Now for a question that is self answering, at least as public opinion seems to have confirmed; can you find a Muslim that will give you a straight answer?  For instance, ask a Muslim if Hamas is a terrorist organization and you will see one of the prettiest dances around the issue in the world.  They will spin, they will parse, they will change the subject, but they will never give you a straight answer.  In fact they won’t give one at all.  I’ve yet to find one Muslim that won’t dance around whether terrorism is bad and should be condemned.  Why?  They simply harbor sympathy for what Hamas and Islamic terrorists are doing.  They are sucking the life out of their hosts pretending to be assimilated into the body of the nation while letting their proxies do the dirty work of world conquest with the eventual extinquishment of religious freedom.

While many Muslims will say that they wouldn’t do it, that is commit an act of terrorism,  it’s clear that for the most part a huge majority of Muslims harbor sympathy for terrorism and while they may not physically or financially support terrorism they emotionally and philosophically sympathize with it and that is what Americans are cuing in on.  Self preservation is not bigotry and when a segment of a population aids, abets or sympathizes with actions that endanger the rest of society that society has every right to defend and protect itself even if it means ostracizing those who harbor, protect and cover for those committing the atrocities of terror.  Don’t look to me to be sympathetic to those gutless enablers within the Muslim community who reap the benefits of freedom in this country while overwhelmingly and complicity hush hush on condemning terrorism if not cheerleading in their homes those who would tear this country apart and institute Islamic law.  While they will give lip service to religious tolerance no where that Islam has taken over does religious tolerance and freedom exist.  That’s the fate for our country should Islam take over this country.  That’s justification enough for bigotry if that’s what you want to call it.

Ask the mosque proponents in New York where they are getting their monies to build the mosque when the main proponent and organizer who was waiting tables just three or four years ago and is now a multimillion dollar real estate developer.  He refused to answer any questions as to the funding.  The wife of the Imam leading the fight for the mosque states that they must impose their beliefs and their beliefs must prevail.  But try to get her to explain how that fits in with freedom of speech in this country and you’ll not get a straight answer.  Or, ask her husband what he means when he says that Americans have more Muslim blood on their hands than Muslims have of American blood on their hands and try to get him to reconcile that with his phony claim of being a bridge builder.  You won’t get a straight answer and he has not given a straight answer since the mosque issue erupted.  More importantly, have you heard any dissent within the Muslim community at large in America taking the side of the 72% of Americans that oppose the mosque.  NO!  Complicity within the Muslim community around the nation is nearly unanimous.  Americans, despite the media cover for the Muslims, are seeing through this duality and are rightfully becoming alarmed and enraged and none too soon.

Plain and simple, the mosque, as it has been historically throughout the world, is a symbol of victory over people that Muslims have conquered.  Who would have ever thought that nine years after 911 we would be even debating the issue of a mosque at ground zero?  This clearly unveils the agenda and aggression of the Muslim community and the inane insanity and dangerousness of liberal thought in this country.  You have not and will not get a straight answer out of the Muslim community and we have not and will not get one from liberals and leftists, particularly in the media.  They are domestic enemies of this country and it’s time we get to know the enemy and treat them accordingly.

Jack L. Richardson, IV

 “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

“…That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Our forefathers were wise men and knew the propensities of government toward corruption and eventual oppression of the people. The moment is upon us.  Do we quietly surrender to our oppressors or do we turn them out.  If our rights are “….. endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,….” and not from man then those who have usurped what is not theirs to usurp or take away what is not their right to take away then in the course of such corruption men are put to the task of asserting their God given rights and refusing the bondage of the corrupt oppressors and abolish them.

“…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.”

The time is upon us to consider and think the unthinkable.  We have brought upon ourselves through our tolerance of liberal thought the threat of bondage which may now only be avoided by direct action and resistance and maybe even revolt.  It’s time to prepare ourselves mentally for the eventuality of reclaiming our rights and freedoms.

Jack L. Richardson, IV

When asked how one can discern who is and is not a Christian we are told to look for the fruit of the Spirit.  Scripture warns us about false prophets. There were even those in Christ’s times that were delusional as to their identity and were admonished by Christ in Matthew 7:22-23 where He said; “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” ( NIV Version )

There are even those in the Christian community who are all too quick to take Obama at his word that he is a Christian when all the evidence points to the fact that he is not and many are coming to that conclusion. Scripture gives us many more references to help us discern who the wolves are among the sheep. Obama has given us every symptom and evidence that he is not Christian.   Of course there are some conservatives (presumptious in their own Christianity) who have been sipping the Kool-Aid of political correctness and fall all over themselveswith magnanimous gestures toward a man who’s yet to show he is a follower of Christ.  The politically correct crowd, and remember, political correctness was and is a liberal construct designed to control and suppress conservative expression, still try to suppress the truth.  They want others to shut up about the mosque controversy because it might offend someone.  My advice to them is that they need to shut up and get to church and find out where they stand.  The American people have finally had enough lies about who Obama is and is not and how Islam is a peaceful religion when there is death all around the world at the hands of this so-called peaceful religion.

Obama’s ideology plays a major role in his faith claims and why the public increasingly see him as a Muslim.  Let’s remember that the Marxist/Communistbelief system is atheist at its core. That leads us to Liberation Theology. So what does that have to do with Obama?  Well, he belonged to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church (a so-called former Muslim himself) for 20 years.  They practiced Liberation Theology which was a communist inspired creation of nearly 50 years ago by priest in Latin America which was adopted by numerous black churches in America at that time.  It is heretical and not Christian, but it fools the fools and the ignorant. Obama knew this and found it was exceedingly convenient for him as it satisfied several goals; he could have the appearance of Christianity, but knowing it was not did not jeopardize his true faith or ideology. With liberation theology Obama didn’t have to betray his upbringing in Marxism or Islamicideology or theology.

What is the evidence against Obama that the public is piecing together? Obama doesn’t go to church.  The public was treated to the farce early on in Obama’s Administration that he and his family were looking for a church. Of course they weren’t really looking for one; this was for public consumption and appeasement.  It was one excuse after another as to why there was no church that worked even though every president before him had no problem finding a church.  Obama simply didn’t want one and so he plays golf on Sundays.  The National Day of Prayer was sidestepped by Obama.  He declared that this was not a Christian nation and the examples go on and on and on, not to mention policy initiatives the run counter to a claimed Christian world view.  As all good Communists believe, religion is the opiate of the people, and many Christians, being all too gullible as they often are, fell for the empty claim that Obama was a Christian.   This is just what he wanted and planned on, but it is now coming to an end.

The real shock and stir over Obama’s religion came shortly after his favorable pronouncements about the mosque being built at ground zero before a Muslimdinner audience at the White House for Ramadan.  The latest national polls reveal an increasing number of people believing Obama to be a Muslim.  This all comes from TV and news accounts.  No one was pushing this story.  The public simply observed and listened and concluded this on their own. Now, with the discovery that Twenty four (24%) of those polled believe that Obama is a Muslim the media is in frenzy as after all they are the ones to control and guide people’s thoughts. How dare the people come to a conclusion not manufactured by the leftist media? The White House quickly reacted with an assurance that Obama is a Christian and that he prays every day.  Oh really, to whom?  To what god?  Prayer is no evidence of being Christian.  The fact of the matter is Obama is having a hard time faking what he is not and the people are picking up on it and coming to their own conclusions based on the evidence.

So what is it that is making people increasingly suspect Obama of being Muslim?  Could it be that he was raised and taught in a madrasah in Indonesia as a young child?  Could it be that his father was Muslim?  Could it be that Obama panders to Islam and calls them brethren?  Or, how about apologizing to Muslims for how terrible this country has supposedly been to them?  Maybe it’s because he avoided the National Day of Prayer and instead celebrates Ramadan in the White House.  Maybe it’s because he has on more than one occasion slipped and referred to his “Muslim Faith.”  Maybe it is because he says that the Muslim call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world. Or, could it be his siding with the building of the mosque at ground zero in New York?

No, its not just one of the above, it’s all the above.  The cumulative effect has finally overcome the media’s camouflage and cover for Obama.  A Muslim is as a Muslim does and the dirty little secret is that many have known it for years, but kept it secreted from the public.  Just as Obama’s father was a Marxist, his mother was a Marxist, his grandparents were Marxists, his mentor was a Marxist, he, in his memoirs admits to intentionally picking Marxist professors and has surrounded himself with appointees that are Marxists save two Maoists, folks, he’s a Marxist.  If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.  Obama is a Marxist in everything he’s ever done and with nearly everyone he’s associated with.  His Marxist education was funded by ties to the Saudi family.  And, likewise, Obama walks, talks and acts like a Muslim.  

So, the charade is almost over.  The pretender is being outed.   The media has been complicit in the entire cover-up of who this man Obama really is.  Obama’s new nickname should be M squared, Marxist and Muslim.  The enemy struck us on 911 and seven years later they struck again and hit the White House.  We must learn how to identify the enemy.  We must know their ways and their agenda.  Once you understand who this man Obama is and is not you will then see and know the destruction he is brining upon this nation.  This man of little emotion, this pure ideologue, this elitist, this ruling class mentality called Obama is not of us nor thinks like us.  As America finally and belatedly gets to know the man the media hid from us the alarm bells are ringing and the danger we are in as a nation becomes more apparent by the day.  A Christian he is not, but whatever else he is, it’s bad for this country.

Jack Richardson IV

This move proves that President Obama’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham.  Stupak and all of the other pro-life Democrats that bought that should be ashamed.  Jack Conway supports Obama and his healthcare plans.

(1) unemployment benefits appear not to have stimulated job growth in the past;  (2) there is no net stimulating effect to such benefits because they have to be taken from those who are employed (“there is no free lunch”);   (3) such benefits are actually doubly de-stimulating (contra Pelosi’s insane assertion that they are doubly stimulating) because (i) they make it easier for those out of work to stay out of work, and (ii) they decrease the incentive for those who are working to keep working (due to higher taxes); and (4) those who receive such benefits and who have any sense will save as much as possible to prepare for when the benefits run out, significantly reducing any supposed stimulating effect.

I would add to Laffer’s points that it is counterintuitive at best to believe that transferring wealth from more-productive people to less-productive people will have a net stimulating effect.  Presumably, businesses facing economic challenges lay off their least productive, not their most productive, employees.  Likewise, businesses that are the most productive and efficient are more likely to survive economic difficulty than businesses that are less so.  (Surely there are exceptions to these rules, but they tend to prove the rules, not to disprove them.)  So taking money from the most productive economic actors to give it to less productive actors will, on the whole, result in less net economic (and job) growth.  

It’s also worth pointing out that unemployment benefits are almost certain not to create jobs; at best, they might help preserve certain jobs (though almost certainly at the expense of other jobs).  To illustrate the point, assume a four-actor domestic economy in which Angela is a banker, Barry is a hatter, Cynthia is a grocer, and Doug builds bicycles (primarily for foreign consumption).  If Angela, Barry, and Cynthia already have bikes, and if foreign demand for bikes falls off, Doug’s out of a job.  Barry and Cynthia don’t make much money, so Doug’s unemployment benefits come out of Angela’s income.  That’s enough to keep Doug in groceries, which keeps Cynthia from going under.  But now Angela can’t afford her favorite luxury, which is buying hats from Barry.  So now Barry’s out of work.  Angela makes a tidy income as a banker, so her income will support Barry’s and Doug’s benefits, which keeps Cynthia the grocer in business.  But where, pray tell, is the job-creating effect of unemployment benefits in that scenario?  Now try scaling that up for the whole American economy.  It’s not a pretty picture.  

Ah, Nancy.  She never lets facts and reason get in the way of a good sound-bite.  

On a local note, a bunch of union-sponsored yahoos protested outside the federal courthouse in Louisville yesterday to decry Sen. McConnell’s alleged opposition to extending unemployment benefits.  According to today’s Louisville Courier-Journal:

Waving signs, shouting and cheering, marchers called Wednesday on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to support an extension of unemployment benefits.   “I think he needs to give up his pension and his office and try living on unemployment for three months and see how he likes it,” said Gail Helinger, 52, a laid-off factory worker who joined about 50 people in a march and rally outside the federal courthouse that was organized by the Kentucky AFL-CIO and other groups.

That Gail, she’s following right in her High Priestess’s footsteps.  You see, Sen. McConnell doesn’t oppose extending the benefits (though perhaps he should); rather, he merely thinks we should, um, pay for them:

McConnell believes Congress should “extend unemployment benefits in a fiscally responsible manner that does not add to our nation’s crushing debt,” said spokesman Robert Steurer.  

The latest version of the bill would add $33 billion to the federal budget deficit.

Fiscal responsibility.  It’s a tough sell with the union crowd (shockingly enough).

W. Duncan Crosby

 

Here are a few highlights:

        1.      Berwick thinks the British socialized healthcare system is vastly superior to the only-slightly-less-socialized American system.  And now he’s going to be in charge of a big piece of the American system he loathes so much.  I’m sure things will go well.
        2.      He describes healthcare as a “human right” multiple times.  This “human rights” business is a nonsense sound-bite the Left likes to throw out to justify government expansion and control without end.  They give no account of such claimed rights.  For all their claimed intellectual superiority, they provide no ethical justification for their assertions.  It just feels good to say it, so they say it.Â
        3.      He describes the American healthcare system as “fragmented” and derides the “invisible hand” of the free market, while praising the wisdom of “planning” (i.e., centralized government rationing).  This ought to scare everyone.  It is nakedly socialist.  Power-hungry eggheads like Berwick can make this argument about anything.  Good grief, do you know how “fragmented” and “invisible hand”-driven our market for food is in this country?  Just think how much more efficient things would be if philosopher-kings like Berwick could prescribe a diet for every American.  (And if that sounds far-fetched, just remember that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan recently said she didn’t see a constitutional problem with the federal government’s telling people what they must eat.)
        4.      Berwick clearly believes that politicians are more accountable than healthcare-providing companies and insurers.  (See 0:46 – 1:20.)  Indeed, he says private enterprise operates in “darkness,” as though the free press spent no time at all covering corporate malfeasance.  Let’s see, even if we stipulate that insurance companies are no more responsive than the federal government, at the very least I can choose between insurance companies.  I’m stuck with the federal government.  So how in the world could the federal government be more responsive than private enterprise?
        5.      He slams our health insurance industry for having too many rules and too much “paper-pushing,” as opposed to having a single governmental entity handle it all.  (See 1:20 – 1:30)  Surely he’s kidding.  Of all the things of which our federal government may be justly accused, having a dearth of rules, regulations, and paper-pushing (not to mention paper-pushers) is not one of them.
        6.      “[A]ny healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, MUST redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poor and the less fortunate.”  (1:40 – 1:55)  Your property rights mean nothing to this man, America.  And just forget about the idea of charity.  On Berwick’s account, there is no charity; it’s not charitable to meet your moral obligations.  You can likewise do away with your antiquated—nay, barbaric!—notion that people should have to live with the consequences of their life choices, and that society benefits from watching the plight of living, breathing cautionary tales.
        7.      “Excellent healthcare is by DEFINITION redistribution.”  (1:55-1:59)  What in the world is he talking about?  I guess I’m an idiot, but I would have said that excellent healthcare is, well, really good healthcare.  Medicine that works.  Advances in drugs and treatments at ever-decreasing costs.  You know, all the things the American system actually delivers, and that the rest of the intellectual-property-thieving world depends on to make their shoddy socialized systems work.

Just remember that our Dear Leader, the man who promised never-before-seen transparency in government, wants you to know none of this. 

W. Duncan Crosby

This morning there came another such incident for the ages.  On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Chris Matthews flopped out this gem: “The media will try to destroy her, of course, but if she goes early, wins early, I think she can win it before anybody can stop her.”  The “her” is Sarah Palin, and the “it” is the GOP presidential nomination.  As Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com noted, not a single person among the half-dozen media talking heads on the show said a word about whether it was appropriate for the media to “try to destroy” Gov. Palin.

Not that we didn’t already know what they were planning to do, but it’s so much easier when they just confess.  Keep this one in your back pocket for the next time some yahoo tries to tell you there’s no media bias. 

W. Duncan Crosby

 

 

If you haven’t thrown up on your keyboard already, please read on and see if you’re ready to coexist with people who committed the following atrocities (unsurprisingly brought to you by “Coexist’s” letter “C”):

While we in America were celebrating our independence and freedom with barbeques and fireworks, a group of Muslims in India were chopping off the right hand of a Catholic college professor who wrote allegedly insulting things about Mohammed in an exam paper.  Seriously . 

The Muslims ambushed Prof. T.J. Joseph in his car on July 4, pulled him out of the car, then attacked him with swords and axes.  They also attacked his elderly mother.  According to the news report, the professor had already received three beatings for his offense.

Meanwhile, in Iran a woman is slated to be stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery .  She was convicted of the crime in 2006 and received a sentence of 99 lashes, which the gentle Iranian authorities apparently carried out (while her son watched).  But now they’ve decided to have another go at her for the same crime.  Evidently beating the stuffing out of her wasn’t enough.  They want her dead.

(Compare that to the way Jesus Christ reacted when the Pharisees brought an alleged adulteress before Him .)

So, who’s ready for a big ol’, Coexist-inspired group hug?

W. Duncan Crosby