Thursday, April 12, 2012

Op-ed:
Obama needs to stay out of women's issues
By: Diane Sori


Hillary Rosen, a former lobbyist set off a firestorm this week when she insulted Ann Romney, the wife of Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, for being a stay at home mom.

“Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” Rosen said in an on-air interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper when talking about women's issues.

Ann Romney tweeted a response to her remarks: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

And yes, it is hard work raising children. I raised two boys, now both in college, and I know how hard that was. I can only imagine what it was like raising five! But you know what, I wouldn't have traded it for anything in the world.

Stay at home moms like me, and moms everywhere, are now in an uproar, as well they should be. Over the past few weeks Obama and his cronies have continued to rage a contrived 'war on women,' just for political gain, led off by the infamous Sandra Fluke circus. And they did this, and continue to do this, just to distract voters from their across the board failed policies. Add into that the distraction of the Treyvon Martin case and the media's total manipulation of it, and you have one hell of a mess going on.

But women seem to be his, and his cronies, target right now, his flavor of the week if you will. As more and more women who want to be in the work force can't be because the jobs just aren't there, it's important to remember these statistics: since the Stimulus Package went into effect, the unemployment rate for women has risen from 7.3% to 8.1%, increasing the number of women out of work by 683,000. Also remember that thanks to Obama, the poverty rate among women has risen from 13.9% in 2009 to 14.5% today, the highest it's been in 17 years.

Now take into account how this president is trying to sell us his take on contraception, his take on abortion, and his take on all issues relating to OUR bodies, and you have a man who is clearly overstepping his boundaries into issues that should be personal between a woman, her partner, and her God. We don't need this president telling us what's best for us, who has to pay or not pay for the services we need or don't need, or who must grant or not grant us those services.

We women do not need a president who invades the halls of education, both public and private, telling them what they must pay for and cover in regards to what is again personal women's issues. 
 
And we sure don't need a president or his cronies demeaning the most important job ever created by God...the raising of children. This president has done more to demean the sanctity of motherhood than any other president in our history. He has tried to take the 'it takes a village' crap to whole new levels of absurdity. 
 
No, Mr. President, it does NOT take a village to raise a child...it takes the love and nurturing of a mother and a father to do that, and if the mother chooses to stay home and raise her children it is no business of yours or of the governments nor do you have the right to criticize that choice. 

Maybe if more moms had been financially able to stay home and raise their children because their dads had jobs, you know the very thing you've failed to create, the crime rate and drug statistics amongst young adults weren't be what it is today.

Maybe if more moms had been financially able to stay home and raise their children, God would have been more a part of this newest generation's lives.

And maybe if more moms had been financially able to stay home and raise their children this country wouldn't be in the mess it's in today, because these moms would have been able to see through you back in 2008 and seen what a woman hating man you really are.





Ten questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations

Special to WorldTribune.com
By Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffney

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched a propaganda campaign attacking a state legislative initiative that is designed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, including Muslims.
That initiative is known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

CAIR claims this bill would have the opposite effect — infringing upon Muslims’ and others’ right to freedom of religion. CAIR’s real motivation, however, is not to safeguard the U.S. Constitution, but rather to promote the insinuation here of Shariah, a totalitarian Islamic political-military-legal doctrine. Shariah requires and enforces discrimination against women, children, homosexuals, atheists, members of other religions such as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians, as well as Muslims who repudiate the dictates of that doctrine.

A review of the actual language of the American Laws for American Courts legislation shows that CAIR is deliberately and falsely characterizing it as anti-Shariah. As we shall see, ALAC is not targeted at either Shariah or Islam. Unlike a constitutional amendment to the State of Oklahoma’s constitution that was approved in 2010 by seventy percent of the voters, neither term is mentioned anywhere in ALAC’s bill language. (A complete comparison can be found here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html_)

ALAC’s very different approach was vindicated when the Council on American Islamic Relations succeeded in challenging the Oklahoma amendment on the grounds that it singled out Shariah law and therefore was ruled unconstitutional. Instead, ALAC is crafted to prevent the infringement in our court system on individual liberties by any foreign laws or legal doctrines, a phenomenon known as “transnationalism.”

This is made necessary since America has unique values of liberty that do not exist in many foreign legal systems. Among those guaranteed rights and privileges are: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due process and equal protection under the law, the right to privacy and the right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines that would restrict or deny these liberties are finding their way into U.S. court cases, thanks largely to the rulings of transnationalist judges. In some instances, these judges are permitting the use of Shariah to adjudicate disputes on their dockets.

The appeal of the American Laws for American Courts model for preventing such intrusions of unconstitutional foreign laws is evident from the fact that it has been enacted to date in three states: Tennessee in April 2010, in Louisiana in June 2010 and in Arizona in May 2011. And ALAC’s fundamental constitutionality is evident in the fact that neither CAIR nor anyone else has filed a legal challenge to any of these three laws, let alone succeeded in getting ALAC struck down.

Knowing that a legal challenge to American Laws for American Courts is hopeless, CAIR has stooped to launching dishonest and misleading attacks against an initiative designed to preserve our freedoms.
How, one might ask, can an American organization oppose legislation that is crafted to form a reinforcing bulwark to protect our most fundamental freedoms against foreign laws that do not respect them? The answer lies, in part, with the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Department of Justice has named CAIR as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (and its Palestinian franchise: the officially designated terrorist group, Hamas). Evidence introduced in the Holy Land Foundation trial established that the Brotherhood’s mission in America is “a kind of civilization jihad…in destroying Western civilization from within” by our hands. Using our courts to undermine our liberties and Constitution “from within” is one of the most important and effective techniques for advancing this subversive civilization jihad. Two federal courts have refused to strike CAIR’s designation as a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas co-conspirator and/or joint venturer.

Specifically:
• CAIR has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism finance trial in U.S. history, the 2008 United States vs. Holy Land Foundation case in Dallas, Texas.
• No fewer than four CAIR leaders have been convicted of felonies, including terrorism.
• CAIR has a memorandum of understanding with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, the world’s most powerful multinational organization and, with 57 members, its largest — second only to the United Nations. The OIC is, like CAIR, dedicated to the imposition of Shariah doctrine and the criminalization of any “blasphemy” against Shariah law.
• The FBI has terminated relations with CAIR as a matter of policy.
• The IRS has reportedly revoked the non-profit status of CAIR’s national organization.
• CAIR is being sued for engaging in fraud against several of its members.

With this important background on the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations, let’s analyze its critique of American Laws for American Courts by reviewing in the boxes below key passages from the legislation. (The entire model act can be found here: http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=38.)

Such a review prompts ten questions concerning CAIR’s opposition to this bill and we will address each, in turn.

ALAC: Purpose
“AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United
States or [State] Constitution.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

1. Why is CAIR opposing legislation designed to protect the rights and privileges granted under our U.S. and state constitutions? What is CAIR’s motivation? Do they think Muslims either don’t deserve or do not want to enjoy the same constitutional rights to which all citizens of this country are entitled? Or is CAIR trying to establish that Muslims are entitled to such rights (notably, freedom of religion and freedom of speech) but other people deemed inferior, for whatever reason (for example, for being “infidels”) may not be allowed the same rights as Muslims?

2. Exactly which constitutional rights protected by ALAC does CAIR find offensive or “Islamophobic”? (This made-up term is used by Shariah’s adherents to brand anything or anyone who “gives offense” to their doctrine or its enforcers.) The most important non-Brotherhood Muslim organization in this country, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, has already endorsed American Laws for American Courts when it was introduced in Michigan. (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?p=632) Does CAIR consider them “Islamophobic,” as well?

ALAC: Finding
“The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”
 
3. Does CAIR dispute that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes it “the supreme law of the land” and, therefore, that all other laws, including Shariah, must be subordinated to it where there is a conflict? There are, of course, myriad areas in which Shariah is at odds with constitutional rights (e.g., women’s ability to divorce, inherit property, enjoy custody of their children and engage or refuse to engage in sexual relations, homosexuality, freedom of expression, etc.) In such instances, would CAIR have the Constitution defer to Shariah?

4. Which rights does CAIR wish to have violated by or subordinated to foreign law? Does it favor unequal treatment for and/or brutalizing of women, homosexuals, apostates, Jews and others in accordance with Shariah?

ALAC: Definitions
“As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.”

5. How can this definition be construed as applying uniquely to Shariah? In fact, it applies equally to all foreign laws. Period. What is more, it does not preclude the application of any foreign law, including Shariah — except insofar as it violates constitutional rights or state public policy.

6. In view of ALAC’s key definition, isn’t it disingenuous and misleading to depict American Laws for American Courts as an “anti-Shariah” bill? CAIR is certainly mischaracterizing ALAC in the campaign that it and other Muslim Brotherhood fronts have been mounting against such legislation. Given the clarity of the language in question, one can only conclude that these Brotherhood groups are doing so knowingly for the purpose of deceiving the American people.

7. Which “foreign law, legal code, or system” does CAIR wish to see incorporated into American constitutional law? Is CAIR seeking the imposition of all foreign laws, even where they violate the U.S. Constitution, or just Shariah?

ALAC: Operative Provision
“Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

8. What legal authority is the Council on American Islamic Relations defending by its attack on American Laws for American Courts? Specifically, we need to know: What does CAIR prefer by way of a court, arbitration panel, tribunal or administrative agency that bases its decisions on a code that would not grant our fundamental liberties, rights and privileges?

Clearly, as we have seen, ALAC has been drafted in order to provide guidance so that legal disputes in our courts do not result in the violation of the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges enshrined in the U.S. and our state Constitutions.

Thanks to the guarantees incorporated into the Constitution, no U.S. citizen or legal resident should be denied such liberties. Ensuring that is the case, however, is why ALAC is needed, particularly with respect to women and children. These communities have been identified by international human rights organizations as the principal victims of discriminatory foreign laws.

9. Why does CAIR oppose an inclusive bill extending civil liberties and due process to all citizens and legal residents, given the proven cases of discrimination, especially against Muslim women resulting from too much deference to foreign laws?

There is a certain irony at work here, as shown in an analysis of a sample of legal cases in the United States where Shariah has been successfully introduced to resolve the matter (www.shariahinamericancourts.com): The most frequent victims of the trampling of constitutional rights by foreign legal codes in actual cases in the United States, are Muslim women and their families.

That’s bad enough. But CAIR’s stance suggests that it seeks to relegate all women — not just Muslim ones — to an inferior status incompatible with the equal rights they are entitled to enjoy under the U.S. Constitution.

ALAC: Explicit Exclusions
“This subsection shall not apply to a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State.”

10. Why is CAIR opposed to preserving and protecting religious freedom for all Americans, as spelled out explicitly in the American Laws for American Courts act?

CAIR falsely maintains that American Laws for American Courts trespasses against religious freedom. That assertion is laid bare as patently dishonest by reading this important passage from the model American Laws for American Courts legislation: Far from denying religious freedom, American Laws for American Courts expressly champions and protects that liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by state constitutions adopted pursuant to it.

CAIR and its allies have been known to claim that American Laws for American Courts would interfere with canon law or Jewish law. As the plain language of the bill makes clear, this is patently untrue. Indeed, prominent interfaith leaders — including experts in the legal codes of their respective faiths — have endorsed American Laws for American Courts, including Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, J.D. and the Reverend Canon J. Philip Ashey, Esq. (See the Interfaith letter of support for American Laws for American Courts at http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?p=653).

In short, American Laws for American Courts is a necessary and constitutional initiative that protects our fundamental freedoms against all foreign legal regimes that would threaten them. Representations to the contrary, particularly from groups like CAIR that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization seeking our destruction, should be seen for what they are — fraudulent deceptions — and rejected in the most effective possible way: by ensuring that every state in the union joins Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona in enacting American Laws for American Courts.

37 reasons why I believe Obama is a muslim 

Adapted from 'The Grunge Factor' with changes and additions by me

  1. Obama’s father and step-father were both muslims.
  2. Hussein is a muslim name reserved only for muslims by islamic law.
  3. Indonesian school enrollment records reveal his religion is islam.
  4. His children get NO Christmas gifts – muslim tradition.
  5. He wears NO jewelry during Ramadan – muslim tradition.
  6. Obama employed several Nation of Islam members in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs.
  7. Senator Obama stated that Israel is the cause of all Mideast problems and he is towing the muslim line that Israel is an apartheid state.
  8. Senator Barack & Michelle Obama have attended several Arab fundraisers and have had meetings with Palestinian Activist, PLO/Arafat Advisor Edward Said.
  9. Senator Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign staff tried to disclose some details of Obama’s muslim past and concluded he concealed his prior muslim faith and education.
  10. Candidate Obama, while running for president, made it clear that he did not support a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees. But now that he’s president, he has reneged on that statement.
  11. Obama says there is nothing more beautiful than the muslim call to prayer in the evening and has quoted it in fluent Arabic with perfect accent.
  12. As a usurper to the office of president he bows to the muslim King of Saudi Arabia. The most powerful man in the world should bow to no one but this subservient muslim bows to one of his own.
  13. As a usurper to the office of president he does NOT bow to the Christian Queen of England.
  14. Obama keeps saying things about muslim history that are not true.
  15. Obama has said we are one of the largest muslim countries...NOT true. We are down at number 41 on the list of most muslims in a country.
  16. Obama has said there are 7 million muslims in America. The most liberal numbers indicate 4 million and conservative estimates are at 2 million.
  17. Obama, not only refused to have a White House celebration of the National Day of Prayer, but instead feasted on the muslim holiday of Ramadan.
  18. Obama, while celebrating Ramadan at a White House dinner, stated that he is in favor of building the mosque near Ground Zero and even went on TV to say so.
  19. Obama says that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.
  20. Obama rewrites history and says that muslims had an integral part in the founding of the United States. (Yeah? Who? What? When? Where? Forget the why…)
  21. Obama orders the Christian monogram “IHS” (Greek symbols for Jesus) to be covered up at the Christian school Georgetown University Gaston Hall, before giving his speech.
  22. In answering the question on whether he believed in a literal heaven or not, Obama retorted: “What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die.” This is the islamic muslim view, not Christian.
  23. Barack Obama’s response when asked pointedly, “Who is Jesus to you?” “Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher.” This again is the muslim view from the qur’an and the hadith, not Christian.
  24. Obama gave a 2009 Cairo speech emphatically stating to the Middle Eastern world that it was “part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
  25. When it comes to Christianity, he has actually done just the opposite. Two years after his interview with Chicago Sun Times religion reporter Cathleen Falsani, on June 28, 2006, then Sen. Obama publicly perpetuated negative stereotypes of Christianity and defamed the religion and the words of its founder. From the pulpit of a church, speaking to a live audience about religious diversity, Obama sarcastically belittled America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and degraded its adherents with trite remarks typical of any atheistic antagonist, saying things like: “Whatever we were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” “The Sermon on the Mount is a passage that is so radical that our own defense department wouldn’t survive its application” and “To base our policy making upon such commitments as moral absolutes would be a dangerous thing.”
  26. If a self-proclaimed non-muslim president would fight repeatedly for muslims’ religious rights to the degree that our president has, don’t you think “a committed Christian” president would at least fight once for any antagonistic oppression of Christian faith and practice, too? Yet, on no occasion since taking office has Obama stood up publicly for a single Christian individual, group, church, act or event, whom or which was being opposed or oppressed by others.
  27. Why didn’t the president stand up for the rights of the North Carolina pastor who was fired from his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer “in the name of Jesus”?
  28. Why didn’t the president stand up for the children from the Christian private school who were “abruptly” ordered by a court police officer to stop praying outside the U.S. Supreme Court building?
  29. Why didn’t the president himself stand up for the human rights of the Christian missionaries and medical team in Afghanistan, including six Americans, to practice medicine and their faith, even after they were murdered by Islamic extremists?
  30. Why didn’t the president stand up for the rights of the Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, who was disinvited from a Pentagon prayer service on the National Day of Prayer because of his Christian views and values?
  31. Why didn’t Obam stand up for the rights of the Greek Orthodox Church, the only church that was actually destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks, as church leaders have been frustrated and fouled by New York officials who have virtually turned their backs on the reconstruction of the church near Ground Zero?
  32. Why didn’t Obama stand up for the rights of over 70% of Americans opposed to a Ground Zero mosque, instead of siding with the muslims who are attempting to build the Ground Zero mosque?
  33. Obama’s church (Trinity United Church of Christ) does not teach Christianity. The church guiding principles are called the “Black Value System”. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a former muslim and friend of Louis Farrakhan, Muslim founder and President of The Nation of Islam. Farrakhan has spoken frequently at Trinity.
  34. Reverend Wright’s “hate” sermons against America and white people are virtually identical as Farrakhan’s-who followed Malcolm X. Wright’s “hate” speeches are a blend of The Nation of Islam and Black Nationalist Liberation Theology into a subversive Christianity, not recognized by most black Christians.
  35. Obama embraced “Christianity” at this church. For 20 years he was a member and good friend to Rev. Wright. Wright married Obama and baptized his children. Rev. Wright was his mentor and gave advice until it became public knowledge during the campaign.
  36. During the week of 14-18th of January 2010, on the Nile TV broadcast “Round Table Show”, the Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said while meeting with Obama, he swore to him that he was a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father and step-son of Muslim step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Muslims, and that he was loyal to the Muslim agenda. He asked that the Muslim world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems, that he would show the Muslim world what he would do with Israel.
  37. Obama has publicly stated that he wants Israel to return to its pre-'67 war borders, a move that would be almost indefensible for Israel to hold against her enemies, which is something only a muslim would want.
When someone has committed all of these and more it reveals an “extremely” strong pattern.

Growing up as a muslim, Obama learned that according to the qur’an  it is acceptable to lie, deceive and live by a double standard (taqiyya) provided in doing so one advances islamic goals.

muslims only pretend to trust and be friends with non-muslims; but they have been taught that all non-muslims are infidels.

I believe one’s actions reveal who they are; not their words. 

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” –Matthew 7:15-17

I believe Barack Hussein Obama is a muslim through and through.  I believe Barack Hussein Obama strives to bring down our great nation, and the Judeo-Christian beliefs, morals, ideals, and foundation upon which she was founded.
IMPORTANT ALERT *** IMPORTANT ALERT

As most of you know I have been very active in the anti-O****, anti-islam / anti-sharia movement, very much so that I am on certain watch lists. What some of you don’t know is that I am also a member of the EDL (English Defense League), and their sister groups here in America. I am in contact with members of the hierarchy of the EDL and we speak often and share information that is beneficial to both our countries, because if England falls to islam it will only be a matter of time before we do too.

Today I received a major warning from them about a group known as the Zhc. This group poses as a pro-America, pro-England, pro-Israel, anti-islam group however, they are anything but! This is a group of anti-America, anti-England, anti-Israel, PRO-islam HACKERS of the first degree!

Claiming to be ethical in all they do, the Zhc have pretty much made the existence of so-called racist organizations such as the EDL (who are NOT racists BTW) virtually non-existent on the social media that made the EDL famous in the first place, that being Facebook. Scores of secret groups and pages belonging to the EDL have been hacked and deleted by Zhc including EDL’s main page which had close to 100,000 members.

This group of hackers is led by a man known as Zhc Sniper. He and his group have crashed over 774 groups worldwide that are anti-islam, anti-sharia, pro-England, pro-America, and pro-Israel. And they now have started to concentrate the actions here in the US.

Paul Stearnes, one of my main contacts in the EDL, has sent me the enclosed link which he created (and he is a computer expert heads and heels over most), so that we can lockdown all our sites, groups, and personal pages against them.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150453547632551

What has saved us to date is the fact that we are a secret closed group using different lockdown systems than the EDL used, but what I need everyone to do NOT only for the patriots group’s sake, but for your own as well, is to check your friends lists and the groups you belong to, and make sure you have NO ONE or any group with the initials Zhc attached to their name or to their like lists because that is one way they get in.

Here is a link to the Zhc and their aliases if you care to see what they are about:
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&pq=zhc%20hack&cp=10&gs_id=17&xhr=t&q=zhc+hackers&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=zhc+hacker&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=1f9f75d11f399bcc&biw=1280&bih=899

I hope this information is useful as the hackers will be out in full force as we get nearer to the election, and this group of hackers is more dangerous than most.