rather than the US Marine Embassy Guard for protection.
On September 10th, al-Qaeda called specifically for Libyans to target Americans to avenge the death of an al-Qaeda leader.
On September 11th, heavily armed terrorists attacked the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi and murdered Amb. Stevens and three other Americans.
President Obama was either unable or unwilling to protect American Citizens who were under threat from Islamist Terrorists. And now, despite all of those facts, he continues to deny they were even under threat, and instead attempts to scapegoat a YouTube video.
It seems clear that killing Osama bin Laden does not a foreign policy make.
Pelosi: If We Win We'll Change Constitution on Day 1
Pelosi: Democrats will amend Constitution to overturn ‘Citizens United’ if they control House [VIDEO]
<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?height=360&embedCode=F5NG14NTrchx_VzFHi3x0ec2WvBroHm7&video_pcode=k4Nmw6Cri746xA2OsoSlngyrIudg&width=640&deepLinkEmbedCode=F5NG14NTrchx_VzFHi3x0ec2WvBroHm7"></script>
Published: 6:14 PM 09/20/2012
By Nicholas Ballasy
(DailyCaller.com) - If Democrats were to take control of the House of Representatives after the November elections, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said her party would “amend the [U.S.] Constitution” on the “very first day” to overturn the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision.
President Obama said he supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling and keep undisclosed corporate contributions out of elections.
“On the very first day we would have a jobs bill. We would have a jobs bill, much of it would contain what President Obama has in the American Jobs Act. It would be as simple as A-B-C. Make it in America. Build America’s infrastructure. See developed growth from the community. And that means education of our children, the police and fire safety of our neighborhoods, that sense of community and fairness,” Pelosi said during her weekly press briefing Thursday on Capitol Hill.
“We would pass a DISCLOSE Act. ‘I’m Nancy Pelosi, I approve this message’ — but Mr. Big Bucks who put hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to get tax breaks for their industry or their heirs, they don’t have to disclose their names. So DISCLOSE: Amend the Constitution to overturn ‘Citizens United.’”
Pelosi said Democrats would “reform the whole [of] money in politics” and change the system to require “public financing of campaigns.”
She added that such a new system would result in the election of reformers.
“I don’t care if they are Democrats or Republicans. Elect reformers who will save our democracy, keeping it the government of the many — not the government of the money. And that would be what our first day would look like,” Pelosi said.
The DISCLOSE Act would “amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.”
<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?height=360&embedCode=F5NG14NTrchx_VzFHi3x0ec2WvBroHm7&video_pcode=k4Nmw6Cri746xA2OsoSlngyrIudg&width=640&deepLinkEmbedCode=F5NG14NTrchx_VzFHi3x0ec2WvBroHm7"></script>
Published: 6:14 PM 09/20/2012
By Nicholas Ballasy
(DailyCaller.com) - If Democrats were to take control of the House of Representatives after the November elections, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said her party would “amend the [U.S.] Constitution” on the “very first day” to overturn the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision.
President Obama said he supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling and keep undisclosed corporate contributions out of elections.
“On the very first day we would have a jobs bill. We would have a jobs bill, much of it would contain what President Obama has in the American Jobs Act. It would be as simple as A-B-C. Make it in America. Build America’s infrastructure. See developed growth from the community. And that means education of our children, the police and fire safety of our neighborhoods, that sense of community and fairness,” Pelosi said during her weekly press briefing Thursday on Capitol Hill.
“We would pass a DISCLOSE Act. ‘I’m Nancy Pelosi, I approve this message’ — but Mr. Big Bucks who put hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to get tax breaks for their industry or their heirs, they don’t have to disclose their names. So DISCLOSE: Amend the Constitution to overturn ‘Citizens United.’”
Pelosi said Democrats would “reform the whole [of] money in politics” and change the system to require “public financing of campaigns.”
She added that such a new system would result in the election of reformers.
“I don’t care if they are Democrats or Republicans. Elect reformers who will save our democracy, keeping it the government of the many — not the government of the money. And that would be what our first day would look like,” Pelosi said.
The DISCLOSE Act would “amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.”
VIDEO ALERT: COLLECTIVISM – Obama’s Words, How he is Openly Destroying the USA
September 20, 2012, 12:25 pm By Sher Zieve
Gulag Note:
Be sure to see the video. Obama calls for a Marx/Trotsky-style, centrally-controlled, “democratic” collective, much as Mitt Romney described in his secretly videoed, “47%” statements. Obama also portrays in a few chosen words the post-USSR version of global neo-Marxism, an enslaved “capitalism” of state controlled markets, also called corporatism, the core of 20th Century fascism and something now done in Russia, China, increasingly in the European states, and in South America — and now, here.
This video of Obama’s self-confessed philosophy, of the Marxist sabotage of free America is corroborative of the just-released “redistribution” video, but far more damning. Is it not being shown by “mainstream media?”
col·lec·tiv·ism – [kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm]
noun
the political principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production.
from dictionary.com
Please be sure to “spread the wealth” of this critical information to voters. It is up to us, to defeat the control that comes from the anti-American, phony “top,” down.
“…with the collapse of communism I think we recognize that markets are gonna happen,
but having said all that…
…we collectively can decide on our fate…
…markets… are… under our control…”
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xsobm33ATC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“Obama calls for ‘democracy with a small d’; Pushes society based on collectivism, ‘common good’“
Barack Hussein Obama and his syndicate have been caught in yet another huge lie that is designed to destroy what’s left of our country. The Obama Tyranny Project is now–finally–saying that the Libyan/Egyptian/Tunisian and dozens more Islamist-run countries’ rioting and wanton murdering hordes actions were not due to any obscure anti-Islam film. They are, however, refusing to admit the truth…that all of the Muslim Mayhem is due to Obama’s Middle East appeasement policies. We show weakness…we get hit. Simple stuff for the even the moderately aware. We know that tortured and murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens knew he had been placed on a hit-list and still he did not have an assigned security detail. That’s Obama’s fault.
So, now, the Obama syndicate is considering releasing the “Blind Sheik” (who engineered the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993) from US custody in order to appease his real friends and colleagues (the ones he has appointed to top security positions in the USA)–the Muslim Brotherhood–who is instigating the new Middle Eastern violence and barbarism.
Note: For those who still don’t know, Al-Qaeda, Hamas and multiple other terrorist organizations are the offspring of Obama’s pals the Muslim Brotherhood.
By the way, did you know that the Obama syndicate’s EPA is planning to issue ration cards with a four-gallon limit mandate…thus, effectively, immobilizing a great deal of the population? Stalinist tactics. As is a smaller one, a less mobile population is easier to control. And, recently, videos have been unearthed (from 1995 and 1998) in which Obama states he wants to redistribute our country’s wealth (take from the producers [you and me]), give it to the non-productive and transfer much of it to poorer and less-to-non-productive countries overseas. Obama also discusses his belief in establishing a [Communist] “collective.” In other words, we work for it and the non-working ObamaBuds are allowed to take it from us. That is how totalitarians justify stealing everything from countries and totally decimating them. They begin by lying that “it’s for the poor” or “it’s for the children” and then they end up keeping the lion’s share for themselves.
Obama has, also, effectively installed ObamaCare against the will of the American people (which has nothing to do with health care but, everything to do with confiscation of more of our $$$) that the CBO now says will bankrupt us even faster. He has issued one Executive Order after another that takes away our liberties. He has sided with the radical Islamists against both the USA and its people, while the fully collaborative and completely corrupted leftist media applaud everything the tyrant says and does as they cover up his lies and real anti-American work that he and his syndicate are affecting against us all.
The above are only a few more of the recent atrocities The Obama has affected. Every day these nefarious and monstrous acts against we US citizens (on both the left and the right of the political scales) are becoming more perverse. And…yet…the polls show Obama taking the lead over Romney? Are we really supposed to believe polls from far-left Marxist supporters? Let’s don’t believe them, folks. These polls are designed to depress and defeat us…so that we won’t bother to vote.
There is only one–current–way to defeat them in a non-violent way; that of voting in such huge and unprecedented numbers that the Marxist-Democrat voter fraud will be completely overwhelmed. We need to vote in greater numbers than we did in 2010. We must vote against all Democrats. After we take back the Office of the President of the United States and both Houses of Congress, we can and will then work on ridding ourselves of the RINOs. Sound like a plan? May God be with us…otherwise our country will be lost forever.
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”
–Plato
SOURCE: Gulag Bound
Gulag Note:
Be sure to see the video. Obama calls for a Marx/Trotsky-style, centrally-controlled, “democratic” collective, much as Mitt Romney described in his secretly videoed, “47%” statements. Obama also portrays in a few chosen words the post-USSR version of global neo-Marxism, an enslaved “capitalism” of state controlled markets, also called corporatism, the core of 20th Century fascism and something now done in Russia, China, increasingly in the European states, and in South America — and now, here.
This video of Obama’s self-confessed philosophy, of the Marxist sabotage of free America is corroborative of the just-released “redistribution” video, but far more damning. Is it not being shown by “mainstream media?”
col·lec·tiv·ism – [kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm]
noun
the political principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production.
from dictionary.com
Please be sure to “spread the wealth” of this critical information to voters. It is up to us, to defeat the control that comes from the anti-American, phony “top,” down.
“…with the collapse of communism I think we recognize that markets are gonna happen,
but having said all that…
…we collectively can decide on our fate…
…markets… are… under our control…”
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xsobm33ATC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“Obama calls for ‘democracy with a small d’; Pushes society based on collectivism, ‘common good’“
Barack Hussein Obama and his syndicate have been caught in yet another huge lie that is designed to destroy what’s left of our country. The Obama Tyranny Project is now–finally–saying that the Libyan/Egyptian/Tunisian and dozens more Islamist-run countries’ rioting and wanton murdering hordes actions were not due to any obscure anti-Islam film. They are, however, refusing to admit the truth…that all of the Muslim Mayhem is due to Obama’s Middle East appeasement policies. We show weakness…we get hit. Simple stuff for the even the moderately aware. We know that tortured and murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens knew he had been placed on a hit-list and still he did not have an assigned security detail. That’s Obama’s fault.
So, now, the Obama syndicate is considering releasing the “Blind Sheik” (who engineered the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993) from US custody in order to appease his real friends and colleagues (the ones he has appointed to top security positions in the USA)–the Muslim Brotherhood–who is instigating the new Middle Eastern violence and barbarism.
Note: For those who still don’t know, Al-Qaeda, Hamas and multiple other terrorist organizations are the offspring of Obama’s pals the Muslim Brotherhood.
By the way, did you know that the Obama syndicate’s EPA is planning to issue ration cards with a four-gallon limit mandate…thus, effectively, immobilizing a great deal of the population? Stalinist tactics. As is a smaller one, a less mobile population is easier to control. And, recently, videos have been unearthed (from 1995 and 1998) in which Obama states he wants to redistribute our country’s wealth (take from the producers [you and me]), give it to the non-productive and transfer much of it to poorer and less-to-non-productive countries overseas. Obama also discusses his belief in establishing a [Communist] “collective.” In other words, we work for it and the non-working ObamaBuds are allowed to take it from us. That is how totalitarians justify stealing everything from countries and totally decimating them. They begin by lying that “it’s for the poor” or “it’s for the children” and then they end up keeping the lion’s share for themselves.
Obama has, also, effectively installed ObamaCare against the will of the American people (which has nothing to do with health care but, everything to do with confiscation of more of our $$$) that the CBO now says will bankrupt us even faster. He has issued one Executive Order after another that takes away our liberties. He has sided with the radical Islamists against both the USA and its people, while the fully collaborative and completely corrupted leftist media applaud everything the tyrant says and does as they cover up his lies and real anti-American work that he and his syndicate are affecting against us all.
The above are only a few more of the recent atrocities The Obama has affected. Every day these nefarious and monstrous acts against we US citizens (on both the left and the right of the political scales) are becoming more perverse. And…yet…the polls show Obama taking the lead over Romney? Are we really supposed to believe polls from far-left Marxist supporters? Let’s don’t believe them, folks. These polls are designed to depress and defeat us…so that we won’t bother to vote.
There is only one–current–way to defeat them in a non-violent way; that of voting in such huge and unprecedented numbers that the Marxist-Democrat voter fraud will be completely overwhelmed. We need to vote in greater numbers than we did in 2010. We must vote against all Democrats. After we take back the Office of the President of the United States and both Houses of Congress, we can and will then work on ridding ourselves of the RINOs. Sound like a plan? May God be with us…otherwise our country will be lost forever.
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”
–Plato
SOURCE: Gulag Bound
Obama’s Coziness with the Muslim Brotherhood
H/T: TMH @ NoisyRoom.net
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DQkSFU75LC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
New Ad Implies Obama Is Cozy With Muslim Brotherhood>>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DQkSFU75LC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
New Ad Implies Obama Is Cozy With Muslim Brotherhood>>
A short visual history of the creepy Obama cult
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ghSJsEVf0pU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FO3NBqT3LBc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
SOURCE: Human Events
Obama-endorsed Regime Closes Egypt's Last Synagogue
WASHINGTON — Egypt’s new Islamist regime has stopped the last
synagogue from holding services.
The Eliyahu Hanavi Synagogue was told by the regime of President
Mohammed Morsi that Jews would not be allowed to pray during High Holiday services in September. The synagogue’s rabbi was told that Egyptian police could not guarantee security.
Eliayahu Hanavi was called the last functioning synagogue in Egypt. The Jewish community, most of which was driven out after Israel was established in 1948, was said to number no more than 100.
Jewish groups have criticized the prevention of services in Egypt, which receives $1.3 billion in annual U.S. defense assistance. The Zionist Organization of America questioned the motivation for Morsi’s decision after his predecessor allowed the synagogue to conduct services on the Jewish New Year and Yom Kippur.
“If the Hosni Mubarak regime was able to protect Jews worshipping in synagogue on the High Holidays, why cannot the Mohammed Morsi regime?” ZOA
asked in a statement on Sept. 13. “This seems to be more an act of enmity
towards Jews rather than one of concern for their security.”
Shiraz Maher, a leading analyst, went further. Maher, a senior research
fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation Kings
College in London, said Morsi’s decision would destroy Jewish life in Egypt.
“The news that Egypt’s last synagogue, the Eliyahu Hanavi, will now be
unable to hold services effectively brings an end to any remaining semblance
of Jewish life in Egypt,” Maher said.
Sunday, September 16th, 2012
Posted by WorldTribune.com
President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program “Begun Under the Previous Administration”
Even more lies and deception to cover the crimes of a diabolical administration.... Lies so blatant, even ABC news can't help but call him out!
(ABC News) - Asked about the Fast and Furious program at the Univision forum on Thursday, President Obama falsely claimed that the program began under President George W. Bush.
“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration,” the president said. “When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable.”
In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency.
Previous programs involving ATF agents allowing guns to “walk” across the border so as to trace them were run during the Bush presidency, but not this particular “field-initiated program.”
Asked for comment, White House Spokesman Eric Schultz said, “The President was referring to the flawed tactic of gun-walking, which despite Republicans efforts to politicize this issue, began under the previous Administration and it was our Attorney General who ended it. In fact, this week’s IG report affirms this and if Republicans still have any legitimate questions about Fast and Furious, the 450-page report answers them. In light of this thorough report and Congress’s 16 month-long investigation, Republicans have no excuse to keep wasting time and taxpayer resources on politically-motivated, election-year attacks.”
As for President Obama’s discussion about the Justice Department Inspector General’s report on Fast and Furious, it’s true the Inspector General “concluded that although Attorney General Holder was notified immediately of (Border Patrol) Agent (Brian) Terry’s shooting and death, he was not told about the connection between the firearms found at the scene of the shooting and Operation Fast and Furious.
We determined that Attorney General Holder did not learn of that fact until sometime in 2011, after he received Sen. Grassley’s January 27 letter. Senior Department officials were aware of this significant and troubling information by December 17, 2010, but did not believe the information was sufficiently important to alert the Attorney General about it or to make any further inquiry regarding this development.”
But this was not entirely an exoneration of the Justice Department run by Mr. Holder. “We found it troubling that a case of this magnitude, and one that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General,” the report stated.
In addition to specific disciplinary measures, the Inspector General “made six recommendations designed to increase the Department’s involvement in and oversight of ATF operations, improve coordination among the Department’s law enforcement components, and enhance the Department’s wiretap application review and authorization process. The OIG intends to closely monitor the department’s progress in implementing these recommendations.”
Read the Inspector General’s report HERE.
-Jake Tapper
(ABC News) - Asked about the Fast and Furious program at the Univision forum on Thursday, President Obama falsely claimed that the program began under President George W. Bush.
“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration,” the president said. “When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable.”
In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency.
Previous programs involving ATF agents allowing guns to “walk” across the border so as to trace them were run during the Bush presidency, but not this particular “field-initiated program.”
Asked for comment, White House Spokesman Eric Schultz said, “The President was referring to the flawed tactic of gun-walking, which despite Republicans efforts to politicize this issue, began under the previous Administration and it was our Attorney General who ended it. In fact, this week’s IG report affirms this and if Republicans still have any legitimate questions about Fast and Furious, the 450-page report answers them. In light of this thorough report and Congress’s 16 month-long investigation, Republicans have no excuse to keep wasting time and taxpayer resources on politically-motivated, election-year attacks.”
As for President Obama’s discussion about the Justice Department Inspector General’s report on Fast and Furious, it’s true the Inspector General “concluded that although Attorney General Holder was notified immediately of (Border Patrol) Agent (Brian) Terry’s shooting and death, he was not told about the connection between the firearms found at the scene of the shooting and Operation Fast and Furious.
We determined that Attorney General Holder did not learn of that fact until sometime in 2011, after he received Sen. Grassley’s January 27 letter. Senior Department officials were aware of this significant and troubling information by December 17, 2010, but did not believe the information was sufficiently important to alert the Attorney General about it or to make any further inquiry regarding this development.”
But this was not entirely an exoneration of the Justice Department run by Mr. Holder. “We found it troubling that a case of this magnitude, and one that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General,” the report stated.
In addition to specific disciplinary measures, the Inspector General “made six recommendations designed to increase the Department’s involvement in and oversight of ATF operations, improve coordination among the Department’s law enforcement components, and enhance the Department’s wiretap application review and authorization process. The OIG intends to closely monitor the department’s progress in implementing these recommendations.”
Read the Inspector General’s report HERE.
-Jake Tapper
U.N. speakers to a world in tumult: Obama, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Mugabe
Thursday, September 20th, 2012
Posted by WorldTribune.com
UNITED NATIONS — The UN General Assembly has opened amid global storm clouds and economic gloom. Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings and Potentates gather in New York for the 67th annual session to the backdrop of spreading violence in the Middle East, a looming nuclear weapons program in Iran, a humanitarian crisis in much of the developing world, and the undertow of worldwide recession, delegates will be confronted and likely confounded by challenges which have long- simmered but are now at a boiling point.
Surprisingly the new president of the Assembly is Serbia’s Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic who was elected after a strong Russian lobbying effort for the year-long post. Though the youngest Assembly President ever at 37, (not to be confused with the Secretary General), British-educated Jeremic has become well-known for his lawyerly Security Council presentations on the issue of the breakaway Serb province of Kosovo.
Imagine that less than twenty years following the breakup of former Yugoslavia and the subsequent indictment and conviction of many Serb war criminals in international courts, that a Serb, albeit from a different democratic government, would gain the prestige to lead the Assembly is quite a diplomatic feat. Significantly two of his advisors include former Russian Premier Yevgeny Primakov (a once legendary KGB Mid-East expert) and former Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos of the Socialist Party.
As for the actual debate, the speakers list includes the Presidents and Prime Ministers from the UN’s 193 member states. U.S. President Barack Obama, France’s Francois Hollande, South Africa’s Jacob Zuma, and Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai will speak on the first day along with the kings of Morocco and Jordan.
Controversy shadows the speakers list with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s longtime dictator, among them.
Faces new to the Assembly include Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi, whose Muslim Brotherhood government is setting new foreign policy parameters for his country, and Burma’s/Myanmar’s leader who is wisely trying to break his country’s self-imposed isolation.
A blizzard of 168 Agenda Items crowd the debate and ensuing Assembly sessions into December with the perennial items Question of Palestine, Sustainable Development, Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East, Prevention of an Arms Rave in Outer Space,. and overviews of humanitarian, human rights, and peacekeeping budgets. My favorite remains Question of the Malagasy Islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa, and Bassas da India, places discovered in the 15th century by Portuguese mariners and still in a legal limbo status?
Among the agenda items are but a backdrop to the wider debate, poignant political issues such as Syria’s ongoing civil war, the trashing of Western and especially American embassies in the Muslim world, and the perennial showdown with Iran are key points of concern.
Syria’s raging conflict, knocked off the headlines by mob violence and focused Al Qaida attacks throughout the Middle East, and the ramifications of the Arab Spring political movements, are yet to be resolved.
So too are the pressing humanitarian crises in Somalia, Haiti, Darfur and much of Central Africa which much of the world has so conveniently forgotten.
As Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told a prayer service at the onset of the new Assembly, “Conflict continues to claim the lives of innocents from Syria to Central Africa to Afghanistan. In all regions, communities are facing economic hardship and political uncertainty,” adding that both global unemployment and intolerance are also on the rise.
“Peace and security is a prerequisite for the stability needed for global economic growth, sustainable development and social progress,” stated the new General Assembly President Jeremic.
Nonetheless those intractable problems of global peace and security usually go before the Security Council where the Damocles sword of the veto has led to political deadlock between the West and the Russians and the Chinese on key issues such as Syria. Will this change? Not likely, especially in the countdown to the American elections and the near paralysis of U.S. foreign policy.
Though the General Assembly has passed tough resolutions on the Syrian situation, for example, the decisions are not legally binding upon the membership.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told correspondents, “This year’s general debate will be among our busiest ever… this reflects the tumultuous times in which we live; a time of turmoil and transition.”
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for WorldTribune.com.
H/T Michael Savage
Posted by WorldTribune.com
UNITED NATIONS — The UN General Assembly has opened amid global storm clouds and economic gloom. Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings and Potentates gather in New York for the 67th annual session to the backdrop of spreading violence in the Middle East, a looming nuclear weapons program in Iran, a humanitarian crisis in much of the developing world, and the undertow of worldwide recession, delegates will be confronted and likely confounded by challenges which have long- simmered but are now at a boiling point.
Surprisingly the new president of the Assembly is Serbia’s Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic who was elected after a strong Russian lobbying effort for the year-long post. Though the youngest Assembly President ever at 37, (not to be confused with the Secretary General), British-educated Jeremic has become well-known for his lawyerly Security Council presentations on the issue of the breakaway Serb province of Kosovo.
Imagine that less than twenty years following the breakup of former Yugoslavia and the subsequent indictment and conviction of many Serb war criminals in international courts, that a Serb, albeit from a different democratic government, would gain the prestige to lead the Assembly is quite a diplomatic feat. Significantly two of his advisors include former Russian Premier Yevgeny Primakov (a once legendary KGB Mid-East expert) and former Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos of the Socialist Party.
As for the actual debate, the speakers list includes the Presidents and Prime Ministers from the UN’s 193 member states. U.S. President Barack Obama, France’s Francois Hollande, South Africa’s Jacob Zuma, and Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai will speak on the first day along with the kings of Morocco and Jordan.
Controversy shadows the speakers list with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s longtime dictator, among them.
Faces new to the Assembly include Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi, whose Muslim Brotherhood government is setting new foreign policy parameters for his country, and Burma’s/Myanmar’s leader who is wisely trying to break his country’s self-imposed isolation.
A blizzard of 168 Agenda Items crowd the debate and ensuing Assembly sessions into December with the perennial items Question of Palestine, Sustainable Development, Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East, Prevention of an Arms Rave in Outer Space,. and overviews of humanitarian, human rights, and peacekeeping budgets. My favorite remains Question of the Malagasy Islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa, and Bassas da India, places discovered in the 15th century by Portuguese mariners and still in a legal limbo status?
Among the agenda items are but a backdrop to the wider debate, poignant political issues such as Syria’s ongoing civil war, the trashing of Western and especially American embassies in the Muslim world, and the perennial showdown with Iran are key points of concern.
Syria’s raging conflict, knocked off the headlines by mob violence and focused Al Qaida attacks throughout the Middle East, and the ramifications of the Arab Spring political movements, are yet to be resolved.
So too are the pressing humanitarian crises in Somalia, Haiti, Darfur and much of Central Africa which much of the world has so conveniently forgotten.
As Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told a prayer service at the onset of the new Assembly, “Conflict continues to claim the lives of innocents from Syria to Central Africa to Afghanistan. In all regions, communities are facing economic hardship and political uncertainty,” adding that both global unemployment and intolerance are also on the rise.
“Peace and security is a prerequisite for the stability needed for global economic growth, sustainable development and social progress,” stated the new General Assembly President Jeremic.
Nonetheless those intractable problems of global peace and security usually go before the Security Council where the Damocles sword of the veto has led to political deadlock between the West and the Russians and the Chinese on key issues such as Syria. Will this change? Not likely, especially in the countdown to the American elections and the near paralysis of U.S. foreign policy.
Though the General Assembly has passed tough resolutions on the Syrian situation, for example, the decisions are not legally binding upon the membership.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told correspondents, “This year’s general debate will be among our busiest ever… this reflects the tumultuous times in which we live; a time of turmoil and transition.”
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for WorldTribune.com.
H/T Michael Savage
Friday, September 21, 2012
The Islamic Republic of England
by Gavin McInnes
September 21, 2012
On Monday, the harried horny heretic Salman Rushdie told the BBC, “A book which was critical of Islam would be difficult to be published now.” Rushdie was talking about his controversial 1988 tome The Satanic Verses, which led to the Ayatollah Khomeini issuing a fatwa against him. Rushdie knows Muslim rage intimately but he does not approve of the West’s reaction to the Middle East’s reaction to that weird YouTube movie that was kind of like The Satanic Verses for retards. “We’re in a difficult place because there’s a lot of fear and nervousness around,” Rushdie said of the West’s ethnomasochism. “The fact a documentary about Islam can be pulled because someone is worried about the consequences is an indication of that.” These comments are particularly poignant because Rushdie hails from the epicenter of Islamic rage: Britain.
I wouldn’t have believed how bad it was if I hadn’t just seen it with my own eyes. Sure, America also overindulges extremism in the name of tolerance. Libyans just murdered one of our ambassadors and America’s anger appears to be directed at the guy who made the murderers angry. In 2009, we learned the FBI had ignored warning signs that Major Nidal Hasan was going to shoot up Fort Hood because they didn’t want to appear racist. Here in New York, areas such as Astoria in Queens look more like Islamabad than they do Archie Bunker’s hometown. But we still arrest Muslim bad guys. Britain does the opposite. The children of Pakistani immigrants in Queens wear skinny jeans and listen to dubstep while their cousins in London stand on street corners preaching the joys of sharia law. Where we have faults, they have fault lines.
Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan, says capitulation is the root of England’s imminent demise. At a talk earlier this year she said, “What Britain and all the other faint hearts fail to grasp is that the greatest single driver of terrorism is terrorism—or to be more precise, the demoralized reaction to it.” She was talking about the surge in terrorist recruitment after the 7/7 bombings and is one of the few Brits to notice that “The greater the terror, the greater the self-flagellation of its victims.”
One of the most iconic photographs from the 7/7 bombings was university lecturer John Tulloch covered in bloody bandages. A British magazine featured him next to a quote from Tony Blair that included the lines, “When they try to divide our people…our values will outlast theirs.”
Tulloch is now facing deportation because he was born in India when his British Army Officer father was stationed there. Like his wife and kids, he’s had a British passport his whole life but the UK Border Agency confiscated it in the 90s, citing some bizarre old clause that deemed him a “British subject without citizenship.”
This is in a country with seven million foreigners, where 30,000 illegal Pakistanis are “missing,” and where, as Phillips says, “1,600 Islamic terrorists, most of them British Muslims…[are] trying to get a nuclear or dirty bomb to use against their fellow countrymen.”
In today’s Britain, almost 40% of young Muslims say they would prefer to live under sharia law, yet an old professor whose family has been British for hundreds of years has to go. It was 2005 when Blair made his commitment to “our values” but only two years later, David Cameron explained, “it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”
The Magna Carta said, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned…except by the law of the land,” but it appears the new interpretation is, “No Muslim can be punished, ever.”
I was born just outside London and I commiserate with John Cleese when he says, “London is no longer an English city.” Just West of London proper is a place called Southall. As I walked down their main street The Broadway a couple of weeks ago, I did not see one person who did not appear to be “British Asian.” There were Sikhs and Hindus and Bangladeshis and Muslims galore, but not a single English biddy carrying her shopping bags back home for tea. A teenager in a turban threw his empty energy drink on the street in front of me just as I realized my “Burn this Flag” American T-shirt had gone from mildly ironic to wildly incendiary.
During our visit last year we went to a beach called Southend I used to visit as a kid. This 19th-century working-class vacation spot still has the bumper cars and helter-skelter, but I didn’t see any old geezers with hats made of handkerchiefs. Instead, I saw a woman walking into the water wearing a burqa. Our host sensed my outrage and tried to diffuse it by saying, “Oh, that’s lovely. You know, when I was a girl coming here, everyone looked the same. Now there’s so much variety.”
“Variety!?” I shrieked, “A woman in a garbage bag is walking into the ocean!” I was reminded of the New York Times article “True Londoners Are Extinct” that glibly claimed, “London…is…much less beholden to sepia-tinged notions of what it used to be and much more a product of its new arrivals.”
During this year’s trip we headed into West London for a sepia-toned evening in the park. When we got there my mouth involuntarily said aloud, “What the fuck?” West London is so hardcore Muslim, it made everywhere else we had visited look like something out of Coronation Street. This wasn’t merely a high contingent of Muslims. It was an occupation. The book Londonistan is not an exaggeration; not even close. Kensington Gardens feels so much like Dubai, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Diana Memorial Playground changes its name to the Dodi Fayed’s Girlfriend Memorial Playground. Virtually everyone we saw was wearing a burqa, and that included dozens who only had their eyes showing. When you’re the only non-Muslim family at the playground, your kids start to wonder why you brought them to Fat Ninja Park. (I took this photograph while I was there. Note the background.)
It got to the point where if I saw a wog, I’d catch myself saying, “Finally, an Englishman.” I used to be confused by the number of blacks and Indians in the English Defence League. Now it makes perfect sense. They came from a time of assimilation. The children of the “Yardies” who came to England in the 1970s are in the soccer stadiums today wrapped in English flags and singing “God Save the Queen.” Today’s Muslim immigrants have only one allegiance, and that’s to Allah. They’re not just unpatriotic. They actually despise England.
We escaped the park and headed to the world-famous department store Harrods, where my infidel wife wanted to indulge her love of material objects. The nearly 200-year-old institution has long been owned by Arabs and was bought a couple of years ago by Qatar Holdings. Virtually everyone—no, wait, EVERYONE—was Arabic in the store. There were women in full burqas carrying Louis Vuitton bags and the few who showed their faces were covered in bizarre clown makeup that looked like something out of Cirque du Soleil. The men appeared to be spoiled mama’s boys who were dressed like mentally ill gays that had just won the lottery. I later asked a local if the high Arab population in that area has anything to do with Harrods and the fact that Fayed’s father used to own it and he said, “Maybe a bit. The real reason they dominate the West End is it’s the most expensive part of London and they’re the only ones who can afford it.”
Letting a foreign culture replace your own may seem like a cute idea to the world-traveled media class, but it can be quite sinister for the ones left holding the scrotum. In May of this year, police finally prosecuted a gang of pedophiles who had molested five teenage girls. When asked what took them so long, the police admitted they were scared of being seen as racist.
What Brits don’t seem to understand about all this capitulation is that it encourages more violations. Muslims don’t respect people who lie prostrate before them. They stab them. When Theo Van Gogh was impaled for making a film that questioned Islam his last words were, “Can we talk about this?” The answer was clearly, “Oh HELL no.”
At the end of this year’s three-day stay, we took a taxi to the airport and after a few questions about religion, I learned our driver was yet another Muslim from Lahore. He changed the subject by asking me about the weather in New York and I told him we had one of the hottest summers on record. “Every day you wake up and pray for some kind of relief,” I told him, “but it never came.”
This seemed to make him quite pensive and he said, “You see? You say pray. I pray, too. We are quite similar in that sense.”
I’d heard this a million times before and went to my go-to response: “True,” I said, “but you can often judge a religion by how it reacts to mockery [link NSFW]. In New York we had Jesus frozen in piss and our Virgin Mary partially painted with elephant dung. We weren’t bananas about it, but nobody was killed.” He was mortified by my two examples and could only say, “That’s horrible,” like when Woody Allen found out someone defecated on his sister in Crimes and Misdemeanors. We didn’t speak after that.
I was reminded of the boiling frog when Londoners there told me I was blowing all of this out of proportion. They said I had come at the Muslim peak and most of them head back to the desert when the weather cools down.
At Heathrow, I decided to pick up the paper and count how many stories were Muslim-related. Here’s what happens in the first 30 pages of the September 4th edition of the Daily Mail, which I read cover-to-cover on the plane:
Page 6 depicts Iranian parathlete Mehrdad Karam refusing to shake the Duchess of Cambridge’s hand because she’s a woman.
Page 12 has a story about two Christians who were “refused the legal right to wear a cross at work.” Below that is an article from the former Archbishop of Canterbury asking, “How can it be a hate crime to show your faith in Christ?” They wouldn’t dare treat Muslims this way.
Page 14 features a letter criticizing David Cameron for feigning sympathy for the aforementioned Christians while permitting their persecution. The same page features a story about John Tulloch’s plight.
Page 17 has a tiny article about a Muslim pharmacist who was cleared of sexual-harassment charges despite asking female coworkers about their favorite sexual position, pushing his crotch against their ass, asking about boyfriends while grabbing their hands and putting them on his stomach, and putting his arms around female coworkers’ waists. The Pharmaceutical Council “accepted his explanation that he came from a strict religious community and because of this background he lacked the appropriate social skills in his contacts with women.”
Page 19 discusses the crackdown on foreign students in the UK. The liberal elite sees this as blind racism and neglects to notice the some 50,000 illegal workers who came there as students.
Page 26 had a story about a white electrician named Paul Smith who makes bombs for a hobby and had his house raided despite the fact that he is so open about it, his birthday cake was shaped like a bomb and said, “Hope it goes off with a bang.” Authorities did not first consult the local church to see if the raid would be considered offensive to Paul’s religion as they often do before Muslim raids.
After I put down the paper, a Muslim steward with a hybrid Arabic/British accent asked me if I wanted anything to drink. I asked him if he had any bourbon and he said, “What’s bourbon?” He then opened the alcohol tray of sin and had me rifle around myself until I found a small bottle of Woodford Reserve. As I poured it in my tiny plastic terrorist-proof cup, I thanked God I was heading back to the country that came up with “Don’t Tread on Me.” Britain’s values have succumbed to Islam’s. The only bright side is that it now serves as an example of what happens when you let “fear and nervousness” run the show.
Here’s hoping America’s values outlast Britain’s. Cheers.
Source: TakiMag
September 21, 2012
On Monday, the harried horny heretic Salman Rushdie told the BBC, “A book which was critical of Islam would be difficult to be published now.” Rushdie was talking about his controversial 1988 tome The Satanic Verses, which led to the Ayatollah Khomeini issuing a fatwa against him. Rushdie knows Muslim rage intimately but he does not approve of the West’s reaction to the Middle East’s reaction to that weird YouTube movie that was kind of like The Satanic Verses for retards. “We’re in a difficult place because there’s a lot of fear and nervousness around,” Rushdie said of the West’s ethnomasochism. “The fact a documentary about Islam can be pulled because someone is worried about the consequences is an indication of that.” These comments are particularly poignant because Rushdie hails from the epicenter of Islamic rage: Britain.
I wouldn’t have believed how bad it was if I hadn’t just seen it with my own eyes. Sure, America also overindulges extremism in the name of tolerance. Libyans just murdered one of our ambassadors and America’s anger appears to be directed at the guy who made the murderers angry. In 2009, we learned the FBI had ignored warning signs that Major Nidal Hasan was going to shoot up Fort Hood because they didn’t want to appear racist. Here in New York, areas such as Astoria in Queens look more like Islamabad than they do Archie Bunker’s hometown. But we still arrest Muslim bad guys. Britain does the opposite. The children of Pakistani immigrants in Queens wear skinny jeans and listen to dubstep while their cousins in London stand on street corners preaching the joys of sharia law. Where we have faults, they have fault lines.
Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan, says capitulation is the root of England’s imminent demise. At a talk earlier this year she said, “What Britain and all the other faint hearts fail to grasp is that the greatest single driver of terrorism is terrorism—or to be more precise, the demoralized reaction to it.” She was talking about the surge in terrorist recruitment after the 7/7 bombings and is one of the few Brits to notice that “The greater the terror, the greater the self-flagellation of its victims.”
One of the most iconic photographs from the 7/7 bombings was university lecturer John Tulloch covered in bloody bandages. A British magazine featured him next to a quote from Tony Blair that included the lines, “When they try to divide our people…our values will outlast theirs.”
Tulloch is now facing deportation because he was born in India when his British Army Officer father was stationed there. Like his wife and kids, he’s had a British passport his whole life but the UK Border Agency confiscated it in the 90s, citing some bizarre old clause that deemed him a “British subject without citizenship.”
This is in a country with seven million foreigners, where 30,000 illegal Pakistanis are “missing,” and where, as Phillips says, “1,600 Islamic terrorists, most of them British Muslims…[are] trying to get a nuclear or dirty bomb to use against their fellow countrymen.”
In today’s Britain, almost 40% of young Muslims say they would prefer to live under sharia law, yet an old professor whose family has been British for hundreds of years has to go. It was 2005 when Blair made his commitment to “our values” but only two years later, David Cameron explained, “it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”
The Magna Carta said, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned…except by the law of the land,” but it appears the new interpretation is, “No Muslim can be punished, ever.”
I was born just outside London and I commiserate with John Cleese when he says, “London is no longer an English city.” Just West of London proper is a place called Southall. As I walked down their main street The Broadway a couple of weeks ago, I did not see one person who did not appear to be “British Asian.” There were Sikhs and Hindus and Bangladeshis and Muslims galore, but not a single English biddy carrying her shopping bags back home for tea. A teenager in a turban threw his empty energy drink on the street in front of me just as I realized my “Burn this Flag” American T-shirt had gone from mildly ironic to wildly incendiary.
During our visit last year we went to a beach called Southend I used to visit as a kid. This 19th-century working-class vacation spot still has the bumper cars and helter-skelter, but I didn’t see any old geezers with hats made of handkerchiefs. Instead, I saw a woman walking into the water wearing a burqa. Our host sensed my outrage and tried to diffuse it by saying, “Oh, that’s lovely. You know, when I was a girl coming here, everyone looked the same. Now there’s so much variety.”
“Variety!?” I shrieked, “A woman in a garbage bag is walking into the ocean!” I was reminded of the New York Times article “True Londoners Are Extinct” that glibly claimed, “London…is…much less beholden to sepia-tinged notions of what it used to be and much more a product of its new arrivals.”
During this year’s trip we headed into West London for a sepia-toned evening in the park. When we got there my mouth involuntarily said aloud, “What the fuck?” West London is so hardcore Muslim, it made everywhere else we had visited look like something out of Coronation Street. This wasn’t merely a high contingent of Muslims. It was an occupation. The book Londonistan is not an exaggeration; not even close. Kensington Gardens feels so much like Dubai, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Diana Memorial Playground changes its name to the Dodi Fayed’s Girlfriend Memorial Playground. Virtually everyone we saw was wearing a burqa, and that included dozens who only had their eyes showing. When you’re the only non-Muslim family at the playground, your kids start to wonder why you brought them to Fat Ninja Park. (I took this photograph while I was there. Note the background.)
It got to the point where if I saw a wog, I’d catch myself saying, “Finally, an Englishman.” I used to be confused by the number of blacks and Indians in the English Defence League. Now it makes perfect sense. They came from a time of assimilation. The children of the “Yardies” who came to England in the 1970s are in the soccer stadiums today wrapped in English flags and singing “God Save the Queen.” Today’s Muslim immigrants have only one allegiance, and that’s to Allah. They’re not just unpatriotic. They actually despise England.
We escaped the park and headed to the world-famous department store Harrods, where my infidel wife wanted to indulge her love of material objects. The nearly 200-year-old institution has long been owned by Arabs and was bought a couple of years ago by Qatar Holdings. Virtually everyone—no, wait, EVERYONE—was Arabic in the store. There were women in full burqas carrying Louis Vuitton bags and the few who showed their faces were covered in bizarre clown makeup that looked like something out of Cirque du Soleil. The men appeared to be spoiled mama’s boys who were dressed like mentally ill gays that had just won the lottery. I later asked a local if the high Arab population in that area has anything to do with Harrods and the fact that Fayed’s father used to own it and he said, “Maybe a bit. The real reason they dominate the West End is it’s the most expensive part of London and they’re the only ones who can afford it.”
Letting a foreign culture replace your own may seem like a cute idea to the world-traveled media class, but it can be quite sinister for the ones left holding the scrotum. In May of this year, police finally prosecuted a gang of pedophiles who had molested five teenage girls. When asked what took them so long, the police admitted they were scared of being seen as racist.
What Brits don’t seem to understand about all this capitulation is that it encourages more violations. Muslims don’t respect people who lie prostrate before them. They stab them. When Theo Van Gogh was impaled for making a film that questioned Islam his last words were, “Can we talk about this?” The answer was clearly, “Oh HELL no.”
At the end of this year’s three-day stay, we took a taxi to the airport and after a few questions about religion, I learned our driver was yet another Muslim from Lahore. He changed the subject by asking me about the weather in New York and I told him we had one of the hottest summers on record. “Every day you wake up and pray for some kind of relief,” I told him, “but it never came.”
This seemed to make him quite pensive and he said, “You see? You say pray. I pray, too. We are quite similar in that sense.”
I’d heard this a million times before and went to my go-to response: “True,” I said, “but you can often judge a religion by how it reacts to mockery [link NSFW]. In New York we had Jesus frozen in piss and our Virgin Mary partially painted with elephant dung. We weren’t bananas about it, but nobody was killed.” He was mortified by my two examples and could only say, “That’s horrible,” like when Woody Allen found out someone defecated on his sister in Crimes and Misdemeanors. We didn’t speak after that.
I was reminded of the boiling frog when Londoners there told me I was blowing all of this out of proportion. They said I had come at the Muslim peak and most of them head back to the desert when the weather cools down.
At Heathrow, I decided to pick up the paper and count how many stories were Muslim-related. Here’s what happens in the first 30 pages of the September 4th edition of the Daily Mail, which I read cover-to-cover on the plane:
Page 6 depicts Iranian parathlete Mehrdad Karam refusing to shake the Duchess of Cambridge’s hand because she’s a woman.
Page 12 has a story about two Christians who were “refused the legal right to wear a cross at work.” Below that is an article from the former Archbishop of Canterbury asking, “How can it be a hate crime to show your faith in Christ?” They wouldn’t dare treat Muslims this way.
Page 14 features a letter criticizing David Cameron for feigning sympathy for the aforementioned Christians while permitting their persecution. The same page features a story about John Tulloch’s plight.
Page 17 has a tiny article about a Muslim pharmacist who was cleared of sexual-harassment charges despite asking female coworkers about their favorite sexual position, pushing his crotch against their ass, asking about boyfriends while grabbing their hands and putting them on his stomach, and putting his arms around female coworkers’ waists. The Pharmaceutical Council “accepted his explanation that he came from a strict religious community and because of this background he lacked the appropriate social skills in his contacts with women.”
Page 19 discusses the crackdown on foreign students in the UK. The liberal elite sees this as blind racism and neglects to notice the some 50,000 illegal workers who came there as students.
Page 26 had a story about a white electrician named Paul Smith who makes bombs for a hobby and had his house raided despite the fact that he is so open about it, his birthday cake was shaped like a bomb and said, “Hope it goes off with a bang.” Authorities did not first consult the local church to see if the raid would be considered offensive to Paul’s religion as they often do before Muslim raids.
After I put down the paper, a Muslim steward with a hybrid Arabic/British accent asked me if I wanted anything to drink. I asked him if he had any bourbon and he said, “What’s bourbon?” He then opened the alcohol tray of sin and had me rifle around myself until I found a small bottle of Woodford Reserve. As I poured it in my tiny plastic terrorist-proof cup, I thanked God I was heading back to the country that came up with “Don’t Tread on Me.” Britain’s values have succumbed to Islam’s. The only bright side is that it now serves as an example of what happens when you let “fear and nervousness” run the show.
Here’s hoping America’s values outlast Britain’s. Cheers.
Source: TakiMag
Police Speak Out on Red Dawn Style Rural US Takeover
Alex takes calls from military & police and gets their take on the joint community oriented policing program designed to deal with rural americans that refuse to go along with socialist/marxist created laws from washington d.c. One caller breaks down a shocking scenario to that of the early 80′s hit movie, “Red Dawn.” Where foreign soldiers takeover a small town and deal with its citizens who fight back against such tyranny.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GleUtBKV3ho" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
beforeitsnews.com
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GleUtBKV3ho" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
beforeitsnews.com
Man Who Hangs Empty Chair from Tree Called a Racist by Media, Then Secret Service Gets Involved
Austin Man Hangs Empty Chair From Tree Symbolizing President Obama
A Northwest Austin homeowner, who hung a chair from a tree meant to symbolize President Obama, has taken it down.
The political blog burntorangereport.com first talked about the display in the Spicewood Estates area Wednesday night.
The fold-up chair, with an American flag attached to it, was hung from a tree in front of Bud Johnson’s home and some neighbors complained that it was racist.
KEYE TV News wanted to find out from Johnson about the chair and why he put it up. KEYE TV reporter Lydia Pantazes and photojournalist Mario Pena went to his house Thursday morning. As they arrived, Johnson was taking down the chair and he advised Pantazes and Pena “to get the hell away.”
When Pantazes asked him why he hung the chair from the tree, he responded “Haven’t you heard of the Clint Eastwood thing with the empty chair?”
Johnson also said he’s not a racist and that he doesn’t dislike any race. In addition, he said the chair was not being “lynched”, and when Pantazes asked why he had it hanging from the tree, he said the tree was "the only place I had to put the damn thing.” Johnson then placed the chair on his lawn a few feet away from the tree.
Pantazes talked to a neighbor who told her that Johnson is an overall “good neighbor and a nice guy. He’s just a really conservative Republican.” The neighbor, who did not want to be identified, thought the issue was taken out of context.
Robert Stephenson, who also lives in the area, said there’s “no way you can take that the wrong way." He called the display was "pretty racist."
“I’m glad he took it down. I just hope he don’t put it back up,” Stephenson said.
To watch video of the entire incident, go to http://weareaustin.com/news/features/raw-news/stories/vid_46.shtml?wap=0.
To watch the entire Clint Eastwood RNC speech, go to http://www.weareaustin.com/news/features/raw-news/stories/vid_35.shtml?wap=0&.
And THEN!!
Empty chair ‘lynchings’: Anti-Obama protests gone too far?
(Prison Planet) - At least two recent incidents in which empty chairs were hung from trees by rope have critics decrying what they say are racially offensive displays meant to symbolize the “lynching” of President Barack Obama.
In Austin, Texas, a homeowner hung an empty folding chair from a tree branch in front of his house and later attached an American flag to it. He reportedly told a Democratic political blogger who inquired about it: “You can take [your concerns] and go straight to hell and take Obama with you.”
In Centreville, Va., an empty chair with a sign reading “Nobama” was strung from a tree in or near a park. “In short, this appears to be a crude metaphor for the lynching of President Obama,” wrote the blogger who posted the photo.
The Secret Service said it was looking into the empty chair incidents. “The Secret Service is aware of this and will conduct appropriate followup,” spokesman Brian Leary told NBC News.
Full story here.
A Northwest Austin homeowner, who hung a chair from a tree meant to symbolize President Obama, has taken it down.
The political blog burntorangereport.com first talked about the display in the Spicewood Estates area Wednesday night.
The fold-up chair, with an American flag attached to it, was hung from a tree in front of Bud Johnson’s home and some neighbors complained that it was racist.
KEYE TV News wanted to find out from Johnson about the chair and why he put it up. KEYE TV reporter Lydia Pantazes and photojournalist Mario Pena went to his house Thursday morning. As they arrived, Johnson was taking down the chair and he advised Pantazes and Pena “to get the hell away.”
When Pantazes asked him why he hung the chair from the tree, he responded “Haven’t you heard of the Clint Eastwood thing with the empty chair?”
Johnson also said he’s not a racist and that he doesn’t dislike any race. In addition, he said the chair was not being “lynched”, and when Pantazes asked why he had it hanging from the tree, he said the tree was "the only place I had to put the damn thing.” Johnson then placed the chair on his lawn a few feet away from the tree.
Pantazes talked to a neighbor who told her that Johnson is an overall “good neighbor and a nice guy. He’s just a really conservative Republican.” The neighbor, who did not want to be identified, thought the issue was taken out of context.
Robert Stephenson, who also lives in the area, said there’s “no way you can take that the wrong way." He called the display was "pretty racist."
“I’m glad he took it down. I just hope he don’t put it back up,” Stephenson said.
To watch video of the entire incident, go to http://weareaustin.com/news/features/raw-news/stories/vid_46.shtml?wap=0.
To watch the entire Clint Eastwood RNC speech, go to http://www.weareaustin.com/news/features/raw-news/stories/vid_35.shtml?wap=0&.
And THEN!!
Empty chair ‘lynchings’: Anti-Obama protests gone too far?
(Prison Planet) - At least two recent incidents in which empty chairs were hung from trees by rope have critics decrying what they say are racially offensive displays meant to symbolize the “lynching” of President Barack Obama.
In Austin, Texas, a homeowner hung an empty folding chair from a tree branch in front of his house and later attached an American flag to it. He reportedly told a Democratic political blogger who inquired about it: “You can take [your concerns] and go straight to hell and take Obama with you.”
In Centreville, Va., an empty chair with a sign reading “Nobama” was strung from a tree in or near a park. “In short, this appears to be a crude metaphor for the lynching of President Obama,” wrote the blogger who posted the photo.
The Secret Service said it was looking into the empty chair incidents. “The Secret Service is aware of this and will conduct appropriate followup,” spokesman Brian Leary told NBC News.
Full story here.
$100,000 Reward for Obama Khalidi Tape
by Joel B. Pollak
20 Sep 2012
(Breitbart.com) - Breitbart News is doubling its reward--to $100,000--for one of the missing pieces of Barack Obama’s past, which may be the key to understanding his collapsing Middle East policy: the “Khalidi tape,” a video kept under wraps by the Los Angeles Times since April 2008.........
CNN Cuts Off Internview with Pam Geller the Moment CAIR and Obama's Identity Forgery is Discussed
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9sx-3r8yMVc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
...And Here's The Full Audio Played After the Cut
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/files/120920_001.mp3
...And Here's The Full Audio Played After the Cut
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/files/120920_001.mp3
Obama nominates mega-donor's wife to U.N. post
By BYRON TAU | 9/20/12
(Politico) - The Obama administration has nominated Cheryl Saban, wife of Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban to be the U.S. representative to the upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Saban — a mega-donor who was at one time the top giver to the Democratic Party — has been intensely courted by the Obama campaign to try to level the playing field between the Democrats and big-money outside groups.......
Fallacy Of Redistribution Has Grave Economic Impact
By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 09/19/2012 03:59 PM ET
(Investors.com) - The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago.
But the tape's surfacing may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about the consequences of redistribution.
Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design.
But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.
The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.
In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.
How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.
Farmers in the Soviet Union cut how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.
People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.
Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.
If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy.
A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.
continue reading>>
Posted 09/19/2012 03:59 PM ET
(Investors.com) - The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago.
But the tape's surfacing may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about the consequences of redistribution.
Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design.
But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.
The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.
In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.
How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.
Farmers in the Soviet Union cut how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.
People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.
Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.
If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy.
A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.
continue reading>>
Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people, under ObamaCare
Fox News:
Nearly 6 million Americans -- most of them in the middle class -- will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is fully in place, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises....
Nearly 6 million Americans -- most of them in the middle class -- will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is fully in place, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises....
Obama's childhood of privilege, not hardship
Modified: September 20, 2012
Washington Examiner
Chapter I
First lady Michelle Obama told the Democratic National Convention that "Barack and I were both raised by families who didn't have much in the way of money or material possessions."
It is a claim the president has repeated in his books, on the speech-making circuit and in countless media interviews. By his account, he grew up in a broken home with a single mom, struggled for years as a child in an impoverished Third World country and then was raised by his grandparents in difficult circumstances.
The facts aren't nearly so clear-cut.
Ann Dunham was just 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama. She was a freshman at the University of Hawaii. His Kenyan father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a few years older than Ann. They were married against family wishes.
Obama Sr. does not appear to have been welcoming or compassionate toward his new wife or son. It later turned out that he was secretly married to a Kenyan woman back home at the same time he fathered the young Obama.
He abandoned Obama Jr.'s mother when the boy was 1. In 1964, Dunham filed for a divorce that was not contested. Her parents helped to raise the young Obama.
Obama's mother met her second husband, an Indonesian named Lolo Soetoro, while working at the East-West Center in Hawaii. They married, and in 1967, the young Obama, then known as Barry Soetoro, traveled to Indonesia with his mother when the Indonesian government recalled his stepfather.
In Indonesia, the family's circumstances improved dramatically. According to Obama in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father," Lolo's brother-in-law was "making millions as a high official in the national oil company." It was through this brother-in-law that Obama's stepfather got a coveted job as a government relations officer with the Union Oil Co.
The family then moved to Menteng, then and now the most exclusive neighborhood of Jakarta, where bureaucrats, diplomats and economic elites reside.
A popular Indonesia travel site describes Menteng: "Designed by the Dutch Colonial Government in 1920s, Menteng still retains its graceful existence with its beautiful parks, cozy street cafes and luxurious housing complexes."
In 1971, his mother sent young Obama back to Hawaii, where his grandmother, Madelyn, known as Toots, would become one of the first female vice presidents of a Honolulu bank. His grandfather was in sales.
Obama's grandparents moved the same year into Punahou Circle Apartments, a sleek new 10-story apartment building just five blocks from the private Punahou School, which Obama would attend from 1971 to 1979.
Obama explains in "Dreams from My Father" that his admission to Punahou began "the start of something grand, an elevation in the family status that they took great pains to let everyone know."
To his credit, Obama did not downplay Punahou's upscale status, noting in his autobiography that it "had grown into a prestigious prep school, an incubator for island elites. Its reputation had helped sway my mother in her decision to send me back to the States."
Obama also admitted in the book that his grandfather pulled strings to get him into the school. "There was a long waiting list, and I was considered only because of the intervention of Gramps's boss, who was an alumnus."
The school still features a lush hillside campus overlooking the Waikiki skyline and the Pacific Ocean. It was one of the most expensive schools on the island, and both Obama and his half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng received scholarships.
While the Dunhams were not among the wealthiest families on the island, he nevertheless studied and socialized with the children of the social and financial elite. Obama has said he didn't fit in at the school. But that's not how other Hawaiians remember it.
Associated Press writer Sudhin Thanawala reported from Honolulu in 2008 that "classmates and teachers say Obama blended in well. He served on the editorial board of the school's literary magazine, played varsity basketball and sang in the choir. He went on the occasional date."
In his recent book "Barack Obama: The Story," Washington Post reporter David Maraniss said the future chief executive often smoked marijuana with prep school friends, rolling up the car windows to seek "total absorption," or "TA." They called themselves the "Choom Gang."
Edward Shanahan, a retired newspaper journalist who now edits downstreet.net and makes no effort to conceal his admiration for Obama, retraced his Hawaii years shortly after the president was elected.
Shanahan wrote that Obama lived in a "well-off neighborhood near the University of Hawaii where Barry, as he was known, resided in a comfortable home with his mother and her parents before she took him to Indonesia."
Sanahan said "our tour ended up on the lush, exquisitely maintained and altogether inviting campus of Punahou School, which we can imagine was a place of great comfort for Obama."
Tellingly, Obama has never lived in a black neighborhood. Maraniss reported in his book that when leftist activist Jerry Kellman interviewed Obama for a community organizing job in Chicago, he asked Obama how he felt about living and working in the black community for the first time in his life.
Obama accepted the job but chose not to live among those he would be organizing. Instead, he commuted 90 minutes each way daily from his apartment in Chicago's famous Hyde Park to the Altgeld Gardens housing project where he worked.
It was an early instance of Obama presenting himself one way while acting in quite a different way.
Reporting for this special report by Richard Pollock, Examiner staff writer.
Next: Chapter II: The myth of the rock-star professor
Obama administration finally admits it was terrorist attack
By Guy Taylor and Shaun Waterman
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Washington Times - The Obama administration for the first time Wednesday acknowledged that last week’s assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a “terrorist attack,” as lawmakers on Capitol Hill raised questions about security at the consulate and asserted that the attack should have been anticipated by intelligence and counterterrorism agencies....
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Washington Times - The Obama administration for the first time Wednesday acknowledged that last week’s assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a “terrorist attack,” as lawmakers on Capitol Hill raised questions about security at the consulate and asserted that the attack should have been anticipated by intelligence and counterterrorism agencies....
Thursday, September 20, 2012
French Magazine’s Cartoons: Naked Mohammed Hides His Pedophyle Penis…
Pic Of The Day: French Magazine’s Naked Mohammed Cartoons…
H/T: CBC News Page
Looks like a pussy ass faggot to me!
SOURCE: Weasel Zippers
H/T: CBC News Page
Looks like a pussy ass faggot to me!
SOURCE: Weasel Zippers
BIG SIS: Executive order on cybersecurity 'close to completion'
Thursday, September 20
H/T: CBC News Page
The Hill:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Wednesday said the cybersecurity executive order that the White House is drafting is "close to completion."
At a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, Napolitano said the executive order is "still being drafted in the inter-agency process" and "is close to completion depending on a few issues that need to be resolved at the highest levels."
She said the draft order still needs to be reviewed by President Obama.
The White House is crafting a draft executive order aimed at protecting the nation from cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure, such as the electric grid, water systems and transportation networks. The order would create a voluntary program in which companies operating key infrastructure would elect to meet a set of security standards developed, in part, by the government.
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.
The draft has been circulated to relevant agency officials over the past month for feedback, as The Hill first reported.
The voluntary program in the draft order is based on a measure in Lieberman's bill that drew opposition from GOP senators and business lobbying groups, chiefly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Critics argued that the program would serve as a backdoor for regulatory agencies to force companies to meet new security standards.
Napolitano again urged Congress to enact comprehensive cybersecurity legislation, arguing the White House cannot completely address the threat on its own. She noted that DHS is limited in the number of trained cyber personnel it can hire, which cannot be addressed by an executive order.
An order from the president also can't offer liability protections to companies, which protect them from legal action if they are hit by a cyberattack. Napolitano said liability protections are "often viewed as mechanisms to foster timely and effective information sharing" about cyber threats between government and industry.
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.
- This story was last updated at 4:45 p.m.
H/T: CBC News Page
The Hill:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Wednesday said the cybersecurity executive order that the White House is drafting is "close to completion."
At a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, Napolitano said the executive order is "still being drafted in the inter-agency process" and "is close to completion depending on a few issues that need to be resolved at the highest levels."
She said the draft order still needs to be reviewed by President Obama.
The White House is crafting a draft executive order aimed at protecting the nation from cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure, such as the electric grid, water systems and transportation networks. The order would create a voluntary program in which companies operating key infrastructure would elect to meet a set of security standards developed, in part, by the government.
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.
The draft has been circulated to relevant agency officials over the past month for feedback, as The Hill first reported.
The voluntary program in the draft order is based on a measure in Lieberman's bill that drew opposition from GOP senators and business lobbying groups, chiefly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Critics argued that the program would serve as a backdoor for regulatory agencies to force companies to meet new security standards.
Napolitano again urged Congress to enact comprehensive cybersecurity legislation, arguing the White House cannot completely address the threat on its own. She noted that DHS is limited in the number of trained cyber personnel it can hire, which cannot be addressed by an executive order.
An order from the president also can't offer liability protections to companies, which protect them from legal action if they are hit by a cyberattack. Napolitano said liability protections are "often viewed as mechanisms to foster timely and effective information sharing" about cyber threats between government and industry.
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.
- This story was last updated at 4:45 p.m.
United Nations Conquers Texas
Prison Planet.com
September 20, 2012
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/10t1cc7jPxw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Infowars Nightly News reporters Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton investigate the local initiatives driving the spread of “sustainable communities,” now taking over Central Texas and driving its population into a containment grid under the guise of “smart growth” and other such measures. The Infowars team visits several local meetings working to inject ‘sustainable’ principles into the region, confronting bureaucrats who deny any connection with or sufficient knowledge of the UN’s Agenda 21, while Melissa Melton interviews an Urban Design and Landscape Architecture professor at the University of Texas who teaches a class on Agenda 21.
What’s behind these “sustainable community” grants, implemented federally through Obama’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities and locally through NGOs including the ICLEI and a consortium of regional boards and environmental funds? Research shows that it is little more than a takeover of both metropolitan and rural sites via heavy-handed planning techniques and deep connections to Rockefeller/UN interests.
September 20, 2012
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/10t1cc7jPxw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Infowars Nightly News reporters Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton investigate the local initiatives driving the spread of “sustainable communities,” now taking over Central Texas and driving its population into a containment grid under the guise of “smart growth” and other such measures. The Infowars team visits several local meetings working to inject ‘sustainable’ principles into the region, confronting bureaucrats who deny any connection with or sufficient knowledge of the UN’s Agenda 21, while Melissa Melton interviews an Urban Design and Landscape Architecture professor at the University of Texas who teaches a class on Agenda 21.
What’s behind these “sustainable community” grants, implemented federally through Obama’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities and locally through NGOs including the ICLEI and a consortium of regional boards and environmental funds? Research shows that it is little more than a takeover of both metropolitan and rural sites via heavy-handed planning techniques and deep connections to Rockefeller/UN interests.
Suspected Ambassador Killer was Leader of US-Backed Libyan Rebel Forces and Former Gitmo Detainee
Posted by Jim Hoft
Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 10:01 PM
(The Gateway Pundit) - Two former Afghan Islamists and a former Gitmo detainee led the rebels in Libya.
The US reportedly trained and armed the rebels in Libya.
Now, one of the rebel leaders, Sufyan Ben Qumu, is suspected in the murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Sufyan Ben Qumu showed his appreciation by murdering our ambassador.
Leader: Sufyan Ben Qumu, who has known extremist ties, became one of the top commanders of rebel forces in Benghazi. Sufyan Ben Qumu, who was reportedly once Osama bin Laden’s driver, was let out of the US military detention center in Cuba in 2007 and turned over to the government of Muammar Gaddafi on the condition he be kept behind bars. (Daily Mail)
Former Gitmo detainee Sufyan Ben Qumu was released from Libyan prison last year.
It took Ben Qumu less than a year to lead rebels against the regime.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
Two former Afghan Mujahedeen and a six-year detainee at Guantanamo Bay have stepped to the fore of this city’s military campaign, training new recruits for the front and to protect the city from infiltrators loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
The presence of Islamists like these amid the opposition has raised concerns, among some fellow rebels as well as their Western allies, that the goal of some Libyan fighters in battling Col. Gadhafi is to propagate Islamist extremism.
Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, an influential Islamic preacher and high-school teacher who spent five years at a training camp in eastern Afghanistan, oversees the recruitment, training and deployment of about 300 rebel fighters from Darna.
Mr. Hasady’s field commander on the front lines is Salah al-Barrani, a former fighter from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which was formed in the 1990s by Libyan mujahedeen returning home after helping to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan and dedicated to ousting Mr. Gadhafi from power.
Sufyan Ben Qumu, a Libyan army veteran who worked for Osama bin Laden’s holding company in Sudan and later for an al Qaeda-linked charity in Afghanistan, is training many of the city’s rebel recruits.
Both Messrs. Hasady and Ben Qumu were picked up by Pakistani authorities after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and were turned over to the U.S. Mr. Hasady was released to Libyan custody two months later. Mr. Ben Qumu spent six years at Guantanamo Bay before he was turned over to Libyan custody in 2007.
They were both released from Libyan prisons in 2008 as part of a reconciliation with Islamists in Libya.
More… During his military service Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu was frequently disciplined for drug and alcohol offenses, absences without leave, and attempted rape.
At least 27% of former Gitmo prisoners return to terror.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 10:01 PM
(The Gateway Pundit) - Two former Afghan Islamists and a former Gitmo detainee led the rebels in Libya.
The US reportedly trained and armed the rebels in Libya.
Now, one of the rebel leaders, Sufyan Ben Qumu, is suspected in the murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Sufyan Ben Qumu showed his appreciation by murdering our ambassador.
Former Gitmo detainee Sufyan Ben Qumu was released from Libyan prison last year.
It took Ben Qumu less than a year to lead rebels against the regime.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
Two former Afghan Mujahedeen and a six-year detainee at Guantanamo Bay have stepped to the fore of this city’s military campaign, training new recruits for the front and to protect the city from infiltrators loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
The presence of Islamists like these amid the opposition has raised concerns, among some fellow rebels as well as their Western allies, that the goal of some Libyan fighters in battling Col. Gadhafi is to propagate Islamist extremism.
Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, an influential Islamic preacher and high-school teacher who spent five years at a training camp in eastern Afghanistan, oversees the recruitment, training and deployment of about 300 rebel fighters from Darna.
Mr. Hasady’s field commander on the front lines is Salah al-Barrani, a former fighter from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which was formed in the 1990s by Libyan mujahedeen returning home after helping to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan and dedicated to ousting Mr. Gadhafi from power.
Sufyan Ben Qumu, a Libyan army veteran who worked for Osama bin Laden’s holding company in Sudan and later for an al Qaeda-linked charity in Afghanistan, is training many of the city’s rebel recruits.
Both Messrs. Hasady and Ben Qumu were picked up by Pakistani authorities after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and were turned over to the U.S. Mr. Hasady was released to Libyan custody two months later. Mr. Ben Qumu spent six years at Guantanamo Bay before he was turned over to Libyan custody in 2007.
They were both released from Libyan prisons in 2008 as part of a reconciliation with Islamists in Libya.
More… During his military service Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu was frequently disciplined for drug and alcohol offenses, absences without leave, and attempted rape.
At least 27% of former Gitmo prisoners return to terror.
White House Says It's Unconstitutional to Strike Down Indefinite Detention of Americans without Trial, Charges
(Business Insider) - The Obama administration had some harsh words Friday after a federal judge appointed by Obama said the government doesn't have a right to indefinitely detain anyone even remotely associated with terrorist groups.
Judge Katherine B. Forrest permanently blocked the government from enforcing the National Defense Authorization Act, claiming it was too vague and would have a "chilling effect" on free speech.
And now the Department of Justice is calling Forrest's ruling "unprecedented," arguing that the government has long had the authority to detain anyone it deems a threat to the county, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported Friday.
And on Monday, the Justice Department asked the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals to put the ruling on hold, according to Law Blog.
Forrest's ruling oversteps the court's authority and infringes on Obama's power to act as Commander in Chief, according to the government's court filings.
The Justice Department requested a stay of the ruling pending appeal, which Forrest denied Friday.
Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case has hailed the decision as a "huge and historic victory for democracy," saying he believes any challenges from the Obama administration will be shot down, RT reported over the weekend.
<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=w1c2x0NTo91y7rg9zazOqjEgBOXSQsrg&width=100height%3D100%C2%B3%C2%90%C2%ABz%C2%B3&deepLinkEmbedCode=w1c2x0NTo91y7rg9zazOqjEgBOXSQsrg"></script>
Posted by Abby Rogers Sep. 17, 2012, 8:48 AM
UMass/Herald poll: Scott Brown in slight lead vs. Warren
9/20/2012 5:39:40 AM
by Joe Battenfeld
<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=2&VID=23817050&freewheel=69016&sitesection=bostonherald' height='320' width='425' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>
(Boston Herald) - U.S. Sen. Scott Brown has moved into a narrow lead over rival Elizabeth Warren while his standing among Massachusetts voters has improved despite a year-long Democratic assault, a new UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll shows.
The GOP incumbent is beating Warren by a 50-44 percent margin among registered Bay State voters, a turnaround from the last University of Massachusetts Lowell/Herald poll nine months ago that had the Democratic challenger leading by seven points. Among likely voters, Brown is leading the Harvard Law professor by a 49-45 percent margin, just within the poll’s 5.5 percent margin of error.
“I wasn’t too sure of him at first, but he’s been very independent,” said Jo Ann Dunnigan, a longtime Democrat and President Obama supporter from Fall River who participated in the poll, conducted Sept. 13-17.
Brown and Warren face off Oct. 1 in a debate sponsored by the Herald and UMass Lowell.
The poll, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, shows nearly one in three Brown backers say they could change their mind before Election Day, compared to just 19 percent for Warren. But the poll, which started a week after the Democratic National Convention, finds no evidence of a “bounce” for Warren.
There also is some troubling news for the well-financed Warren campaign. Despite spending millions of dollars to tarnish Brown’s image, the GOP incumbent’s popularity has actually increased in the past nine months.
Brown is now viewed favorably by 57 percent of registered voters, up nine points from a UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll conducted in December 2011. Brown’s unfavorable rating actually has dropped six points to 29 percent. He is also drawing 22 percent of voters who say they will vote for President Obama.
“I like the fact he grew up poor and knows what it means to have problems in your family,” said Valerica Stanta, a self-described independent from Haverhill who supports Obama and took part in the poll.
Warren is viewed favorably by 48 percent of voters — a 14-point increase from nine months ago — but her unfavorable rating has also increased seven points to 34 percent. And three of 10 registered voters say Warren’s views are “too liberal.”
Stanta said she has a “trust” problem with Warren because of her differing explanations for why she listed herself as an American Indian minority in law school directories. “When they avoid explaining exactly what is going on, I don’t feel comfortable,” Stanta said.
The UMass Lowell/Herald poll shows Brown also is benefiting from a huge gender gap — among men.
The GOP incumbent holds a 20-point lead among male voters, a huge advantage heading down the stretch. Warren, however, has not built up a similar advantage among female voters, holding just a seven-point lead over Brown. In the December 2011 poll, Warren held an 18-point lead among women.
That could reflect a major effort by Brown to target female voters, including a TV ad in which he folds laundry.
The poll also shows Brown continuing to hold a huge lead among self-described independent voters, 58 to 35 percent. He has also pulled even on an issue Warren has sought to make her own — fighting for the middle class. Asked which candidate would look out for the interests of the middle class, 46 percent of registered voters said Warren and 44 percent said Brown.
Self-described Democrats accounted for 28 percent of the poll respondents, and Democratic-leaning voters made up 55 percent of the poll.
by Joe Battenfeld
<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=2&VID=23817050&freewheel=69016&sitesection=bostonherald' height='320' width='425' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>
(Boston Herald) - U.S. Sen. Scott Brown has moved into a narrow lead over rival Elizabeth Warren while his standing among Massachusetts voters has improved despite a year-long Democratic assault, a new UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll shows.
The GOP incumbent is beating Warren by a 50-44 percent margin among registered Bay State voters, a turnaround from the last University of Massachusetts Lowell/Herald poll nine months ago that had the Democratic challenger leading by seven points. Among likely voters, Brown is leading the Harvard Law professor by a 49-45 percent margin, just within the poll’s 5.5 percent margin of error.
“I wasn’t too sure of him at first, but he’s been very independent,” said Jo Ann Dunnigan, a longtime Democrat and President Obama supporter from Fall River who participated in the poll, conducted Sept. 13-17.
Brown and Warren face off Oct. 1 in a debate sponsored by the Herald and UMass Lowell.
The poll, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, shows nearly one in three Brown backers say they could change their mind before Election Day, compared to just 19 percent for Warren. But the poll, which started a week after the Democratic National Convention, finds no evidence of a “bounce” for Warren.
There also is some troubling news for the well-financed Warren campaign. Despite spending millions of dollars to tarnish Brown’s image, the GOP incumbent’s popularity has actually increased in the past nine months.
Brown is now viewed favorably by 57 percent of registered voters, up nine points from a UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll conducted in December 2011. Brown’s unfavorable rating actually has dropped six points to 29 percent. He is also drawing 22 percent of voters who say they will vote for President Obama.
“I like the fact he grew up poor and knows what it means to have problems in your family,” said Valerica Stanta, a self-described independent from Haverhill who supports Obama and took part in the poll.
Warren is viewed favorably by 48 percent of voters — a 14-point increase from nine months ago — but her unfavorable rating has also increased seven points to 34 percent. And three of 10 registered voters say Warren’s views are “too liberal.”
Stanta said she has a “trust” problem with Warren because of her differing explanations for why she listed herself as an American Indian minority in law school directories. “When they avoid explaining exactly what is going on, I don’t feel comfortable,” Stanta said.
The UMass Lowell/Herald poll shows Brown also is benefiting from a huge gender gap — among men.
The GOP incumbent holds a 20-point lead among male voters, a huge advantage heading down the stretch. Warren, however, has not built up a similar advantage among female voters, holding just a seven-point lead over Brown. In the December 2011 poll, Warren held an 18-point lead among women.
That could reflect a major effort by Brown to target female voters, including a TV ad in which he folds laundry.
The poll also shows Brown continuing to hold a huge lead among self-described independent voters, 58 to 35 percent. He has also pulled even on an issue Warren has sought to make her own — fighting for the middle class. Asked which candidate would look out for the interests of the middle class, 46 percent of registered voters said Warren and 44 percent said Brown.
Self-described Democrats accounted for 28 percent of the poll respondents, and Democratic-leaning voters made up 55 percent of the poll.
Obama’s law school course description cited ‘institutional racism in American society’
9/20/2012 6:04:10 AM
by Charles C. Johnson
(Daily Caller) - A course description for “Current Issues in Racism and the Law,” a class Barack Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School 12 times between 1992 and 2004, categorized race relations in the United States as “institutional racism in American society.”
Obama taught the two-hour seminar course more often than his other two classes, “Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process” and “Voting Rights and the Democratic Process.” He taught those eight times beginning in 1996 and six times beginning in 1997, respectively.
The summary of Obama’s course on racism, likely authored by the future president himself, appeared in the law school’s 1995-1996 course catalog.
It promised students they would “examine current problems in American race relations and the role the law has played in structuring the race debate.”
It also promised an examination of “the continued emphasis on statutory solutions to racism” that have been emphasized at the expense of “potentially richer political, economic, and cultural approaches.”
“[C]an minorities afford to shift their emphasis,” it asked, “given the continued prevalence of racism in society?”
“Can, and should, the existing concepts of American jurisprudence provide racial minorities more than formal equality through the courts?”
The course’s requirements included writing “papers that evaluate how the legal system has dealt with particular incidents of racism and that discuss the comparative merits of litigation, legislation, and market solutions to the problems of institutional racism in American society.”
The course’s presumption that the legal profession has a duty to equalize minorities with the general population is a hallmark of Critical Race Theory, the academic idea that the law itself is an instrument of the powerful against the powerless, rather than an effort to seek justice.
The phrase “institutional racism” recalls the work of Derrick Bell, a controversial Harvard Law school professor whom Obama once introduced as a speaker during 1991 “diversity” protests at Harvard Law School, and whose Saturday seminars Obama attended as a law student.
New York Times reporter Jody Kantor released other materials from the course in 2008 showing that Obama taught Bell’s work, in particular Bell’s interpretations of seminal civil rights case law.
An August 2012 analysis of the materials Kantor published, co-authored by a University of North Carolina law professor and a law student, suggests that the readings Obama assigned and the group presentation topics he suggested reveal his strong interest in Critical Race Theory, also called CRT.
“[T]he prevalence of presentation questions on the syllabus that were at the center of CRT suggests that Obama had been brought into orbit around key issues in CRT.” Obama, they wrote, also seems to have taught according to “a model set by many CRT scholars,” who prefer alternatives to the traditional Socratic method.
NEXT: 'He agreed entirely with the theory of reparations' >>
by Charles C. Johnson
(Daily Caller) - A course description for “Current Issues in Racism and the Law,” a class Barack Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School 12 times between 1992 and 2004, categorized race relations in the United States as “institutional racism in American society.”
Obama taught the two-hour seminar course more often than his other two classes, “Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process” and “Voting Rights and the Democratic Process.” He taught those eight times beginning in 1996 and six times beginning in 1997, respectively.
The summary of Obama’s course on racism, likely authored by the future president himself, appeared in the law school’s 1995-1996 course catalog.
It promised students they would “examine current problems in American race relations and the role the law has played in structuring the race debate.”
It also promised an examination of “the continued emphasis on statutory solutions to racism” that have been emphasized at the expense of “potentially richer political, economic, and cultural approaches.”
“[C]an minorities afford to shift their emphasis,” it asked, “given the continued prevalence of racism in society?”
“Can, and should, the existing concepts of American jurisprudence provide racial minorities more than formal equality through the courts?”
The course’s requirements included writing “papers that evaluate how the legal system has dealt with particular incidents of racism and that discuss the comparative merits of litigation, legislation, and market solutions to the problems of institutional racism in American society.”
The course’s presumption that the legal profession has a duty to equalize minorities with the general population is a hallmark of Critical Race Theory, the academic idea that the law itself is an instrument of the powerful against the powerless, rather than an effort to seek justice.
The phrase “institutional racism” recalls the work of Derrick Bell, a controversial Harvard Law school professor whom Obama once introduced as a speaker during 1991 “diversity” protests at Harvard Law School, and whose Saturday seminars Obama attended as a law student.
New York Times reporter Jody Kantor released other materials from the course in 2008 showing that Obama taught Bell’s work, in particular Bell’s interpretations of seminal civil rights case law.
An August 2012 analysis of the materials Kantor published, co-authored by a University of North Carolina law professor and a law student, suggests that the readings Obama assigned and the group presentation topics he suggested reveal his strong interest in Critical Race Theory, also called CRT.
“[T]he prevalence of presentation questions on the syllabus that were at the center of CRT suggests that Obama had been brought into orbit around key issues in CRT.” Obama, they wrote, also seems to have taught according to “a model set by many CRT scholars,” who prefer alternatives to the traditional Socratic method.
NEXT: 'He agreed entirely with the theory of reparations' >>
The Obama You Don't Know
9/20/2012
by Mark Tapscott
(Washington Examiner) - Few if any of his predecessors took the oath of office with higher public hopes for his success than President Obama on Jan. 20, 2009.
Millions of Americans hailed his election as an end to partisanship, a renewal of the spirit of compromise and a reinvigoration of the nation's highest ideals at home and abroad.
Above all, as America's first black chief executive, Obama symbolized the healing of long-festering wounds that were the terrible national legacy of slavery, the Reconstruction Era and Jim Crow. We would be, finally, one nation.
But after nearly four years in office, Obama has become a sharply polarizing figure.
His admirers believe he deserves a special place alongside Wilson, the Roosevelts and LBJ as one of the architects of benevolent government.
His critics believe he is trying to remake America in the image of Europe's social democracies, replacing America's ethos of independence and individual enterprise with a welfare state inflamed by class divisions.
In an effort to get a clearer picture of Obama -- his shaping influences, his core beliefs, his political ambitions and his accomplishments -- The Washington Examiner conducted a four-month inquiry, interviewing dozens of his supporters and detractors in Chicago and elsewhere, and studying countless court transcripts, government reports and other official documents.
Over the years and in two autobiographies, Obama has presented himself to the world as many things, including radical community organizer, idealistic civil rights lawyer, dynamic reformer in the Illinois and U.S. senates, and, finally, the cool presidential voice of postpartisan hope and change.
With his air of reasonableness and moderation, he has projected a remarkably likable persona. Even in the midst of a historically dirty campaign for re-election, his likability numbers remain impressive, as seen in a recent AP-GFK Poll that found 53 percent of adults have a favorable view of him.
But beyond the spin and the polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer but rather a classic Chicago machine pol who thrives on rewarding himself and his friends with the spoils of public office, and who uses his position to punish his enemies.
Peter Schweizer captures this other Obama with a bracing statistic in his book "Throw Them All Out," published last year. In the Obama economic stimulus program's Department of Energy loans, companies owned and run by Obama contributors and friends, like Solyndra's George Kaiser, received $16.4 billion. Those not linked to the president got only $4.1 billion. The Energy Department is far from the only federal program in which favoritism has heavily influenced federal grants.
To paraphrase Tammany Hall's George Washington Plunkitt, Obama has seen his opportunities and taken them, over and over.
- Mark Tapscott / Executive Editor
Next: Chapter I: A childhood of privelege, not hardship
by Mark Tapscott
(Washington Examiner) - Few if any of his predecessors took the oath of office with higher public hopes for his success than President Obama on Jan. 20, 2009.
Millions of Americans hailed his election as an end to partisanship, a renewal of the spirit of compromise and a reinvigoration of the nation's highest ideals at home and abroad.
Above all, as America's first black chief executive, Obama symbolized the healing of long-festering wounds that were the terrible national legacy of slavery, the Reconstruction Era and Jim Crow. We would be, finally, one nation.
But after nearly four years in office, Obama has become a sharply polarizing figure.
His admirers believe he deserves a special place alongside Wilson, the Roosevelts and LBJ as one of the architects of benevolent government.
His critics believe he is trying to remake America in the image of Europe's social democracies, replacing America's ethos of independence and individual enterprise with a welfare state inflamed by class divisions.
In an effort to get a clearer picture of Obama -- his shaping influences, his core beliefs, his political ambitions and his accomplishments -- The Washington Examiner conducted a four-month inquiry, interviewing dozens of his supporters and detractors in Chicago and elsewhere, and studying countless court transcripts, government reports and other official documents.
Over the years and in two autobiographies, Obama has presented himself to the world as many things, including radical community organizer, idealistic civil rights lawyer, dynamic reformer in the Illinois and U.S. senates, and, finally, the cool presidential voice of postpartisan hope and change.
With his air of reasonableness and moderation, he has projected a remarkably likable persona. Even in the midst of a historically dirty campaign for re-election, his likability numbers remain impressive, as seen in a recent AP-GFK Poll that found 53 percent of adults have a favorable view of him.
But beyond the spin and the polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer but rather a classic Chicago machine pol who thrives on rewarding himself and his friends with the spoils of public office, and who uses his position to punish his enemies.
Peter Schweizer captures this other Obama with a bracing statistic in his book "Throw Them All Out," published last year. In the Obama economic stimulus program's Department of Energy loans, companies owned and run by Obama contributors and friends, like Solyndra's George Kaiser, received $16.4 billion. Those not linked to the president got only $4.1 billion. The Energy Department is far from the only federal program in which favoritism has heavily influenced federal grants.
To paraphrase Tammany Hall's George Washington Plunkitt, Obama has seen his opportunities and taken them, over and over.
- Mark Tapscott / Executive Editor
Next: Chapter I: A childhood of privelege, not hardship