OK–it’s time to just come out and say it. So-called liberals must be desperate, because–with regard to the Ground Zero mosque (as with so many other past cultural issues)–Barack Obama has sided against the American people–again. How do I know this to be true? Well, let’s just look at the steady stream of hysterical op-eds coming out of The New York Times slandering the American people as racist, Islamaphobic, unpatriotic dumb-dumbs. (Yes, I know, so-called liberals must be pretty desperate to play the patriotism card–I thought they thought that patriotism was gauche.)

For instance, last weekend, TV entertainer, Dick Cavett, wrote a column titled, Real Americans, Please Stand Up. (Did you get that? If you disagree with him about the Ground Zero mosque, you aren’t a “real American”.) In this op-ed, Cavett goes on to lament how “ashamed of us” he is, and he even goes so far as to write the following insanity–

As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”

So now, not only am I not a “real American”, but I want to kick pregnant Japanese women in the belly.

Oh, but Mr. Cavett is not alone in his inane ramblings. On Sunday, theater critic, Frank Rich, wrote a column titled, How Fox Betrayed Petraeus, and on Monday cultural writer, Nicholas Kristof, wrote a column titled, Taking bin Laden’s Side.

Now, just from the titles of these op-eds alone, it should be painfully obvious what The New York Times is trying to do–i.e., “otherize” all opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as bigoted, anti-American rednecks with the worst possible motives. However, all of these columns were rich in over the top rhetoric, but deeply lacking in any information about the previous troubling, statements from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (the man behind the mosque), or the fact that that Iman Rauf has not been at all transparent about where the money’s coming from to build this mosque at Ground Zero. So, for flat out slandering the American people as anti-American bigots–and being disingenuous as to why they are really upset about the Ground Zero mosque–The New York Times deserves to wear “The Cone of Shame”.

Speaking of Imam Rauf, I would very much like to take a closer look at him before going much farther. To be specific, soon after 9/11, Imam Rauf called America “an accessory to the crime” (in reference to 9/11–see embed below), has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, has stated that, “The US has more Muslim blood on it’s hands than Al Queada”, and has refused to swear off money from Iran or Saudi Arabia for the one hundred million dollar Ground Zero mosque (that could very well be terrorist/blood money).

Second of all, it seems to me that Imam Rauf is being deliberately provocative by calling the Ground Zero mosque “The Cordoba Mosque”, which would be named after The Cordoba Mosque in Spain built by the Moors when they conquered the Christians in 600 AD. (It is a well-known fact that Muslims build a mosque on ground after they conquer it. Why don’t they just call the Ground Zero mosque the “We Conquered Your Ass/Who’s Your Daddy?” mosque and get it over with?)

Furthermore, I find the sheer size of the mosque–or the fact that it looks like a skyscraper or a giant monument to Islam, rather than a house of prayer–to be deliberately provocative as well. Now, in his recent column, Nicholas Kristof shamefully compared the Ground Zero mosque to a YMCA. However, how many YMCAs look like the image below? I rest my case.

[FYI, my husband and I went to Egypt on our honeymoon and we toured a slew of Medieval era mosques--NONE OF THEM looked like that, but I digress.]

By the way, it’s not just me who feels like this. Real moderate Muslims–you know, the ones who don’t blame America for 9/11 and who have no problem calling Hamas a terrorist organization–have stated that the Ground Zero mosque is in poor taste and is deliberately provocative. To be specific, on The O’Reilly Factor, moderate Muslim, Raheel Raza, called the Ground Zero mosque “confrontational, in bad faith, and a slap in the face to all Americans” (see embed below). (Ms. Raza has since received a threatening phone call from the property owner of the Ground Zero mosque for speaking out against it.)

Moreover, a secular/moderate Muslim, named Neda Bolourchi whose mother was killed on 9/11, wrote a column for The Washington Post titled, Build Your Mosque Somewhere Else. Specifically, she wrote the following with regard to the Ground Zero mosque–

From the first memorial ceremonies I attended at Ground Zero, I have always been moved by the site; it means something to be close to where my mother may be buried, it brings some peace. That is why the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero — or a church or a synagogue or any religious or nationalistic monument or symbol — troubles me.

I do not like harboring resentment or anger, but I do not want the death of my mother — my best friend, my hero, my strength, my love — to become even more politicized than it already is. To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother’s grave, and let her rest. “

Oh, but silly me. I forgot. According to Dick Cavett and The New York Times, Ms. Bolourchi is just an Islamaphobic bigot who wants to kick pregnant Japanese women in their bellies.

However, what I find to be the most troublesome feature of the whole Ground Zero mosque brouhaha, is the fact the Imam Rauf has referred to America as “A Sharia compliant state”.

Now, why is calling America a “Sharia complaint state” so troubling? Well, to understand why that statement is so troubling, one has to first understand what exactly Sharia Law is and what it entails/allows for.

Sharia Law is a particular type of fundamentalist Islamic law that dates back to the time of Muhammed, and deals specifically with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Classic Sharia Law is most famously practiced in Iran and Saudi Arabia (two places that Imam Rauf won’t swear off taking money from). For instance, under Sharia Law, hanging homosexuals is perfectly OK (warning–Allahphundit has the photos of this happening in Iran in this link and they are disturbing)–which is why Greg Gutfeld has called for a Muslim gay bar to be built right next to the Ground Zero mosque. Furthermore, strong adherents to Sharia Law have absolutely no problem with beating women, or even disfiguring them, if they disobey their husband. (For example, we’ve all seen the, now, infamous image below of the woman whose nose and ears were cut off by the Taliban. However, The New York Times was mad at Time magazine for running the image–they called it “war porn”–instead of the Taliban and Sharia adherents for cutting her face up in the first place.)

However, I would say that the worst part about Sharia Law is that it condones honor killings of women (which have recently been on the rise in America)–and, in particular, stoning them to death. Below is an embed of an exert of a film called The Stoning of Soraya M that NewsReal’s own Chris Yogerst has written about in great detail. It is extremely painful to watch (it, literally, gave me nightmares), but it is important that we don’t turn away and avert out eyes from this horror simply because it makes us uncomfortable.

Now, after gazing into the horrible face of Sharia Law, I can’t help but be reminded of David Horowitz’s chilling exchange with a member of the Muslim Student’s Association when he asked her if she would condemn Hamas (who also condones Sharia Law).

Here is a piece of the exchange (see embed below for the entire exchange)–

Horowitz:

If you don’t condemn Hamas, obviously you support it. Case closed. I have had this experience at UC Santa Barbara, where there were 50 members of the Muslim Students Association sitting right in the rows there. And throughout my hour talk I kept asking them, will you condemn Hizbollah and Hamas. And none of them would. And then when the question period came, the president of the Muslim Students Association was the first person to ask a question. And I said, ‘Before you start, will you condemn Hizbollah?’ And he said, ‘Well, that question is too complicated for a yes or no answer.’ So I said, ‘Okay, I’ll put it to you this way. I am a Jew. The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For or Against it?

MSA member:

For it.

Horowitz:

Thank you for coming and showing everybody what’s here.

So, in conclusion, I would like to ask all of the so-called liberals at The New York Times who are in support of the infamous Ground Zero mosque–”Are you for it or against it?”, with regard to the US becoming “a Sharia compliant state”, as well as Imam Rauf’s refusal to condemn Hamas. These are not issues that you can sit back and shamelessly sip your latte while you try to morally equivocate by uttering idiocies such as, “Radical Christianity is as big a threat as radical Islam!” or, “But, George Bush!!”. You are either for honor killings, or you are against them. You are either for hanging homosexuals, or you are against it. You are either for stoning women, or you are against it. You are either for mutilating women, or against it. You are either for rounding up all of the Jews and killing them, or you are against it. There is no middle ground on these issues or wiggle room for a nuanced position. And, if you take money from countries who support these kinds of activities in order to build a mosque at Ground Zero, refuse to call out Hamas as a terrorist organization, or support the building of a mosque by someone who thinks that “America is a Sharia compliant country”, then that is the same thing as being “for it” in most sane people’s book, who don’t want any part of America to be “Sharia compliant”, much less Ground Zero.

Moreover, it’s quite obvious to me what happened here–or rather, how The New York Times (and so-called liberals in general, not to mention President Obama) found themselves on the wrong side of this issue and siding with an Imam who actually praised the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The New York Times, as well as many of it’s readers, reflexively and shamefully side against the majority of Americans and always assume that they are racist or have bad intentions. (One only need to look to the fact that Frank Rich wrote an entire column bashing America on The Fourth of July as evidence of this unfortunate fact.) In other words, if the bitter, gun-clingers in Middle America are against the Ground Zero mosque, then The New York Times is reflexively for it, without even looking into it, or asking any hard questions about the project. They, blindly, took this Imam at his word that he was a “moderate”. (By the way, I went to medical school with several moderate/secular Muslims, and they would be insulted if you lumped them in the same category with this Imam.) And now that they got caught with their pants down not having done their homework, they are screaming “Raacist!!” in order to shut people up and distract from their own incompetence. I think that Mark Hemingway put it best when he wrote the following–

It reminded me a of a joke from last season’s “30 Rock,” where Alec Baldwin’s character was being told that in order to protect the feelings of a co-worker, he needed to “lie to her, coddle her, protect her from the real world.”

Baldwin’s retort? “I get it. Treat her like the New York Times treats its readers.”

The media seem to think they must reflexively defend any minority thrust into the public square from intolerant hordes throwing nooses around lampposts. But since 9/11 there’s been almost no violence or concerted oppression of America’s peaceful Muslim community.

At the same time, Americans remain clear-eyed about the fact certain Muslim attitudes are on a collision course with Western society. The mosque’s backers may be tolerant relative to the Taliban and other Muslim extremists. However, their refusal to condemn Hamas and the fact that they won’t rule out taking money from Iran cannot be considered tolerant by any enlightened standard.

Furthermore, Dick Cavett’s shameful ignorance was on full display for all to see when he wrote the following–

“What other churches might be objectionable because of the horrific acts of some of its members? Maybe we shouldn’t have Christian churches in the South wherever the Ku Klux Klan operated because years ago proclaimed white Christians lynched blacks. How close to Hickam Field, at Pearl Harbor, should a Shinto shrine be allowed? I wonder how many of our young people — notorious, we are told, for their ignorance of American history — would be surprised that Japanese-Americans had lives and livelihoods destroyed when they were rounded up during World War II? Should all World War II service memorials, therefore, be moved away from the sites of these internment camps? Where does one draw the line?”

My response would be if that Christian church was funded in part by white supremacists, and refused to call out the KKK, then no, they should not be allowed to build next to a monument where blacks were lynched by whites. Not to mention, if Fred Phelps–you know, the “God hates F*gs” guy–wanted to build a church next to a military base (or even next to a gay bar in San Fransisco), I would say no to that idea as well. And finally, I think that Charles Krauthammer explained it beautifully when he wrote the following–

“That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign. “

Now, I realize that it’s a lot more fun for so-called liberals at The New York Times to use this issue to look down their noses at Sarah Palin and Middle America, than it is for them to actually, you know, look into this issue and do some real reporting on it. However, their inability to recognize real evil here when it is, literally, throwing rocks at their face, is shameful–and it’s actually quite racist. Why? Because they are sacrificing these Muslim women (and gay Muslim men) on the alter of multiculturalism just so that they can pat themselves on the backs about how “tolerant” they are.

[By the way, The New York Times couldn't even bother to report on a recent would be stoning in Iran that we here at NewsReal covered for days. David Swindle, our managing editor, even put up a petition in order to stop the woman from being stoned to death. Full disclosure--I signed the petition.]

I mean, suppose some small town in Middle America decided to try to pass laws allowing for the stoning of adulterous women or the hanging of gay men? I guarantee you that The New York Times would be up in arms over it–and rightfully so (especially Nicholas Kristof who fancies himself as a spokesmen for women’s rights). However, now an Imam–who would take money from countries who participate in this kind of evil, who praised Sharia Law and the Iranian Revolution, who says that the US has more blood on its hands than Al-Qaeda, and who won’t condemn Hamas–wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero, and they are attacking his critics as “anti-American”?! Please! The New York Times would never turn a blind eye like this to the plight of Western women, but they are totally ignoring the plight Middle Eastern women, just so they–initially–could shout, “I’m more multicultural than thou are!”. And now, so they don’t have to admit a mistake.

So for refusing to do any honest reporting with regard to Imam Rauf, and then for calling the critics of the Ground Zero mosque “anti-American raaaaacits!!”, The New York Times ought to be ashamed of itself.

Put them in the Cone of Shame!

This diary was originally published on NewsReal and The Minority Report.

There have been a lot of knee jerk reactions to the Ground Zero Mosque/Cultural Center. I’ve had my own, which was troubling as I generally don’t care about others’ religion except in the general sense of wanting everyone to go to Heaven. Why we’ve had such visceral reactions is not easy to put into words and most will fail at putting it into words, though I’ll give it a try.

Our understanding of Islam is that it is not “just a religion” but a whole system of government and economics as well as religion. This runs counter to the main argument being used by both sides. To date, the framers of the debate on the Ground Zero Mosque, have designated freedom of religion as the hill to die on. The problem with this approach is that it allows those debating to avoid the big issues lurking underneath.

Just as we Christians have different doctrinal flavors (Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopal, Catholic, and so on) so does Islam. The particular “flavor” of Islam that is being promoted with the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque is that of Wahhabism and Sharia Law.

The would-be builders are seeking money from Saudi Arabia and Iran among other nations that practice the above described religion, which isn’t just a religion. In addition, those builders/backers refuse to give any assurances that this new “cultural center” won’t be a repeat of this one (emphasis mine).

All signs point to a repeat of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center debacle, in which Mayor Thomas Menino practically gave away city-owned land worth $2 million to the Islamic Society of Boston, whose founder Abdurrahman Alamoudi currently sweats out a 23-year prison term for terrorist crimes. Mayor Menino donated the public’s land for the construction of the ISB mosque — excuse me, “Cultural Center” — with the standard pleas for diversity, healing, peace, and frolicking unicorns. Of course, he didn’t bother to investigate the peaceful healing record of the Middle Eastern men he was donating to: ISB Trustee Yusuf Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who’s been banned from the U.S. and dubbed “the theologian of terror” by the ADL; ISB Trust President Osama Kandil, director of an Islamic charity designated as terrorist by the U.S. government; and ISB Trustee Jamal Badawi, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. But the mayor’s speeches sure sounded pretty, and that’s what counts.

When the Boston Herald and local Fox Network affiliate began exposing the ISB’s nasty connections, the ISB responded with the typical relish of democracy’s free speech hurly-burly we’ve come to expect from these types: They sued every single one of their public critics, including a refugee Muslim scholar who had translated some of their anti-Semitic, anti-American literature to enlighten the citizenry. Their brass-knuckles intimidation worked beautifully: the media went silent on reporting anything negative about the ISB, while the private citizens they sued were ordered by lawyers to keep daintily quiet. The ISB bigwigs sashayed to their opening ceremony in June 2009, where they were fulsomely feted by top politicians, Harvard scholars, and Christian and Jewish clergy.

For more on the Boston Mosque read here: A Mosque Grows in Boston and the full article as quoted above can be found here: A Sneak Preview of the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque

At what point does the doctrine of tolerance become the doctrine of oppression? The short answer is when tolerance demands something that runs counter to our culture, our values, and, most especially, Our Laws.

The biggest of these is our constitutional form of government, the very thing being used to beat about the heads of those opposing the mosque, with that very clause that is being debated on both sides of the issue. Again, this is not just a religion, it’s a whole system of government. Plainly and simply, Sharia is incompatible with our Constitution and with that clause used as a weapon of intolerance by the left because of the inextricable intertwining as also an economic and legal system.

To wholesale adopt the position of the Cultural Center builders/backers is to create and sanction a government within a government; a government that runs counter to our own. The builders/backers are not being open about their intentions and have refused to be open about their intentions. In fact, they are now “whitewashing” their websites to hide their intentions (emphasis mine).

After two years of work, the Sharia Index Project’s working team of Sunni and Shi’a legal scholars from Morocco to Indonesia achieved consensus on a final structure on philosophy, methodology, and approach to providing the general public, opinion leaders, and state officials in both the Muslim and Western worlds with an Islamic legal benchmark for measuring “Islamicity” of a state.

Tolerance is a two way street. Those exhorting tolerance return none. At some point when it flows only one way, it stops. We do not need a repeat of the Boston Cultural Center debacle or any other similar setup. Does tolerance demand that we allow terrorist and terrorist organizations to set up shop within our own country?

In the U.K. the Archbishop said Sharia was unavoidable and the U.K. allowed that government within a government, the effects of which are just becoming apparent. In France, the burqua has been banned. Here in the states, there have been instances of honor killings.

Until these builders/backers are open and forthright about their full intentions, I cannot support the building of this “Cultural Center.” If those who want this thing want to yell intolerance, I really don’t care. They offer no tolerance of our laws or culture while demanding tolerance of theirs. If they find our laws and culture too open for their liking, I really don’t care. They have the freedom to leave any time they wish. Otherwise, they just need to deal with it. No exceptions.

Crossposted at Redstate.com

Recently on The O’Reilly Factor, a moderate Canadian Muslim woman by the name of Raheel Raza spoke out against building the now infamous Ground Zero mosque. (She has previously written about her feelings as well.) First of all, her performance on O’Reilly’s show tonight was gangbusters. She blew him away with her extremely well articulated reasoning for being against the building of the Ground Zero mosque. To be specific, Ms. Raza stated that, “It’s confrontational, it’s in bad faith, and it doesn’t set up any real dialogue or discussion on tolerance.” Then, she went on to further state that, “Bleeding heart, white liberals don’t understand the battle that moderate Muslims face and how radical Islam has grown since 9/11 because of political correctness.” She was so terrific and spot-on that she, literally, left Bill O’Reilly speechless–all he could respond with was, “What a great answer!”. (You can watch Ms. Raza’s entire interview in the embed below.)

Folks, what this woman did on O’Reilly’s show took guts–I’m not going to mince words. You know that she’s going to catch all kinds of hell when she gets back home from “tolerant liberals” who can’t tolerate any apostasy from their PC ideology. We need to give Ms. Raza, and moderate Muslims like her with the courage to speak out against radical Islam, as much support as possible. It’s the right thing to do.

Update: This diary was originally posted a week ago in a Live Wire for The Minority Report, but it looks like I was quite prescient when I wrote that Raheel Raza was going to “catch hell” when she went back home to Canada. Yesterday, Kathy Shaidle of NewsReal reported that Ms. Raza has already received a threatening phone call from the property owner of the Ground Zero mosque. Again, now more than ever, the Raheel Razas of the Muslim world–with the fortitude to take a stand against radical Islam–need and deserve our support.



President Barack Obama has told congressional Republicans that it’s time to work more closely together to solve the country’s problems. He made the comments during a speech at a retreat of House Republicans Friday in Baltimore

Obama Lays Out Parameters for Bipartisan Health Reform

“If I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the experts and how it works – including doctors and nurses – ways of reducing people’s premiums, covering those who not have insurance, making it more affordable for small businesses, having insurance reforms that ensure people have insurance even when they’ve got pre-exisiting conditions that their coverage is not dropped just because they’re sick. That young people right out of college or as they’re entering into the work force can still get health insurance. If those component parts are things that you care about and want to do, I’m game. And I’ve got a lot of these ideas.”

Obama on C-SPAN Coverage

Horrible answer, having committee meetings about a phantom bill while the real legislation is being written and negotiated behind closed doors both at the White House and in Congress is not transparency!

Obama on Earmarks

This is just ridiculous, Obama’s biggest cheerleaders – MSNBC, even pointed out the political slight of hand the Dems used to claim that the stimulus had no earmarks.

Obama on Lobbyists in Administration

Btw – PoliFact has already rated this fallacy as Obama promise broken and here’s a list of lobbyists Hot Air put out about a year ago… the list has grown since then:

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:

• Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
• Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
• William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
• William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
• David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
• Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
• Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
• Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
• Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
• Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
• Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
• Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor… – President George Washington, October 3, 1789

Braves-Gamecock will do his duty, as Cockstradamus and Foghorn Leghorn do theirs by first thanking God for sending his son, Jesus Christ to become flesh among us, so that we might become sons of God:

We thank God for the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States for putting their lives on the line for us and for keeping us safe since last Thanksgiving Day;

We are truly thankful for the employment of nearly 90% of Americans and that the Fruited Plain is still so bountiful that the “poor” can still attain obesity status (Foghorn Leghorn is not passing on the gravy!);

I am especially thankful to be back in my adopted Atlanta hometown and Capitol of Dixie where the Ramblin’ Wreck from Georgia Tech are hecks of engineers whose Yellow Jackets have stung 10 of 11 opponents en route to the ACC Championship Game after facing Them Dawgs from Athens;

Also thankful for my Wofford and USC Law School alma maters are mainly academic schools (can’t you tell?) after woeful football seasons, but we relish the Terrier basketball victory the Georgia Bulldogs and hope for a University of South Carolina Fighting Gamecocks chickin’ lickin’ over Clemson’s Tigers at Williams-Brice in Columbia this Saturday;

Foghorn Leghorn is especially thankful for the power of Talk Radio, and most especially El Rushbo, for cutting through the fog of the Drive-by Media and ObamaDems on the:

Non-stimulus, government growthulus bill that has helped to reduce the credibility of the ObamaDems so much that they have been unable to push through socialized medicine…yet;

Socialist-manned, enemy of capitalism, government grant-driven hoax and fraud of man-made global warming/climate change that has, so far, prevented the Senate form passing the huge tax assault on the poor and middle class called Cap-and-Trade; and

Ken-doll image of Barack Hussein Obama to reveal to more and more Independents the visage of Hate-America Church Rev Wright and Terrorist Bill Ayers;

Cockstradamus is especially thankful for all the Taliban, al Qaeda and other terrorists our armed forces in Iraq, and especially Afghanistan this hour, that our military has killed as it appears the Commander-in-Chief wants to “finish the job” there and not “have to hand it” off to a successor.

Cockstradamus (pictured left) is advised by former Democrat, DeVine Law (pictured below), that when liberal Democrats since 1963 speak of wanting to finish (not win) wars, they intend to lose them. They think that if you pull troops out, then you hand over nothing to your successor. Like when President George W. Bush was handed off no recession (that his tax cuts fixed btw, but I digress) or terrorism problem in 2000?

But we can all be thankful that, since we don’t expect an Obama “exit strategy” (again, this is liberal Democrat-speak for lose the war) to be for more than three years, it appears that President Obama expects to be sitting during the 2013 Inaugural.

We are thankful for the manifest, irrefutable evidence of the maturity of the American people on the issue of race last Inauguration Day, but are even more thankful that John McCain won’t have to suffer the rigors of running another martyrdom lose the Presidency campaign while looking the other way while his employees defame a fine conservative woman in 2012.

Thanks must be given for the likelihood of the re-education of Americans as to the dangers of repeating failed liberal democrat economic policies given the depths of this Great Recession. It is best that reality muggings take place earlier for da yutes.

We must thank Almighty God for the wisdom of the founders of this Shining City on a Hill and  for the Framers of its Constitution.

Thank you God.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Obama’s back-to-school ‘Socialist’ agenda

President Barack Obama, whose two young daughters return to school next week, has some back-to-school plans of his own: An unprecedented presidential address to public schoolchildren at noon EDT on Tuesday.

Arne Duncan, the president’s secretary of education, has one way of explaining it: “The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.”

Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, has another explanation for it: “As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology.”

“The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer,” the state GOP chairman maintains, “so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to American’s children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American’s youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves.”

Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on “the importance of taking responsibility for their success in school,” the White House said just now in formally announcing an address that the DOE had telegraphed late last month. The president will deliver his talk from Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va. It will be broadcast on C-SPAN.

H/T to EaBo Clipper @ Red Mass Group for the Education department documents outlining what the teachers can do to prepare for this event:

President Obama’s Address to Students Across America September 8, 2009 –

Read the suggestions for yourself and come to your own conclusions… This may turn out to be completely unbiased and straight forward but I’m not holding my breath…

Even after Sarah Palin, as a private citizen, had won the battle against “The Death Panels” by having the language stricken from the Senate version of the bill, in one weeks time… Far-left union-backed group Americans United For Change are targeting Sarah’s fans on Facebook fan with an Ad calling her a lair.

Starting today thousands of Palin fans will be treated to this ad while on Facebook

The ad takes you to to this page on the Americans United For Change website asking you to send Sarah Palin a letter telling her to stop lying…

Dear Sarah,

Americans Need Real Health Insurance Reform. Please stop lying about “Death Panels.”

They then so on to show three links that reportedly debunk the claims made about these panels. Problem is the language is in both bills and although you won’t find the phrase “Death Panels” (liberal would never be that blatant in a bill) these panels remain part of the House bill that passes and were removed from the Senate version as a direct result of Sarah Palin calling them on it!

This latest attempt by Americans United For Change is a silly last ditch effort to try and regain some sort of advance after having been clobbered by a former politician they despise and the American people who obviously don’t hold any value to e group if they aren’t towing their socialistic propaganda line.

My feeling is that this ad will be about as successful as their previous failed attempt:

THE REAL DEATH PANELS: Insurance Companies That Deny Care

Grass-Roots Battle Tests The Obama Movement ~ Washington Post

Signs of the Times

The Peasants Are Revolting ~ Townhall

MoveOn.Org, SEIU, ACORN To Infiltrate/Disrupt Recess Protests ~ Confederate Yankee

HUNDREDS RALLY AGAINST OBAMACARE At McCaskill’s Missouri Office (Video) ~ Gateway Pundit

McCain Agrees With Palin on ‘Death Panel’ Concerns

Calls to tax junk food gain ground ~ LA Times

Insurance-Premium Regulation in Health Care Bill Rewards Bad Behavior, Penalizes Good ~ CNS News

Let insurance companies compete across U.S. ~ Chicago Tribune

GovDelivery throwing Obama under the bus? ~ Hot Air

AP: Government Care Will Promote Competition ~ Patterico

Health Care as a Moral Obligation ~ The Other McCain

GOP Congressman: Obama’s Health Care Bill Is a Threat to Democracy ~ Gateway Pundit ]]> http://manyfacesofbarack.com/2009/08/23/obamacare%e2%84%a2-roundup-aug-23-2009/feed/ 0