ACTION

Obama To Cancel U.S. Constitution

(FoxNews) - Schools and universities across the country on Friday will celebrate the signing of the U.S. Constitution, a portion of which is seen here. But plans to commemorate the day at many federal agencies contacted by Fox News remain unclear.

Sen. John Cornyn warned President Obama on Sunday to not even consider interpreting the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment to bypass Congress and raise the debt limit without its approval.

"That's crazy talk. It's not acceptable for Congress and the president not to do their job and to say somehow the president has the authority then to basically do this by himself," Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge on the Texas Supreme Court, told "Fox News Sunday."

The proposal that Obama re-interpret Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to justify raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit has been gaining traction in Democratic circles since Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told reporters that the Constitution's language could support the president's raising the limit without congressional approval.

'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion' -- this is the important thing -- 'shall not be questioned,' " Geithner read during a discussion hosted by Politico in May.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and others on Capitol Hill reportedly acknowledged that the idea is percolating, and had been presented to the president.

"It's certainly worth exploring. I think it needs a little more exploration and study," he said during a conference call with reporters held Friday.

Without addressing efforts to invoke the Constitution, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Sunday the president and congressional negotiators shouldn't even be discussing a debt deal privately.

"Congress is the constitutional place for this to be decided," said Sessions, who is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Asked during a press conference Wednesday whether the debt limit was constitutional, the president glossed over the question, saying, "I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here."

http://teaparty.org/article.php?id=989

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on Floyd Reports-By Guest Writer-On July 1, 2011:

“A CIA/FBI agent was responsible for creating the first al-Qaeda training manual from classified military sources; he covertly moved up through the ranks undetected until the al-Qaeda spy, Egyptian born Ali Mohamed, was finally discovered. Though arrested in 1998, Mohamed’s whereabouts and legal status remain unknown. The Fort Hoodjihadist, Nidal Malik Hasan, benefited from the same faulty screening.

The Jordanian-born “reformed” jihadist Humam Al-Balawi deceived some anxious CIA agents concerning the whereabouts of Ayman al-Zawahiri. As he passed their guard, he detonated a suicide belt, killing the agents. We were the first to translate the sinister plan of this Taliban spy, which was missed by the CIA but was advertised on his Arabic website for the whole Arabic world to read:

When I drive my car at a traffic police station …my surroundings change by a push of a flash button. I will find myself martyred as I drive a booby trapped Laurie with a bomb heading towards the pagan guards…

Why isn’t the CIA monitoring the Arabic words and connections of these people?

Whether it’s the CIA or the military, sophisticated surveillance is proving inadequate and proper background checks of Middle Easterners aren’t being done. Each example serves as another case in point. What makes us think that the State Department updated its virus protection program? Even more disconcerting than Ali and Al-Balawi is Hillary’s “aide” and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, who has been with Hillary since 1996; we believe she was never properly screened and is well positioned to exploit her American connections for the benefit of Islamic radicals.

To be concerned about Huma’s access to sensitive information is an issue that will most likely garner unsolicited curses from “sensitive” Americans who are enamored with her. These same people ignore this diva’s familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Lt. Col. Robert Anderson’s detailed reports aimed at getting Army intelligence to investigate Ali Mohamed — and have him court-martialed — were also ignored.

Huma is even more potentially dangerous; she can leak State secrets. She is closely associated with her Muslim Brotherhood family and even joined Hillary at an event with Saleha Abedin – Huma’s mother – at Dar El-Hekma University in Saudi Arabia. Also present was a close associate of Saleha – Suheir Qureshi. Qureshi’s name later appeared in several prominent Arab newspapers when it was revealed that she belonged to a list of 63 members of the secret female arm of the Muslim Brotherhood named The Sisterhood.

The full list was later revealed; Huma’s mother is on it. Huma’s brother – Hassan Abedin – also collaborates with Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yousuf Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world.

Yet, as detractors argue “guilt by association,” they unwittingly strengthen our case, since this is what the FBI useswhen investigating federal employees: “Character,” “Associates,” “Reputation,” and “Loyalty to the United States” (CARL). This checklist was never applied to Huma, who still associated with her family. Dismissing all this as “guilt by association” ignores a tough question:

Other than Huma Abedin, has there ever been a case whereby a family member who either belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood or was a prominent Islamist did not denounce a Muslim female relative who married a non-Muslim male?

It’s a question with only one answer; her family made an exception for her because Huma has a higher calling.

Westerners erroneously compare the Middle East mindset with that of the Midwest and fail to understand the Muslim worldview. They do not comprehend the seriousness of a Muslim “daughter” or “sister” marrying a Jewish male, especially since the Islamic Shariah Faculty in Kuwait has deemed Huma’s marriage to a male Jew null and void.

While Westerners portray the Sisterhood as a simple “mule service,” our own detailed research – which will be released shortly – reveals male supervisors as official members along with their wives/daughters; the list includes spies who proudly disclosed their heroic acts during Israel’s wars with Egypt. Others are Nazi-style propagandists; Nazi affiliates from the time of the Brotherhood’s inception; Hijab advocates in Europe; prominent doctors; popular conspiracy theorists and media icons that closely emulate the Goebbels propaganda machine of Nazi Germany.

The group’s influence spans several international organizations from the United Nations to the United States to womens advocacy groups worldwide; its influence is immense. Overlooking this group – and by extension, Huma Abedin – is not dissimilar from ignoring Able Danger’s revelations about Muhammad Atta prior to 9/11.

Any doubting Thomas must acknowledge the validity of the Sisterhood list, because it follows the same agenda and direction shown on the Brotherhood’s official website; it has been confirmed by Egyptian security services as well as top experts, including the Arab Center for Studies, headed by researcher Abdul Rahim Ali.

To give you a taste of this bitter herb, we will examine a single name before we publish all 63. Take Najla Ali Mahmoud, who is supervised by her husband Mohammed Aidalmrsi, member of the Guidance Bureau and the current leader of theJustice and Freedom Party (the Brotherhood’s new propaganda name). He recently appeared on national television and explained why “Egypt needs to ban Western dress” and how “no one with a full mental faculty can believe in the Trinity.” He even condemned Egyptian monuments as “idols.” It differs from the Taliban only in that it has a Western propaganda machine.

Will Egypt do to the Sphinx as the Taliban did to the Buddhist statues in Bamyan? Will Egypt perpetrate a holocaust on Coptic Christians who are already portrayed as having a mental deficiency for believing in the Trinity?

And while this Goebbles runs his propaganda machine, the naysayers demand evidence of Huma’s membership in this notorious group. Would someone appoint the daughter of Magda and Joseph Goebbels as the Deputy Chief of Staff forCordell Hull—the Secretary of State during World War II—arguing that she is not a member of the Nazi Party?

It is also not “racist” nor even inaccurate to compare the Muslim Brotherhood with the Nazis; Hassan Al-Banna, the grandfather of Tariq Ramadan (Ramadan’s ban from the U.S. was lifted by Hillary) collaborated with my grandfather’s associate and Hitler henchman Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who became the Muslim Brotherhood leader after the war. Neither has the Brotherhood repented; they still take pride in their collaboration with the Nazis.

And while the House of Representatives debated whether to cut off funds for Obama’s military campaign in Libya, whichaids the Brotherhood-backed rebels, Clinton challenged Congress over its position asking, “Whose side are you on?”

This is a question Hillary should ask herself.

Even the team that was set up by the State Department’s policy designed to “engage the moderate Muslim world” was infiltrated without even screening its contributor, the Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer and – Egyptian by heritage – Ground Zero Mosque Imam, Sheikh Feisal Abdul Rauf who only moderates his tone in English.

Promoting a moderate Muslim Brotherhood is like promoting “Capitalistic-Communism” to defeat Russia during the Cold War or even a “pro-Jewish Nazism” during WWII. A more current and real-life example is “Chrislam.”

Hillary’s “inclusion policy” may have brought in spies, and this is how she plans to soften the Muslim Brotherhood?

Hillary’s use of oxymoronic formulas to combat terrorism is worse than the moronic path taken by the likes of Humam Al-Balawi, who killed his enemy while we bolster the confidence of ours.

Huma Abedin was never properly screened, and unless this diva answers some tough questions, the issue we set forth regarding the failure to screen her, is an ironclad case that the State Department is broken — and American lives may be in danger.

• Walid Shoebat is the author For God or For Tyranny. Ben Barrack is a talk show host on KTEM 1400 in Texas and maintains the website BenBarrack.com.”

Source:

http://floydreports.com/is-anthony-weiners-wife-a-spy/

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Weiner’s In-Laws and the Secret Muslim Brotherhood Connections Revealed!-Posted on FloydReports.com-By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack-On June 15, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/weiners-in-laws-and-the-secret-muslim-brotherhood-connections-revealed/

II. Did Weiner Secretly Convert to Islam to Marry a Muslim?-Posted on Floyd Reports-By Guest Writer-On June 9, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/did-weiner-secretly-convert-to-islam-to-marry-a-muslim/

III. 48^th Annual Muslim Brotherhood-linked ISNA Convention, July 1-4 USA!-Posted on Creeping Sharia-By creeping-On July 1, 2011:

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

IV. Obama's Plan to Islamicize America!-Posted on Israel Today-By Victor Mordechai-On June 28, 2011:

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/tabid/178/nid/22844/language/en-US/Default.aspx

V. Is George Soros Forging a Closer Alliance With the Muslim Brotherhood?-Posted on The Blaze-ByTiffany Gabbay-On June 30, 2011:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-george-soros-forging-a-closer-alliance-with-the-muslim-brotherhood/

VI. The Obama Administration Opens Formal Contacts With the Muslim Brotherhood!-Posted on National Review Online- By Andrew C. McCarthy-On June 30, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270864/obama-administration-opens-formal-contacts-muslim-brotherhood-andrew-c-mccarthy

VII. Clinton Admits We Are Now Reaching Out to the Muslim Brotherhood!-Posted on The Blaze-By Jonathon M. Seidl-On June 30, 2011:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/clinton-admits-we-are-now-reaching-out-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/

VIII. Clinton Hosts Islamic World Forum For Obama In D.C.-Posted on Judicial Watch-On April 11, 2011:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/apr/clinton-hosts-islamic-world-forum-obama

IX. Before Obama-Clinton Was One of the Worst Presidents Ever!-Posted on American Thinker-By Stella Paul-On June 22, 2011:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/clinton_unzipped_one_of_the_worst_presidents_ever.html

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The Islamic Infiltration: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/the-islamic-infiltration-inside-our-government-armed-with-our-secrets/

Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America-Will America Notice!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/muslim-brotherhood-declares-war-on-america-will-america-notice/

Is President Obama in on the Uprising in Egypt?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/is-president-obama-in-on-the-uprising-in-egypt/

Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/godfather-of-the-islamic-revolution/

Sen. Obama's Radical Islamic Past and Ties to Terrorist Groups!

http://WeroInNM.blogtownhall.com/2009/04/17/sen_obamas_radical_islamic_past_and_ties_to_terrorist_groups.thtml

What we haven’t been told about the President’s background!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/what-we-haven’t-been-told-about-the-president’s-background/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

Is all doom and gloom?  In what you hear, there is a lot missing. For this Fourth of July celebration, here is a message of hope and renewal. I ask that you spread the word. The end of this world is the beginning of a far better world.

The signs all point to the world we know being over.  In its place, the President of the United States has given his blessing to the Muslim Brotherhood, to a religious belief that desires to do away with all who do not agree; his blessing to an anti-capitalist autocracy and zero personal liberty the President calls “collective salvation.”

With the new year in 1975 my life was over. Not that I planned it, but on Good Friday 1975, I left my Texas life and headed for Miami, Florida, departed my old life on the day Christians commemorate as the day Christ was crucified, arriving in Miami on Easter Sunday, the day Jesus rose from the dead.  It was an omen of things to come.

I’m not a Christian. I’m a secular humanist, defined as one with a set of beliefs that promote human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.  Further, my beliefs are defined as anarchy. I’m one who regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. In other words, I believe in the “Higher Law,” the background of American constitutional law, the law President Obama wants to “fundamentally” change.  I believe that Jesus is my redeemer. Why do I have to be a Christian?

When I departed, in search of a new life, I looked within and discovered who I really was. I didn’t adhere to Christian dogmas and doctrines.  Events took place that made me know the power that lies within, which I attributed to a higher power.  With regard to religious doctrines and dogmas, which comes first the chicken or the egg?  My life story tells you that I was born again when I looked within for answers.

With the world on fire, my life is as good as it gets. All of my dreams have come true.  Let us now turn to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 6, Jesus said, “in earth as it is in heaven.” We find a consistent correspondence between planetary alignments and the archetypal patterns of human history. Astrologers geometrize God—and more lately the cutting edge of science, shining new light at this crucial time. Astrologer Jeanne Avery, in The Rising Sign, under Aquarius Rising, “He becomes the water-bearer by walking to the beat of a different drummer. He may be the person to bring back information that has been lost to civilization for centuries. . . He knows where the fruit grows and where the spotlight can hit. He is not one to hide his light under a bushel (from Matthew 5:15).  I’m Aquarius rising, and a messenger.

Connecting the dots, getting back to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 6 he said, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God.” Jesus talks about God in heaven but there are omissions.  He warns of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and specifically when he said, “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (Mt. 23:13).

With respect to what Jesus said—and our archetypal patterns—in Astrologer’s Handbook, under Aquarius, we read, “Individuals born under the sign of brotherhood”—hello!   Are we to follow The President of the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood to slavery—or to Jesus’ teaching?  Aquarians “have as their symbol the water- bearer, who spills out to mankind the life-force and spiritual energy;” and, under Aquarius: “There is no affectation or snobbery in the Aquarian personality, but a dislike of spurious imitation and hypocrisy in any form. Aquarians operate as equals among equals. . .” Straight from the Bible, why do the authorities deny it? It is all about control. Again, which comes first the chicken or the egg?

Keeping the above in mind, in Matthew 2, with regard to Jesus’ birth (at the beginning of the Age of Pisces) “wise men from the east,” the Magi, followed the Star of Bethlehem to Jesus’ place of birth.  The Magi were Persian astrologers. Astrologer’s Handbook, under Pisces: “Pisces is a sensitive sign and those born under it are extremely responsive to the thoughts and feelings of others. They unconsciously absorb the ideas and mental outlook of those around them.  They desperately want to do the right thing, but as a rule they do not have strong willpower. Therefore, they are easily influenced by external factors.” Get real! The explanation fits with the reason for the crucifixion. It is all about control.  And interestingly, the symbol for Pisces is two attached fish swimming in opposite directions, exactly what is taking place at this time.

The Age of Pisces fading into history.  Welcome to the Age of Aquarius.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On July 1, 2011:

“There were eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy, according to a new video.

The video documentary was produced by Carl Gallups, the senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than 24 years with a long history of community and law enforcement involvement.

Gallups was a Florida law enforcement officer for 10 years, a youth minister before that and is a national and international youth evangelist with outreaches across the United States and in Canada since 1989. He’s also on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.

Documentation for his video comes from a variety of congressional records showing that beginning June 11, 2003, and continuing through the most recent effort, Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight proposals targeting that constitutional requirement.

The video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw&feature=player_embedded

He outlines the specifics:

• June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to “permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.”

• Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.

• Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democratonslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement.” But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States,” which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.

• Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, “to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.”

• Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher’s.

• Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.

• April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years’ citizenship.

• Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.

Gallups reports that finally, on April 10, 2008, “unable to alter or remove” the requirement, the Senate changed the focus of the issue, with Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain’s qualifications as a “natural-born citizen.”

Obama's qualifications never were reviewed:

After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.

WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision. It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama. She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate.

Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both  Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.

Herlihy’s published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory” and the “Constitution’s worst provision,” Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.”

She concludes that the “emotional” reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the “rational” reasons demanding a change.

The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.

“Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans’ subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.

“Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts,” she wrote.

In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.

“Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a ‘foreigner’ coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland,” she wrote.

“The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty,”she wrote.

Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, “are based primarily on emotion.”

Source:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317705

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Video: Illegal Obama "Propped Up" By Congress!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw&feature=player_embedded

II. Bogus Obama document 'bigger than Watergate'!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On June 30, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317353

III. Video: TIME Magazine Asks: ‘Does the Constitution Still Matter?’-Posted on PatriotPost.US-On June 24, 2011:

http://patriotpost.us/perspective/2011/06/24/time-magazine-asks-does-the-constitution-still-matter/

IV. The Constitution Matters: ‘A reply to Time magazine’s Richard Stengel.’-Posted on National Review Online-By THOMAS SOWELL-On June 28, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270584/constitution-matters-thomas-sowell

V. ‘White House officials involved in rewriting nation’s founding document’!-Posted on WND.com-By Aaron Klein-On March 27, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280277

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-put-obama-in-the-white-house-2/

Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/congress-report-concedes-obama-eligibility-unvetted/

DC knows that Obama is ineligible for office!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/dc-knows-that-obama-is-ineligible-for-office/

Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newly-released-colb-be-a-forgery/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

Posted on The Patriot Updae-By Floyd Brown-On July 2, 2011:

“This a Fourth of July we are reflecting on the Founding Father’s intensive study of the Roman civilization. Knowing history, they embraced Rome’s virtues and eschewed her vices. The Founders understood the currents of history, which gave us a collective heritage unrivaled.

Sadly, we as a nation are turning our backs on the morality that made America special.

The country has convulsed in the past 30 years as a new modern morality has supplanted the currents of culture built nearly two thousand years ago along the shores of Galilee. This new culture is not yet fully defined, but we stand horrified as we peer into the future.

The culture of the Roman world was brutal and nasty. Ironically, we see its worst practices reviving with vigor. Please give us a moment as we recount a history seldom taught today’s students.

The Roman Empire had a twisted view about the value of human life. These views were banished by the ascendency of Christ’s teaching. Infanticide was both legal and encouraged in ancient Rome. Pagan societies, such as the Carthaginians, Romans and Greeks went so far as to kill their children outside the womb, sometimes as a religious sacrifice to their gods. According to Plutarch, the Carthaginians “offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs of young birds; meanwhile the mothers stood by without a tear or moan.”

We see a modern American society, which looks at children as a burden, and a generation of mothers who have decided by their own “choice” to sacrifice a generation. Population control is now an international objective.

Roman views on homosexuality were closer to today’s views than many realize. Pundit Nathaniel Blake characterizes it this way: “But, the Roman conception of same-sex relationships was very different than that of the modern West. The most important factors in the Roman view seem to have been the status and role of the partners. The Romans did not consider homosexual or heterosexual identities as exclusive from one another. While bisexuality was common, strict homosexuality was all but unknown. Unlike the modern view, social class mattered a great deal in the acceptability of homosexual relations. The upper classes were much more likely to indulge in homosexual acts, and masters had the sexual use of their slaves.”

It was common to see an older man who held dominance over a younger male, using him for sexual pleasure.

It was not until the teachings of Christ and Saint Paul conquered Rome and Western Europe that sodomy was outlawed. But alas much has changed. Now sodomy is once again legal, and some states believe these acts deserve celebration in the most public of ceremonies, the wedding.

Finally, we see the debasement of money and profligacy of the state. Today taxpayers fund stadiums for the “games.” Roman emperors don’t hold a candle to the US Congress and the Federal Reserve in the looting of the public coffers and destruction of money.

In this, Roman Emperor Caracalla comes to mind. In addition to murdering his brother, Caracalla is mostly remembered for granting Roman citizenship to every Freeman in the empire. Caracalla’s goal was to broaden the tax base to pay for his extravagant spending. He raised the inheritance tax so he could double public salaries and win the allegiance of the legions. His public works are still on display today. If you visit Rome, you can see the ruins of the gigantic “Baths of Caracalla.”

His final contribution rivals the Federal Reserve. The silver denarius was an innovation in sound money introduced by Emperor Augustus. It was 95 percent silver like America’s pre- 1964 coinage, and the denarius lead to greatly improved honest trade around the empire. Caracalla, in his drive to increase spending, changed it to a coin with only 50 percent silver.

It took later emperors to debase it as far as the Federal Reserve has debased America’s currency. By 268 AD the denarius was only 0.5 percent silver. The result was predictable, as prices rose throughout the empire by up to 1,000 percent. Soon the “barbarians” hired by the emperor as mercenaries would not accept the denarius as payment, and insisted on being paid in gold.

Such manipulations by Roman leaders are legendary, but Americans who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. The moral and financial collapse of Rome lead to a renaissance of morality and the “Christian Era.”

We can only hope that the accelerating American collapse leads to a return of the time tested honest culture that celebrates life, prudently shuns sexual immorality, and with commerce flourishing after a return to honest money.

But until that day arrives, we will continue to fight for these virtues until our last breath.”

Continue Reading:

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/manning-the-barricades-for-virtue-and-america

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and video relate to this issue-You Decide:

I. Our Founders vs. NBC and New York Atheists!

Posted on Town Hall-By Chuck Norris-On June 28, 2011:

“In a few days, on July 4, we once again will commemorate the work and courage of America’s 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Few words are as inspiring as those that rallied patriots in 1776:

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...

Rights endowed by their Creator (“Nature’s God”) and secured by government?

That doesn’t exactly sound like yesterday’s news or today’s understanding of God and government.

Consider these two headlines from just this past week: “NBC dumps ‘under God’ from Pledge at U.S. Open” and “New York Atheists Angry Over ‘Heaven’ Street Sign Honoring Sept. 11 Victims.”

In November 2005, an MSNBC poll asked, “Should the motto ‘In God We Trust’ be removed from U.S. currency?” In March 2004, a CNBC poll asked, “Should the words ‘under God’ be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?” Then, despite the fact that more than 80 percent responded in the negative to both of those questions, NBC twice omitted the words “under God” from a patriotic montage in which children recited the Pledge of Allegiance during the start of the recent U.S. Open golf tournament. NBC later apologized for the omission after nationwide outrage, but the damage already had been done.

Similarly, Fox News reported last week that some New York City atheists are demanding the removal of a street sign, newly dedicated to honor seven firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. They say the new street sign, “Seven in Heaven Way,” which was posted in Brooklyn outside the firehouse where the firefighters once served, is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Posting a street sign with the term “heaven” on it is a violation of the separation of church and state?

We definitely don’t live in our Founders’ world anymore, but that doesn’t mean we have to abandon the very principles on which they founded our republic.

Freedom of religion and expression (including religious expression) was so fundamental and important to our Founders that they mandated the liberty in the very first part of our Bill of Rights. Whether on street signs, in congressional corridors or at sporting events, government is called to protect (not prohibit) our right to religious practice and speech. As Thomas Jefferson said, “a Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government ... and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.”

Luckily, we have a Bill of Rights. But the threats against it are constant and growing. The wording of the Bill of Rights is not ambiguous. But people who want to expand the power of government keep chipping away at, modifying and replacing what it actually says.

In 1823, near the end of his life, Jefferson similarly wrote: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

The phrase “separation of church and state” actually comes from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists. He told them that no particular Christian denomination was going to have a monopoly in government. His words “a wall of separation between church and state” were written not to remove all religious practice from government or civic settings, but to prohibit the domination and even legislation of religious sectarians. The Danbury Baptists had written to him seeking reassurance that their religious liberty would be guaranteed, not that religious expression on public grounds would be banned.

Liberals would have you believe it establishes a “separation of church and state.” But that phrase appears nowhere in the First Amendment, which actually reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

(Part of the article above is from my most recent New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” now revised and available in paperback.)”

Source:

http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/06/28/our_founders_vs_nbc_and_new_york_atheists_part_1_of_2/page/full/

II. Our Founders vs. NBC and New York Atheists! (Part 2 of 2)-Posted on WND.com-By Chuck Norris-On July 4, 2011:  

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=318489

III. Citizens Against Religious Bigotry Stand up to NBC for Removing Under God from our Pledge of Allegiance!-Posted on Citizens Against Bigotry-On July 1, 2011:

http://www.citizensagainstreligiousbigotry.org/

IV. NBC Pledge of Allegiance Apology Not Enough for Family Research Council!-Posted on Charisma New Online-By Gina Meeks-On June 24, 2011:

http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/31386

V. NBC Apologizes For Omitting ‘Under God’ In Video Of Children Reciting Pledge Of Allegiance!-Posted on The Blaze-By Scott Baker-On June 20, 2011:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nbc-apologizes-for-omitting-under-god-in-video-of-childen-reciting-pledge-of-allegiance/

VI. Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing!-Posted on USNews.com-By PAUL BEDARD-On June 30, 2011:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/30/harvard-july-4th-parades-are-right-wing

VII. Are Christianity and Patriotism Compatible?-Posted on ReadingEagle.com-By Bill Uhrich-On June 26, 2011:

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=316557

VIII. Father’s Day and the Importance of Marriage!-Posted on The Heritage Foundation-On June 17, 2011:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/17/morning-bell-fathers-day-and-the-importance-of-marriage/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

IX. David Tyree: Gay Marriage Will Lead To 'Anarchy'!-Posted on MyFoxNY.com- By NewsCore-On June 16, 2011:

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/david-tyree-gay-marriage-will-lead-to-anarchy-20110616-ncx

X. Barack Obama, George Soros and the Religious Left!-Posted on American Thinker-By Jason Lee-On June 12, 2011:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/barack_obama_george_soros_and_the_religious_left.html

XI. The Judas Media-Posted on Floyd Reports-Guest Writer-On April 27, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/the-judas-media/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=43b350b9f6-EO_04_27_20114_27_2011&utm_medium=email

XII. Video: Ronald Reagan's Tribute to Patriotism!

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Faith of Our Forefathers!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/faith-of-our-forefathers/

Have the “power elite” and pseudo-experts covertly sold us corruption disguised as freedom?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/have-the-“power-elite”-and-pseudo-experts-covertly-sold-us-corruption-disguised-as-freedom/

American Flag Clothing Sparks New Protest!

Who owns our supposedly fair and balanced airwaves and news outlets?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/who-owns-our-supposedly-fair-and-balanced-airwaves-and-news-outlets/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

May You & Yours Have A Great & Safe 4^th of July Weekend.

Please Keep Our Troops & Their Families In Your Thoughts & Prayers.

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

Posted on National Review Online-By THOMAS SOWELL-On June 28, 2011:

“The Fourth of July may be just a holiday for fireworks to some people. But it was a momentous day for the history of this country and the history of the world.

Not only did July 4, 1776, mark American independence from England, it also marked a radically different kind of government from the governments that prevailed around the world at the time — and the kinds of governments that had prevailed for thousands of years before.

The American Revolution was not simply a rebellion against the king of England, it was a rebellion against being ruled by kings in general. That is why the opening salvo of the American Revolution was called“the shot heard ’round the world.”

Autocratic rulers and their subjects heard that shot — and things that had not been questioned for millennia were now open to challenge. As the generations went by, more and more autocratic governments around the world proved unable to meet that challenge.

Some clever people today ask whether the United States has really been “exceptional.”

You couldn’t be more exceptional in the 18^th century than to begin your fundamental document — the Constitution of the United States — with the momentous words, “We the people.”

Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule and who regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, elites who think that way — and they include many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs — find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.

More than 100 years ago, so-called “Progressives” began a campaign to undermine the Constitution’s strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on the rest of us. That effort to discredit the Constitution continues to this day, and the arguments haven’t really changed much in 100 years.

The cover story in the July 4^th issue of Time magazine is a classic example of this arrogance. It asks of the Constitution,“Does it still matter?”

A long and rambling essay by the magazine’s managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.

The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution “did not know about” all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers, and DNA.

This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, “When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone.”

In Mr. Stengel’s rehash of this argument, he declares: “People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today.”

Maybe that kind of talk goes on where he hangs out. But most people have enough common sense to know that a constitution does not exist to micro-manage particular “events” or express opinions about the passing scene.

A constitution exists to create a framework for government — and the Constitution of the United States tries to keep the government inside that framework.

From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Mr. Stengel. He says, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn’t say so.”

Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Perhaps Richard Stengel should follow the advice of another Stengel — Casey Stengel, who said on a number of occasions, “You could look it up.”

Does the Constitution matter? If it doesn’t, then your freedom doesn’t matter.

• Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2011 Creators Syndicate, Inc.”

Source:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270584/constitution-matters-thomas-sowell

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Video: TIME Magazine Asks: ‘Does the Constitution Still Matter?’-Posted on PatriotPost.US-On June 24, 2011:

http://patriotpost.us/perspective/2011/06/24/time-magazine-asks-doe...

II. An Exceptional Debate: ‘The Obama administration’s assault on American identity’!

Posted on National Review Online-By RICHARD LOWRY & RAMESH PONNURU-December 2010 Issue:

“It’s almost a commonplace on the left that conservatives are “nihilists” for their opposition to President Obama. It’s opposition for opposition’s sake, an unprincipled exercise in partisan obstruction — mindless, toxic, destructive. When directed at Obama, “no” is an indefensible word, devoid of philosophical content.

Another, different charge has traditionally been leveled at conservatives — that they are “radicals.” This criticism was made of National Review right at the beginning. Conserva tives want to tear down the state, overturn precedent, reverse the direction of history. They are imprudent and incautious in their pursuit of a blinkered ideological agenda, in other words fundamentally unconservative.

So conservatives get it coming and going. Our opposition to the Left is deemed nihilistic and our affirmative agenda radical. These dueling critiques point to a paradox at the heart of American conservatism. We aren’t Tories, concerned with preserving the prerogatives of an aristocratic elite or defending tradition at all costs. Instead, we’re advocates of the dynamism of an open society. Through most of human history and still in many places in the world, that would make us the opposite of conservatives. Not in America.

What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve?

The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.

The survival of American exceptionalism as we have known it is at the heart of the debate over Obama’s program. It is why that debate is so charged. In his first year, Obama tried to avoid the cultural hot buttons that tripped up Bill Clinton and created the “gays, guns, and God” backlash of 1994. But he has stoked a different type of cultural reaction. The level of spending, the bailouts, and the extent of the intervention in the economy contemplated in health-care and cap-and-trade legislation have created the fear that something elemental is changing in the country. At stake isn’t just a grab bag of fiscal issues, but the meaning of America and the character of its people: the ultimate cultural issue.

I.

To find the roots of American exceptionalism, you have to start at the beginning — or even before the beginning. They go back to our mother country. Historian Alan Macfarlane argues that England never had a peasantry in the way that other European countries did, or as extensive an established church, or as powerful a monarchy. English society thus had a more individualistic cast than the rest of Europe, which was centralized, hierarchical, and feudal by comparison.

It was, to simplify, the most individualistic elements of En glish society — basically, dissenting low-church Protestants — who came to the eastern seaboard of North America. And the most liberal fringe of English political thought, the anti-court “country” Whigs and republican theorists such as James Harrington, came to predominate here. All of this made Amer ica an outlier compared with England, which was an outlier compared with Europe. The U.S. was the spawn of English liberalism, fated to carry it out to its logical conclusion and become the most liberal polity ever known to man.

America was blessedly unencumbered by an ancien régime. Compared with Europe, it had no church hierarchy, no aristocracy, no entrenched economic interests, no ingrained distaste for commercial activity. It almost entirely lacked the hallmarks of a traditional post-feudal agrarian society. It was as close as you could get to John Locke’s state of nature. It was ruled from England, but lightly; Edmund Burke famously described English rule here as “salutary neglect.” Even before the Rev olution, America was the freest country on earth.

These endowments made it possible for the Americans to have a revolution with an extraordinary element of continuity. Tocqueville may have been exaggerating when he said that Americans were able to enjoy the benefits of a revolution without really having one, but he wasn’t far off the mark. The remnants of old Europe that did exist here — state-supported churches, primogeniture, etc. — were quickly wiped out. Amer icans took inherited English liberties, extended them, and made them into a creed open to all.

Exact renderings of the creed differ, but the basic outlines are clear enough. The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.

II.

Liberty is the most important element of the creed. To secure it, the Founders set about strictly limiting government within carefully specified bounds. Im mediately upon the collapse of British government in America, the states drew up written constitutions and neutered their executives. They went as far as they could possibly go to tame the government — indeed, they went farther, and had to start over to get a functioning state. But even this second try produced a Constitution that concentrated as much on what government could not do as on what it could.

The Founders knew what men were capable of, in the positive sense if their creative energies were unleashed and in the negative sense if they were given untrammeled power over others. “It may be a reflection on human nature,” Madison wrote in a famous passage in Federalist No. 51 describing the checks in the Constitution, “that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

The Constitution’s negative character reflected its basic goal: to protect people in their liberty. In stark contrast, European constitutions, even prior to World War II, established positive rights to government benefits. As Mary Ann Glendon notes, these differences “are legal manifestations of divergent, and deeply rooted, cultural attitudes toward the state and its functions.”

This framework of freedom made possible the flourishing of the greatest commercial republic in history. As historian Walter Russell Mead notes, over the last several centuries of the West, three great maritime powers have stood for a time at the pinnacle of the international order: the Dutch, then the English, and finally us. All three had powerful navies and sophisticated financial systems, and were concerned primarily with increasing national wealth through commerce.

Consider the very beginning. John Steele Gordon reminds us in his book An Empire of Wealth that the Virginia Company — a profit-seeking corporation — founded Jamestown. In New En gland, the Puritan merchants wrote at the top of their ledgers, “In the name of God and of profit.” Even before the Revolution, we were the most prosperous country per capita in the world.

In a telling coincidence, the publication of Adam Smith’s world-changing free-market classic, The Wealth of Nations, coincided with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Many of the Founders read the book. Without the medieval encumbrances and the powerful, entrenched special interests that plagued other countries, the United States could make Smith’s ideas the basis of its economic dispensation. Gordon writes, “The United States has consistently come closer to the Smithian ideal over a longer period of time than any other major nation.”

In the latitude provided by this relatively light-handed gov ernment, a commerce-loving, striving, and endlessly inventive people hustled its way to become the greatest economic power the world has ever known.

In America, there really hasn’t been a disaffected proletariat — because the proletariat has gotten rich. Friedrich Engels had it right when he carped that “America is so purely bourgeois, so entirely without a feudal past and therefore proud of its purely bourgeois organization.”

The traditional Marxist claim about the U.S. was that it was governed by the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. This was not intended as a compliment, but it was largely true. Look at the archetypal American, Benjamin Franklin, whose name comes from the Middle English meaning freeman, someone who owns some property. Napoleon dismissed the British as “a nation of shopkeepers”; we are a nation of Franklins.

Abraham Lincoln, a de facto Founding Father, is an exemplar of this aspect of America. “I hold the value of life,” Lincoln said, “is to improve one’s condition.” There are few things he hated more than economic stasis. He couldn’t abide Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a nation of yeoman farmers living on their land forevermore, blissfully untouched by the forces of modern economic life. (Appropriately enough, Jefferson died broke.) Lincoln captured the genius of American life when he said, “The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him.”

That sentiment is at the heart of the American economic gospel. American attitudes toward wealth and its creation stand out within the developed world. Our income gap is greater than that in European countries, but not because our poor are worse off. In fact, they are better off than, say, the bottom 10 percent of Britons. It’s just that our rich are phenomenally wealthy.

This is a source of political tension, but not as much as foreign observers might expect, thanks partly to a typically American attitude. A 2003 Gallup survey found that 31 percent of Amer icans expect to get rich, including 51 percent of young people and more than 20 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 a year. This isn’t just cockeyed optimism. America remains a fluid society, with more than half of people in the bottom quintile pulling themselves out of it within a decade.

And so we arrived in the 21^st century still a country apart. Prior to its recent run-up, total government spending was still only about 36 percent of GDP in the U.S. In Europe, the figure was much higher — 44 percent in Britain, 53 percent in France, and 56 percent in Sweden. (The difference is starker when only non-defense spending is compared.)

Politically, we have always been more democratic, more populist than other countries. Edmund Burke said of the low-church Protestants who flocked here, “They represent the dissidents of dissent and the protest wing of the Protestant religion.” The Scotch-Irish who settled the hinterlands were even more cussed. It wasn’t very easy to tell any of these people what to do, as colonial governors learned to their regret.

Later, in the 19^th century, the Federalists tried to create a kind of aristocracy. They got rich and set themselves up as grandees. Knowing that many members of this self-designated ruling class started life in the same state they had, their neighbors didn’t take kindly to these pretensions. The Federalist party wasn’t long for this world — a lesson in how poorly elite condescension plays in America.

Today, we still have more elections for more offices more often than other countries. Even many judges and law-enforcement officials are elected. In the federal government, political appointees have greater sway over the civil service than is the case in other developed countries. As Edward C. Banfield and James Q. Wilson have written, “There is virtually no sphere of ‘administration’ apart from politics.”

In Europe, the opposite is the case and has become more so with the rise of the European Union. Brussels is arrogating more decision-making to itself, removed from the locus of democratic accountability in individual nations. When important EU questions are put to the voters in referenda, there is only one correct answer, and when nations vote the “wrong” way, elections are held over and over again until they succumb. This European-style politics of bureaucratic, elite high-handedness is dangerous in its undemocratic nature and anathema to the American char acter.

We have managed to preserve a remarkable national spirit. At over 70 percent, more Americans express pride in their country than Western Europeans do in theirs. In terms of demography, we are the youngest advanced country in the world, and our population continues to grow as that of Western Europe is projected to decline.

Americans are more religious than Europeans. In the 18^th century, American religious dissenters supported overthrowing state-supported churches because it would allow them to compete on an even playing field with other denominations. In that competition, America saw an explosion of religious feeling and became the most evangelical country in the world.

Religion gained authority and vitality from its separation from the state, and religion-inspired reform movements, from abolitionism to the civil-rights movement, have been a source of self-criticism and renewal. Today, 73 percent of Americans believe in God, compared with 27 percent of Frenchmen and 35 percent of Britons, according to a 2006Financial Times survey.

All of this means that America has the spirit of a youthful, hopeful, developing country, matched with the economic muscle of the world’s most advanced society and the stability of its oldest democratic institutions.

This national spirit is reflected in our ambitious and vigorous foreign policy. We were basically still clinging to port cities on the eastern seaboard when we began thinking about settling the rest of the continent. There never was a time when we were an idyllically isolationist country. We wanted to make the continent ours partly as a matter of geopolitics: France, Spain, and Britain were wolves at the door. But throughout our history, we have sought not just to secure our interests abroad, but to export our model of liberty.

This missionary impulse is another product of the American Revolution, which took English liberties and universalized them. The Founders thought we would play an outsized role in the world from the very beginning. We would be an “empire of liberty,” Jefferson said. He believed that the flame of liberty, once lit on our shores, would inevitably consume the world.

This strain in American thought was expressed throughout the 20^th century in the democratic idealism of Wilson, FDR, and Carter. At its best, this tendency has been tempered by prudence and realism so as to avoid foolish adventurism. Reagan exemplified the appropriate mix, as he avoided (with the painful exception of Lebanon) risky foreign interventions at the same time he ushered the Soviet Union to its grave through a shrewd combination of hard and soft power.

But make no mistake: America is still a martial nation with a no-nonsense, hit-back-harder Jacksonian temperament when challenged. Historically, it has responded to attacks, whether at Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor, with overwhelming force and the maximum plausible effort to spread our democratic system. In this sense, George W. Bush’s response to 9/11 — two foreign wars, both justified partly as exercises in democratization — was typically American.

Our defense spending constituted half of the world’s defense spending in 2003. With a few exceptions (the British, the Canadians), we are the only Western nation that is able and willing to conduct major combat operations overseas. Even when Afghanistan was considered “the good war” by the rest of the world, we had to do most of the heavy lifting.

None of this is to say, of course, that America is perfect. No nation can be. But one can only regard with wonderment what America stands for and all that it has accomplished in its amazing, utterly distinct adventure in liberty.

III.

There have always been those who take exception to American exceptionalism. Europeans developed a cottage industry in travel writing about America, most of it — although not all, with Tocqueville the most important ex­ception — scandalized by the riotous freedoms of these restless, stubborn, commerce-crazy, God-soaked barbarians. The Amer ica of these portraits was simultaneously primitive and decadent: “grotesque, obscene, monstrous, stultifying, stunted, leveling, deadening, deracinating, roofless, uncultured,” as James Ceaser summarizes the critique inReconstructing America. Many of America’s European critics hoped that, over time, America would lose its distinctiveness. It would become just another developed Western country: more centralized, more elitist, more secular, less warlike, and less free. In short, a quieter, more civilized place.

The American Left has shared this maddened perplexity at its country’s character and this hope for its effacement. Marxists at home and abroad were always mystified by the failure of socialism in the U.S. They thought that, as the most advanced capitalist society, we would have had the most restive proletariat. Instead we have had a broad and largely satisfied middle class. Even our unions, in their early history, were anti-statist, their radicalism anarchistic rather than socialist. At the Progressive convention of 1912, Jane Addams saw “a worldwide movement toward juster social conditions” that “the United States, lagging behind other great nations, has been unaccountably slow to embody in political action.”

Hence the search for foreign models. In the early 20^th century, the Left was fascinated with all things German and brimmed with enthusiasm for Bismarck’s welfare state. Woodrow Wilson, in a sentiment typical of progressive intellectuals, deemed Bismarck’s creation an “admirable system”; he was less admiring of the American Founding. Herbert Croly, the founder of The New Republic and one of the most significant progressive intellectuals of the era, was another Bismarck admirer. Croly advocated rule by “expert social engineers” to bring to these shores the best innovations of the modern dictatorial movements taking over in Europe.

New Deal intellectuals gushed over Bolshevism in the 1930s. FDR Brain Truster Stuart Chase enthused, “Why should Rus sians have all the fun of remaking a world?” His statement captured the utopian underpinnings of the progressive project and the yearning for the kind of radical remaking of society that was readily attainable only in countries that gave themselves over entirely to the state. The other model was Italian fascism, which New Dealers studied closely and in important respects aped.

The New Deal was a watershed, but America didn’t lurch all the way to socialism. The power of the central government increased, a welfare state was born, and unionization advanced. But even in the midst of the Great Depression, typically Amer ican attitudes still prevailed. In a 1935 Gallup survey, Americans by a wide margin thought the government was spending too much.

After World War II, a Left that had been gaining strength in Europe for decades finally realized its social-democratic ambitions. The U.S. followed a different course. In the academy, a perverse version of American exceptionalism took root: an exceptionalism of criminality, conquest, and oppression. Amer ica was special only in its misdeeds and failings; all cultures were to be celebrated except our own. The exceptionalism of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, in milder form, occupied the commanding heights of our education system. It has worked to trash our Founding, to wipe out our historical memory, and to create a guilty conscience among our ruling elite.

In politics, however, the country’s progress away from its character continued to be “unaccountably slow.” American government continued to grow, particularly during the Johnson and Nixon years; the states became ever more one of the federal government’s key client groups rather than checks on its power. But the individualistic American character began to reassert itself after its mid-century dormancy. Americans saw the stagflation of the 1970s as an indictment of Big Government rather than a crisis of capitalism. Ronald Reagan won the presidency of a nation that, by European standards, was still a freewheeling cowboy economy and democracy — and made it even freer.

Deregulation exposed unions to competitive pressures that they could not survive. The U.S. quickly came out of its post-Vietnam defensive crouch. And religion, rather than fading away, became more publicly assertive in response to perceived threats. Bill Clinton’s Democratic presidency did more to confirm than to alter these trends.

The Left’s search for a foreign template to graft onto America grew more desperate. Why couldn’t we be more like them — like the French, like the Swedes, like the Danes? Like any people with a larger and busier government overawing the private sector and civil society? You can see it in Sicko, wherein Michael Moore extols the British national health-care system, the French way of life, and even the munificence of Cuba; you can hear it in all the admonitions from left-wing commentators that every other advanced society has government child care, or gun control, or mass transit, or whatever socialistic program or other infringement on our liberty we have had the wisdom to reject for decades.

IV.

President Obama’s first year in office should be seen in the context of contemporary liberalism’s discomfort with American exceptionalism.

The president has signaled again and again his unease with traditional American patriotism. As a senator he notoriously made a virtue of not wearing a flag pin. As president he has been unusually detached from American history: When a foreign critic brought up the Bay of Pigs, rather than defend the country’s honor he noted that he was a toddler at the time. And while acknowledging that America has been a force for good, he has all but denied the idea that America is an exceptional nation. Asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism during a European trip last spring, Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exception alism.” (Is it just a coincidence that he reached for examples of former hegemons?)

In this respect the president reflects the mainstream sentiment of American liberals. We do not question the sincerity of his, or their, desire to better the lot of his countrymen. But modern liberal intellectuals have had a notoriously difficult time coming up with a decent account of patriotism even when they have felt it. From Richard Rorty to Todd Gitlin, they have proclaimed their allegiance to a hypothetical, pure country that is coming into being rather than to the one they inhabit.

Given the liberal gestalt, it is perhaps unsurprising that every important aspect of American exceptionalism has been under threat from President Obama and his allies in Washington. Obama has frankly and correctly described their project as to change the country fundamentally.

On those occasions when Obama places himself in the con text of American history, he identifies himself with the post-Wil sonian tradition — with, that is, the gradual replacement of the Founders’ design. He seeks to accelerate it.

Already we are catching up to the European norm for government power. In 2010, government spending in the U.S. will reach an estimated 44 percent of GDP. With entitlements for the elderly on a path to explode with the retirement of the Baby Boomers, the trend is toward more convergence. In a strange reversal, last year it was an American president urging continental Europeans to spend more to combat the recession. Two of his highest priorities would drastically, and probably irreversibly, expand the government’s footprint.

American liberals have long been embarrassed about our country’s supposedly retrograde policies on health care and energy, especially compared with Europe’s nationalized health insurance and carbon rationing. So they tried to use their un precedented power after the 2008 elections to bring the U.S. into line. They sought to limit carbon emissions. That legislation would simultaneously represent a massive indirect tax increase, an extension of the tentacles of government regulation into every sector of the economy, and an empowerment of new bureaucratic instruments to control and direct economic development.

Obama’s health-care policy would change the relationship of people to government, probably forever, by further nationalizing our system. It would have the federal government, for the first time, order all Americans to purchase a specified product. And socialized health-care systems in other lands have become endless warrants for more taxing and spending, as both are justified as necessary to delivering adequate health care. Once the public is hooked on government health care, its political attitudes shift leftward. (The system’s flaws, such as rationing, tend to be attributed to underfunding, so that even discontent with it ends up entrenching it.)

Free labor markets have been an expression of American individualism and a contributor to American dynamism. But President Obama has attempted to upend seven decades of American labor law in order to make it easier for unions to collect new members. Democrats hope to reverse the unions’ decline. Tellingly, after the United Auto Workers helped wreck GM and Chrysler, the Obama administration handed it a large share of control over the two companies.

Corporations, meanwhile, are also becoming more dependent on government handouts. Rivalry between business and political elites has helped to safeguard American liberty. What we are seeing now is the possible emergence of a new political economy in which Big Business, Big Labor, and Big Government all have cozy relations of mutual dependence. The effect would be to suppress both political choice and economic dynamism.

The retreat from American exceptionalism has a legal dimension as well. Obama’s judicial nominees are likely to attempt to bring our Constitution into line with European norms. Here, again, he is building on the work of prior liberals who used the federal courts as a weapon against aspects of American exceptionalism such as self-government and decentralization. In creasingly, judicial liberals look to putatively enlightened foreign, and particularly European, opinion as a source of law capable of displacing the law made under our Constitution.

Liberal regulators threaten both our dynamism and our self-government. They are increasingly empowered to make far-reaching policy decisions on their own — for instance, the EPA has the power to decide, even in the absence of cap-and-trade legislation passed by Congress, how to regulate carbon emissions. The agency thus has extraordinary sway over the economy, without any meaningful accountability to the electorate. The Troubled Asset Relief Program has turned into a honeypot for the executive branch, which can dip into it for any purpose that suits it. Government is increasingly escaping the control of the people from whom it is supposed to derive its powers.

Inevitably, the transformation of America at home is being accompanied by a shift in its policies toward the rest of the world. Since the 1940s America has been the crucial undergirding of the international order. Its power and sway are a stabilizing influence in every region of the world, and it provides international public goods, from the policing of sea lanes to humanitarian interventions. It is also, in keeping with its missionary history, the chief exponent of liberty in the world.

Obama is turning his back both on the overarching vision of freedom and on the prudence, and mislabeling his approach “realism.” He has been positively allergic to the word “demo cracy.” His administration has shown very little interest in defending human rights around the world, whether in China or in Cuba. During the Iranian election crisis, he was even cooler to the protesters in the streets than the Europeans were.

His hesitance to advocate American ideals is not a return to the realpolitik of Nixon or the first Bush. A deep naïveté informs his policy. He believes that our enemies can be persuaded, merely through sweet talk and blandishments, to abandon their cold-blooded interests and their most deeply held ambitions. This is impossible without developing the kind of leverage over them in which Obama seems to have little interest. Yes, Reagan negoti ated with the Soviets, but only when they had a leader who was a reformer and the arms build-up and the prospect of SDI had tilted the correlation of forces — to use the Marxist argot — in our direction. Under the sway of Obama’s anti-idealism, the U.S. is less interested in serving as a champion of liberty; his policies will also reduce our power, and thus our effectiveness should we choose to wield it again.

In many of Obama’s performances overseas (the Nobel acceptance speech is an exception), there has been a dismaying defensiveness. It’s almost as though he doesn’t think we deserve to stand up for our ideals or for our interests, and believes that our record of sins, hypocrisies, and affronts makes a posture of apologetic passivity the only appropriate one. This posture raises a disturbing possibility: that the waning of America’s civilizational self-confidence is part and parcel of the change Obama is effecting.

In Europe, we see a civilization that is not willing to defend itself: nations that will surrender their sovereignty, cultures that will step aside to be supplanted by an alien creed, peoples that will no longer make the most meaningful investment in the future by reproducing. There is a sense that history is over and Europeans are just waiting for someone to turn out the last light in the last gallery of the Louvre.

The popular revolt against Obama’s policies is a sign that Americans are not prepared to go gentle into that good night. Other factors are of course in play — most important, the weak economy — but the public is saying “No” to a rush to social democracy.

Although the conservatives, libertarians, and independents who oppose Obama’s health-care initiative may not put it in quite these terms, they sense that his project will not just increase insurance premiums but undermine what they cherish about America. Those Americans who want to keep our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay think it necessary to protect our security — but they also worry, more profoundly, that our leaders are too apologetic to serve our interests. Americans may want change, even fundamental change, but most of them would rather change our institutions than our national character.

It is madness to consider President Obama a foreigner. But it is blindness to ignore that American exceptionalism has homegrown enemies — people who misunderstand the sources of American greatness or think them outdated. If they succeed, we will be less free, less innovative, less rich, less self-governing, and less secure. We will be less.

As will the world. The Europeans can afford a foreign policy devoted nearly exclusively to “soft power” because we are here to defend them and mount the forward defense of freedom. Who is going to do that for us, when we are no longer doing it for ourselves? Who will answer the call when America is no longer home?

If our politics seems heated right now, that is because the central question before us is whether to abandon our traditional sense of ourselves as an exceptional nation. To be exceptional is of course not to be perfect. The old anti-imperialist saying — “My country right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right” — has considerable wisdom. But Americans are right not to want to become exceptional only in the 230-year path we took to reach the same lackluster destination as everyone else.”

Source:

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=M2FhMTg4Njk0NTQwMmFlMmYzZDg2YzgyYjdmYjhhMzU

III. Why Constitutional Conservatism Is Ascending-Posted on American Thinker-By Mark J. Fitzgibbons-On December 10, 2010:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/why_constitutional_conservatis.html

IV. Why is America Exceptional?-Posted on The Heritage Foundation-By Matthew Spalding,  Ph.D.-On October 1, 2010:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/why-is-america-exceptional

V. Video: “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”!

VI. CNN Analysts Want Constitution Modernized; Bash Second Amendment Wording, Electoral College!-Posted on News Busters-By Matt Hadro-On June 27, 2011:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/06/27/cnn-analysts-want-constitution-modernized-bash-second-amendment-wording-

VII. George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution: ‘White House officials involved in rewriting nation’s founding document’!-Posted on WND.com-By Aaron Klein-On March 27, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280277

VIII. The Judas Media!-Posted on Floyd Reports-Guest Writer-On April 27, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/the-judas-media/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&am...

Note: What follows are two 2008 articles and/or blog posts that revealed the then Senator Obama’s patriotism or lack of prior to being elected as our President-You Decide:  

I. The Meta-Messages in Obama’s Patriotism Speech-Posted on American Thinker-By Lee Cary-On July 2, 2008:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_metamessages_in_obamas_pat_1.html

II. Senator Obama’s Patriotism – a Veteran’s Perspective-Posted on BOPAC Report-By zachjonesishome-On July 2, 2008:

http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/senator-obama’s-patriotism-a-veteran’s-perspective/

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

American Flag Clothing Sparks New Protest!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/american-flag-clothing-sparks-new-protest/

Where Is America Today?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/where-is-america-today-2/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

By Rachel Alexander
7/2/2011

By John W. Lillpop

President Barack Obama refuses to face not face a simple truth: U.S. Armed Forces are still engaged in hostilities in Libya.

Unless one’s wonky logic allows “bombing raids” to be defined as non-hostile.

As reported at Reference 1, it sure as hell looks as though Obama is an at war President, whether he knows it or not:

“U.S. forces are still flying hundreds of bombing raids over Libya even though the Obama administration claims that American armed forces are only playing a limited role in the conflict.

Since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on 31 March, the U.S. has flown hundreds of strike missions, according to United States Africa Command (AFRICOM).

The White House originally claimed that U.S. planes were mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and played down the number of bombing raids.

However AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said: 'U.S. aircraft continue to fly support missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO.”

Obama continues to slither about using his favorite political weapon—LIYING-- with statements like the one at reference 2:

“We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world, somebody who nobody should want to defend. And we should be sending out a unified message to this guy that he should step down and give his people a fair chance to live their lives,” Obama added.”

Translated into transparent English, Obama is really saying: To hell with the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. After all, the smartest man on the planet wants to send a message!


While Obama continues to defy the constitution and Congress, the mainstream media is in summer vacation mode.

Where is the outrage from the Washington Post, LA Times and other leftist leaning posts?

More significantly, why are the streets not jammed with hundreds of thousands of anti-war protestors demanding an end to Obama’s war?

How ironic that on Independence Day the President is acting like a dictator and tyrant akin to King George when it comes to war, health care, and taxes.

Is a 2nd American revolution brewing?


Reference 1

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010505/Air-Force-Navy-flying-thousands-missions-Libya-Obama-says-U-S-playing-limited-role.html#ixzz1QxuzwCix



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010505/Air-Force-Navy-flying-thousands-missions-Libya-Obama-says-U-S-playing-limited-role.html#ixzz1QxunuESc

Did you know that Sir Isaac Newton, from his interest in astrology, studied mathematics, and from that study went on to establish immutable laws of motion of the universe?  We know that everything moves from a beginning to an end, eternally, but within this clockworks movement there are happenings that don’t conform, eternal law higher than Newtonian laws of motion—of which we are consciously aware but can’t explain in commonly acceptable terms.

I’m here to explain those laws. Before the atom is observed, physicists say waves of possibility exist—unlimited possibilities—and variable, according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle was published in September, 1925, the month and year of my birth. My birth chart says I would be able to understand the laws by which subtle forces are organized, and that I would be inclined toward physics and the occult.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle was the forerunner of quantum mechanics.  Quantum physicists observed atoms and wave became particle. Waves of limitless possibility became particle, something real in our time-space terms. There’s a connection—presto-chango,  nuclear energy. Enter the age of atomic bombs and such. The world, with increasing purpose, is misdirected and hanging by thread. It could be the end of human kind.

Heisenberg became Hitler’s atom bomb builder. The allies bombed his plant to the ground. I was on the high seas heading for the invasion of Japan. President Truman ordered the dropping of two atom bombs on Japan.  World War II ended. Instead of a beach landing, I disembarked in Yokohama and became an M.P. in the Army of Occupation, just one of the events of my charmed life. The stars say I appeared at this time to use and develop my mind.

Einstein could not accept the uncertainty principle, the idea that quantum events are, as far as we know, uncaused. “I cannot believe that God would play dice with the universe,” asserted Einstein.  Heisenberg’s mathematics left one with only circumstantial evidence.  There was no smoking gun. Along came John Stewart Bell, a quantum physicist out to prove Einstein right and Heisenberg wrong. He proved Einstein wrong with Bell’s theorem.  Bell’s theorem should he heralded as the greatest scientific discovery of all times. Instead, the world plods on in ignorance.

This brings me to my point.  Last night my two favorite candidates for the Presidency, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain were interviewed by Hannity of Fox News. I love Bachmann’s enthusiasm, her charm, her intelligence.   I favor Cain. Not that Bachmann was not successful in business, but Cain has an illustrious business career.  He says he left the plantation a long time ago.  Cain has never held a political title, to his credit. It is black against black, and one of them a leftist ideologue. It’s sure to change a lot of black votes. Cain is as practical as the day is long.  His appearance is that of a strong leader.

The Mayan calendar informs us the coming election marks the end of the world as we know it; the beginning of a new world.  We are leaving the Age of Pisces, entering the Age of Aquarius, an age of brotherhood Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood does not know.  Add to this Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Bell’s theorem. Beyond the local forces, such as gravity and electromagnetism, is a nonlocal force that applies to the selection of the mind and will, with the power to do essentially anything. With the coming election the most crucial American election since the first, it is essential that we elected a strong leader, and one firmly part of America’s free enterprise system. Herman Cain, at this time, appears to be a leader who will take America back to our God-given purpose.  

Crash & Burn?

(SacBee) - Congress has one month to raise the nation's borrowing limit or the government will default on its debt, the Treasury Department said Friday.

Treasury officials confirmed the Aug. 2 deadline in a monthly update that assesses the nation's borrowing situation. The United States reached the $14.3 trillion limit in May. Higher revenue and accounting maneuvers have allowed the government to keep paying its bills in the interim.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urged Congress to raise the limit and "avoid the catastrophic economic and market consequences of a default crisis."  http://teaparty.org/article.php?id=982

Dear Dumb-Sh*t President and Congress. Please stop spending our hard earned money. You have BK'd America, have made us a debtor nation, crushed our jobs.

Please, all you have to do is NOTHING! Just sit there and we will pay you. Don't spend anything, don't make any plans, and for God' Sake don't get any "bright' ideas of how you are going to save us! 

We can do just fine wthout you.

We will even give you a life time pass to Star Bucks, drink all the free Mocha's you want, on our bill! BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND LEAVE US ALONE!

My message is very simple, WE ARE BETTER OFF IF YOU DO NOTHING! 

S T O P  S P E N D I N G!

What do we have to do to get your attention?

U.S. To Crush Israel?

(The Blaze) - U.S. Adds Israel to ‘Promoter, Producer, or Protector’ of Terrorists List. The Obama administration has added Israel to a list of 36 ‘specially designated’ countries that have ‘shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.’

The ‘specially designated country’ list is used by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to screen detained foreigners with an extra step, called a “Third Agency Check.” Overall, the countries on the list are unsurprising, with two exceptions this year. Israel was not on the list in 2008, but now in 2011, it has been added. North Korea, on the other hand, was dropped from the list this year but was on it in 2008.....http://teaparty.org/article.php?id=980

Those S.O.B.'s , how dare the Obama Assh*les go up against Israel! We established them in 1948 and they are the only demopcracy in the middle-east. If Obama wins in 2012 he will have nothing to lose,because he can't run for reelection, so he will "lower the boom" on Israel and they are going to have to nuke everyone around them just to stay alive. In 2012 we must not only save America but the world as well!

Oh, excuse meeeee! Is the Tea too strong for some of the pus*y's in the Tea Party?  Don't you get it yet?

W E ARE  O N  A  M I S S O N  F R O M  G O D!

Hello!

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on Creeping Sharia-By creeping-On July 1, 2011:

“Islamists never miss an opportunity to exploit American holidays to promote and spread Islam and sharia law. Then again, Muslims don’t consider them American holidays. July 4, what Americans consider their Independence Day, is not what Muslims in America are taught by other Muslims to consider the day. As noted at an earlier year’s convention.

Last week Muslims from the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir met in Chicago to tell Muslims in America how they can establish a global caliphate ruled by Islamic sharia law. Illinois is also hosting this Islamist fest of the Islamic Society of North America – designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas-funding Holy Land Foundation convictions.

July 1 – 4, 2011

Rosemont Convention Center


5555 N. River Road


Rosemont, IL 60018

As expected, the world’s leading Islamist instigators and apologists for Islam, sharia and jihad will be present. The convention, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Student Association (MSA). When Congressmen (Ellison & Carson), police chiefs (Lee Baca), university professors, media personalities (Zogby), and State Dept. “outreach” partners have no qualms about meeting with terror-linked Muslim organizations it speaks volumes about the direction the United States is heading.

Numerous speakers or their organizations have been banned from working with the FBI and U.S. military.

The FBI and CIA couldn’t wish for a gathering of so many Islamists in one place at one time, yet unfortunately rather than acting on the opportunity, they are more likely to be participating with a booth or as speakers.

See the full list here.

From previous year’s:

ISNA’s annual convention, over July 4^th, a Who’s Who of Islamist’s and jihad supporters

“At unindicted co-conspirator to a terror-funding case ISNA’s 2009 Islamist convention over the Fourth of July weekend, it was declared that Independence Day is a Muslim day. There, a U.S. congressman (either Keith Ellison or Andre Carson) quoted a jihadi Muslim. It was also the first disclosure of the Islam on Capitol Hill event that Creeping Sharia told you about first.

Hamza Yusuf (white guy): Stated, “[America] a country that has little to be proud of in its past and less to be proud of in the present. I am a citizen of this country not by choice but by birth…I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights.” He’s also a partner with Zaid Shakir, who has stated that it is OK for Muslims to attack Fort Bragg.

Siraj Wahhaj (black guy w/ beard): an unindicted co-conspirator to the 1993 WTC bombing and preacher of jihad.

Keith Ellison: a CAIR-supporting Democratic U.S. congressman, and Muslim Brotherhood paid hajji, who attended the College of Sharia over Presidents Day weekend in 2009.

The 2009 conference of Muslim Brotherhood friends was not very kind to infidels. In fact, CAIR created fake pictures to get one investigator ejected from the conference.

According to Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, the Muslim ummah is defeated because Muslims left jihad after being defeated by Charles Martel. At ISNA’s 2004 conference (over Labor Day weekend), Hamza Yusuf stated:

“Democracy must embrace Islam” (not the other way around)”

Despite this year’s quaint themes, there are standard topics of sharia, the rising threat of homosexuals – particularly among Muslism, and staying true to Allah’s goal until all worship Allah only. Check both the ISNA and MSA programs for details.

More back posts:

ISNA conference, July 4^th, to teach Muslims to reconcile sharia with U.S. laws”

Source:

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Is George Soros Forging a Closer Alliance With the Muslim Brotherhood?

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on The Blaze-By Tiffany Gabbay-On June 30, 2011:

“For conservatives, the mere mention of George Soros joining forces with the Muslim Brotherhood conjures images of an unholy alliance forged in the fiery pits of Mordor.

Yet according to several reports, including one from FrontPageMag on Monday, that alliance is in fact being forged. The reports connect George Soros to the Muslim Brotherhood through his various shadow organizations including the International Crisis Group and his new spokesmen, Marwan Muasher and Mohamed ElBaradei. Soros along with Muasher and ElBaradei have consistently been featured in media downplaying the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood — and even urged the Egyptian government to “normalize” relations with the militant group earlier in the year.

Never failing to miss an opportunity to undermine the U.S. and Israel, Soros is working tirelessly to help the enemy of his enemies.

Consistently referring to Israel as the “stumbling block” to peace in the Middle East, Soros makes no bones about his hopes for the Brotherhood.

He even heartily encouraged giving the Muslim Brotherhood a place at Egypt‘s table when the country’s streets erupted into flames of dissent earlier this year.

FrontPage observes:

“The numerous ties of Soros and his Shadow Party cohorts have been documented; they include the master puppeteer’s own Open Society Institute and various anti-Western Islamist groups in the revolutions. It has been confirmed, for instance, that the International Crisis Group (ICG), led in part by Soros, has long petitioned for the Egyptian government to “normalize” ties with the previously banned Brotherhood – for example, in a June 2008 report called “Egypt’s Muslim Brothers: Confrontation or Integration?” And this talking point is echoed by Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress:

“Any real democratic opening would lead to greater participation of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in a future Egyptian government.”

To delve deeper Muasher, former deputy prime minster of Jordan, oversees research at the Soros-funded Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In a recent interview with prominent TV journalist Christiane Amanpour, who never misses an opportunity to promote repellent moral relativism about fundamentalist Islam, Middle East analyst Marwan Muasher declared, “The Muslim Brotherhood has been used for a long time as a scare tactic” (emphasis added). This eyebrow-raising dismissal of legitimate concerns about the world’s largest Islamist movement went unchallenged by Amanpour – no surprise there – although Muasher did weakly concede this: “that is not to say they don’t have designs.”

Considering these “designs,” the group’s swift, successful entrenchment around the globe, and its spawning of such alumni as current al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, only the willfully naive or complicit could claim that the Brotherhood shouldn’t be taken seriously as a threat.

Whichever Muasher is guilty of, he feels perfectly comfortable inviting the Brotherhood into the political mix of the Arab world’s current turmoil. 

A recent report reveals that Muasher, a former Jordanian diplomat, has praised the revolutions rocking the region and has called for the inclusion of Islamist groups in any pluralistic, fledgling democracies that may emerge. The ostensible reasoning is that Muslim fundamentalists like the Brotherhood have a legitimate role to play and deserve to be allowed to compete on the supposedly level playing field of the marketplace of ideas. It might even temper their radicalism.

ElBaradei, on the other hand, sits on the board of Soros’ International Crisis Group and is reportedly seeking to run for president in Egypt.

FrontPage adds:

(Not coincidentally, Mohamed ElBaradei sits on the board of Soros’ ICG, along with others who advocate dialogue with Hamas, the Muslim Brothers’ violent Palestinian branch. And as I have written elsewhere, “as the former head of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency… ElBaradei repeatedly stonewalled international efforts to put the brakes on Iran’s ambitions.” No friend of Israel or America, he.)

But by calling for the Muslim Brotherhood to be given a seat at the table and a hand in fashioning the future of the Arab world, George Soros may be biting off more than he can chew with this alliance of convenience

A Washington Post OpEd written by Soros in February perhaps revealed the first signs of Soros’ Muslim Bortherhood sympathies blooming.

After unilaterally deciding America’s power and influence in the world had all but vanished, Soros trivialized American and Israeli fears over the civil unrest in Egypt, and dismissed the idea that dissidents who sought to topple the Mubarak regime would be be hostile to Israel. Soros even went so far as to say the dissidents were “not advancing a theocratic agenda at all.” Soros then praised the only organized political force in the region: you guessed it — the Muslim Brotherhood.

Regarding Egypt, Soros wrote:

“President Obama personally and the United States as a country have much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for dignity and democracy. This would help rebuild America’s leadership and remove a lingering structural weakness in our alliances that comes from being associated with unpopular and repressive regimes. Most important, doing so would open the way to peaceful progress in the region.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system. As regards contagion, it is more likely to endanger the enemies of the United States – Syria and Iran – than our allies, provided that they are willing to move out ahead of the avalanche.

The main stumbling block is Israel.  In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks.”

Let’s clarify:

• The U.S. would repair its alleged “structural weakness” and “have much to gain” by aiding dissidents — dissidents America knew nothing about — topple a sitting regime with which it already had good relations.
• Israel is a “stumbling block” because she fears the obvious risks associated with the establishment of an Israel-hostile Egyptian regime — yet fails to see how embracing such a regime would be in her “own best interests.”
• The Muslim Brotherhood, with its history of violence, allegedly shows promising signs it intends to embrace democracy because it cooperated with one Mohamed ElBaradei, “Nobel laureate. If past Nobel prize winners are any indication, that’s not exactly encouraging.

Well that certainly is some Orwellian logic Soros has going for him.

WorldNetDaily also reveals additional details about ICG’s “Egypt’s Muslim Brothers Confrontation or Integration” report. ICG allegedy implored the Egyptian regime to allow Muslim Brotherhood to participate in political life and trivialized Egypt’s crackdown on the Brotherhood as “dangerously short-sighted.”

The ICG report also allegedly called on then President Hosni Mubarak to allow the “establishment of a political party with religious reference” i.e. Muslim Brotherhood.

While Soros heads the executive committee for ICG, some of its U.S. board members raise eyebrows as well. According to WorldNet:

“U.S. board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter; Samuel Berger, who was Bill Clinton’s national security adviser; and retired U.S. ambassador Thomas Pickering, who made headlines in 2009 after meeting with Hamas leaders and calling for the U.S. to open ties to the Islamist group.

Another ICG member is Robert Malley, a former adviser to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He resigned after it was exposed he had communicated with Hamas.  WND reported Malley long had petitioned for dialogue with Hamas.”

Given his penchant for an “all-inclusive” one world government, one wonders what Soros sees in the militant Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps he just sees the alliance as an opportunity to side against his enemies the U.S. and Israel, and subvert their efforts abroad.

(H/T FrontPage and WND)”

Source:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-george-soros-forging-a-closer-alliance-with-the-muslim-brotherhood/

II. The Obama Administration Opens Formal Contacts With the Muslim Brotherhood!

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on National Review Online- By Andrew C. McCarthy-On June 30, 2011:

“Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Besides explaining what the Muslim Brotherhood is and has always been, the major point of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the West Sabotage America was to warn that this day was coming. And so it has come: Reuters reports that the Obama administration has established a policy of formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood is the world’s most important Islamist organization. It is openly, unabashedly committed to the destruction of the United States and the West.

In typical Obama fashion, this disastrous decision to engage America’s avowed enemies has been couched as the mere continuation of prior policy: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is reported to have confirmed that the U.S. would “resume” contacts which had “occurred in recent years.” But make no mistake about it, this is a new policy. 

The contacts that have occurred in recent years have been outside of U.S. policy — at the urging of leftists in the State Department, the intelligence community, the commentariat, and, in particular, the Obama White House. They have long campaigned for a policy of “engagement” with the Muslim Brotherhood (including Hamas, the terrorist organization that is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch). They’ve needed to do this campaigning because it was American policy not to deal with the Brotherhood — dealing with the Brothers empowers them, bolstering their status as leaders of mainstream Islam and legitimizing their agenda, which calls for Islamicizing societies, ultimately establishing a global caliphate, destroying Israel, and incrementally expanding sharia throughout the West.

This day has been coming since President Obama’s first day in office.

In 2007-08, the Brotherhood was proved by the Justice Department to be engaged in what the Brotherhood itself describes as a “grand jihad” aimed at the “elimination and destruction of Western civilization from within” by “sabotage.” The title of my book was not my words but theirs — taken from their internal memoranda, seized by the FBI from the home of a Brotherhood official. The Brotherhood’s anti-U.S. strategy was not news to anyone who follows Islamist movements, but the proof for all to see came during the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, during which several defendants were convicted of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas. Supporting Hamas’s terrorist war against Israel has been the Brotherhood’s highest priority in the U.S. since Hamas was formed, and trial evidence showed unmistakably that the leading Islamist organizations in the U.S. — almost all either formed by or having ties to the Brotherhood — were complicit.

Among the most important of these is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was designated as an unindicted coconspirator by the Justice Department and shown by prosecutors to have housed the HLF in its offices and to have helped it transfer money to Hamas fronts overseas. 

Yet, only a few months after the convictions, the Obama administration dispatched Valerie Jarrett, the president’s close friend and top political adviser, to give the keynote address at ISNA’s 2009 convention.

This was only the most notorious of the administration’s outreach episodes involving groups (such as CAIR), which were shown to be Brotherhood affiliates and Islamist apologists.

Indeed, by the time of Ms. Jarrett’s appearance at the ISNA convention, ISNA president Ingrid Mattson had been chosen to speak at Obama’s inauguration ceremonies, and Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Arif Alikhan (who has referred to Hezbollah as a “liberation movement”) was named assistant secretary for policy development at Obama’s Homeland Security Department.

At around the same time, at his 2009 Cairo speech — which was one big “outreach” to Islamists — the administration infuriated the Mubarak regime by inviting Brotherhood members to attend, even though the Brotherhood was then a formally banned organization under Egyptian law.

Ultimately, of course, the administration pushed Mubarak aside even though it was clear by then that his fall would usher the Brotherhood into power. That will happen in the upcoming fall elections, the Brothers having successfully lobbied for a rapid election schedule that will prevent the formation of any meaningful secular opposition.

In the meantime, the administration has worked feverishly to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism and support of terrorism.

As I have argued, Obama officials were preparing the ground for the Brotherhood’s ascendancy. They understand the political consequences of this catastrophe for the president … if the American people come to recognize what the Brotherhood is and how deeply it despises America and the West.

Thus, as the uprising in Egypt intensified, Obama adviser Bruce Reidel was quick to pen an essay called “Don’t fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood” (to which I responded here on NRO).

James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, then proceeded to insult Congress’s intelligence — and badly damage his reputation for seriousness — by branding the Brotherhood as a moderate, “largely secular” organization. (Besides being known as the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization’s motto remains, “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope — Allahu Akbar!“)

Only a few months before Clapper’s testimony, the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badi, called for “jihad and sacrifice” in confronting the United States and Israel.

He proclaimed that America is “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading toward its demise.”

The enthusiastic endorsement of violence, particularly against Israel, would be surprising only to those who drink the Obama Kool-Aid that claims the Brotherhood has renounced violence.

As I have repeatedly pointed out — and as Barry Rubin argues in this excellent analysis of the new Obama policy — the Brotherhood has always favored violence where it would advance the Islamist cause; it tactically renounced violence against the Egyptian regime because it would have prompted ruinous retaliation from Mubarak and because the Brotherhood was making progress through the political process and influence over Egyptian institutions.

Quite apart from its long history of violence, the Brotherhood has long endorsed terrorism (which it calls “resistance”) against Israel and against Western forces operating in Islamic countries.

The Brothers also favor an inside/outside strategy against the U.S. and Europe — exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation created by Islamist terrorists like al Qaeda to exercise outsize influence over American and Western policy-makers while advancing the sharia agenda through “peaceful” political means. It was not surprising, then, that the Brotherhood’s former Supreme Guide, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, praised Osama bin Laden as a “mujahid” (a jihad warrior) in a 2008 interview — adding that, though the Brotherhood objected to al Qaeda’s targeting of civilians, “I support its activities against the occupiers,” and concluding that bin Laden deserved praise for his “sincerity in resisting the occupation,” a point on which the al Qaeda leader was said to be “close to Allah on high.”

The Brotherhood’s approach is popular in Egypt and throughout the Islamic Middle East.

Indeed, shortly after Mubarak fell, the Brotherhood’s leading jurisprudent, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, was given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he had been banned from inciting Islamist revolutionaries for 30 years. The sheikh is the most influential Islamic cleric in the world. Drawing on classical sharia teaching, he instructs that Islam and secularlism cannot co-exist.

Moreover, Qaradawi has promised that Islam will “conquer” America and Europe, he calls for the annihilation of Israel by violent jihad, he incited the murderous rioting over the Danish cartoon depictions of Mohammed, and he has issued fatwas approving suicide bombings and the terrorist murder of American troops and support personnel in Iraq.

I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that the State Department has nevertheless long regarded Qaradawi as an “intelligent and thoughtful voice from the region” who is “an important figure that deserves our attention” (to quote Alberto Fernandez, State’s director of public diplomacy in the Middle East during the Bush years).

Since Mubarak’s fall, the Brotherhood has worked toward formally reestablishing Egypt’s ties with Iran and for ending the peace agreement with Israel.

The Brotherhood is also behind the “Peace Flotilla” expeditions in which Islamists and Leftists join together in efforts to break Israel’s blockade against Hamas in Gaza — the American part of the effort is being spearheaded by such old Obama friends former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, Code Pink founder Jodi Evans, and Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn — and the planned U.S. ship is called, yes, The Audacity of Hope. 

Meanwhile, the Obama Justice Department has pulled the plug on further prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates identified as coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case. And now we’ll be formally engaged with the Brotherhood overseas just as we’ve been formally embracing its operatives in our own country.

The Grand Jihad is right on schedule."

Source:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270864/obama-administration-opens-formal-contacts-muslim-brotherhood-andrew-c-mccarthy

III. Clinton Admits We Are Now Reaching Out to the Muslim Brotherhood!

Posted on The Blaze-By Jonathon M. Seidl-On June 30, 2011:

“BUDAPEST, Hungary (The Blaze/AP) — The Obama administration is reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in a “limited” effort to build ties and promote democratic principles ahead of Egypt’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. isn’t adopting a new policy. She says the administration wants to engage all Egyptian groups as long as they espouse nonviolence.

“We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful, and committed to non-violence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency,” Clinton told reporters at a news conference.

“Now in any of those contacts, prior or future, we will continue to emphasize the importance of and support for democratic principles and especially a commitment to non-violence, respect for minority rights, and the full inclusion of women in any democracy.”

Clinton says the hardline group also must respect minority rights and the full inclusion of women in the political sphere.

The Brotherhood favors a regime guided by Islamic Sharia law and was outlawed under former strongman Hosni Mubarak. It also reportedly birthed the major terrorist group, Hamas.

Israel is wary of any engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood because of the hostility some of its members have expressed toward the Jewish state.”

Source:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/clinton-admits-we-are-now-reaching-out-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/

IV. Egyptian Leader Condems Democracy, Calls It ‘Bad, Backwards And Retarded Idea’!-Posted on The Blaze-By Billy Hallowell-On June 27, 2011:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/egyptian-leader-condemns-democracy-calls-it-bad-backwards-and-retarded-idea/

V. U.S. Designates Israel as Country That Tends ‘To Promote, Produce, or Protect’ Terrorists!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Edwin Mora-On June 29, 2011:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-designates-israel-country-tends-promo

VI. With Dodging and More Dodging, Holder Admits DOJ Dumped CAIR Case!-Posted on National Review Online-By Andrew C. McCarthy-On April 27, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265729/dodging-and-more-dodging-holder-admits-doj-dumped-cair-case-andrew-c-mccarthy

VII. Peter King vs. Eric Holder: Why did the Justice Department never indict CAIR?-Posted on National Review Online-By BRIAN BOLDUC-On April 26, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/265576/peter-king-vs-eric-holder-brian-bolduc

VIII. New Name, Same Old Focus for Islamic Bloc!-Posted on CNSNews.com- By Patrick Goodenough-On June 30, 2011:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/new-name-same-old-focus-islamic-bloc

IX. Self-Deception and The Jihad!-Posted on National Review Online-By CLIFFORD D. MAY-On June 30, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270812/self-deception-and-jihad-clifford-d-may

X. Our Sharia-Compliant Afghan War!-Posted on National Review Online-By ANDREW C. McCARTHY-On June 25, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270484/our-sharia-compliant-afghan-war-andrew-c-mccarthy

XI. Weiner’s In-Laws and the Secret Muslim Brotherhood Connections Revealed!-Posted on FloydReports.com-By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack-On June 15, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/weiners-in-laws-and-the-secret-muslim-brotherhood-connections-revealed/

XII. Did Weiner Secretly Convert to Islam to Marry a Muslim?-Posted on Floyd Reports-By Guest Writer-On June 9, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/did-weiner-secretly-convert-to-islam-to-marry-a-muslim/

XIII. Are You Ready For a World Governed by Islamic Law?-Posted on The Blaze-By Billy Hallowell-On June 21, 2011:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/are-you-ready-for-a-world-governed-by-islamic-law/

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America-Will America Notice!

Is President Obama in on the Uprising in Egypt?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/is-president-obama-in-on-the-uprising-in-egypt/

Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/godfather-of-the-islamic-revolution/

Is Israel the next Arab Facebook Campaign?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/is-israel-the-next-arab-facebook-campaign/

What are CAIRs obstructionist goals?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/6951/

Federal judge confirms CAIR is Hamas!

The Islamic Infiltration: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/the-islamic-infiltration-inside-our-government-armed-with-our-secrets/

Should Americans Fear Islam?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/should-americans-fear-islam/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake