He WILL be back!

"And always remember, Abraham Lincoln only served one  term in Congress, too." 

-LTC Allen West

The Enemy From Within! 

By Gabor Zolna / The Western Center for Journalism

Does anyone know how many times Obama has himself said that he is indeed a Muslim?  Obama having celebrated Ramadan in the White House these past four years is another clear clue.

I think that it might be about time that we believe him in this rare instance and take him for his word.  However this represents another problem, one that we will not ever be able to overcome. Wh?

Because Islam permits lying!  It is called Al-taqiyya, which means dissimulation, diplomacy and deception.

Muslims lie, not because they are natural born liars, but by choice.

Systemic lying, as a religious policy, is deadly, and unfortunately none of our elected Congressional Representatives appear to understand that.

Muslims while lying might appear to be sincere, the truth is that they are sincere, when they lie to further their cause, or for their own protection.  In order for them to be able to be effective recruiting more converts, to follow Islam, they will lie about everything, and anything.

One of the main reasons why our military cannot ever expect to win in a war against Muslims is that the only sure way that a Muslim can end up with 72 virgin’s, is if he dies, as in martyrdom, while “taking out” unbelievers in the name of Islam.  Those thoughts, and ideas are ingrained into them at birth, and as such, they have absolutely no regard for any innocent lives; that they take, just as long as they take those lives from non-believers, that refuse, if and when asked, to convert to Islam.

Muslim’s have one clear objective in mind, and that objective is world domination.  The Middle East is now closer to being dominated by radical Muslim extremists than it ever has been before, and there is only one man that has supported the Muslim Brotherhood movement and allowed them to assume power in so many Muslim countries, and that man is none other than President Barack Hussein Obama
.
Muslim’s are not permitted by Allah to kill, or to order the killing of another Muslim, and according to Allah a Muslim must do anything and everything that they possibly can to protect another Muslim. That clearly explains why Obama and his Administration never refer to terrorists or their terrorist acts as being associated with Muslims. A perfect example of this is what happened with Major Nidal Hassan at Fort Hood.

Although Major Hassan was screaming “Allah Akbar” as he was murdering and wounding American servicemen in cold blood, the Obama Administration refused to call his act as having been committed as Muslim terrorism, and instead renamed what transpired as a result of “workplace violence.” Once again, a Muslim must do anything and everything that they can to protect another Muslim, including never lying to another Muslim, as dictated by the Prophet Mohammad, unless it furthers the cause of Islam.

We all know the story about the Trojan Horse, and we all also know that after the Trojan Horse was brought inside by the citizen’s of Troy. It was not long before the enemy from within destroyed Troy completely, and without the Trojan Horse having been brought inside the walls of Troy, the enemies of Troy could never have breached the walls of Troy.

Is it possible that Obama is no different than the Trojan Horse?  Let’s look at what Obama has done, and is continuing to do, to weaken America.  In four short years, Obama added six trillion dollars to America’s debt.  He imposed Obamacare onto the American people, and we won’t know all of its devastating effects until it is fully implemented.

We do know that he has skillfully divided America, not only having turned the Blue States against the Red states, but by turning those that have not, against those that have. He is also in the process of dramatically weakening our military, and as such putting America at greater risk from enemy attack.

The only real way that anyone of us can gauge another man is by their fruits, so let us take a closer look at Obama’s fruits. With the Arab Spring in full effect, what has Obama done to try and reduce the persecution of Christians throughout the Middle Eastern Arab countries?  Obama’s silence is deafening.

Ever wonder why Obama has never travelled to a Muslim country with his wife Michelle? It is because she is not Muslim, and as a Muslim, he cannot travel with her to those countries. Its also interesting to note that as President he has not ever visited Israel, nor do I suspect that he ever will.

The Prophet Mohammad wrote that dogs are all dirty animals, and that they should all be killed.  That might explain why Bo has never flown on the same plane with Obama, when Bo does travel, he flies on a separate plane with Michelle and the girls, or by himself, but never with Obama.

There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that Obama won either election fairly, so the question that we all need to ask ourselves is plain: Is Obama the Trojan Horse that will help the Muslims obtain world domination?  I certainly think so, how about you?  As Americans that love our freedom, we need to do whatever we can to prevent history from repeating itself.

At Least Get the Big Lie Straight 

By: John Ransom  / Townhall Columnist

Donjindra wrote: We're running huge deficits. Of course our tax bill will go up. It should go up. Do "conservatives" think there's a free-lunch? That money grows on trees? Apparently so. - Merry Christmas: This Tax Increase is for You, America

Dear Comrade Jindra,
OK, so now liberals are worried about the deficit? And you guys are lecturing the rest of us about fiscal responsibility and how money is created?

Typical tough talk from a group that can’t even pass a budget, yet alone balance one.

Here’s a good idea: Have your messiah present a plan to Congress that balances the budget, right now, not after the passage of time and some mythical increase in GDP created by “voodoo” tax increases on everyone.

Because Obama’s newest plan is basically the same, old plan he had last year- and the year before- that even Democrats wouldn’t vote for…not one vote.

“Even after granting all the phony spending cuts and similar gimmicks in Obama’s budget of last February,” writes Heritage’s J.D. Foster, ”federal debt held by the public rises by $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years without the tax hike and by $7.7 trillion with the tax hike. Expressed another way, allowing some of the Bush tax cuts to expire as Obama demands represents less than 10 percent of the projected debt increase.”

Only a true liberal would could come up with a plan to minimize the damage done to the economy by the expiration of $500 billion in tax cuts by raising taxes another $1.6 TRILLION, including $600 billion on ordinary, middle class Americans.

I really hope Obama gets his party to vote “yes” on these tax increases.
DagNabbit wrote: As I read through this column and the comments, I realize, like pretty much EVERY comment on TH, that the mouth breathers that TH attracts (meaning those of us who don't come here to shoot fish in a barrel) still believe that the reason we have a deficit is because of "entitlements". They don't want facts; they want RELIGION. And their religion is a deep belief in the idea that the reason we have debt is because the Government is handing out their hard earned tax dollars to lazy drug addicts on Welfare. Yeah, that $38/week is really going to screw up your retirement plans. LOL. - Merry Christmas: This Tax Increase is for You, America

Dear Comrade Dag,
I combined two of your comments on the same subject because I found them equally idiotic.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you deny that entitlement spending is contributing to our deficit? Sure, defense spending is a pretty big line item, but: 1) It’s authorized under the Constitution; and

2) Even if you cut it by half, you still have a trillion dollar deficit.
Oh, I know, I know: You think that programs like Social Security are not entitlements because people paid into it. Well that would tend to prove that you don’t know anything about how federal programs operate.

Social Security isn’t an insurance scheme whereby you pay in, the government invests your money, and then at retirement you get your money back plus interest. Instead, you pay into the system now, along with others, to help support 1 (one) retiree. As long as there are enough people paying into the system to support all the
eligible retirees, then it works, mathematically at least. But that’s not the case.

“In 1950,” wrote our friend Michael Tanner over at Cato in 2005, “there were 16 workers paying taxes into the system for every retiree who was taking benefits out of it. Today, there are a little more than three. By the time the baby boomers retire, there will be just two workers who will have to pay all the taxes to support every one retiree.”

Social Security is an entitlement because no one actually gets back what they pay into it. In order for it to work in the future, taxes will have to be raised unless we turn it into a savings and investment plan.

Continues Tanner:

The Social Security payroll tax is already 12.4 percent of wages, or one eighth of a worker's total annual wages. It is the biggest tax the average household must pay. Roughly 80 percent of American families pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in federal income taxes.
Despite that already huge tax burden, the payroll tax will have to be increased by nearly half in order to continue paying Social Security benefits. That's a terrible burden to impose on our children and grandchildren.

DagNabbit wrote:

Jeez. Repubes lost SO BIG. And it's killing them. Life is freakin' GREAT, ain't it? - Buffett Boosts Own Morale with Hypocrisy

Dear Comrade Dag,
It’s a Hat Trick! Three in a row!

3 million votes really isn’t that big of a loss.

Actually life hasn’t changed that much since last year or the year before when Obama wasn’t able to accomplish anything.

Enjoy the gridlock. I know I will.   

ericynot wrote: Through most of the days of the Romney campaign all you heard about here was how everyone in the Democratic Party was a free-cell-phone-using, no-tax-paying, freeloader. Now all of a sudden, that party is made up of a bunch of sneaky, conniving billionaires who want to destroy the country. Keep in mind, for every Buffett there's a Trump, for every Gates there's a Walton, and for every Rockefeller there's a Koch. And all of them, just like you and I, have the right to promote whatever political philosophy they like. That's the cool thing about America. And, Ransom, suggesting that people with whom you disagree should die is repugnant and profoundly un-American.

- Buffett Boosts Own Morale with Hypocrisy

Dear Comrade Eric,
I don’t think you can point to one instance where I said everyone in the Democratic Party was a free-cell-phone-using, no-tax-paying, freeloader. Or that I denied that the Party had a bunch of sneaky, conniving billionaires who want to destroy the country. What I SAID was the vast majority who voted Democrat were free-cell-phone-using, no-tax-paying, freeloaders... CONTROLLED by a bunch of sneaky, conniving billionaires who want to destroy the country.

If you are gonna come by here you should at least get your facts straight.

And by the way, Donald Trump is hardly the same for Republicans as Buffett and Soros are for the Democrats. I personally don’t have any use for Trump. 

John Calvin Errickson II wrote: Conservatives have told me for years  is the rest of us should worship the super rich and their ways. Are you experiencing class envy? And why are you complaining of Mr. Buffett and not creating wealth on a massive scale?

Dear Comrade Mr. John Calvin Erickson,
You don't know that I'm not creating wealth on a massive scale, Mr. John Calvin Erickson, the Second, by the Grace of God and the Royal Dominions.

I don't have class envy. I wish for Mr. Buffett, the First, to keep the whole of his earnings, which by the way, he will do.

I merely pointing out that he was successful under the old system.

You see the problem with his plan is that it taxes NEW wealth. Guys like him, who have already made it, are exempt for the most part.

Sincerely,
John Jeremiak Ransom, the Only, forever and ever, amen.

HoovervilleFollies wrote: Of course Ransom is engaging in a classic denier tactic -- cherry-picking to find a study somewhere that includes some data that can be employed to raise doubts about the overwhelming body of evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real, serious, and well underway. -More Settled Science: Wrong about Ice Melt in Greenland, Sea-Rise

Dear Comrade Hoover,
I didn’t cherry pick anything.

Look, here are the facts that liberal don’t want to admit: There is no settled science on climate change. From study to study you all can’t even agree on how fast the ice is melting in Greenland, how much the sea level rise is due to climate change or whether temperatures have continued to rise at all.
The study I pointed to said that the ice is melting at a slower rate- and the ice melt is accelerating at a slower rate- than previously estimated. 

The next day a different report reaches a conclusion that the ice sheet is melting faster than previously thought.

What I’m saying is that the first thing you guys need to do to push the Big Lie is at least get the lie straight.

See more about this below.

QuietReason wrote: Ransom has little grasp of science.
First step, read the original paper, not a newspaper's interpretation of it. Start with http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S35/40/38C46/index.xml?section=science and see what they really said. There is no suggestion that Greenland is not losing ice and in fact, the loss is accelerating. Second, realize that the Greenland Ice sheet is only one part of the earth's ice and talking about it in isolation is meaningless, what about the West Antarctic Ice sheet, which is also losing ice and accelerating rates. Third, 21ft of sea level increase would be disasterous, but smaller amounts would also be very bad--take a look at maps of New Orleans, Norfolk, Boston under scenarios of 3-6 feet sea level rise. -More Settled Science: Wrong about Ice Melt in Greenland, Sea-Rise

Dear Comrade Hills,
You have little grasp of reading.

I’m going to rebut you almost totally from something written by Morgan Kelly, Office of Communications, Princeton University, because otherwise you’ll claim I’m too stupid to understand science.

An enhanced approach to capturing changes on the Earth's surface via satellite could provide a more accurate account of how ice sheets, river basins and other geographic areas are changing as a result of natural and human factors. In a first application, the technique revealed sharper-than-ever details about Greenland's massive ice sheet, including that the rate at which it is melting might be accelerating more slowly than predicted.

In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.

"Scientists are not totally sure what the driving force of the melt on Greenland is on short, yearly timescales," Harig said. "There is no certainty about which outside factor is the most important or if all of them contribute. Being able to compare what is happening regionally to field observations from other researchers of what a glacier is doing helps us figure out what is causing all this melt."

And really Mike, sea-level rise is not uniform, as you should well know, and would know, if of course you understood the science.

Sea-levels in New York have been rising at almost a constant rate for the last 150 years. And in 2011, the Journal of Costal Research found that sea-level rises were decelerating both in the United States and worldwide:

From the abstract:

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data ofChurch and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

Mike, how do you get 3-6 feet of rise when scientists already agree that the next 100 years won’t produce a foot of sea-rise unless sea-rise rates accelerate, which now we know they aren’t doing?

Canetoad wrote: You go for it John, but for the future I'll be looking to emerging technologies in the green sector to invest my money. Pretty soon climate change will become so apparent that even the most ardent denier will be forced to remove his head from his rectum. You hang on to all those old fossilized stocks you are so fond of, but I'm betting the bank on new emerging green technology to sweep us into the new century and revive our economy. Unfortunately due to Republican obstructionism and just plain stubbornness, countries like Denmark, Israel, Sweden and Finland are outperforming us.- I Told You So Redux

Dear Comrade Toad,
You do that, Toad. Please. I mean that sincerely.

Because I really like making money and I need more counterparties in my trades. 
And under the GREATEST solar-powered president EVER, an investment of $10,000 in the one of the most popular green ETFs, the Claymore/MAC Global Solar Index, purchased in May 2008, would now be worth about $540.

By contrast, an investment in Exxon/Mobile would have retained about the same value under the most hostile administration to oil companies EVER.

You keep investing in sunshine. There is no shortage of that. It seems they make more of it everyday.
I’ll keep investing in the resource that’s scare.

Oh, and when those economic juggernauts in Scandinavia want to throw down over energy, I think we’ll be up to the task.

DAC wrote: You lost all credibility with your Romney landslide prediction. So SHUT THE F[edited] UP!! . - I Told You So Redux

Dear Comrade Dac,
Actually it doesn't work that way. The still expect me to write. And guess what? I have more readers than ever. AND starting January, I'll have a syndicated radio show.

More details to come

You can thank me later.

Voter Suppression 

By: Paul Jacob  / Townhall Daily

Michigan voters went to the polls last month to consider six initiatives. The measures had been placed on statewide ballot by private citizens. They had organized and gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures from fellow Michigan citizens, all to earn an up-or-down vote on their respective issues.

All six measures went down to decisive defeat at the polls.

Deservedly so — with the exception of Proposal 5, which would have required a vote of the people or a two-thirds legislative vote in order to raise state taxes. I do wish a majority of Michiganders had seen the wisdom of that particular idea.

Still, like it or not, the people have spoken.

Now, alas, politicians are speaking . . . and threatening to restrict the right to initiative and referendum.

“Secretary of State Ruth Johnson called Thursday,” the Detroit Free Press reported, “for a bipartisan committee to look at ways to prevent well-financed special interests from buying their way onto the Michigan ballot and amending the state’s constitution.”

Money sure helps (as does an already organized network of supporters) in any effort to gather the roughly half a million voter signatures required to get a measure on the state’s ballot. Thus, so-called “special interests” do have a leg up over ordinary folks; wealthy interests can indeed splurge, spending the money required to place any plausible notion onto the ballot. But a 0-6 record at the ballot box certainly makes clear one thing: big money and big unions and big business and big whatever cannot buy their way into the state’s constitution.

The Detroit International Bridge Co., for example, along with a number of powerful unions, supported several of the measures, including one requiring voter approval of any new international bridge and another seeking to give unions constitutional protection for collective bargaining. The big-moneyed supporters and opponents of these high-profile initiatives helped set a record for total spending on ballot measures — over $150 million.

But what exactly was the harm? Michigan’s constitution remains unaltered. Money went from well-off businesses and union members to more cash-strapped petition gatherers — a neat bit of voluntary redistribution of wealth. And besides, the voters got to make the final decision. As is best.

If the money and power of big business and big labor were limited to placing their ideas on the ballot for voters to decide — rather than intimidating or purchasing our legislators — we’d be way ahead of the political game.

Even more importantly, if the citizen initiative — so crucial to reforms like term limits and other innovative checks on the excesses of big government — is to be restricted for the most powerful political organizations, how will grassroots citizens, property rights groups, taxpayer advocates and other far less well-heeled reformers ever be able to overcome such new hurdles?

Secretary of State Johnson acknowledged as much, dodging questions as to how legislation could block “special interests” without eclipsing less special folks, and finally offering weakly that, “We just need to look at the system and make sure it’s working as well as it can, but we’ll protect that First Amendment right.”

But there’s an irony here: both big business and big labor, responsible for the super-sized spending on this year’s ballot measures, will almost certainly support reining in the citizen initiative. Why? They fear the weapon it constitutes for grassroots citizen control of government more than they value their own ability to succeed through placing measures on the ballot.

As for politicians, they have their own, almost personal, reasons to disdain direct democracy. They see citizen action as direct competition. And so their “reform” ideas so far put forth run the usual gamut of insiders’ vexation with “outsiders”:

• outlawing paid petition circulators (a law already ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, unanimously)
• forcing petition circulators to wear badges saying whether they are paid or volunteer (struck down repeatedly as unconstitutional)
• outlawing any productivity pay for petition circulators (passed and struck down as unconstitutional in five states, including neighboring Ohio)
• not counting the petition signatures of valid Michigan voters if the person circulating the petition violates any of the many rules

Any of these, if passed, would be challenged and declared unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment rights of the people — just as similar enactments by legislators in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Ohio, and Oklahoma have been in recent years.

No legislator or statewide official has suggested making it easier for non-special interests to put an idea before the voters. They seem to believe the people of Michigan voted correctly . . . but must be prevented from voting again. 

Siding with our enemies yet again...

Obama White House opposed new Iran sanctions

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Remember the Obama of the debates? The one who aggressively touted strong sanctions as the way to stop Iran's nuclear program? Well, that was just as much of an act to get votes as was his pose as a Zionist.
"White House opposed new Iran sanctions," by Josh Rogin in Foreign Policy, November 30 (thanks to Kenneth):

The White House announced its opposition to a new round of Iran sanctions that the Senate unanimously approved Friday, in the latest instance of Congress pushing for more aggressive punitive measures on Iran than the administration deems prudent. 

On Thursday, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) introduced the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which the Senate passed 94-0. The new legislative language would blacklist Iran's energy, port, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors, while also placing new restrictions on Iran's ability to get insurance for all these industries. The legislation would also vastly expand U.S. support for human rights inside Iran and impose new sanctions on Iranians who divert humanitarian assistance from its intended purpose.

"The window is closing. The time for the waiting game is over," Menendez said on the Senate floor Thursday night. "Yes, our sanctions are having a demonstrable effect on the Iranian economy, but Iran is still working just as hard to develop nuclear weapons."

But the White House told several Senate offices Thursday evening that the administration was opposed to the amendment. National Security Spokesman Tommy Vietor sent The Cable the administration's official position, explaining the White House's view the sanctions aren't needed and aren't helpful at this time....

"We do not believe additional authority to apply more sanctions on Iran is necessary at this time," read the e-mail, which the NSC legislative affairs office said represented the entire administration's view. "At the same time, we are concerned that this amendment is duplicative and threatens to confuse and undermine some of the TRA provisions."...

Finally, the White House doesn't want to implement the part of the new legislation that would require reports to Congress on the thousands of boats that dock at Iranian ports and the dozens of Iranian planes that make stops at airports around the world. Those reporting requirements "will impose serious time burdens on the Intelligence Community and sanctions officers," the White House said in the e-mail.

The Obama administration often touts the Iran sanctions it once opposed. In the final presidential debate Oct. 22, President Barack Obama said his administration had "organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy."...