Louisiana citizens petition White House to 'peacefully' withdraw from US...

7th Nov, 2012

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-louisiana-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/1wrvtngl

we petition the obama administration to:

Peacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.

As the founding fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence 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."
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government..."

[ed. This may or may not come to anything however it is instructive to see how people are sick to death of the fraud, lies and scandal of the corrupt establishment, and particularly Obama, that they see this as the best way forward...IMPEACH OBAMA, SAVE THE COUNTRY!]




 

Obama's ring: 'There is no god but Allah'

 
by Jerome R. Corsi
10th October, 2012

Barack Obama's gold band

NEW YORK – As a student at Harvard Law School, then-bachelor Barack Obama’s practice of wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger puzzled his colleagues.

Now, newly published photographs of Obama from the 1980s show that the ring Obama wore on his wedding-ring finger as an unmarried student is the same ring Michelle Robinson put on his finger at the couple’s wedding ceremony in 1992.

Moreover, according to Arabic-language and Islamic experts, the ring Obama has been wearing for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada: “There is no god except Allah.”

Inscription on Obama's ring

The Shahada is the first of the Five Pillars of Islam, expressing the two fundamental beliefs that make a person a Muslim: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.
Sincere recitation of the Shahada is the sole requirement for becoming a Muslim, as it expresses a person’s rejection of all other gods.
Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D., examined photographs of Obama’s ring at WND’s request and concluded that the first half of the Shahada is inscribed on it.
“There can be no doubt that someone wearing the inscription ‘There is no god except Allah’ has a very close connection to Islamic beliefs, the Islamic religion and Islamic society to which this statement is so strongly attached,” Gabriel told WND.
Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” carefully documents the story the establishment media still refuses to tell
“Dreams from My Real Father” producer Joel Gilbert, an Arabic speaker and an expert on the Middle East, was the first to conclude that Obama’s ring, reportedly from Indonesia, bore an Islamic inscription.
Photographs published last week by the New Yorker from Obama’s time at Occidental College, taken by fellows students, indicate that the ring Obama wore three decades ago is the one he is wearing in the White House.

Barack Obama

As WND reported in July, previously published photos have shown Obama wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger continuously from 1981 at Occidental, through graduation at Columbia in 1983, in a visit to Africa in 1988 and during his time at Harvard from 1988 to 1991. But none, until now, have displayed the ring with enough detail to identify it as the one he currently is wearing.
WND reported a satirical edition of the Harvard Law Review published by students in 1990 contains a mock Dewers Scotch profile advertisement poking fun at Obama. Among a list of Obama’s “Latest Accomplishments” is: “Deflecting Persistent Questioning About Ring On Left Hand.”
The comment suggests the ring was a subject of student curiosity at the time and that Obama was not forthcoming with an explanation.
He still has not explained why he wore the band on his wedding-ring finger before he married Michelle.
Declaration
Gabriel, born to Muslim parents in Upper Egypt, grew up immersed in Islamic culture. He memorized the Quran at age of 12 and graduated in 1990 with a Masters degree from the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the pre-eminent Sunni Muslim institution of learning.
He explained that on Obama’s ring, the declaration “There is no god except Allah” (La Ilaha Illallah) is inscribed in two sections, one above the other.
On the upper section, “There is no god” is written in Arabic letters, from right to left: Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Ha.
On the lower section is “except god,” written in Arabic letters from right to left: Alif, Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Lam, Ha.
In the lower section, the word “Allah” is written partially on top of the word “except,” noted Gabriel, the author of “Islam and Terrorism” and “Journey Inside the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.”
It is common in Islamic art and Arabic calligraphy, especially when expressing Quranic messages on jewelry, to artfully place letters on top of each other to fit them into the allotted space.
The exhibit below shows how the Arabic inscription fits over the two parts of the Obama ring.

“There is no God except Allah” overlaid on Obama ring

‘First-rate accent’
In an interview during the 2008 presidential campaign, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof questioned Obama about his Islamic education in Indonesia, where he lived from 1967 to 1971.
After acknowledging that he once got in trouble for making faces during Quran study classes in his elementary school, Obama recited for Kristoff the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, the Adhan.
The prayer incorporates the Shahada, the expression of Islamic faith, with each line repeated twice:

Allah is supreme! Allah is supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet

Kristof noted Obama recited the prayer in Arabic “with a first-rate accent.”
“In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,’” Kristoff wrote.
Joel Gilbert has produced a short video on his view of the ring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOHkZey5v08&feature=player_detailpage
Gabriel told WND that a person wearing a ring with “There is no god except Allah” demonstrates the significance of Islam in his life.
“Christians never use the statement,” he pointed out. “By wearing the Shahada on jewelry, a person communicates that Allah is in control of all circumstances. Allah controls you; Allah is the one and only one.”
Obama, who attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for two decades, has repeatedly insisted he is a Christian.

Obama's hand in a White House photo

‘Blessed statement in Islam’
Gabriel emphasized the importance of the Shahada in the profession of faith in Islam.
“Muslims recite the Shahada when they wake up in the morning and before they go to sleep at night,” he said. “It is repeated five times every day in the call to prayer in every mosque. A single honest recitation of the Shahada in Arabic is all that is required for a person to convert to Islam.”
Gabriel believes it would be impossible for Obama not to be aware of what is written on the ring, calling it a “blessed statement in Islam.”
“By wearing this religious statement on one’s hand, it connects the person to Islam,” he said. “It is worn in hopes that Allah’s protections would be with the person, in hopes of gaining favor with Allah.”
He affirmed that Muslim men do wear gold rings, despite prohibitions in Islamic law.
“Though Islamic law prohibits the wearing of gold jewelry by men, it is a widely accepted custom, even in strictly Muslim countries,” he said. “The wearing of gold rings is even more acceptable when it contains a religious message, such as ‘There is no god except Allah.’”
He noted there is also widespread acceptance of men wearing gold jewelry in non-Arab Islamic societies such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Pakistan, where Muslims generally understand that Muslims are subject to strong influences of local non-Arab cultures.
“Therefore, even though technically prohibited, a Muslim man wearing a gold ring is not looked down upon, especially if the jewelry reflects a love of Islam and a connection to Islamic society,” he said. “An even greater level of acceptance is for businessmen who deal with infidels, because such a person would be regarded as a person of influence.”

Obama signing legislation (White House photo)

‘I have known Islam on three continents’
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, an expert on Islamic history, noted Obama wore the ring during his high-profile speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, in the first months of his presidency.
“Now we have a new context for what Obama meant when he told the Islamic audience in Cairo that he has ‘known Islam on three continents,” Gilbert said. “He also told the Cairo audience that he considered it part of his responsibility as president of the United States ‘to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’ All religious Muslims are by definition required to defend Islam.”
Gilbert’s most recent documentary films on the Middle East are “Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam” and “Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat”

Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009

Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009, close-up

The Occidental ring
The photographs published last week by New Yorker magazine indicate Obama was wearing the ring at Occidental College.
One photo shows Obama sitting alongside Occidental roommate Hasan Chandoo in 1981, apparently waiting for a meal to be served.

Barack Obama and roommate Hasan Chandoo at Occidental College in 1981 (Tom Grauman, New Yorker magazine)

Obama’s extended left hand clearly shows the ring, as seen below.

(Tom Grauman, New Yorker magazine)

The second of the recently released photos shows Obama reaching for a book from an Occidental College library shelf.

Barack Obama in Occidental College library in 1981 (Tom Grauman, New Yorker magazine)

A close-up of the library photo can be seen below.

Detail of Barack Obama ring in Occidental College library in 1981 (Tom Grauman, New Yorker magazine)

In the above photo, the ring’s design can be seen, including a series of parallel bars that distinguish its outer circumference.
The Obama wedding ring
The ring was mentioned in a New York Times article in 2009 recounting the Obamas’ wedding.
In the story, Jodi Kantor described its “intricate gold design,” noting it came from Barack Obama’s boyhood home of Indonesia and was not traditional, like Michelle’s.
Kantor wrote:

Just before the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. pronounced Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson man and wife on the evening of Oct. 3, 1992, he held their wedding rings – signifying their new, enduring bonds – before the guests at Trinity United Church of Christ. Michelle’s was traditional, but Barack’s was an intricate gold design from Indonesia, where he had lived as a boy.

There was no mention in the article that Obama already had been wearing the ring for more than a decade.
The photos of the ring from the 1980s can be compared with more recent photos, such as the ones published by the Huffington Post in 2010 in an article by Anya Strzemien, “Obama’s ‘Intricate’ Indonesian Wedding Band: A CLOSE-UP,” seen here.

Obama wedding ring, Huffington Post, March 18, 2010

Obama wedding ring, Huffington Post, March 18, 2010

Vote Fraud Expert: Romney Votes Not Counted in Key States (video)

Michael Savage on Sean Hannity Evolving on Amnesty for illegals (video)

Michael Savage about Petraeus resignation (video)

How Little These Obama Supporters Know About Our Government (video)

Are there grounds to impeach President Obama?

by Redhanded
Oct 24, 2012

Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski said of Richard Nixon's disgrace and resignation: "What sank him was his lying." Even President Nixon's most loyal defenders abandoned his cause when they found that he had indeed lied to the public.

In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee levied three articles of impeachment against the Republican president for basically telling one lie. That lie which, was told under oath, constituted the creation of an imperial presidency in their eyes.
 
The first of those impeachment articles also accused Nixon of:

"Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted..."

Can a similar conclusion be made over the decision by President Obama to instruct his aides to blame the deaths of one ambassador and three other Americans on the release of a YouTube video critical of the Prophet Muhammad instead of a terrorist attack in order to cover up the real truth?

Fast-forward to Sept 11, 2012, and take a look at the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. New information released last night suggests that the White House was made aware of this attack within hours of it taking place and the lies that took place after that. I say there are definitely enough grounds for impeachment, and at the very least a cause for the president to be put under oath and testify as to what he knew and when.

New e-mails released last night clearly show that the entire intelligence community, as well as the State Department, the Secretary of State and the president himself, were aware of the attack within a couple of hours after the attack. The president chose not to come forward to inform the American people of this attack, nor did he heed calls for additional help from the American ambassador before the attacks.

They instead made a tactical decision to lie to the American people because the timing of this terrorist attack was such an inconvenience to their re-election campaign and their narrative that al-Qaida was in retreat. Coming forward with this information would have turned their claims of an al-Qaida-free world on its head. If the president knowingly lied and abused his power to try to get himself re-elected, he should be put under oath and impeached if he acted the way an imperial president might.

In the climate we are experiencing today, where there is such an incestuous relationship between the media and this president, I imagine it would be a Herculean task to even make the suggestion without being called a racist. In 1974, we did not have corrupt media as we today and the Constitution stood for something.

Lying to the American people is betrayal at its worst. When it comes to abusing the power given and entrusted to you, to knowingly deceive for the sole purpose of protecting yourself or your aides, is beyond reproach and grounds for impeachment—Nov. 6 notwithstanding.

Oh America! What have you done? PT2

EDITOR'S CORNER:

by Jimnasium

8th November, 2012

I was hoping to write an article today about the defeat of President Barack Obama. Sadly it is not to be as voters returned him back to the White House. But the question on many people's lips at the moment is, HOW did this happen? No doubt, plenty of column inches will be devoted to this very question in the coming days and months and I'd like to add my voice to this.

I've been involved with politics, in one way or another, for a while now and in that time causes i've supported have won a few elections and lost a few elections. None of those defeats make me as sick to my stomach and as fearful as the 2012 edition of the United States presidential election. This wasn't just an election defeat, it was a travesty.

A time of economic stagnation which see many losing their jobs in record unemployment and where there is a $16 trillion debt hanging over the heads of every American, a component of which is that $218,000 is owed per person under 18, should have been more than enough to see off Obama. After all, better politicians have been skewered by better news.

It was not enough for many Americans that Obama kept his history a mystery either. His birth certificate, indeed all documents which would shed light on his life, including his college details, are under lock and key despite the best efforts of people to try to force Obama to show them. Questions over his Connecticut social security number remain up in the air. Even Trump offering $5 million to Obama to unlock these records proved futile.

The scandal and maladministration that has dogged Obama from the start of his first term to the finish; Acorn, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, NDAA, TSA (the list goes on and on) couldn't shift the voters attitudes either. Indeed, they seem accepting of scandal now.  Neither were links to George Soros, and his manifold innocent sounding but dubious organisations, were enough to frighten the public about the real agenda at play.

His overt big government socialist agenda was not enough to scare a sufficient amount of  people, who valued their freedom and individuality, into voting him out. The lure of government "free stuff" it seems was too strong.  But there is warning here in that if you vote for socialism/marxism you better be pretty sure it is what you want because, as many countries can attest, it is very difficult and painful to reverse course once established. People inevitably see the government that takes that 'free stuff' away from them as being puritanical and mean.

Moreover Obama has made it clear he has a pro-Islamic view of the world, he has said as much himself. This is also evident in shameful dealings with Israel who, whilst perhaps not being everyone's favourite country, is nonetheless strongly in the mould of a western democracy, light years ahead of its theocratic neighbours. Additionally if people think Obama is going to prevent the United States from getting into wars, as they complained about with Bush, then they are sadly mistaken. He has his globalist masters to follow as well.

It was not enough that his running mate Joe Biden, had shown signs of dementia all campaign stumbling and bumbling over his words and forgetting names and places. People weren't sufficiently warned by this to realise this man is the next in line should anything happen to Obama. Biden is ultimate proof that anyone can be Vice President and that careful selection is not necessary to win the White House.

The saying "a week is a long time in politics" was clearly evident first during the Benghazi scandal and then Hurricane Sandy. Before the hurricane, Romney had upward momentum however the media, shamefully, did their level best to ignore this important issue completely, becoming in the process lapdogs and not watchdogs. Once Hurricane Sandy struck Obama had the distraction he desperately needed.  Obama was able to demonstrate his "caring" side in photo-ops and therefore win over enough of the fickle public, indeed the states hardest hit by the storm went to Obama. Even when a bloated, bureaucratic, over-funded nightmare like FEMA failed to provide food and water as per its remit, the political damage was done, America didn't care. Romney was right to ask for a review of this organisation but he was hammered for that position by the media.

Well documented reports of election shenanigans, bordering on outright fraud, from Obama murals  in polling stations to ballots being changed on machines from Romney to Obama and Republican polling officers thrown out of polling stations by Democrat election judges, lost military ballots in a plane crash, the Obama administration suing Ohio to ensure that the military could not vote early, 141% voter turnout in St Lucie, Florida and 99% votes cast for Obama in Philadelphia and some parts of Ohio, add more than a touch of sham to the whole result. When bearing in mind that the leftist mantra is "by whatever means necessary" we see that fraud is not such a far-fetched idea.

Curiously, there seems to be appetite by the Romney camp, just as there wasn't with McCain before him, to challenge the veracity of these results. A campaign should be throwing all resources to pubically and legally investigate the multitude of anomalies present to make sure everything is as it should be and only then officially conceede defeat. Otherwise, if a nation is happy to accept voter fraud, whoever does it, and lets the result stand then the electoral process becomes worse than meaningless, no better than elections run by Saddam Hussein or Mugabe who we have denounced so readily in the past.

A further look at polling problems can be see here:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/poll-watcher-sees-romney-ballots-changed/

Another reason Obama won has been touched on by conservative commentators elsewhere but is an issue that gets no play in the "mainstream" media, for reasons noted above, and neither does it get aired on the campaign trail. That is immigration.  America, and indeed the rest of the West, is changing demographically thanks to the nightmare of multiculturalism. Although figures on election night suggest that whites make up somewhere around 77% of the population they are badly fragmented and vote on party lines, not ethnic lines.  Hispanics and blacks on the other hand make up growing voting blocks which do vote on ethnic lines and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat Party (or should that be Demographic Party?). This situation is only getting worse hence the confidence many minority leaders have when expressing their anti-white racism without sanction and why we have groups like the black congressional caucus.

So where do we lay the blame for this? I am sorry but the average voter is very much to blame. With a limited attention span they are easily distracted, ill-informed and show a desperate inability to "fart and chew gum at the same time".  They stumble into the polls with bumper sticker notions of what the candidates say, if they bother to go at all.  Last time round it was the vague "Hope and Change" which saw Obama score an historic victory, this time it was the obviously Communistic "Forward" but people didn't have a clue what it actually meant. The old adage of "hiding in plain sight" has been evident once again. There is an ever increasing section of society who are on the government payroll and these people will not vote against their own self-interest. The next four years will see an even greater expansion of this section of people, further entrenching the 'progressives'.

Given all this the Republican Party faces an uphill battle to win the White House but it is not about the party. Political parties come and go and it is entirely conceivable that they put up a more 'progressive' candidate and sweep to office in 2016, or achieve a great result in midterm elections, these things happen. It is all part of the establishment game played on us every couple of years. The real question is in what state will the United States be in once Obama is finished with it? Will it embrace the european socialism, itself groaning under the weight of its contradictions? Or will it maintain the traditional direction where free enterprise, hard work, entrepreneurial spirit, freedom and independence are encouraged and admired? 

Even with Romney's record when Governor of Massachusetts, conservatives did not, and will never, confer god-like status on one man, as the left have done with Obama. Romney may have been a good President, maybe not, but even at his best Romney was not going to single-handedly turn the country around and right all the wrongs. This is because of a fundamental tenet of conservatism which is expressed in the words of Ronald Reagan "government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem". In other words, the solutions come from the people themselves.

After the election Romney talked about "ending partisan bickering". This is clearly an insult to anyone who considers politics and the direction of the country a bit more important than a superbowl contest to shrug off and say "better luck next year". There is a war on and our freedom is at stake.

Let's roll our sleeves up and take the country back.

Obama Won but AMERICA LOST… (video)

Michael Savage: How Obama fixed 2012 election (video)

aired 4/4/2012

Catastrophe

Bryan Preston, PJ Tatler

November 7, 2012 

 

Barack Obama has been re-elected president. Like most on the right, I misread America.
The United States of America faces huge problems as a nation. Our economy is skidding, we have
racked up massive debt to an unsustainable level, and we are no longer a culturally confident or
united nation. We are a scattering of enclaves, barely on speaking terms, swaggering and vibrant
Texas suspiciously eying bankrupt but arrogant California, rural and traditional Oklahoma has
nothing in common with corrupt and secular Illinois, and so forth. Our entitlement spending
threatens to engulf red state and blue state alike. We now owe more per capita than ridiculed
Greece, and we may be heading down that sad country’s path.

In the face of these problems, the American people chose to throw almost none of the bums who got
us here out. The US House remained in Republican hands, the US Senate remained in Democrat
hands, and the White House remained in the hands of Barack Obama. Things did not change
dramatically at the state level either. Neither party was soundly repudiated or given electoral wind in
their sails. It’s as if the American people are so confused and troubled they decided not to decide
anything. Or maybe apathy won out and name recognition trumped the real issues. Republicans
nominated some foolish candidates here and there, but so did the Democrats. Theirs won, ours lost.
The most foolish candidate of them all kept his job. Media assists surely played a major role.

The most immediate lesson that can be learned from this is that the Obama-Axelrod ground game is
very very very good. It had four years to build out its infrastructure and it is much stronger than
anyone, including most Democrats, anticipated. Despite the lousy economy and his flagging personal
popularity, Obama’s team turned out his vote everywhere he needed it, and he won. Republicans
will fight about whether a more vocally conservative candidate could have won or whether Romney
could have provided a sharper contrast with Obama, but organizational superiority may have had
more than anything else to do with this result. Republicans will have to study that ground game and
find a way to beat it just as the football world had to study and defeat the flex defense. That’s not a
job for ideologues, but for tacticians who understand ideology and communication.

The second finding from this result is that America as we know it is over, or soon may be. The
government will get bigger and bigger, until it breaks. Whether it was Hurricane Sandy or Chris
Christie’s hug or the power of incumbency or lingering Bush fatigue or the power of image or the
mendacity of the media, an unqualified and fundamentally dishonest man has been returned to the
highest office in the land. At the same time that he has brazenly lied about the deaths of four
Americans at the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Republican candidates for the US Senate have
had their candidacies destroyed over their unfortunate comments. The tilt in favor of Democrats,
and especially Obama, in how our media culture processes what comes out of politicians’ mouths
may have finally become too much for Republicans to overcome. Every campaign going forward is a
one-false-move minefield for Republicans, while a Democrat can get away with corruption (Claire
McCaskill in Missouri) and allegations of relationships with prostitutes (Bob Menendez in New Jersey) and covering up a terrorist attack that killed four Americans (Obama himself). Massachusetts turned out a perfectly serviceable moderate Republican in favor of a dishonest ideologue with no experience outside academia. One likely result of all this is that Republicans are likely to become more programmed than they already are, and less confident about articulating stands on social issues.

The media is emboldened to pounce on every Republican syllable, confident that every gotcha can keep another seat in Democrat clutches. Perhaps all Republicans should just switch parties at once,
confuse the world and render the media toothless for a while.

Our future looks bleak. Our debt is a mortal threat. Unless we make radical positive changes to the
structure of our government, now, Obama will rack up another four to six trillion dollars in debt over
the next four years. Obama will not make the necessary changes and he will not allow them to be
made as long as he is president. He has already said that he believes in raising taxes on job
creators, and he will use re-election to push for that. Even though it makes no economic sense at
all.

The amazing thing is, Obama told us that his economic policies weren’t based on economics before
he was ever elected president. Then he kept doubling down on non-economics as “fairness.” And he
kept winning. What does this say about a majority of Americans?

Republicans find themselves in a demographic Catch-22. They will have to move aggressively to
capture more of the growing Hispanic vote, and Hispanic cultural values align well with those of the
GOP. But Republicans tend to downplay those issues in order to woo moderates. Any attempt to
secure the border is cast as racist, driving some Hispanic voters away and making moderate voters
wince. But the porous border threatens the rule of law and threatens to demographically render the
GOP a minority party forever, or at least until the Democrat coalition splits, if that happens. In a
contest between a serious issue (security) and a mostly rhetorical issue in modern America (racism)
guess which one gets more media attention, and tends to move more voters.

Unless the looming sequestration defense cuts are prevented, our national defense will shrink to
pre-World War One levels, while threats from Islamic terrorism, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea
and elsewhere are likely to grow. Obama’s own defense secretary warned about these cuts, but
Obama ignored him and then lied about it during one of the debates. Obama has proven that he will
never level with the American people about the threats we face.

But the evidence says that enough Americans care little enough for our national defense to render it
an irrelevant issue. It just doesn’t matter. Neither do economic and individual liberty.

Our economy will remain shackled by unpopular ObamaCare (since America rejected the candidate
who promised to repeal it) and the regulatory overload that Obama intends to impose. Millions of
American workers may be forced into unions via card check, which Obama reportedly intends to
impose with or without Congress. Increased union power will lead to less agile and competitive
American companies, and will price more American workers competing with overseas workers out of
jobs. If you liked the last four years, you will love the next four.

Unless we curtail entitlement spending, we are headed for bankruptcy. Obama promised to reform
entitlements four years ago, and spent four years demagoging against every attempt to get to any
reforms. Then, he was re-elected.

Here, I may read more into the re-election of Obama than is warranted, but here goes. The situation
we find ourselves in has come about because we have become a soft and superficial people. We
have spurned our traditional beliefs in favor of fads. We know more about the Kardashians than the
Constitution. We have become more a nation of takers than makers, and ever more a nation of
broken families that looks at government as daddy than as a necessary evil. The fact is, stable
husbands and wives and churchgoers voted for Romney, while singles voted for Obama. But a
narrow majority of America’s Catholics voted with Obama as well despite his direct and public attack
on their church. A heavy majority of the Jewish vote went for Obama, again, despite his hostility
toward Israel. Decadence is good for Democrats, and the evidence that Obama’s victories provide is
that we are decadent. We have no god, yet Obama is somehow its prophet.

Because of the way he backed into his second term, Barack Obama has no coattails, and he has no
mandate. He chose not to run on a serious agenda and he ran a small ball campaign that painted
Romney as a felon and murderer when Romney is as clean as they come in politics. He painted the
man who save the Olympics as a villain. Is it the economy, stupid? No, it’s a ground game and Big
Bird and ladyparts.

Obama has every reason to move to the center to make his second term successful, but he will not.
His lack of a mandate will not stop him from pushing hard for his agenda, either with Congress or
more likely around it. The Senate in Democratic control will block any efforts to stop him, if it can.
The courts haven’t proven to be much of an impediment, and Obama now gets to appoint more
judges who agree with him. We will keep funding the government on continuing resolutions. The
states may be compelled to go along with his agenda or they may be bribed with their own money.
Obama’s second term could be a time for governors to reassert state authority in a big way (while
getting trashed by the left, for protecting the people of their states). ObamaCare is permanent and a
threat to our health care system, the war on coal will be pushed toward its conclusion, and this
president’s drive to disarm the United States while vastly expanding the entitlement state will
proceed apace. Obama’s re-election is a catastrophe for those who want a strong and liberty-based
America rooted in traditional values and our Constitutional order.

The three-way split inside the Beltway is a opportunity for Obama to behave as a regulatory tyrant,
and that is what he will probably do. The divided nation suits a divisive president.

Oh America!

Oh America, what have you done?

"This election is a study in MORALITY. Our president is a PROVEN liar. Believes in theft, in the form of forced redistribution. Is careless with the lives of others. Claims Christian salvation, and bows to Arabs who call Christians ‘infidels’, and kill them whenever they can . Obama represents abortion and deviant sexual normalization. NOT MORAL. Not HONEST."

"An Obama victory gives credence to failed policies, broken promises, dead American servicemen, mass murder, secret drone strikes, unwarranted spying on citizens, increased taxation, crony capitalism, mob rule, union thuggery, still bigger and even more intrusive government, redistribution of wealth, socialism and bigotry. The first BIG step toward a second American Civil War and Balkanization of the former United States of America."

"We are a nation of idiots. We just passed on what was perhaps our last chance to turn our country around."


We are left with are a few wise words

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. — George Washington"


Remember Ronald Reagan: I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.


"America, don’t lose heart. This election is not an “Obama mandate,” nor is it a rejection of conservatism. Unanswered ads like this one running in blue collar swing states defined Romney early on, and the Obama media also piled on with the narrative that Romney would harm the middle class. (As I personally have witnessed, once a bell is rung by a biased media, it’s impossible to un-ring it.) Ironically, it’s Obama’s socialist policies that will destroy America’s working class as he outsources opportunities.

Hang in there, America. Fight for what is right. Don’t look to government or any politician to solve your problems. Government can’t make you happy, healthy, wealthy or wise. Obama is a master at reading the right “soaring” words fed into his teleprompter, but actions speak louder than words. So, hold tight to 2 Corinthians 4:8 because we’re in for a wild ride.

We must survive. United. One nation under God.

"We are hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted but not forsaken, struck down, but not destroyed." – 2 Corinthians 4:8-9.

- Sarah Palin"

UK: Muslim gangs raped underage girls in care homes

Jihad Watch
2nd November, 2012

The Qur’an forbids Muslim men to have sexual relations with “wedded women, save what your right hands own.” (4:4) “Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble and from idle talk turn away and at almsgiving are active and guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy.” (23:1-6)
Those whom their “right hands own” are slaves, and inextricable from the concept of Islamic slavery as a whole is the concept of sex slavery, which is rooted in Islam’s devaluation of the lives of non-Muslims. The Qur’an stipulates that a man many take four wives as well as hold slave girls as sex slaves. These women are captured in wartime and are considered the spoils of war. Islam avoids the appearance of impropriety, declaring that the taking of these sex slaves does not constitute adultery if the women are already married, for their marriages are ended at the moment of their capture. A manual of Islamic law directs: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13).
This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels….Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

...A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth….I brought up (this man’s) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”  The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”
“Is this forbidden by Islam?,” I asked.
“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not--she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community cravenly ignores.
"Asian" is British PC media-speak for "Muslim." "New grooming scandal: Girls in care homes 'gang-raped,'" by Justin Penrose in the Mirror, November 3 (thanks to all who sent this in):

POLICE are investigating shocking new claims that gangs of Asian men gang-raped and abused vulnerable under-age girls from CARE HOMES in the North West. The new grooming scandal emerged after a 27-year-old mum claimed she was a victim of a horrifying catalogue of sexual abuse while in care as a teen.
Her account of how care workers allegedly turned a blind eye to predatory paedo­philes echoes the findings of a report into a sex ring in Rochdale, which highlighted “missed opportunities” to halt abuse.
Claire, not her real name, says she was one of many vulnerable young girls who were treated like “pieces of meat” by men who hung around the care homes she lived in in Lancashire and Liverpool.
She says she was groomed and molested in return for alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. On one harrowing occasion when she was 14, she was drugged and gang-raped.
A farmer found her naked in a field covered in blood and bruises, but she was returned to her home without medical help. “My social worker told me I deserved what I’d got because I’d been drinking,” she says. “I hadn’t... I was drugged.” Claire says even though she told staff at Briar’s Hey Residential Home in ­Rainhill, Merseyside, which closed in 2005, there was no medical examination or police probe.
“I was given the morning-after pill ‘to avoid any more mess’,” she says.
Claire, who now lives with her ­partner and four children, claims her experience was the norm for many teens at the homes. “Sex was the going ­currency for girls like me,” she says. “The men would hang round the gates. If we ­complained to staff we were told to just ignore them.”
In May this year, when nine men from the paedophile gang in Rochdale were jailed, Claire contacted police in the hope they would finally investigate her ordeal....

Proof: Obama Refused to Call Benghazi 'Terror,' CBS Covered Up (video)

by Joel B. Pollak  
5 Nov 2012

In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof--two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public--that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack "terrorism" from the beginning.

CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama's behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.
That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss--and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election--perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether.
Fox News' Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional "60 Minutes" interview material from Sept. 12?
Why wasn't it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that "60 Minutes" tape -- why didn't they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?
Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don't add up.

Actually, the conclusion to be drawn is quite simple: CBS News, in an effort to assist President Obama's re-election campaign, corruptly concealed information about two critical issues--namely, a terror attack and the president's dishonesty about it. When the players in the Libya scandal face investigation, so, too, should CBS News and those in the mainstream media who have wantonly assisted the administration's shameless lies.

Uninstalling Obama

Conservatives. It is your time (video)

Barack Obama: A History of Communism

Hack Wilson
May 16, 2012

Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961, to a Communist mother. Ann Dunham was known as a radical leftist from childhood who hated Christianity, questioned the merits of capitalism, and asked, "What's so bad about Communism?"

Ann Dunham's father, Stanley Dunham, was also a Communist who enrolled Ann in a Communist sympathizing middle school and took the family to a Communist sympathizing church in the 1950s. The FBI had compiled a file on Grandpa Dunham because of his red activities. 

While young Barack Obama was being raised by his grandparents in Hawaii during his teen years, Grandpa Dunham introduced Barack to staunch Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Davis is described by Obama in his book "Dreams from My Father" as a mentor he could always look to for answers. Davis was was a member of the Communist Party, a poet who routinely praised the Soviets in his writings, a pedophile, and a hater of Christianity and America. Communist Grandpa was good friends with Davis. 

In college, Obama writes in his own words in "Dreams from My Father" that he sought out Marxist professors.

Dr. John Drew, who said he knew Obama while at Occidental College, stated that Obama was a staunch Marxist-Leninist while in college. Drew, a self admitted Marxist himself, called Obama "a Marxist revolutionary", recalling that Obama routinely stated "there's going to be a revolution."

While at Colombia University in New York, Obama dated a girl named Genevieve Cook, who worked as a teacher at the Communist run 'Brooklyn Friends School'.

During the 1990s, Obama was said to have attended several events by the Communist "New Party", whose goal was to infiltrate the Democratic Party and move it further left towards Communist goals. Obama received their endorsement in 1996 while running for the Illinois state senate. 

In 1998, Barack Obama sat on a panel for a Chicago play praising Communist Saul Alinsky. 

Obama worked with and became close friends with self admitted Marxist revolutionary and terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn while in Chicago. The political career of Barack Obama was started with a kick off party in Ayers's Chicago home.

At the Ayers home party, Obama was praised by predecessor Alice Palmer. Years before, Palmer had chosen young Obama to be her successor. Alice Palmer was an avid Communist who had previously attended Communist events in the Soviet Union, as well as writing for the CPUSA publication 'People's Weekly World.' She was also a member of a Communist front group called "US Peace Council".

Also attending at the Ayers home was Dr. Quentin Young, a long time friend of Obama. Young was a member of the Young Communist League in Chicago in the 1930s, and involved in various Communist groups up until the 1980s.

In 2004, Barack Obama campaigned for and endorsed Congressman Danny Davis, once saying "he shares our values." Coincidentally, Davis was also a member of the Communist 'New Party' and was filmed as recently as 2012 receiving awards from the Communist Party of the USA.

In 2008, The Communist Party of the United States actively campaigned for Barack Obama in the presidential race.

In 2008, following Obama's victory in the Democratic caucus in Iowa, Frank Chapman, also a member of CPUSA's front group "US Peace Council" wrote a glowing praise for Obama in People's Weekly World. In it he described how Obama's victory would "usher in a new era of struggle", much in the way Marx intended.

During the campaign in 2008, self proclaimed Communist Mike Klonsky was given a "social justice" blog on the official Obama campaign website. Klonsky was and is an avid Communist who previously visited Communist China in 1971 and was involved in multiple Communist-Leninist organizations throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Also a close friend of Bill Ayers, Klonsky's groups were funded to a sum of nearly 2 million dollars by Obama and Ayers through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. 

Obama's car and manufacturing czar, John Bloom, stated in 2009 that "we kind of agree with Mao" and that "the free market is nonsense."

Obama's green czar Van Jones resigned in 2009 when he was exposed on the national level for his Marxist views and radical Communist activities. Jones said in 2005, "I was a Communist."

Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, also resigned in 2009 over a controversy surrounding her comments that Mao was her favorite philosopher who "I turn to most". Dunn also quoted Mao during her career ending speech.

In 2009, it was also reported that a seemingly harmless Christmas ornament on the Obama White House Christmas tree featured, of all people, Mao.

In 2009, Obama appointed Carol Browner as his energy czar. Browner was previously a commissioner for the international Communist-lite group Socialist International.

Obama's science czar, John Holdren, worked for The Bulletin of Nuclear Sciences, which also employed several communists. Holdren, among other things, supports the idea of forced abortions and mass sterilization to quell rising populations.

In 2010, Obama appointed Communist Donald Berwick as the head of Medicare and Medicaid. 

The 2012 Obama reelection campaign decided to use the traditional Communist term "Forward" as their official slogan. The term "forward" is rooted in Communist propaganda lore in European Communist organizations including Karl Marx's newspaper, as well as Soviet Russia and Communist China throughout the 1900s.

Also in 2012, the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) has officially endorsed Obama again.

Not to be outdone, Obama's long time political adviser, David Axelrod, also has ties to Communists, being influenced and funded by Communist Party members during his college years in Chicago. 

Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett's father in law, Vernon Jarrett, coincidentally worked with Obama's old childhood Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis during the 1940s in various Communist organizations.


But wait, this is all coincidence right? You see, many write off accusations of Obama being a Communist as "radical" or extreme. But in reality, calling Barack Obama a Communist really makes a lot of sense if you look at his history, his beliefs, and those he surrounds himself with.

3 words: CONNECT THE DOTS.

Just another Democrat? I think not.

Obama Supporters Actually 'Hate' Obama's Policies (video)