Wednesday, May 16, 2012

This Democrat may actually beat Obama in primary

Poll shows tight race, could be 'politically cataclysmic'

Who’s afraid of the big, bad Wolfe?

Possibly President Obama, who could lose the upcoming Arkansas Democratic primary to a relatively unknown attorney named John Wolfe Jr.

In the latest Talk Business-Hendrix College Poll, conducted May 10, an astonishing 38 percent of Democratic primary voters say they’re casting ballots for Wolfe, while less than half, a mere 45 percent, are planning on voting for Obama. Seventeen percent were undecided.

Dr. Jay Barth, the pollcrafter with the Hendrix College Department of Politics and International Relations, said the May 22 Arkansas primary “may produce a somewhat embarrassing result for the president.”

In an interview with the Weekly Standard, Wolfe called the poll results “unbelievable” and said a defeat for Obama in the state that produced President Bill Clinton would be “politically cataclysmic.”

“It says the momentum is good,” Wolfe said. “This is democracy in action.”

He predicted Democrats would move his way in the final days before the May 22 primary, despite his tiny campaign budget.

“There’s not been a single TV ad. There’s not been a single radio ad,” he told the Standard.

Wolfe, who actually lives in Tennessee, is also competing against Obama in Texas May 29 primary.

He’s been critical of the president for being too close to Wall Street and its interests, and he’s looking to repeal Obamacare, claiming it does not lower health-care costs despite Obama’s assertions to the contrary.

“I don’t think it’s right in principle to force people to buy from monopolies,” Wolfe told the Standard. “The thing about Obamacare is it’s the best thing for the stock prices of insurance companies.”

Last week, federal inmate and Democratic presidential candidate Keith Judd collected a whopping 42 percent of the West Virginia primary vote against Obama.

Meanwhile, a new Rasmussen poll shows Obama trailing likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney in North Carolina – home of the upcoming Democratic Convention – by eight percentage points.

Radio giant Rush Limbaugh today said that’s encouraging news for Republicans: “I’m telling you that Obama is in deep trouble. The Democrat Party is in deep trouble here.”

“This is not at all where they thought they would be,” he added. “The problems that they have are not at all the problems they thought they were going to have. They really believed that they could re-create this whole Messianic-type mindset that people had for Obama from 2008. They really thought they could simply tie Romney to Bush and send people running back to Obama in droves.”
Martial Law will NOT be declared
By: Diane Sori

Lately all you see people posting on Facebook are articles that quote unnamed, so-called inside sources all saying that Barack Hussein Obama is going to declare Martial Law to stop the elections from going forward. The sources these articles are taken from are sources whose credibility is anything but stellar as any source that does not name names really has NO credibility whatsoever.

Yet these posts keep appearing all claiming that the Obama administration is working on creating a deliberate racial and/or economic war based on class warfare so that he can declare Martial Law and shut down the elections.   However, concrete details are sketchy at best or are the stuff of urban legends.  The urban legends are the worst, like the claim that the government is stockpiling every weapon possible to use against ‘We the People’ as they round us up once Martial Law is declared and put us in re-education centers or worse...concentration camps.
Now one ‘supposed’ credible site is even claiming that a staged assassination attempt will be made against Obama that would then be blamed on white supremacists and be used to inflame the black community to start rioting and looting.

Oh you really think the black community will fall for this nonsense.  Some like the New Black Panthers and their ilk might feed into this but the majority of the black population can see through this just as easily as you and I can.

Then we have those sites claiming that the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order signed back in March is a lead-in to Obama declaring Martial Law, and all because it authorizes the federal government to identify "requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand," and to "control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in this civilian market."

However, and a much as I dislike Obama and all he stands for, this order is just your standard government readiness policy.  In fact it’s almost identical to those orders issued by administrations ever since the days of the Cold War, including by the administrations of Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

With Obama losing support daily as Mitt Romney gains traction. Obama in desperation will try all sorts of bravado to try and keep us from getting out and voting and the fear of Martial Law is the mother lode of all bravado...or so he thinks.

First, you need to understand what Martial Law really is and that it is NOT that easy to declare.  Martial Law is basically temporary rule by state or national military authorities, imposed on civilian populations during times of war or when civil authority has broken down.   

Martial Law has been declared in this country on the national level only once and that was during the Civil War.  On the regional level Martial Law was declared also only once and that was during World War II. Otherwise, it’s been limited to the states.  Civil uprisings, massive political protests, labor strikes, and riots have caused a few state governors to rightly declare some measure of Martial Law at one time or another.

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."  The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that a declaration of Martial Law can be imposed by the president or Congress.  A governor, on the other hand, may declare Martial Law within their state as the power to do so is usually in their state constitution.

However, both federal or state courts must first still rule if the implementation of Martial Law and the use of troops is justified because Martial Law is legally considered an act of last resort.

So armed with this knowledge you can see that Martial Law cannot just be declared at whim even by a sitting president.  The circumstances would have to be extraneous with the chance of total chaos and violence being present for Martial Law to be approved by the courts .   

Barack Hussein Obama and his minions might indeed try to instigate a course of events that could lead up to his being able to declare such an action but it’s up to us to NOT fall into that trap.

Also, remember this, to declare Martial Law one needs to have support of the military and troops for such an action.  Do you really and honestly think that with the way Obama has defamed and dishonored our military that they would take arms up against their fellow citizens...I think not.

And do you think it’s even logistically possible or would be easy to enforce.  Again, I think not.  The United States is a big country and as such there wouldn’t be enough troops able to enforce this, in addition to the fact that state and private militias have been formed that would fight this every step of the way.

So the bottom line is that we cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by Barack Hussein Obama and his minions, including his all-controlled media, into believing Martial  Law could ever really be declared...hell, we can't even prevent illegals from entering our country so what makes Obama think he could ever enforce Martial Law.

Even he is not stupid enough to think he could.


Shame on Bill O'Reilly

Exclusive: Pamela Geller indicts talker with fawning over radical Ground Zero imam

Bill O’Reilly had Ground Zero mosque radical Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on for a full segment last week to shill the deceptive narrative of his latest book. In a telling moment, Rauf claimed during the segment to have lost “at least” 60 Muslims on 9/11. Only the Muslims separate out the Muslim dead from the rest (and that number of Muslims goes from 19 to 300). No other group points to the number of Christians or Jews, etc., who were killed on 9/11.

For his part, O’Reilly promised to pick up a hammer and help the imam build his Islamic center if Rauf “condemned terrorism.” What O’Reilly neglected to qualify was Rauf’s definition of “terrorism.” In Islam, terrorists are those who defend themselves against Islam. Under Islam, the definition of “terrorism” is resistance to Islam.

O’Reilly neglected to query how Rauf could claim to want to build a multi-faith center since, under Islam, non-believers are prohibited from praying in a mosque except when invited for dawah (proselytizing). Rauf said, “We have to fight against the extremists in all of our faith traditions.” This was patently dishonest. Rauf was trying to deflect attention away from the fact that only Muslim “extremists” are killing other people because of their faith. Christian and Jewish “extremists” – i.e. those who are devout the way Islamic jihadists are devout Muslims – aren’t committing violence in the name of their religion. Only Muslims are. Rauf and other Islamic supremacists hope you don’t notice that his call to fight against “extremism” is really a diversion of attention away from the only “extremists” who are violent.

O’Reilly never addressed Rauf’s idea of “peace.” Nor did he ask him about comments like this one: “In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure. … In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab [Muslim]  country, with a Jewish minority.”

Ground Zero mega-mosque Imam Rauf raised no objections to official calls for suicide bombing in America and Israel. In a revealing interview, Rauf said: “We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was secretary of state and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.”

No mention of the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilation and enslavement. No mention of the recent slaughter by Muslims of Christians, Hindus, Jews and non-believers in Indonesia, Thailand, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Philippines, Lebanon, Israel, Russia, China, Egypt, Nigeria, Iraq, etc.

Rauf exhibits no candor, and never comes close to any criticism of Islamic jihadists. He has even said: “Islam does not need a reformation.” He has also been dishonest about the Ground Zero mosque, which is now a “community center” nowhere near Ground Zero – but in December 2009, Rauf said in the New York Times: “New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic.” The Times was clear, unlike now, that the location was crucial: “The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, ‘where a piece of the wreckage fell,’ said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, ‘sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.’”

Rauf is also a “prominent figure” in “The Perdana Organization,” which funded the genocidal Jew-hating terrorist group behind the murderous attack on Jewish soldiers on the warship flotilla that sailed against Israel in 2010.

Why didn’t O’Reilly ask Rauf about his desire to impose the Shariah? In his book from 2000, “Islam: A Sacred Law,” he wrote: “And since a Shariah is understood as a law with God at its center, it is not possible in principle to limit the Shariah to some aspects of human life and leave out others.”

Did O’Reilly ask about Rauf about his slums? His slum building has gone into receivership. Out from under the Rauf crawl rats and roaches. Worse still, Rauf snagged more than $2 million in public financing to renovate low-income apartments. He took the money and forced good people to live with vermin and dilapidation.

Did O’Reilly query Rauf about the imam’s false tax forms claiming that his apartment was a mosque?

Why didn’t O’Reilly have anyone on to counter Rauf’s baldfaced deception?

Why doesn’t O’Reilly have Robert Spencer on to discuss his brilliant new book, “Did Muhammad Exist?”

But he’ll promote the greasy Rauf and reps from Hamas-CAIR, and call them “standup guys.” Look at Rauf’s knowing and sinister half-smile when O’Reilly says to him, “You’re a well-intentioned man.”

Shame on you, Bill O’Reilly.

Yet for all O’Reilly’s shilling, Rauf fooled no one. After appearing on O’Reilly with his 3 million viewers, Rauf’s book stood at No. 4,273 in sales at The American people are smarter than O’Reilly, but at 8 p.m. prime time, he’s the only game in town.

The day after the O’Reilly interview, the Toronto Star ran an interview with Rauf that was almost as fawning and sycophantic as O’Reilly’s. In it, Rauf said, “Given that we are in this society, my position is that we should practice our faith in a way that makes us seem as if we belong to this society.” Not actually to belong, but to seem as if they belong. That’s Rauf.

Moderate Palestinian Authority TV: All of Israel is "occupied" land

Posted by Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

See the actual TV speech here:

Yet Obama and the Western intelligentsia in general keep on insisting that these "moderates" will agree to a negotiated settlement with Israel. "PA narrative: All of Israel is 'occupied' land," by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik for Palestinian Media Watch, May 15:
One of the most important impediments to long term peace between Israel and the Palestinians is the Palestinian Authority's refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist - and its teaching, especially children, that all of Israel is "occupied" land. As Palestinian Media Watch has reported, part of Israel is said to have been "occupied" since 1948 during the "Nakba" or "catastrophe," the term Palestinians use to delegitimize Israel's establishment. The rest, the PA says, was occupied in 1967 during the Six-Day War. All of Israel's existence is said to be an "occupation" and illegitimate. 
A recent PA TV children's program cited Israeli expropriation of land in the Galilee in 1976 as the source for Palestinian protests on what Palestinians call "Land Day." The PA TV host referred to the Galilee, part of Israel since its establishment in 1948, as “occupied lands” and “land occupied after 1948”:
PA TV host: "On March 30, dear friends, in 1976, Israeli occupation forces confiscated a region - in other words, thousands of dunams of land in the Galilee (northern Israel), the occupied lands, that is, land occupied after 1948."
[PA TV (Fatah), March 30, 2012]
PA schoolbooks teach the same message that Israel since 1948 is an "occupation":
"Colonialism: Palestine faced the British occupation after the First World War in 1917, and the Israeli occupation in 1948."
[National Education, sixth grade, p. 16, PA schoolbook currently in use. - accessed March 11, 2012]
Official PA TV children's educational programs consistently present all of Israel as "occupied":
PA TV host: "We're on a trip in the 1948 lands. On our right is Baqa Al-Gharbiya (village in Israel) , the land [home] of many friends of our program. We're on our way [to see] many beautiful areas so that you can get to know them and see how beautiful our land is, and how many beautiful places it has -- beautiful villages and cities. We're in the north of the occupied lands, the 1948 lands (Israel), on the Lebanese border."
Israeli-Arab tour guide: "We're now at the Golan Heights border (inside Israel). We are at the exact border between Palestine and Syria."
[PA TV (Fatah), Sept. 17, 2011]...