Saturday, June 2, 2012

Human Events

Top 10 class warfare attacks by President Obama

by Human Events

Apparently, “tax the billionaires” is a better rallying cry for his reelection campaign than “look at my record.” Here is the list, not for the faint of heart, of Obama’s class warfare attacks.

1. Attacking capitalism

The Obama campaign is trying to make Mitt Romney’s work at Bain Capital an issue in the race, bemoaning how jobs were sometimes lost in the restructuring of its acquisitions. But Mr. Obama, that is how capitalism works, and it is exactly what you did during the bailout of General Motors when unprofitable divisions were shut down in order to save the larger company.

2. Tax the rich
Even as Obama spends the nation to oblivion, he is trying to make the case that taxing the wealthy will solve the country’s budget crisis. Even Nancy Pelosi is breaking with the president, saying the Bush tax cuts should be extended to those making up to $1 million, instead of Obama’s $250,000. When you’ve lost Pelosi, you’ve lost the argument.

3. Demonize corporations
No president has ever gone after the corporate world as Obama has, demonizing the banks, the oil companies, pharmaceuticals, and any entity that could actually create a job. His hypocrisy holds no bounds, as he greedily soaks up campaign donations from the same ventures he attacks.

4.Biden, the hit-man
Gaffe-machine Joe Biden apparently doesn’t have much to do as the nation’s vice president, so why not trot him out as the administration’s hit-man, where he can sharpen his boss’s anti-wealth attacks. Last Labor Day, he called Obama’s  opponents barbarians, and more recently, at a rally in Ohio, Biden ranted, “They don’t get who we are.” Oh yes we do, Mr. Vice President, and that’s why we are on the other side.

5. Unleash the unions
Big Labor provides the foot soldiers for Obama’s reelection bid and he returns the favor through appointments and policies beneficial to their interests. Union bosses have virtually set up an office in the White House, making hundreds of visits for meetings with top officials. And don’t forget the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which deploys an army of thugs to attend left-wing rallies and are not adverse to forcibly bullying its opponents.

6. Promote the Occupy movement
The president has lent his moral support to the Occupy Wall Street movement, even as the protests turned violent and the group became infested with criminal activity. He hitched his ride with the motley activists early on, saying last October the movement was a reflection of a “broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.” Spoken like the Alinsky-styled community organizer that he remains at heart.

7. Spread the wealth around
As candidate Obama famously told Joe the Plumber in 2008, he is all about wealth redistribution and since taking office his budgets have piled up trillions of dollars in deficits trying to do just that. Given a second term, this president will increase taxes every which way in order to pay for more social programs for the downtrodden, keeping an increasing number of Americans on the government dole.

8. ObamaCare’s ‘fairness’
The president’s healthcare initiative is one big class warfare gambit as he loads up on tax increases in order to subsidize the uninsured. The problem is that it just won’t work. Costs continue to rise, businesses will begin to shed their health plans, and longer waits will become normal at the doctor’s office. All out of the misguided notion of “fairness.”

9. Double-down
Even as his policies have slowed the economic recovery, created few jobs, added trillions to the national debt, put in roadblocks that curtail U.S. energy production, and destroyed the healthcare system, President Obama continues the same misguided efforts. A true revolutionary never loses sight of the ultimate goal, with the ends justifying the means, and two steps forward, one step back. Look at his annual budget request which is such a joke with its big spending, big government approach that he can’t get a single Democrat to vote for it.

10. Overheated rhetoric
No class warfare attack could be complete without resorting to over-the-top rhetoric meant to inflame passions rather than to reach a consensus. President Obama has become a master of that art, blaming “millionaires and billionaires” for all the nation’s woes in nearly every speech he gives. He reached his rhetorical zenith when he tried to portray President Reagan as a “wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior.”

Court: Marine can't challenge Shariah

But judges admit tax funds used 'for arguably religious

shariah_billboard
A federal appeals court says a Marine can’t challenge a U.S. government subsidy for a program that promotes Shariah, that radical Islamic law that includes chopping off hands for theft and beheading for leaving Islam.

The ruling came today from Alan Norris, Eric Clay and Allen Griffin, judges on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

They explained that the federal TARP funds given to AIG were exempt from such challenges because the authorizing legislation didn’t consider giving money to aid religious outreaches such as AIG’s Shariah programs, and that the money was directed there by “executive” decisions.

Thus, the taxpayer lacked “standing” even to complain about the issue.

And they came to their conclusion even though the court opinion admitted that shortly after the Treasury Department acquired an interest in AIG, the “department sponsored a conference entitled ‘Islamic Finance 101.’ The stated purpose of the conference was to provide government policymakers information about Islamic finance. The presentation materials from the conference discussed topics such as the source of Islamic finance, how Islamic finance works, and the market factors that caused its growth.”

The plaintiffs argued that Congress could or should have known its bailout money to AIG would go to Shariah “since AIG was well known as the leader in [Shariah complaint finance].”

No matter, the judges ruled, This “falls well short of supporting a reasonable inference of congressional intention that a portion of the [federal bailout money] might support [Shariah].”

The appeals judges affirmed an earlier decision from a trial court judge who concluded the $153 million of U.S. taxpayer money spent supporting Islamic Shariah really isn’t anything worth mentioning.

The case was filed against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others and is over the nation’s bailout with taxpayer money of AIG insurance, which operates multiple companies promoting Shariah-complaint insurance products.

The specific lawsuit was filed on behalf of taxpayer Kevin J. Murray over the bailout, which has involved billions of taxpayer dollars. It’s being handled by Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center.

At the district court level, the case was dismissed by Judge Lawrence Zatkoff, who ruled that the case needed yet to prove that “the diverted funds were not de minimus in relation to the total amount…”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines de minimus as “so minor as to merit disregard,” but the plaintiffs attorneys noted in their appeal brief that “even the district court had to concede that after cash-strapped AIG received billions of dollars in taxpayer money … it provided two of its SCF [Shariah-compliant] subsidiaries with at least $153 million.”

The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

According to American Freedom Law Center’s investigation, AIG has five subsidiaries that promote and practice Shariah in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Bahrain and the United States.

Those companies hire Muslims to tell them how to meet the demands of Shariah, and the U.S. government has placed no controls over the billions of dollars in taxpayer money delivered to AIG.

Yerushalmi and Muise said they would appeal the case alleging the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

It claims specifically, at the time of the government bailout (beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the present), AIG was (and still is) the world leader in promoting Shariah-compliant insurance products. As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged in its opinion today, “‘Shariah’ refers to Islamic law based on the teachings of the Quran. It is the Islamic code embodying the way of life for Muslims and is intended to serve as the civic law in Muslim countries.”

As argued by AFLC, by propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam and, more troubling, Shariah. And as the Sixth Circuit noted in its opinion, Murray objects to his tax money being used to support Shariah because it “forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West and the United States.”

Muise said, “This decision by the Sixth Circuit is troubling on many levels. First, it is contrary to controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which allows a taxpayer to challenge a congressional spending program that violates the Establishment Clause. And second, this decision permits the federal government to continue its practice of promoting and supporting Shariah through the use of taxpayer funds. We intend to request a rehearing by the full court, and if that does not succeed, we will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.”

The court ruling admitted, “AIG subsidiaries ensure the Shariah-compliance of its SCF products by obtaining consultation from ‘Shariah Supervisory Committees.’ The members of these committees are authorities in Shariah law and oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating the compliance of these products with Shariah law.”

The court acknowledged that “AIG’s subsidiaries received a significant portion of the funds AIG received from the federal government” and that “[s]ix AIG subsidiaries have marketed and sold SCF products since AIG began receiving capital injections from the federal government.”

Yerushalmi said, “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s Shariah businesses.”
Op-ed:
We’re NOT like China...oh wait, we now are 
By: Diane Sori

H.R. 3541: Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012, commonly referred to as the Anti-Gender Selective Abortion Bill, would have made it a federal crime to perform an abortion based solely on the sex of the fetus.  It also would have barred using force or the threat of force to coerce such an abortion; would have blocked federal grants to organizations where such procedures were performed or from them receiving payment for such abortions; and would have disallowed the transporting of a woman across state lines or into the country for such an abortion.  
 
This past Thursday a roll call vote was taken in the House and fell 30 votes short of passing.  The final vote was 246 to 168.  This bill required a two-thirds majority to pass.  7 Republicans (including presidential ‘no longer hopeful’ Ron Paul) voted against it as did 161 Democrats (including the infamous Debbie Wasserman Schultz), while 20 ‘blue-dog’ Democrats voted for it citing religious grounds as their reason for doing so.

All 168 of these people regardless of party who voted against the bill need to be voted OUT of office at their re-election time.

Barack Hussein Obama and his minions of course chimed in with their opposition to the bill saying it could end up subjecting doctors to strict punishment (performing or aiding such an abortion would be a crime punishable by up to five years in prison), and that the law would be difficult to follow and enforce.

What I want to know is what exactly is so difficult to follow and enforce...if a woman comes in saying she wants an abortion because she doesn't want a boy or doesn't want a girl, the doctor just says NO to preforming the abortion...what is so difficult about that...NOTHING!

Yet 168 Congresspersons felt this bill was wrong.  Some of course were just vehemently pro-abortion no matter the reason but some in all good conscience just did NOT believe this bill would have made any difference even if it passed.  Those persons used the argument that if gender selective abortions were indeed made illegal, what would stop a woman from going in and just simply saying she didn’t want the baby she was carrying and demanding her legal right to an abortion without having to give any reason why. 

Sadly, they do make a strong point with that one because Roe vs Wade is still on the books as originally written and passed.  Roe v. Wade made abortion legal by stating that a woman could choose to have an abortion in the earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.

Some other dissenters claimed that if Congress really wanted to pass a pro-life legislation, why didn’t they go all the way and ban all abortions? 

In my opinion and it’s my opinion only, the answer to that is really quite simple...you cannot ban ALL abortions because there are four instances where abortion should be an option...obviously if the mother's life is in danger, rape, incest, and where a baby is so deformed that it has NO chance of life outside the womb.

Yes, legislation could be written that takes those things into consideration allowing abortions in those few instances, but that would NOT prevent women who simply did NOT want the baby they were carrying for whatever reason from seeking backroom abortions.  And the bottom line to that would be that women would needlessly be dying because they could not get the hospital/clinic ‘safe’ abortions they previously could get.

So now with the failure of this bill, as limited in scope as it was, we hit a brick wall where abortion has now become a free for all with NO limits set and where wanton baby killing will become common practice.  With gender selective abortions being allowed, we have just crossed the line and become like China where female fetuses are routinely aborted, because in their society males are deemed more desirable and worthy of life than females are.

So much for the Republican ‘War on Women,’ we now have a full-blown, no holds barred, war on the unborn.