Archive for the ‘Barry Soetoro (alias Barak Obama)’ Category

What does he know?
How can he think he’ll be re-elected running against the continually expressed views and will of the American people? Not just running against the white, non-Muslim people as he has been doing, but now running against blacks, Hispanics, and even Muslims!
What about his support for wealth redistribution, which Americans reject; his support for union thugs overriding the most basic of American rights and values, the secret ballot,; his support for keeping American companies from putting Americans to work unless they allow his union thug handlers to extort forced payments to the corrupt unions ; his support for stripping the Catholic Church, and, in effect, any religious organization from conforming to the rules of their religion(s); his plea for patience from the Russians, until after he is re-elected, for him to gut our missile defense; his blatant attacks on other supposedly co-equal branches of our government, in his quest to destroy a Constitution he despises,; and his forcing of Obamacare on an unwilling American populace?

I can, and will, go on.
These are just some of the issues on which Obama diametrically opposes the American voter. What is his plan? What will help him overcome the obvious obstacles between him and freedom loving patriotic Americans?
His campaign promise to cause energy rates to “necessarily skyrocket” has caused fuel prices to at least double, and his assault on the coal industry, which supplies most of our electricity, is completely out of line for someone looking out for American interests. His administration’s blatant lies and alterations to official documents led to an unwarranted moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf . We can give Brazil billions to deep-water drill, but we Americans can’t drill for our own oil.
As if that wasn’t enough to make anyone wonder how this man can expect to be re-elected, we still haven’t touched the subject of his purposeful destruction of the American capitalist system. His redistribution of wealth to the green energy scammers, mostly his friends and campaign fundraisers like Solyndra, has led to failures and bankruptcies from most of the companies to which he gave money.
It seems to me that there are a preponderance of issues President Obama supports that freedom loving Americans want no part of.
What is his plan?
Is he hoping for enough civil unrest from his personal army (SEIU, the UAW, and his foot soldiers in the Occupy movement) for him to rely on martial law and suspended elections?
What are Americans to think when the Army “accidentally” releases information regarding the treatment of freedom loving Americans pursuing happiness under the auspices and moral and ethical boundaries of the Constitution, who wind up in the Presidents re-education camps for “political activists,” and how their voices will be silenced by gags as they (WE, because I’m damn sure I’ll be there, too) are forced to do hard labor for our beliefs?

Those are some ugly details that our Kimberley Strassel has been turning up about the effort to smear Mitt Romney’s campaign donors. The dirt-digging exercise re­flects the character of Presi­dent Obama’s re-election campaign, as well as what’s really behind the drive for more “transparency” in po­litical donations.As Ms. Strassel has reported in recent col­umns, Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot has become the target of a smear campaign since it was disclosed earlier this year that he had donated $1 million to a super PAC sup­porting Mr. Romney. President Obama’s cam­paign website teed him up in April as one of eight “less than reputable” Romney donors and a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.” One sin: His wife donated to an anti-gay-mar­riage campaign, of the kind that have passed in 30 or so states.

Now we learn that little more than a week after that Presidential posting, a former Dem­ocratic Senate staffer called the courthouse in Mr. VanderSloot’s home town of Idaho Falls seeking his divorce records. Ms. Strassel traced the operative, Michael Wolf, to a Wash­ington, D.C. outfit called Fusion GPS that says it is “a commercial research firm.”

Fusion GPS is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson, who wouldn’t say who is paying him for this high-minded slumming but said in an email that Mr. VanderSloot was a “legitimate” target be­cause of “his record on gay issues.”

If Mr. Simpson and Democrats really favor disclosure, then surely Mr. Simpson should disclose who is paying him to rummage through the personal lives of opposition do­nors. Someone should also ask the White House, the Obama campaign and the Demo­cratic National Committee if Mr. Simpson’s chop shop is on their payroll and if they ap­prove of such tactics. Does Mr. Obama think the lifestyles and divorce records of campaign donors should be fair political game?

The attack on Mr. VanderSloot is also nota­ble for its focus on his wife’s contribution to the anti-gay-marriage cause. Gay-marriage activists are winning the debate in much of
the country, but as they do they are becoming more intolerant.

After California voters approved Proposi­tion 8 banning same-sex marriage in 2008, oppo­nents published the names of donors, who were later linked with zip codes and Google Maps. Donors re­ported getting death threats. Boycotts were set against busi­nesses, and activists encouraged customers to call and harass business owners. Among the activists’ arguments for why Mr. Vander­Sloot is antigay is that his wife donated to the campaign for Proposition 8.

The fight over gay marriage is passionate because it concerns deeply held beliefs about religion, the role of the family and the human condition. Social mores like marriage that have held for thousands of years aren’t easily changed, and they should do so by consensus, not thuggery. If the political left is going to treat everyone who supports traditional mar­riage as bigots, and target them for personal smears, then we are in for another ugly run of the culture wars.

All of this is also a reason to reconsider rules that require the disclosure of political donations. This sounds appealing in theory, the Supreme Court has ruled that disclosure is Constitutional, and these columns have supported it as part of a political compromise that would allow unlimited donations.
But it’s increasingly clear that the real point of these disclosure laws is not to inform voters but to get donor names in order to in­timidate them from participating in politics. The goal is to dispatch hired guns like Mr. Simpson on political opponents to trash their reputations.

Democrats and their left-wing allies should understand that Republicans and Mormons will not be the only targets. If Democrats think it is “legitimate” to prowl and publish the di­vorce records of Romney donors, no one should feign shock if some right-wing investi­gator is soon doing the same to Mr. Obama’s bundlers and super PAC donors. A President who claims to want “civility” in political dis­course will reap what he sows if he plays by DIRTY Nixonian rules.

by Pam Suggs

‘FEMA Coffins’ Being Moved Northbound On Georgia Highway 5-8-2012;
When the driver of this truck noticed the photographer taking pictures, he immediately pulled off of the highway.
“Posted by Nickadeemus on Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:03
Thank you for posting on this forum! I was the photographer. This picture was taken on highway 85 Northbound two miles south of Elberton, Ga. It is absolutely true. I blew past the truck doing 82MpH. My tail lights were even with the front of the rigs cab when it occurred to me what they were. I slammed on my brakes to let the rig pass. As I pulled out my blackberry and positioned for the shot, the driver looked in his side-view mirror and slammed on his brakes. He then banked right to exit the highway onto an exit ramp towards Elberton. I could not operate the manual transmission, save the shot, and maneuver my vehicle to follow. When the driver of this truck noticed the photographer taking pictures, he immediately pulled off of the highway.

WATCH NOW ! NOW THAT THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT HAS CHANGED THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION AND THAT AMERICANS WHO DISAGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENTS MADNESS PLAN [CONTROLED BY ILLUMINATI/MASONS] YOU NOW ARE A TERRORIST A PATRIOT TERRORIST ALEX JONES WAS RITE PLEASE STUDY
WITHOUT FEAR.

by Andra Varin

Evangelist Franklin Graham said President Barack Obama has “shaken his fist at God” by voicing support for gay marriage.

In an interview Wednesday with ABC News, Obama said his opinions had evolved and he now believes same-sex couples should have the right to wed.

“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said.

Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham, said the president was defying God’s will by changing his opinion on the issue.

“President Obama has, in my view, shaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage. It grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more,” Graham said in a statement.

“This is a sad day for America. May God help us,” he said.

Graham supported a measure to amend North Carolina’s constitution to bar gay marriage. Voters on Tuesday passed the amendment with a 61 percent approval rate.

Graham has criticized Obama on spiritual matters in the past. In February, he publicly questioned whether Obama is really a Christian and said “Islam has gotten a free pass” under Obama’s administration.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Franklin Graham: Obama Has ‘Shaken His Fist’ at God

Members of the United States military may be surprised to learn that they now serve on President Obama’s behalf, instead of protecting the Constitution.

On Wednesday, Obama reverted to his 1996 position supporting gay marriage, but said something that caught the ear of many conservatives.

“[W]hen I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said.

“Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it?” Elliot Abrams asked at the Weekly Standard.

Ben Shapiro weighed in on the statement at frontpagemag.com:

The members of the US military fight on behalf of all Americans, not Obama personally. Now, it’s possible that President Obama meant just that – he was expressing individual gratitude for a collective benefit we all receive from the military.

“Or,” he wrote, “it’s possible that Obama thinks that the troops are out there carrying out his work.”

Shapiro reminded readers that in 2009, Obama said the troops made a “pretty good photo-op” during a visit to South Korea.

“Obama seems to see the troops as his personal plaything,” Shapiro added, recalling a statement last week where the President appeared to suggest he would transform the country on their behalf.

He went on to say that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines “are a prop for Obama.”

“They are fighting on behalf of the United States of America of which Obama is, like all his predecessors have been and all his successors will be, temporarily president and commander-in-chief,” Michael Barone wrote at the Washington Examiner, adding that Obama could have said they were fighting “at my command,” which would have been true.

“But that would conflict with his campaign message that he ends wars rather than wages them,” Barone added.

Obama also seems to not understand that U.S. military personnel do not swear allegiance to one man, but rather promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

If the United States were a monarchy, as Barone wrote, or a dictatorship, then the President could say they are fighting on his behalf.

“But we’re not a monarchy and he’s not royal,” Barone added. Nor is the United States a dictatorship.

“FDR, for all his ego, would never have said that soldiers in World War II were fighting on his behalf. Neither would Truman, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or even Carter and Clinton (although Clinton might have thought it),” wrote Newsbusters’ Tom Blumer, who added that he doesn’t “expect to see a lot of TV air time devoted to this telling, egotistical slip.”

“Others have noted that in his spike-the-ball statements on the dispatch of Osama bin Laden, Obama has used first person pronouns in a way that presidents like George W. Bush, Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt were careful to avoid,” Barone wrote.

“With Obama, it’s always all about him,” he added.

by Gary DeMar

The Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State claimed that the homily that Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Ill., gave in November of last year violated federal law. Here’s some of what Bishop Jenky said:

“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and health care. . . . In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda – now seems intent on following a similar path.

You can agree or disagree with Bishop Jenky’s comparisons, but do his comments violate the Constitution? They do not. The First Amendment is clear that Congress can’t make any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion “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.”

Barry Lynn, Americans United’s executive director said, “No rational person could believe the bishop was doing anything but saying vote against Obama.” So what if he was? Where is the Constitutional violation? If a president advocated slavery, would it be wrong for a minister, priest, or rabbi to say, “Vote against this man”?

Would the folks at Americans United have protested if a minister, rabbi, or priest had spoken out against Adolf Hitler and his policies? In fact, there has been a lot of criticism of the German churches in the 1930s because its leaders did not speak out against the creeping tyranny of Hitler and the Nazis.

Patricia Gibson, chancellor of the Peoria Diocese, responded to Lynn’s ridiculous charges:

“Based upon the current government’s threatened infringement upon the Church’s religious exercise of its ministry, Bishop Jenky offered historical context and comparisons as a means to prevent a repetition of historical attacks upon the Catholic Church and other religions.”

Americans United has assumed the role of Germany’s Gestapo. When German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) used his pulpit to expose Hitler’s radical politics, “He knew every word spoken was reported by Nazi spies and secret agents.”[1] Leo Stein describes in his book I Was in Hell with Niemoeller how the Gestapo gathered evidence against Niemoeller:

Now, the charge against Niemoeller was based entirely on his sermons, which the Gestapo agents had taken down stenographically. But in none of his sermons did Pastor Niemoeller exhort his congregation to overthrow the Nazi regime. He merely raised his voice against some of the Nazi policies, particularly the policy directed against the Church. He had even refrained from criticizing the Nazi government itself or any of its personnel. Under the former government his sermons would have been construed only as an exercise of the right of free speech. Now, however, written laws, no matter how explicitly they were worded, were subjected to the interpretation of the judges.[2]

In a June 27, 1937 sermon, Niemoeller made it clear to those in attendance had a sacred duty to speak out on the evils of the Nazi regime no matter what the consequences: “We have no more thought of using our own powers to escape the arm of the authorities than had the Apostles of old. No more are we ready to keep silent at man’s behest when God commands us to speak. For it is, and must remain, the case that we must obey God rather than man.”[3] A few days later, he was arrested.

His crime? “Abuse of the pulpit.” Lynn and Americans United are making the same charge.

The “Special Courts” set up by the Nazis made claims against pastors who spoke out against Hitler’s policies. Niemoeller was not the only one singled out by the Gestapo. “Some 807 other pastors and leading laymen of the ‘Confessional Church’ were arrested in 1937, and hundreds more in the next couple of years.”[4]

A group of Confessional Churches in Germany, founded by Pastor Niemoeller and other Protestant ministers, drew up a proclamation to confront the political changes taking place in Germany that threatened the people “with a deadly danger. The danger lies in a new religion,” the proclamation declared. “The church has by order of its Master to see to it that in our people Christ is given the honor that is proper to the Judge of the world . . . The First Commandment says ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ The new religion is a rejection of the First Commandment.”[5]

Five hundred pastors who read the proclamation from their pulpits were arrested.

Americans United is doing the work of the Gestapo in the name of the Constitution. This is the worst kind of political collaboration.

by Martin Gould

President Barack Obama’s leadership of the country is “shriveling before our eyes,” former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal.

He has now given at least three conflicting explanations as to why he wants the so-called “Buffett Rule” — that would increase taxes on the nation’s highest earners — introduced, Rove said.

“Mr. Obama is not just showing he’s a tax-and-spend liberal who will increase taxes to fund an ever larger welfare state,” he said. “He is also abandoning a long-existing bipartisan consensus that encouraging savings and investment adds to prosperity.”
Rove said the president initially said the Buffett Rule — named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has publicly said he should pay more in taxes — was needed to “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade.”

Then Obama changed his tune to say the rule was needed to bring more fairness into the tax code and now he claims it would strengthen the economy and create jobs.

“With the country’s serious economic challenges, all the president can offer is the Buffett Rule? Mr. Obama is shriveling before our eyes — not physically, but in stature and leadership,” Rove wrote.

“We may be at a political tipping point where acts confirm impressions that become impossible to shake. Mr. Obama is in danger of being seen as weak, inept and not up to the job,” he said.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Rove: Obama ‘Shriveling Before Our Eyes’
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

One thing about this president, he sure does love those executive orders.
In between sending emailed threats to the Supreme Court that Medicare recipients would suffer if the justices overturn Obamacare — as reported by Fox News — President Obama got his gnomes to draft a new executive order with the innocuous title of “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation.”

The touted purpose is to cut red tape and allow U.S. companies that work overseas to grow their businesses more easily. But it’s another piece in the puzzle of U.S. sovereignty that President Obama is handing over to foreign nations.

The order, issued May 1, sets up a White House policy panel to review ways to increase international regulatory cooperation, particularly involving technology.

According to Businessweek, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vice President Sean Heather said last week, “Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way.”

Buried in the doublespeak is the heart of the executive order, which is that the White House’s appointed policy panel is to consider changing any U.S. trade regulations it or its regulated businesses find inconvenient so that they match laws in foreign countries.

Further, the panel is instructed to consider foreign nations’ regulatory approaches if they are less cumbersome than U.S. law.

If this hasn’t alarmed you yet, consider all the benefits the U.S. has seen from NAFTA (virtually none) vs. the benefits our trading partners have received.

Then consider also that this sort of international regulatory authority usually goes through a period of direct negotiation with our trading partners at the diplomatic level, then is written into a treaty that is presented to Congress for its review and approval.

With this executive order, Obama is once again going around Congress and circumventing constitutional and other legal procedures in a process that will occur far from public scrutiny unless the White House wants to advertise something it’s done.

And given this White House’s record, those events will be few and far between.

Jane asks the President if her 100 year old mother (now 105) would have gotten a pacemaker under his medical plan. Well now that’s a tough one … that costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take a pill. Priceless. I wonder if Jane was excited to Obama’s signature Federal healthcare mandate was passed after hearing that?

So now we are forced to play by the Feds rules on healthcare and they get to decide if we can have treatment or not. The free market says everyone gets medical service if they are willing to pay for it. The ObamaCare market says, if it can save us money you don’t get service. There are going to be a lot people being refused medical treatment.

Bill Clinton was called our first “Black President,” so is Obama then America’s first Muslim President?! Guest Frank Gaffney tells all.

The Obama campaign has a cringe-inducing propaganda slideshow called “The Life of Julia” intended to illustrate how the Obama Administration’s policies will give government help to a young woman as she is educated, works, starts a family and retires.

If you had to stifle a guffaw, you’re not alone.

Yes, the Obama Administration’s policies alone can be the savior for American children everywhere – all it takes, apparently, are piles and piles of taxpayer money thrown around recklessly. And by the end, children will still be able to retire and live comfortably on the totally-stable programs of Medicare and Social Security!

The dream that Obama has for Julia’s life is scary. There was a time that the “cradle-to-grave” formulation of the welfare state was disparaging. President Obama takes pride in having the governemnt’s fingers pushing Julia along at every stage of her life. This is the fantasyland that the Obama Administration is living in – absolutely no mention of the unprecedented debt and deficit that the government has racked up in the last four years and the effect that will have on the economy as the next generation comes of age.

On Thursday morning, President Obama’s campaign launched a new interactive infographic — “The life of Julia.”

Her’s how it works:You follow a cartoon woman named Julia from age 3 to age 67. At each step along the way, you learn how she was helped by policies pushed by Obama and how she would be hurt by differing policy prescriptions favored by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Oversimplified? Yes. Slanted to favor Obama? Of course.(This is politics, after all.) Effective? Well, just look at how Republicans responded — by talking about #Julia on Twitter and Tumblr all daY

Here’s Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus:
#Julia is bummed. Her share of the national debt went up $16,345 under Obama. 1.usa.gov/9lDQhC
3 May 12
Fair point. But talking about Julia means talking about women voters and women’s issues, where Obama dominates. And by talking about a fictional woman named Julia, Republicans just drive more people to Obama’s campaign website.

Republicans argue that they did what they should do — confront Obama on the same turf.
“We fought back with a Tumblr post and tweets using the realities for Julia under Obama’s economy,” said RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski. “We have the facts on our side when it comes to women and the economy and we intend to use those while Team Obama dreams up the next gimmick.”

Increasingly, this is the new frontier of modern presidential campaigns. What was once fought solely via television ads and candidate appearances is now fought via infographics and Twitter.
The Obama team has shown how well they understand this new world in the early days of the general election fight. The Obama campaign has already spent almost $19 million on online advertising, much of it used to reconnect to millions of existing online supporters. Obama’s 2008 email list contained upwards of 13 million addresses; in the last campaign the candidate raised half a billion online.
While Obama’s campaign has invested heavily in online media, Republicans have excelled at low-budget comebacks, using humorous tweets to blunt the incumbent’s message.

“The Obama campaign has vastly superior resources in this area,” said Patrick Ruffini, a Republican digital strategist. “What you’re seeing is Republicans fighting back using guerilla attacks, with twitter hashtags.”

Republicans have also been working on their own social media innovations. The Republican National Committee recently launched GOP Social Victory Center, a Facebook app that helps supporters share news, meet likeminded people and call voters in battleground states.

Of course, Obama’s campaign had the MyBarackObama iPhone app back in 2008.
The Obama campaign has “invested heavily in data analysis, they have a huge pile of supporter data to sift … and they’re developing all kinds of creative uses of technology in campaigns,” said Micah Sifry, co-founder of the Personal Democracy Forum. “The only place Republicans have the edge,” he argued, is that “many of their officeholders are more comfortable with social media than the Democrats.”

Yussi Pick, a managing partner at Pick & Barth Digital Strategies, concurred.
“The Republicans might win the game on Twitter, but Democrats are killing it with Email — and Email is still the most important channel for voter contact online,” he said. Minicampaigns like “The life of Julia” help nudge supporters towards more and more involvement, he said — “small steps in what’s called the ‘Supporter Journey.’”

Republicans are still trying to match Obama in tech-savvy innovation. Whether they can be as successful there as they have been on Twitter remains to be seen.

No more training future soldiers about who the enemy is and why they want to kill us. Now, West Point cadets visit a NJ city with a large enemy Muslim population to witness the cultural diversity they will encounter overseas. (In other words, to brainwash them into believing that the so-called culture of 7th Century savages is just as good as ours)
Washington Post(H/T Robin H) The men and women in crisp U.S. military uniforms walked in close formation through the bustling, traffic-choked streets, passing women in full Muslim hijab, sari-clad Indian mothers pushing strollers, worshippers heading to an Egyptian Coptic church, and small shops with signs in Arabic, Hindi, Korean and a dozen other languages. (But notice in the photo below, female academy cadets are wearing Muslim headbags, no Indian saris or Korean attire. And in the photos and videos below, they only show the cadets at Islamic centers where the speakers are all Muslims)

The cadets are visiting as part of a class at West Point on peacekeeping and reconstruction called “Winning the Peace.” The class ends in a three-day crash course designed to make the future officers _ and, ultimately, the soldiers under their command _ more sensitive to cultural differences.
Senior Megan Kelty (L) and junior Jordan Reilly (2nd L), wear headbags out of dhimmi submission, as they sit with other cadets from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., during a presentation at the Islamic Center of Jersey City

DHIMMI A BRIEF OVERVIEW
7th-21st century. The notion of Dhimmitude, originating in the 7th century, still applies today to non-Muslims under Islamic rule—whether Jews or Christians, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Sudan. Dhimmitude began in 628 CE when Mohammed and his forces conquered the Jewish oasis at Khaybar. They massacred many of the Jews and forced the rest to accept a pact (“Dhimma”) which rendered them inferiror to their Muslim conquerors. Over the centuries, the ideology of Dhimmitude expanded into a formal system of religious apartheid.

No legal rights. Jews may not testify in court against a Muslim and have no legal right to dispute or challenge anything done to them by Muslims. There is no such thing as a Muslim raping a Jewish woman; there is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew (at most, it can be manslaughter). In contrast, a Jew who strikes a Muslim is killed.

Humiliation and vulnerability. Jews and Christians had to walk around with badges or veils identifying them as Jews or Christians. The yellow star that Jews had wear in Nazi Germany did not originate in Europe. It was borrowed from the Muslim world where it was part of the apartheid system of Dhimmitude.

It wasn’t a tour of duty overseas, but a field trip to Jersey City, just 60 miles down the Hudson River from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

The city of 250,000 is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse places in America, and the West Point cadets are visiting as part of a class at the academy on peacekeeping and reconstruction called “Winning the Peace.” The class ends in a three-day crash course designed to make the future officers — and, ultimately, the soldiers under their command — more sensitive to cultural differences.

All the speakers appear to have been Muslims
The program has taken on new urgency as the Army deals with the fallout from a string of embarrassing episodes in Afghanistan, including reports of U.S. soldiers posing with the bloody remains of suicide bombers, urinating on Afghan corpses and burning Muslim holy books.

During the visit to Jersey City, the 23 cadets in the class stay overnight at a mosque and attend Islamic prayers. They also go to an Egyptian Coptic Christian church, a synagogue and a Hindu religious service, and sample the foods of the cultures they encounter. (Funny, how all the videos only show the mosque visits)

At the Islamic Center of Jersey City, where the cadets stay, program organizer Ahmed Shedeed said the visit to the city is an eye-opener for some students.

I guess the only ‘Koreans’ (woman in middle) the cadets met were Muslims, too?
“Some of these soldiers have never seen anybody different. Some have never seen a black person or eaten Chinese food, and they come to a place like Jersey City and they understand they’re not the only ones in the world, that there are civilizations and cultures that came before theirs,” he said.

Emad Attaalaa of St. George’s Egyptian Coptic Church, where the cadets spent an afternoon learning about the history of the church and enjoyed a Middle Eastern-style lunch, said the program has mutual benefits, getting young people from his largely Egyptian congregation interested in the military or a career in law enforcement. “Kids in the church come and ask me after meeting the cadets, ‘What do you think about joining the Army?’” he said. (Gee, I bet they didn’t hear that from anyone in the Islamic center?)

At the Islamic Center, congregants explained to the cadets the importance of removing their shoes in prayer areas, and the female cadets were shown the proper way to cover themselves with Muslim headscarves out of respect.

Nothing about cultural difference in this video, all about the Prophet Mohammed:

Jersey City sits across the Hudson River from New York. Nearly 40 percent of the population is foreign-born, and more than half its residents speak a language other than English at home, according to census figures. It has a large Muslim population. Some of the plotters of the deadly 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center attended a mosque there.

Col. Cindy Jebb, a social sciences professor at West Point who has taught course on cultural anthropology as well as terrorism and counterterrorism, said the academy is fortunate to have such a melting pot close by.

“When you start to learn about other cultures, it makes you very self-aware, helps create a more adaptable thinker, and it develops empathy,” she said. (Empathy is the last thing you need for people who are trying to kill you)

But they don’t learn about culture, only religion:

Although this year’s visit focused on the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East, she said the controversies that have hurt U.S. efforts to gain the trust of Afghans are also discussed with cadets.

“We always use such incidents as a learning opportunity,” Jebb said. “Looking at it in the larger context of understanding that these actions of a few do not reflect the entire military, we discuss why these actions are so detrimental, and how you go about building a tone within a unit of cultural understanding.”

At dinner with the cadets, Muslim women were segregated from men. Only female cadets in headbags were allowed to dine with the male cadets. Muslims were offended.

Millions of Americans feel they’re living in a war zone, the bombardments coming their way daily.

Non-stop lies and corruption. White House “czars” with communist backgrounds. Brazen presidential power grabs. Bows to enemy leaders and insults to allies. Intentionally destructive economic and energy policies. Presidential hot-mic gaffes proving collusion with America’s enemies.

No wonder Americans are more worried today about the very survival of their nation than at any time since the Civil War.

But underlying the madness – underlying all of the epic, high-level subversion of America – enabling it, justifying it, disguising it – is a secret language of the left, a language most citizens neither understand nor even recognize.

This secret language, an essential ingredient in America’s rapidly advancing socialist transformation, is dramatically exposed in May’s groundbreaking issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled “THE ALINSKY CODE.”

by Henry J. Reske

President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign is publicly identifying donors to Mitt Romney’s bid to unseat him in a move designed to intimidate, revealing the names on a website, Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel reported.

Strassel writes that in the last week, the Obama campaign posted on a website an item titled, “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.”

“In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent,” she said. “Describing the givers as all having ‘less-than-reputable records,’ the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that ‘quite a few’ have also been ‘on the wrong side of the law’ and profiting at ‘the expense of so many Americans.’

“These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the rime of having ‘outsourced’ jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon [a hedge-fund manager], Kent Burton [a ‘lobbyist’] and Thomas O’Malley [an energy CEO] stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a ‘bitter foe of the gay rights movement.’”

While writing that all are “wealthy individuals,” Strassel notes that they are nonetheless private citizens, do not hold office and are not criminals.

“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general, tells Strassel. “When you have the power of the presidency — the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC — what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.”

Strassel writes that the president has taken a “cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.”

“He’s targeted insurers, oil firms, and Wall Street — letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution,” she said. “He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP — Mr. Obama’s real aim.”

Strassel concludes by writing: “Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.”

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

by Brett LoGiurato

Supreme Court justices expressed support for the Arizona immigration law at oral arguments today, according to CBS’ chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford.
Even some of the court’s liberal justices seemed to support the most controversial part of the law: the part that requires officials to check the immigration status of people during routine traffic stops and anyone detained or arrested. From NBC:
Based on comments during Wednesday’s oral arguments on the case, even some of the court’s liberal justices seemed to find no strong objection to the most controversial part of the law, which requires local police to check on the immigration status of anyone they detain or arrest.
It’s another blow to the Obama administration, which last month endured the fallout from a more skeptical than anticipated Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act

The justices focused a lot today on provision 2(B); the controversial provision. Key points here, via The Wall Street Journal’s recommended “tape-delayed live blog” of the hearings:
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli flat-out denied that racial/ethnic profiling would be a part of the argument.
“No part of your case involves racial or ethnic profiling, right?” Chief Justice John Roberts said. Verrilli said it did not.
Now, Verrilli’s argument: States cannot kick illegal immigrants out of the country. It’s a federal responsibility, because they will simply go to other states.
All that section does is require state officers to notify the federal government that they picked up an illegal immigrant, Chief Justice Roberts said. It’s totally up to the federal government to decide whether to take any action against that person. He couldn’t understand how that interferes with federal discretion over immigration enforcement.
Antonin Scalia thought Verrilli’s argument reeked of one of racial profiling. Even liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t appear to buy Verrilli’s argument.
“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sotomayor told Mr. Verrilli. “I’m terribly confused by your answer.”
Russell Pearce, the architect of the law SB1070, said the Obama administration should be “embarrassed.”
“I thought even the liberals thought the arguments were weak,” Pearce said. “If I were the Obama administration, I’d be embarrassed. Their arguments were frivolous.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/justices-support-arizona-immigration-law-2012-4#ixzz1tRCcVa2M

President Obama and the First Lady spoke to soldiers at Fort Stewart on the Georgia coast today in order to tout an executive order the President would be signing, cracking down on scams used to bilk veterans out of their federal education benefits.

Towards the end of the President’s speech, the tune shifted towards a hyper partisan tirade hailing big government spending.

The President’s inflection rose to stump speech level as he talking about a country that was “willing to invest in things” like “community colleges”, “scientific research”, “medicine” and “VFW halls”

The speech invoked much of same rhetoric the President had employed during his recent “official” campaign-like stump speeches.

Once the speech had ended, the crowd of Marines cautiously clapped to what they had just heard.

“…Each of us is only here because somebody looked out for us. Not just our parents, but our neighbors and our communities and our houses of worship and our VFW halls. Because we had a country that was willing to invest in things like community colleges and universities and scientific research and medicine and caring for our veterans. Each of us is only here because somebody somewhere had our backs. Because generations of Americans worked together. “Out of many we are one.” Those are values we gotta return to…”

Obama bypasses Congress, funds Palestinian Authority

Isn’t it funny what you can find out on Friday evening about what our executive branch does? For instance, Agence France-Presse reported last night that Barack Obama bypassed Congress to send $192 million to the Palestinian Authority, claiming that national security required the US to put money into Mahmoud Abbas’ pocket:

President Barack Obama has signed a waiver to remove curbs on funding to the Palestinian Authority, declaring the aid to be “important to the security interests of the United States.”

A $192 million aid package was frozen by the US Congress after the Palestinians moved to gain statehood at the United Nations last September.

But in a memo sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, published by the White House, the president said it was appropriate to release funds to the authority, which administers the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In signing the waiver, Obama instructed Clinton to inform Congress of the move, on the grounds that “waiving such prohibition is important to the national security interests of the United States.”

Congress deliberately froze those funds, and not just because of the statehood demand through UNESCO. Hamas, a terrorist organization, reconciled with Fatah and has rejoined the PA, which means we’re putting almost $200 million into the hands of a terrorist organization. The language of the Palestinian Accountability Act could not be clearer: “[N]o funds available to any United States Government department or agency … may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.” Obama literally waived that statutory language off yesterday afternoon.

The Times of Israel reported on the official White House explanation of why Obama did so:

The AFP news agency quoted White House spokesman Tommy Vietor as saying the $192 million aid package would be devoted to “ensuring the continued viability of the moderate PA government under the leadership of [Palestinian Authority] President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.”

Vietor added that the PA had fulfilled its major obligations, such as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting the Road Map for Peace.

Have they? They certainly haven’t done so since Hamas rejoined the PA in February. Hamas has refused to change its charter to recognize Israel or renounce violence, and certainly they have rejected the Road Map for Peace, which has been lying dead for years thanks to the PA’s refusal to seriously implement it. When Hamas broadcasts its recognition of Israel in Arabic — something that the PA has never done, to my knowledge — then perhaps the Obama administration’s claims can be taken seriously.

Andy McCarthy calls this a “triple play,” and slams this claim by Vietor as fantasy:

In the real world, the very immoderate PA has reneged on all its commitments. In addition to violating its obligations by unilaterally declaring statehood, the PA has also agreed to form a unity government with Hamas, a terrorist organization that is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The PA continues to endorse terrorism against Israel as “resistance.” Moreover, the PA most certainly does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Back in November, for example, Adil Sadeq, a PA official writing in the official PA daily,Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, declared that Israelis

“have a common mistake, or misconception by which they fool themselves, assuming that Fatah accepts them and recognizes the right of their state to exist, and that it is Hamas alone that loathes them and does not recognize the right of this state to exist. They ignore the fact that this state, based on a fabricated [Zionist] enterprise, never had any shred of a right to exist…”

In sum, everything Obama is saying about Palestinian compliance is a lie. Even if we were not broke, we should not be giving the PA a dime. To borrow money so we can give it to them is truly nuts.

The White House knows it, too — which is why we only found out through the Friday night news dump

Obama Singles Out Private Citizens By Name For Donating To Romney, Accuses Them Of “Betting Against America”

This should send a chill down everyone’s spine. Imagine having the most powerful man on Earth singling you out by name then slandering you for donating to his opponent’s campaign?

Via WSJ:

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers – to jail, to fine, to bankrupt – are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He’s targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama’s real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of “disclosure” and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, “he’s doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies.” Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It’s getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable,” but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.